qsem_round_4_report.pdf

This report has not undergone the review accorded to official World Bankpublications.Thefindings,interpretations,andconclusionsexpressedhereinarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheWorldBankanditsaffiliatedorganizations,orthoseoftheExecutiveDirectorsoftheWorldBankorthegovernmentstheyrepresent.TheWorld Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in thiswork.Theboundaries,colors,denominations,andotherinformationshownonanymapinthisworkdonotimplyanyjudgmentonthepartoftheWorldBankconcerningthelegalstatusofanyterritoryortheendorsementoracceptanceofsuchboundaries.

AcknowledgementWe would like to thank Australia, Denmark, the European Union, France,Ireland,the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the UnitedKingdom and the United States for their kind contributions to improving thelivelihoods and food security of the poorest and most vulnerable people inMyanmar.TheirsupporttotheLivelihoodsandFoodSecurityTrustFund(LIFT)isgratefullyacknowledged.DisclaimerThis document has been produced with financial assistance from Australia,Denmark, the European Union, France, Ireland,the Netherlands, New Zealand,Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. The viewsexpressed herein can in noway be taken to reflect the official opinion of theEuropean Union or the governments of Australia, Denmark, France, theNetherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and theUnitedStates.

CONTENTSExecutiveSummary...........................................................iLivelihoodChoicesandOutcomes................................................................................................iWhatAffectsWhatPeopleDo.......................................................................................................iiCopingStrategies...............................................................................................................................iiiSocialRelations..................................................................................................................................iiiExternalAssistance..........................................................................................................................ivRecommendations.............................................................................................................................vChapterOne:Introduction...............................................1AnalyticalFramework......................................................................................................................2Methodology.........................................................................................................................................2ReportStructure.................................................................................................................................7ChapterTwo:WhatDoPeopleDo?LivelihoodsChoices&Outcomes........................................................................9OverallChanges.............................................................10Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................10GoodReturns..........................................................................................................................................10Nonfarmdiversification..............................................................................................................13Migration&remittances...............................................................................................................16MigrationIncreased............................................................................................................................17Migrationpatternsvariedstronglybyregion.........................................................................17Socialnetworkswerecriticalinshapingmigrationchoices............................................18SomeRiskofIncreasingInequality.........................................................................................21Marginalizedpoor:ThoseUnabletoBenefit...........................................................................21VulnerablePoor:ThoseAbletoBenefitbutOnlySlightly..................................................22PerceptionsofMobility&AttitudestoChange..................................................................23ChapterThree:WhatAffectsWhatPeopleDo?Spotlight

onLabor,Land&Credit..................................................26Labor.....................................................................................................................................................27Trendsinthelabormarket..............................................................................................................27

Impactonwages,paymentconditions&agriculturalpatterns......................................28Impactonmechanization.................................................................................................................31LandandNaturalResources......................................................................................................33LandRegistration.................................................................................................................................33Township..................................................................................................................................................35Riskofexclusionfromlandmarketsbyvirtueof................................................................35LandDisputes.........................................................................................................................................40NaturalResourceManagement.....................................................................................................43AccesstoCredit................................................................................................................................45ChapterFour:CopingStrategies.....................................48TypesofProblemsandShocks..................................................................................................49CopingStrategies.............................................................................................................................50Household/IndividualResponses..................................................................................................50CommunityResponses........................................................................................................................50GovernmentResponses......................................................................................................................53ChapterFive:SocialRelationsandInstitutions................54SocialRelations................................................................................................................................55SocialCapital..........................................................................................................................................55Crime..........................................................................................................................................................58EngagementwiththeState.........................................................................................................59IncreasingvoicefromCommunities.............................................................................................59PressureonGovernmentInstitutions..........................................................................................61ImplicationsforSocialRelations...................................................................................................62VillageInstitutions..........................................................................................................................63VillageTractAdministratorsvsVillageAdministrators.....................................................64ImplicationsforSocialRelations...................................................................................................65VillageDevelopmentSupportCommittees................................................................................67ChapterSix:ExternalAssistance.....................................68OverallPatterns...............................................................................................................................69GovernmentAssistance................................................................................................................70DecisionMakingMechanisms.........................................................................................................71

Communityperceptions.....................................................................................................................74DonorPrograms...............................................................................................................................75Conclusions&Recommendations..................................79Livelihoods.........................................................................................................................................80MainFindings.........................................................................................................................................80Implications............................................................................................................................................81StateSocietyRelations..............................................................................................................81MainFindings.........................................................................................................................................81Implications............................................................................................................................................82ExternalAssistance........................................................................................................................83MainFindings.........................................................................................................................................83Implications............................................................................................................................................83OtherTrends.....................................................................................................................................84Land............................................................................................................................................................84LaborandMechanization.................................................................................................................84Fisheries....................................................................................................................................................84

TABLESTable1:StatesandRegionsinQSEM........................................................................................4Table2:QSEM3andQSEM4CalendarRelativetoCyclesofKeyCrops...................6Table 3: Number of Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focus GroupDiscussions(FGD)perRegion/StateinQSEM......................................................................7Table4:AreasresultinginLivelihoodImprovementsperRegion/State..............10Table5:ReturnsfromKeyCropsperRegion/State.........................................................12Table6:MigrationPatternsofKeyInformantsperRegion.........................................18Table 7: Daily Wages for Male Laborers for Harvesting in Monsoon Season(OctoberDecember),inkyat......................................................................................................28Table 8: DailyWages for Female Laborers for Harvesting inMonsoon Season(OctoberDecember),whenDifferentfromWagesforMaleLaborers,inkyat...28Table9:TotalEstimatedMachinesperQSEMVillages&TypeofMachine..........31Table10:ProgressofLandRegistration(numberoftownships/villages)...........33Table11:RiskofExclusionfromLandMarkets................................................................35

Table12:NumberofVillageswithNewLandDisputes(inthe12monthspriortoQSEM4Research)...........................................................................................................................40Table13:ListofCreditSourcesandChangesinInterestRatesacrossRegions.46Table14:SocialRelationsinVillagesbyRegion...............................................................55Table15:Violentcrimesperregion(QSEM2/3vsQSEM4)......................................58Table16:IncreaseinCivicParticipation..............................................................................60Table17:GovernmentandDonorProjectsacrossRounds..........................................69Table18:SummaryofChangesAcrossRegions/States.................................................79

FIGURESFigure1:QSEMAnalyticalFramework.....................................................................................3Figure2:QSEMStudyTownships...............................................................................................5Figure3:ProportionofRespondentswithNonFarmIncome,MagwayRegion14Figure4:ProportionofRespondentswithNonFarmIncome,MandalayRegion.................................................................................................................................................................15Figure5:EstimatedProportionofPopulationMigratingperVillage.......................17Figure6:ShocksReportedinQSEMVillages(by#ofVillages)..................................49Figure 7: Number of Government Projects Reported in QSEM Villages, ThisRoundComparedtoPreviousRounds...................................................................................70Figure8:DecisionMakingMechanismsinVillageLevelExternalAssistance......72

BOXESBox1:ProcesstracingCaseStudy:ShifttoGardenCultivationHelpsHouseholdsinChin,buttheWealthyareBetterAbletoBenefit.........................................................12Box2:ProcessTracing:AidPrograms&RemittancesEnablePeopletoDiversify.................................................................................................................................................................15Box 3: Processtracing: Social Networks, Poor Agricultural Returns, andAffordableTransportLeadtoanIncreaseinMigration................................................18Box 4: Processtracing: Difficulties Faced by Illegal Migrant Workers fromMandalay.............................................................................................................................................20Box5: ProcesstracingCase Study:Transition to Permanent Farming Leads toPossibleInequalityinChin..........................................................................................................23Box6:Processtracing:CollectiveNegotiationinMagway&AyeyarwadyEnablesCasualLaborerstoNegotiateBetterWorkingConditions............................................30

Box7:ProcessTracing:Highwagesandlaborshortagesenableentrepreneurtorunasuccessfulbusinessrentingoutaharvestingmachine.......................................32Box8:ProcessTracing:LackofInformationAboutLandPolicyChangesCreatesLoopholesforCorruption............................................................................................................34Box9:ProcesstracingCaseStudy:SuccessfulUseofParliamenttoAdvocateforLivelihoodsCreatesDemonstrationEffectforNeighboringTownship..................36Box 10: Case Comparison Study: Greater Financial Capital Enables BetteroffHouseholdstoProfitfromChangesinLandLaws............................................................38Box11:ProcessTracingCaseStudy:DemandforResidentialHousing&AbilityofSmallholderFarmerstoSellDuetoLandRegistrationLeadstoConversionofLandUse..............................................................................................................................................39Box 12: ProcessTracing Case Study: Factors Considered by FarmlandCommitteesinHelpingResolveLandDisputes.................................................................41Box13:Processtracing:AttemptstoExploitInformationGapstoRegisterLandUnfairly................................................................................................................................................41Box 14: ProcessTracing: Challenges in Resolving Land Confiscation Cases inShan.......................................................................................................................................................43Box 15: Case Comparison: Intervillage Collective Action to Improve NaturalResourceManagementinMagwayandShan......................................................................44Box16:ProcessTracing:LocalLeadersFacilitateCrossVillageCollectiveActionto Advocate for Assistance from Ethnic Administration, National GovernmentandNGOs.............................................................................................................................................51Box 17: ProcessTracing: Community Fund in Mandalay Providing SocialAssistance...........................................................................................................................................52Box18:ProcessTracing:CommunityMembers inRakhineCollectingDonationtoFreeMigrantsfromthePoliceinThailand.....................................................................53Box19:ProcessTracingCaseStudy:TheRoleofLocalLeadershipinOrganizingCollectiveActiontoFillGapsinServiceDeliveryinChin.............................................56Box 20: Case Comparison:DifferentResolution of Exclusion ofMigrants FromVillageActivities..............................................................................................................................57Box21:ProcessTracing:PerceptionsofInequityinResolvingaCaseofAssaultinanAlcoholShopinMagway&AbuseofPowerbyaVillageOfficial.....................58Box22:ProcessTracing:VillagersinMandalayProtestingtheUnfairAllocationofTVReceivers.................................................................................................................................60Box23:ProcessTracing:SubsistenceandSmallFishermeninAyeyarwadyandRakhineFacingLessEnforcementinFishingRegulations...........................................61Box24:ProcessTracing:VillagesCompeteOver theBenefitsof Infrastructure,EngagingParliamentandMediainTheirAdvocacy........................................................63

Box25:ProcessTracing:HighCostsandLowRewardsDecreaseIncentivesforBeingAVillageAdministrator...................................................................................................65Box26:ProcessTracing:AppointedVillageTractAdministratorinAyeyarwadyUnderminingCohesionintheVillage.....................................................................................66Box27:ProcessTracingVDSCNegotiatingwithVTAinShantoAllocateMoneyforSchoolEquipment....................................................................................................................67Box 28: ProcessTracing:Villagers Contribute funds & Labor and Use TheirVillage Development Committee to Request for Assistance from an NGO inBuildingIntervillageInfrastructure......................................................................................73Box29:ProcessTracing:LackofFlexibilityinGovernmentFundingProceduresCausesProblemsforVillagers...................................................................................................74Box 30: ProcessTracing: CommunityMembers andMoneylenders inMagwayEstablishing Revolving Funds and Lending Groups Replicating NGOformedRevolvingFunds..............................................................................................................................76Box31:ProcessTracing:VillagersBargainedforaHarvestingMachine insteadofSeeds................................................................................................................................................77

QualitativeSocialandEconomicMonitoringRoundFourReport i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Qualitative Social and Economic Monitoring of Livelihoods inMyanmar(QSEM)researchprogramprovidesadescriptivepictureofrurallife inMyanmar. It examines peoples livelihood strategies and activities, thewider factors that shape these strategies and how the broader social andinstitutional features of community life affect peoples livelihood choices andoutcomes.Theresearchcovers54villagesinsixstatesandregionscoveringthedifferentagroecologicalzoneswhereLIFToperates:(i)thedryzone(Magwayand Mandalay regions); (ii) coastal zones (Rakhine State and AyeyarwadyRegion); and (iii) hilly zones (Chin and Shan states). This report documentsfindings from the fourth round of research, which took place betweenMarchandMay2014.A number of significant changes were observed compared to previousroundsofQSEM:1. Villagers, overall, experienced positive livelihoods compared to previous

years,althoughmostof thesechangesweredue to favorableweatherandmarketconditionsratherthanstructuralchanges;

2. The waypeople interacted with state institutions changed in small butnoticeableways.Reformsatthenational level ledvillagerstoplacegreaterpressureongovernmentinstitutionstoperformtheirtasks;

3. The provision of government programs and services at the village levelincreasedsignificantly.

LIVELIHOOD CHOICES AND OUTCOMES FarmersoverallbenefitedfrompositiveagriculturereturnsAlthough there was some regional variation, agricultural returns overallimproved. This was due primarily to reduced weather and pest shocks andbetterpricesforkeycrops.Theunderlyingstructuralchallengesfacingfarmersand landless laborers persisted, however: farmers remained as vulnerable toshock as before. The exception to this was in Chin State, where governmentinvestmentininfrastructureandamovefromshiftingtopermanentcultivationwasstartingtoproducebenefitsforfarmers.TherewasagrowingrelianceonnonfarmincomestreamsReliance on nonfarm income overall increased with variations by livelihood,socioeconomic groups and across geographic locations. In Magway andMandalayRegions,landless,casuallaborersandsmalllandownerhouseholdsinparticular, were increasingly likely to rely on some source of local, nonfarmincome. Approximately 90% of casual laborers interviewed had alternativesources of income other than from agriculture. The figureswere only slightlylowerforsmalllandowners.Migration continued to increase, but peoples experiences highlighted therisksinvolvedAswithpreviousrounds,aslacknonpeakagricultural labormarketcombinedwith perceptions of improving economic opportunities in urban areas ledmigrationtoincrease.Basedonestimatesfromvillageleaders,migrationlevels

QualitativeSocialandEconomicMonitoringRoundFourReport ii

acrossthevillagesaveragedbetween3.8%ofthepopulationforShanStateupto11.9%inMandalayRegion.Butsignificantvariationsexistedwithinregionsandevenacrossvillageswithintownships,emphasizingtheimportanceofsocialnetworks in influencingmigration choices.Migrationpatternsalsodifferedbygender, age and socioeconomic group,withmenmore likely tomigrate thanwomen. Female migration was predominantly limited to people from lowersocioeconomicgroups.Acrossseverallocations,casesoffailedmigrationwerealso becoming more apparent. The consequences were particularly severewhereitinvolvedpeopleseekingtoillegallymigrateinternationally.Thepositivetrendsinlivelihoodoutcomesdidnotbenefitallgroupsequally.There are risks that theongoing structural changes in the rural economywillexcludesomesocialgroupsorleadtoincreasedinequality.Themostprominentgroup of marginalized poor identifiable in QSEM areas were subsistencefishermen, who have faced a persistent decline in fish catch over QSEMrounds.Landlessorsmall landownerhouseholdswith fewmemberscapableofworking are also at risk, as their capacity to diversify their income sources islimited by a lack of labor. More broadly people from lower socioeconomicgroupsfounditmoredifficulttotakeadvantageofstructuralchanges.

WHAT AFFECTS WHAT PEOPLE DO Peakseasonagriculturallaborshortagescontinued.PeakseasonlaborshortagescontinuedacrossallregionsexceptforChinState.This affected wages, payment conditions and mechanization. In almost allregions, peak season wages increased. Casual laborers were also able tonegotiatemore favorable payment conditions than in previous rounds. Therewasevidenceof increased smallscalemechanizationas landowners sought toreduce their reliance on casual labor. Although entrepreneurial largerlandownersweretheprimarydriversoftheincreasedinvestmentinmachinery,initiativessupportedby localNGOsensuredmoreequitableuse.Therewas, todate, limited evidence that this expansion in mechanization was resulting inreducedworkopportunitiesforcasuallaborers.Although casual laborerswere able to command better rates in peak season,they still suffered fromunderemployment for the remainderof theyear.Peakseasonwageincreasescoveredonlyasmallnumberofworkdaysandsodidnotappeartoleadtoimprovedlivingstandards.Asaresult,casuallaborershadtocombine agriculturalworkwith othermeans of earning a living.Where otheropportunities provided more certainty, laborers progressively reduced theirrelianceonagriculturallabor.Land registration progressed relatively smoothly, but with notableexceptions.Inmostareas, the landregistrationprocesswas straightforward.Across allofAyeyarwady, Mandalay and Chin and parts of the other regions, the landregistration process went smoothly, with some minor irregularities that,combined with limited information, provided opportunities for informalpayments. The main issues with implementation were structural problemsresulting in registration not progressing across a number of townships. In

QualitativeSocialandEconomicMonitoringRoundFourReport iii

Rakhine State, registration did not take place in a number of townships withsignificant Muslim populations: there, resolving land ownership issues wascomplicated by the fact that a proportion of the Muslim population lackedcitizenship papers. InMagway, commercial petroleum interests in landmeantregistrationalsohadnotprogressed inonetownship.Conflict inpartsofShanState also limited the ability of the Land Records Department to completeregistration.Landregistrationalsoresultedinatemporaryincreaseinlanddisputesaslongstanding disputes were triggered or individuals attempted to profit fromchanges in the land law. Similarly, although villages still viewed villageadministratorsaskeypointsofcontactforresolvingdisputes,thechangesinthelaw transferred authority to newly established farmland administrationcommittees.

COPING STRATEGIESCommunitiesthemselvesstillplayedthedominantroleinsocialprotectionTherewerefewchangestothetypesofchallengesfacedbyvillagersduringthetwelvemonths prior toQSEM4. Given themore positive livelihood outcomesseeninthisround,therewasacommensuratereductioninlevelsofshockfacedby villagers. The most significant shocks included livestock disease, weathervariation,waterscarcityanddecreasesincropprices.Laborshortage,however,remained the most prominent challenge, identified in over half the researchvillages. Households shocks were also similar to last rounds but there was anoticeableincreaseinreportsoffailedmigration.Atahouseholdlevel, thepositivelivelihoodoutcomesmeantthatsomepeoplewereabletopaydowndebt,reducingtheirvulnerabilitytofutureshocks.Atacommunitylevel,asmallnumberofnewcommunityfundswereestablishedatthevillagelevelwiththeaimofprovidingsomesocialprotectionforindividuals.Althoughnew,somewerealreadyfacingchallengestoremainfinanciallyviableandprovideassistanceinanonarbitrarymanner.Communitycollectiveactioncontinuedtoplayanimportantroleinrespondingtoindividualemergencies.

SOCIAL RELATIONS Socialcapitalatthevillagelevelremainedstrong.Thevastmajorityofvillagesweredeemedtohavegoodorfairsocialrelations.Therewere,however, particular groupswhowere less likely to participate invillage socialstructuresand, at times,wereexcluded frombasic services.Thisincluded inmigrants looking for improved economic opportunities in a smallnumberofvillagesacrossresearchlocationsanddivorcedwomen,particularlyin the dry zone, who faced some social stigma. Villagers also reported smallincreases in violent crime in Magway and Ayeyarwady Regions. This had noobservableimpactonperceptionsofsafetyinvillages.Thespaceforvillagerstoengagewithgovernmentauthoritiesexpandedinsmallbutnoticeableways.Changes in community engagement with the state were noticeable across allregions.Villagersperceivedincreasedspacetoquestionvillagelevelinstitutions

QualitativeSocialandEconomicMonitoringRoundFourReport iv

and government agencies above the village level, citing national reforms.Althoughnotyetwidespread,thistranslatedintoasmallbutnoticeableshiftinvillagersmakingdemands.Bothinresponsetothisandasaresultofdirectivesfromabove,governmentofficialsandvillageleaderswereincreasinglycautiousintheirengagementwiththepublic.Thesechangeswereperceivedtobesmallbut important steps towardsmore accountable government institutions. Theyhavealsoresultedinincreasedexpectations,andthesewillneedtobemanagedeffectively.Village governance institutions continued to change as power becameentrenchedintheroleofvillagetractadministratorPolicy changes, improved pay and increased government assistance at villagelevel increased the influence of the village tract administrator. In contrast,village administrators reported receiving the samedemands fromvillagesbuthave less authority to act. New government prohibitions on villageadministrators raising funds, combinedwith the increased influenceof villagetract administrators, reduced incentives for village administrators to seekappointmentorfulfilltheirduties.These changing governance arrangements had important implications. PastQSEMreportshavehighlightedthecentralroleofvillageleadersinmaintainingsocial cohesion, resolving village disputes and liaising between villagers andgovernmentofficials.Thedynamicstodateindicatethatpowerwasincreasinglyconsolidatedinvillagetractadministrators,andthatalternativeinstitutionstoeithersupportvillagetractadministratorsinimplementingtheirrolesoractingas a check on their authority were little developed. The existing regulatoryframeworkmayneedamendingtoprovidesuchchecksandbalances.

EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE Villagers were positive about the significant increase in governmentassistance,althoughaccountabilitychallengesremain.Thenumberof governmentprojectshas increasedalmost threefold since thepreviousroundofresearch.Governmentprojectsincreasedfrom68projectsinQSEM 2/3 to 165 in QSEM 4, with an average of three projects per village.Government assistance for basic infrastructure saw the most significantincrease,risingfromfiveprojectsacrossregionsinQSEM2/3tofortyprojectsin QSEM 4. Education and accesstofinance projects also increased, andremained the most prevalent areas of support. The increases need to beweighedagainstverylowinitiallevelsofassistance.Community members perceived these changes positively. Despite this, therewas limited community involvement in decisionmaking processes aboutprojects.Decisionswereoftenmadeatthetownshiplevelorabove.Thevillageleveldecisions thatweremade tended tobemadebyvillage leaders,whodidnot consultwidely beyond the leadership circle. The process for determiningwhich proposals would receive assistance also lacked transparency. Villagersalsoexpressedconcernaboutthequalityofgoodsprovidedandimplementationmechanisms.

QualitativeSocialandEconomicMonitoringRoundFourReport v

Therewerefewchangesindonorfundedprograms.Thereweresomeincreasesindonorfundedactivities inAyeyarwady,MagwayandMandalayregions,andsmalldecreasesinotherregions.Villagersreportedhavinganincreasedabilitytoinfluencethedesignofdonorprojects.However,therecontinuedtobesomeconcerns about sustainability of projects once theywere handover to villagedevelopmentcommittees

RECOMMENDATIONS The most significant changes were identified across three key areas:livelihoods;statesocietyrelations;andexternalassistanceOn livelihoods the report presents a more nuanced understanding of howpeople combine agricultural, nonfarm and migration opportunities acrossregions and socioeconomic groups. This understanding can supportprogrammingimplicationsinthefollowingways:

Where broader structural changes are having less influence on theagricultural sector focus on improving productivity combined withopportunities for casual laborers and strengthening social protectionmechanismstoreducevulnerability;

Where structural changes impact on the agricultural sector supportprogramsthatensurethechangesbenefitallequallyreducingtheriskofrisinginequality;

Support efforts to diversify income sources for poorer households, inparticular inthedryzoneand includinga focusnotonlyonmigrationbutonsustainablelocal,nonfarmopportunities;

Focusmigration programs on themost vulnerable, includingwomen,whoareinvariablyfromlandlessandsmalllandownerhouseholds.

Onstatesocietyrelationsthere isaneedforan increasedfocusondevelopingappropriatemechanismstomanageexpectationsofvillagers.Donorscanplayarole here through emphasizing the importance of effective accountabilitymechanisms in through their own programs. Donors should also engagewithgovernment to inform policy on the role of local institutions, including therelationshipsbetweenvillagetractadministratorsandvillageadministrators.On external assistance, donors should draw on their experience to influencehow government agencies deliver services to villages. This could includeengaginginpolicydialogueonlocaldevelopmentissues,consideringpilotsthatleveragegovernment fundsat the local levelandworkingwithgovernment tobuild thecapacityofeffective local institutions, includingVillageDevelopmentSupportCommittees.

QualitativeSocialandEconomicMonitoringRoundFourReport 1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTIONThe Qualitative Social and Economic Monitoring of Livelihoods inMyanmar(QSEM)researchprogramaimstomonitorandunderstandrurallivelihoods inMyanmar. It examines the different livelihood strategies andactivities of people in rural Myanmar, the wider factors that shape thesestrategies,andhowthebroadersocialandinstitutional featuresofcommunitylifeaffectpeopleslivelihoodschoicesandoutcomes.QSEM isdesigned to support themonitoring and evaluationprogramoftheLivelihoodsandFoodSecurityTrustFund (LIFT). LIFT works in ruralareas ofMyanmar and provides grants to implementing partners for projectsthat collectively aim to improve the food security and incomes of 2 millionpeople across Myanmar. To do so effectively, however, it faces severalchallenges.Oneishowtoprovidedevelopmentassistanceeffectivelyinmultipleregions of the country whose core development concerns and contexts varygreatly. Another is how to move from supporting shortterm humanitarianneeds to supporting sustainable development. A third is to ensure the LIFTprogramsupports changingneedson thegroundand identifiesnew issues astheyemerge.Thesechallengesmeanthereisaneedforinformationonthelivelihoodsneeds, challenges and opportunities in LIFT target areas andhow thesevary by geographic area, target group and over time. With this in mind,thereisaheavyemphasiswithintheLIFTonpromotinglearning,boththroughmonitoring and evaluating program interventions and through research thatprovidesadeeperunderstandingofcontext.QSEMaimstoinformthestrategicdecisionmakingoftheLIFTFundBoardbyhelpingtheprogramtogainabetterunderstandingofthelocalcontextintheseareas.QSEM has two complementary components. First, periodic researchisconductedatroughlysixmonthlyintervalsinvillagesselectedtorepresenttheareasinwhichLIFToperates.Theresearchisconductedin54villagesacrosssixstates and regions covering the different agroecological zones where LIFToperates: (i) theDryZone(MagwayRegionandMandalayRegion); (ii) coastalzones(RakhineStateandAyeyarwadyRegion),and(iii)hillyzones(ChinStateand Shan State). Second, QSEM will conduct a number of thematic studies,focusinginmoredepthonissuesthatemergefromthevillagelevelfieldwork.ThefirstroundofQSEMfieldworkwasconductedfromMarchtoMay2012and sought to understand the context for different livelihood strategiesfaced by the poor.The round covered Magway Region, Mandalay Region,RakhineStateandChinState.Asitwastheinitialround,QSEM1focusedonthebroadercontext. Itsoughttoprovideamore indepthunderstandingof(i) thelocalphysical,economic,socialandinstitutionalcontextinwhichLIFTprojectsworkedandhowthesevariedacrossareas;and(ii)howtheselocalcontextualfactors shaped livelihoods choices villagersmade and theirwellbeing. It alsosought to explore the nature of external assistance being provided (includingthatprovidedthroughLIFT)andhowsuchassistanceshapedthelocalcontext.Thesecondroundofresearchwasconducted fromSeptember toOctober2012 and focused in more detail on livelihood activities.QSEM 2 was


conductedinMandalayRegion,ShanState,AyeyarwadyRegionandChinState.It built onQSEM1 by presenting amore granular understanding of themainlivelihoodactivities reported inboth theLIFTbaseline surveyand inQSEM1:agriculture, livestockrearing, fishing and casual labor. It also examinedcopingstrategies in the context of these livelihood activities, and examines socialrelationsandexternalassistanceinlightofpreviousfindings.ThethirdroundofresearchwasconductedfromMaytoJuneof2013,andfocused on villagelevel change. QSEM 3 was conducted in AyeyarwadyRegion,MagwayRegion,ShanStateandRakhineState.QSEM3focusedonwhatchangeshadtakenplacesincethestartoftheresearch.Changesidentifiedwereprimarilyrelatingtothebroadercontextincludingland,villagegovernanceandlocalorganizing,ratherthanchangesinlivelihoodpatterns.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK The overall QSEM program collects information on five topic areas, asshowninFigure1. Itaimstoprovideadescriptivepictureofthetopicswithineach box and to understand the relationships between the factors in thedifferentboxes.First,QSEMaims toprovide adescriptivepictureof the topicswithineachbox.WhatlivelihoodsdopeoplepursueinruralareasofMyanmar?What external factors affect these livelihoods? What coping mechanisms dovillagersuse in times of trouble?Which institutionsplay an important role invillagelivelihoods?Andwhatexternalassistanceisbeingprovidedatthevillagelevel? As QSEM is a longitudinal study, each report focuses on changes overtime.Second,QSEMaimstounderstandtherelationshipbetweenthefactorsinthedifferentboxes.Assessingthewaysthatdifferentsetsoffactorsarerelatedtoeachothercanultimatelyprovideadeeperunderstandingofhowlivelihoodschoicesaremadeandhowtheyresultindifferentoutcomes.

METHODOLOGY AswithpreviousroundsofQSEM,research involved indepthqualitativefieldworkusinginterviewswithhouseholdsandkeyinformantssuchasvillageleaders,focusgroupdiscussionsandinformalgroupdiscussionswithparticularsocialandoccupationalgroupssuchas farmersandwomen. Information fromrespondentswassupplementedbydirectobservationbyfieldresearchstaff.QSEMusesapurposivestratifiedsamplingapproachtocreateasampleofvillages.ThesampleselectstwostatesorregionsfromeachofthethreeagroecologicalzoneswithinMyanmar:thedryzone;thehillyareas;andthecoastalarea, including the Ayeyarwady region, yielding six states or regions in total.The states or regions selected are the poorest in each zone, conditional onexistingorexpectedLIFTpresence.Withineachstateorregion,threetownshipsareselectedtobegeographicallydispersedacrossthestate/region,oneineachof the three districts with the highest poverty levels in the state/region,conditional on LIFT presence: yielding 18 townships in total. Within eachtownship,threevillagesareselectedbasedonvariationinproximitytoatradecenter and access to water resources or roads, yielding 54 villages in total.Initially, the research aimed to cover both temporal and seasonal variation.Research visits were staggered, with each state or region visited twice in 18months.


2.WHATAFFECTSWHATPEOPLEDO Physical&

economicstructures

Ongoingproblemsandshock

1.WHATPEOPLEDO

Livelihoodstrategies

Livelihoodoutcomes

3.COPINGMECHANISMS

Improvingincomes

Reducingexpenditures

4.SOCIALSTRUCTURES,RELATIONS&LEADERSHIP

Socialrelations

Leadership&institutions

FIGURE 1:QSEMANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

5.EXTERNALASSISTANCE

Whatisprovided Howitisprovided


TABLE 1:STATES AND REGIONS IN QSEM

Region/State QSEM1MarMay2012

QSEM2SeptOct2012

QSEM3MayJune2013

QSEM4MarMay2014

Ayeyarwady Chin Magway Mandalay Rakhine Shan

ThemostrecentroundofQSEMinvolvedresearchinallsixstates/regionsinsteadofthestaggeredapproach.Thenatureofthechangesbeingidentifiedin the three previous rounds of QSEM emphasized the need to comparedynamics across all regionswhilst providing additional timebetween rounds.As a result, the two final rounds of research, QSEM 4 and QSEM 5, wererestructuredtocoverallsixstates/regionsineachroundratherthanonlyfourstates/regionsas inpreviousrounds.Thefifthandfinalroundofresearchwillbeconductedinlate2014early2015.


FIGURE 2:QSEMSTUDY TOWNSHIPS


QSEM4researchcoveredtwocropcyclesacrossmostareas.The researchwasconductedfromMarchMay2014,10monthsfollowingQSEM3.Findingsfromrespondents thereforecoverharvests frombothamonsooncycle,wherecropswereharvestedfollowing themonsoon in the secondhalf of2013andawintercropcycleinearly2014.

TABLE 2:QSEM3 AND QSEM4 CALENDARRELATIVE TO CYCLES OF KEY CROPS

2013 2014 Monsoon Winter Summer May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayQSEM3 QSEM4Lowlandpaddy(monsoon) Lowlandpaddy(summer)

Chickpea Chilli

Corn CornCotton Cotton

Garlic Garlic GarlicMyaukNgo

Onion Peanut(monsoon)

Sesame Sesame

HarvestscoveredinQSEM4

Research involved six teams of four researchers. Each team covered astate/regionspending approximately three days and four nights in each of theninevillagescoveredbyQSEMresearchinthatstate/region.Intotal,485 interviewsand200 focusgroupdiscussionswereconductedcoveringover1,474respondents.Informantsincludedawidecrosssectionofthevillagersincluding:thevillageheadandotherofficialvillageleaders;villageeldersandreligiousleaders;otherswhowereinvolvedinaiddecisions;farmers,fishers, laborers and those in other occupations; people from (potentially)vulnerable groups, including femaleheaded households, disabled or injuredpeopleandtheelderly;andyoungmenandwomen.Inaddition,interviewswereconducted across wealth groups. Researchers updated wealth rankingsprepared in previous rounds of QSEM and respondents were identified toensurerepresentationfromacrossthedifferentwealthgroups.To the extent possible, the researchers tried to get perspectives on thesame topics fromvariousgroups inorder to triangulate the informationreceived.Ineachvillage, the researchers collectedstandardizeddata toallowfor comparative village, township and regional analysis. The researchers alsocollectedcasestudiestoprovideindepthexplorationsoftheissuesemerging.


TABLE 3:NUMBER OF KEY INFORMANTINTERVIEWS (KII) AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGD) PER REGION/STATE IN QSEM

Region/State NumberofKIIs M F NumberofFGDs M FAyeyarwady 75 47 28 31 85 79

Chin 72 35 37 36 105 53Magway 86 53 33 35 88 80Mandalay 87 40 47 35 112 72Rakhine 74 47 27 32 136 35Shan 91 56 35 31 110 35Total 484 277 207 200 636 354

This roundofQSEMalsobenefits from twoadditional levelsofanalysis.First, extended villagelevel researchwas conducted in a village each in ChinState andAyeyarwadyRegion. Two researchers spent over aweek in each ofthesevillagestoexplorethemesemergingfrompreviousroundsofresearchinmoredepth.Second,almostonequarteroftheQSEMvillageswerealsocoveredbyaseparatebutrelatedWorldBankstudy,PovertyandSocialImpactsAnalysisinSupportoftheMyanmarNationalElectrificationPlanPreparation.1That studysought to understand energy consumption, approaches to payment and thequalityofenergyservicesacrossbothurbanandruralareas.

REPORT STRUCTURE ThisreportisstructuredfollowingtheQSEManalyticalframeworkoutlinedabove,trackingchangessincethepreviousroundofQSEM. Chapter two starts with changes in livelihoods, discussing changes in

agriculture, increaseddiversification into nonagricultural businesses, andincreasedtemporaryandpermanentmigration.Italsoidentifieshowthesechangesaffectdifferentsocioeconomicgroups.

Chapter three continues with changes in factors affecting livelihoods,focusing on increased mechanization, impact of labor shortage, anddevelopmentsininlandregistrationanddisputes.

Chapterfourfindslittlechangeintypesofshocksandcopingmechanisms,noting the emergence of institutionalized community funds to helphouseholdscopewithemergencies.

Chapter five analyzes changes in social relations, defined as relationsbetweenpeopleand,increasingly,relationsbetweenpeopleandthestate.

1AnelectricityresearchteamjoinedQSEMresearchersin13QSEMvillages.Villageswereselectedtocovereachoftheregions/statesandproviderepresentationfromeachofthefourmainmeansofaccessing electricity: government service delivery; private company service; community or smallmediumenterprise(SME)delivery;orindividualconnectionsthroughsolarpanels/generators.


Chaptersixexaminesthestarkincreaseingovernmentassistanceaswellasshifts inpeoplesperceptionregardinggovernmentandnongovernmentalassistance.

Chaptersevenconcludeswithlessonslearnedandrecommendations.


CHAPTER TWO: WHAT DO PEOPLE DO? LIVELIHOODS CHOICES & OUTCOMES

THISCHAPTEREXAMINESCHANGESINPATTERNSOFPEOPLESLIVELIHOODSCHOICESANDOUTCOMES,REPRESENTEDBYBOX1,WHATPEOPLEDOOFTHEOVERALLANALYTICALFRAMEWORK.QSEM 4 SAW HOW POOR PEOPLES LIVELIHOODS IN RURAL VILLAGES WERE BEING AFFECTEDBYSTRUCTURALCHANGESTAKINGPLACEINTHEMYANMARECONOMY,BUTALSOHIGHLIGHTEDSOMERISKS.IN MANY WAYS, PEOPLES LIVES AND LIVELIHOOD CHOICES STAYED THE SAME: FARMERS IN SOMEAREASHADABETTERYEARTHANBEFOREDUETOGOODWEATHERANDPRICES,BUTREMAINEDASVULNERABLE TO SHOCKAS IN PREVIOUS ROUNDS, AND THEIR CHALLENGESOVER LABORANDDEBTPERSISTED.LANDLESSLABORERSALSOFACEDDIFFICULTYGETTINGENOUGHWORKOVERTHECOURSEOFTHEYEAR.YETSOMEOFTHECHOICESTHEYMADEREFLECTEDBROADERSTRUCTURALSHIFTS.INTHEDRYZONE,GREATERREMITTANCESANDTHEUNCERTAINTIESOFAGRICULTURALINCOMEDROVEHOUSEHOLDSTOSEEK TO DIVERSIFY INTO NONFARM LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES. IN CHIN STATE, FARMERS WEREBEGINNING TO BENEFIT FROM A SHIFT TO MORE PERMANENT FARMINGPATTERNS, ADDED BYRECENT INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE. IN ALMOST ALL STATES AND REGIONS, MIGRATIONINCREASEDYET IN ADDITION TO THE BENEFITS, QSEM 4 ALSO HIGHLIGHTED THE RISKS OF STRUCTURALTRANSFORMATIONFORTHEPOOR.SOMEVILLAGESSAWRISINGINEQUALITY,HIGHLIGHTINGTHERISKSOFSOCIALEXCLUSIONANDBARRIERSTOMOBILITYFORMARGINALIZEDHOUSEHOLDS,HIGHLIGHTINGTHE RISK THAT MARGINALIZED HOUSEHOLDS WILL BE LEFT BEHIND BY IMPROVEMENTS IN THEECONOMY. IN THIS CHAPTER, WE PROPOSE A TYPOLOGY OF POOR HOUSEHOLDS AND EXAMINEPERCEPTIONSANDSTRATEGIESAROUNDMOBILITY.


OVERALL CHANGES

People inmostareasreportedhavingabetteryear thanbefore.Previousrounds of QSEM identified weatherrelated distress, crop losses, and limitedchanges in livelihoods. In this round, however, villagers in almost all areasreported being better off now than twelve months ago. The reasons for thisincludedgoodagriculturalreturns,anincreaseinnonfarmdiversification,andmigration,andvariedbyregion,asseeninthetablebelow.Someimprovementsarearesultoffactorssuchasgoodweather,beyondthecontrolofindividualsorthe state. Other improvements can be linked to structural changes in thebroader operating environment in Myanmar. A number of marginalized andvulnerablesocial groups, however, found it harder to take advantage of thesechanges,andeitherdidworseoronlyslightlybetterthisyear.

TABLE 4:AREAS RESULTINGIN LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENTS PER REGION/STATE Agriculture Nonfarm MigrationAyeyarwady x XChin x Magway X XMandalay X XRakhine XShan x X

AGRICULTURE GOOD RETURNS ThisisthebestyieldsincethevillagewasstruckbythestormNargis.PresidentofVillageDevelopmentCommittee,AyeyarwadyRegionAgriculturalreturnsoverallimproved,butwithregionalvariation.Overall,QSEM4 sawmorepositive returnson a number of crops compared to recentrounds, because of higher prices (notably of corn in Shan State, sesame inMagway,andpaddyinAyeyarwady)and/orbecauseofbetteryields.However,therewasvariationbycropandregion,ashighlightedinTable5,andsomeareasdid not do aswell. Farmers in the dry zone experienced amixed year. SomevillagesinMagwayenjoyedagoodreturnonsesameandsugarcanebutthiswasoffsetwithaverageorpoorreturnsinothercropssuchasgroundnut.Farmersplanting chickpeas and peanuts inMandalay Region saw poor returns due tolowerprices. InRakhineState, farmersexperiencedabetteryear thanbefore,withsomeincreasedreturnsonpaddyandpeanut,butpreviousyearshadbeensobad,Rakhinefarmersstilldidnotreporthavingagoodyearoverall.These improvements stemmed from factors beyond the control ofmostfarmers,areductioninweatherandpestshocksandbetterpricesforkeycrops. In previous rounds of QSEM, some farmers reported low quality yielddue to unpredictable weather and pest infestation. This year, paddy farmers,particularly in Ayeyarwady, reported high quality yields from the monsoonharvest compared to a year before. These improved yields fetched higher

AGRICULTURALOUTCOMESIMPROVEDOVERALLASARESULTOFHIGHERPRICESFORCERTAINCROPSANDAREDUCTIONINSHOCKS,BUTNOTINALLREGIONS.


prices.InLabuttatownshipinAyeyarwady,forexample,respondentsstatedthatthepriceofaparticulartypeoflocalpaddy(ManawThukha)increasedfrom0.33millionkyat(about $340)per100baskets last year to0.45millionkyat(about$460) this year. As indicated in Table 5, prices also increased for other keycrops,whichinsomeareasledfarmerstochangetheirlivelihoodstrategies.Forexample,higherpricesof corn in all researchvillages in ShanSouthandShanNorth led farmers toplantmore corn and less groundnut and sesame, and toplantonpreviouslyuncultivatedland.Inonetownship,thisincreaseinplantingled to a corn seed shortage, which was so severe it prompted people todemonstrate. In contrast, in previous years farmers with large landholdingsoften left some land fallow because they were uncertain about agriculturalreturns.Theunderlyingstructuralchallengesfacingfarmersandlandlesslaborershowever,persisted.Althoughfarmershadbetteragriculturaloutcomesoverallandexperiencedlessshockinthisround,theirunderlyingvulnerabilitytoshockpersisted. Farmers also continued to face peak season labor shortages andincreases in thecostofpeakseason labor.Landless laborersalsocontinuedtostruggle. Although labor shortages enabled them to negotiate better workingconditions,nonpeakonfarmjobswerescarce,sotheycontinuedtostruggletomakeendsmeet.DynamicsaroundlaborareexploredfurtherinChapterThree.The exception to thiswas in Chin State,where farmerswere benefitingfrombroaderstructuralchangesintheagriculturaleconomy.Amoveawayfrom shifting cultivation and towards permanent cultivation, aided by recentinvestments in road infrastructure was producing dividends. In seven of thenine QSEM villages in Chin State, an estimated 5070% of households hadprogressively shifted from practicing shifting cultivation2towards farmingterrace plots, primarily to grow vegetables, or towards garden cultivation forfruits such as oranges, MyaukNgo, and avocado. The shift towards terracefarmingwasmainlydrivenbyaidprograms,whereastheshifttowardsgardencultivation was driven mainly, initially, by better off farmers. These shiftstowards permanent farming patterns have been described as a response topopulationpressureandabreakdown in traditional systems,but in theQSEMvillagesitappearedtobelessaresponsetocrisisandmoreadiversificationandincomemaximizingstrategymorerecentlyfacilitatedbybettermarketlinkages.

2Oftenalsoreferredtoasswiddenorrotationalfallow(taungya)cultivation.

THEUNDERLYINGSTRUCTURALCHALLENGESFACINGFARMERSANDLANDLESSLABORERS,HOWEVER,PERSISTED.THESEINCLUDEDCHALLENGESWITHLABOR,CREDITANDVULNERABILITYTOSHOCK.


TABLE 5: RETURNS FROMKEYCROPS PER REGION/STATE Chick

peaChilli Corn Cotton Garlic Myauk

Ngo3Onion Padd

yPeanut Pigeon

PeaSugarcane

Sesame

QSEM4comparedtoQSEM3Shan Magway Rakhine Ayeyarwady QSEM4comparedtoQSEM2Chin Mandalay

Betterpriceandbetteryield (muchhigherreturns) Betterpriceorbetteryield (higherreturns) Samepriceandsameyield (samereturns) Worsepriceorworseyield (lowerreturns) Worsepriceandworseyield (muchlowerreturns)

BOX 1: PROCESSTRACINGCASE STUDY: SHIFTTO GARDEN CULTIVATION HELPS HOUSEHOLDS IN CHIN,BUTTHE WEALTHY ARE BETTERABLE TO BENEFIT

Theexperience of oneof theQSEMvillages inThantlangtownshipinnorthernChinStateshowshowhouseholdsbenefitedfromalongertermmovefromsubsistencebased shifting cultivation tomarketoriented garden (or orchard) cultivation, buthowthepoorhadlessofanopportunitytoparticipate..Prior to the lastdecade,most farmers in the villagepracticedshifting cultivation.Communallandwasallocatedtoindividualhouseholdsbythevillageleadershipona scale that enabled minimum subsistence but left little surplus for market.Beginningaround2006,however,farmersbegantotransitiontogardencultivation,especiallyoforanges.Individualentrepreneursdrovethismove,withsomefinancialsupportfromadiasporagroupbasedintheUnitedStates.Thechangesspreadfast:whereasonlyahandfulofhouseholdspracticedgardencultivationatthebeginning,eightyearslater,atthetimeoftheresearch,some140outof200householdsinthevillagenowownatleastoneplotoforangetrees.Manyvillagersclaimedthattheywerebetteroffasaresult.Shiftingcultivationhadnot enabled them to make ends meet or make productive investments such aspaying school fees.Peoplealsopointed to the successofa few firstmovers,whoshowed that they were able to make money in a lesslabor intensive way thanbefore.Oneof the first toexperimentbeganwith200orangeplants in2006,andslowlyexpandedbyplanting50to100newplantsannuallyoncehestartedtoseereturnsafterthreeyears.Atthetimeoftheresearch,hehadaround600plantsandearnedapproximately16lakhskyatannually.Althoughhereceivedincomefromhisorchard only once a year, theworkwas less physically demanding and he couldafford to send his children to school in nearby Htanta Lang and to buy a newmotorcycle,prospectsthatearlierwouldhavebeenjustdreams.3Atypeoffruit


However,manyothervillagers,especiallypoorerones,werelesslikelytotaketheserisks, instead cultivating orange plantations in parallel to shifting cultivation. Instarting their orchards, such farmers opted for seedlings rather than moreexpensive but higher value transplanted orange saplings. High costs alsoconstrained poorer households from registering land. Only 19 out of the 200households (thewealthiestand largestorange farmers)had registered their land,whichpreviouslyhadbeencommunalland.Forpoorerhouseholdsthe10,000kyatregistration fee was too high to invest in a venture that might not produce apositivereturnforseveralyears,ifever.Despite this, villagers viewed the prospects of the move to garden cultivationpositively. Transporting produce to the nearest market remained a problem.Orangesneededtocarriedbyhumansordonkeyssome3060minutestothevillageandthenbycar,alongpoorroads,tothetownshipcapital,HtantaLang,overtwohours away.Anumberof farmersnoted that current improvements to this roadwould likely enable them to use larger vehicles to transport their produce,increasingtheirreturns.

NONFARM DIVERSIFICATION Womeninourvillageworkatcigaretterolling.Theycanearnadailyincome.

Farmer,MandalayRegionForthisyear,weareabletorunasnackandfermentedplumjuiceshop.Sowe

cansay,ithasnotbeenabadyear.Widow,MagwayRegionThetrendsinnonfarmdiversificationhighlightedtheimpactofeconomicstructures,shockandexternalassistanceonpeopleslivelihoodchoicesinthedryzone: there, a slack nonpeak agricultural labor market, a history ofweather shocks, and an increase in remittances (itself facilitated by socialnetworks) combined with external assistance to drive up nonfarmdiversification.The unpredictability of agricultural outcomes and agriculturalwork opportunities identified in previous rounds had led to some increasedefforts by villagers to diversify by investing in secondary, nonfarm incomestreams. This trend was particularly noticeable in the dry zone regions ofMagwayandMandalay.Across Magway and Mandalay,local, nonfarm diversification increased:therewasa smallbutnoticeable increase in small,nonfarmbusinessesandrelianceonnonfarmincome.Inonetownship,MinbuinMagwayRegion,thisincreasewaspronounced,andwasduetoanincreaseinsmallscalepetrolextraction. In other townships, the changes were less pronounced but stillnoticeable,withahandfulofnewmicroandsmallenterpriseshavingopenedinmost villages between rounds. These developments correspond to the figuresidentified in LIFTsmidtermevaluation that saw, for example, thenumberofrespondents identifying income from small businesstrading, buying andsellingincreasingfrom7.8%to14.4%.4

4LIFTMidtermSurveyResults:April2014,37.FiguresareacrossLIFTareas,notfromthedryzone.

AHISTORYOFUNPREDICTABLEWEATHERANDAGRICULTURALOUTCOMES,COMBINEDWITHTHEDIFFICULTYOFFINDINGENOUGHONFARMWORKINNONPEAKSEASONS,LEDHOUSEHOLDSTOCONTINUETODIVERSIFYINTONONFARMINCOMESTREAMS,USINGCAPITALFROMREMITTANCES,AIDPROGRAMSANDOTHERSOURCES.

Qualitative

Reliance ogroup, witmorelikelyofnonfarmFigure 3 ahouseholdsthan agriculandless horelatedlabowithclosetand significrelied solellargefarmeThesepattenoughdayear,sometsignificantlyotherregionsourcesofiShan Staterespondentsuch as smrespondentFIGURE 3:PR

5Similarnumbas is discussedAyeyarwadym6The figures doutline the princome. It doereliedonthese

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SocialandEco

on nonfarmth landless,ythanmediumincome.and Figure 4withoneorulture. In botouseholds inteor.This levelto20%inbotcantly lowery on agricultursinMandalaterns reflectysofagriculthingthatiseymorenoticens,correlationincomewereand landless

t householdsmall landowntswithnononROPORTION OF

bersareobserveddbelow, therewmakingthesecomdo not provide inroportion of houes not provide inesourcesofincom

onomicMonito

income var casual laborumorlargefa

below outlinmoremembeth dry zoneerviewed hadofdiversificatthregionsrelyfor mediumural returns iay. thedifficultilturalworktexploredfurtheable inthednsbetweenlivmuchlesscles in Rakhinewith diversifiners in RakhinfarmincomeRESPONDENTS W

dforsmallandmwere some inconsmparisonslessrelinformation on thuseholds obtaininnformation on thmeortheproport

oringRoundFo

ied by livelirer and smaarmerhouse

ne the proporsreceivingiregions, overd income sourtionwasslighyingsolelyonand large farin their house

ies facedbytosupportthherinthenexryzonethanvelihoodgrouear.WiththeeState no othied income soine and ChinewasaslowasWITHNONFAR

mediumlandownesistencieswithhoiable.he level of incomng some sourcehe extent to whictionofnonfarmin

ourReport

ihood and soall landowneeholdstohav

ortion of respncomethrougr 90% of casrces aside frohtly lower forntheiragriculrmers, 35%ehold,with th

casual laborhemover thextsection.Theinotherregioupandreliancexceptionofther group hadources. In sevn states, theshalf.5RMINCOME, MA

ersinAyeyarwadyowmigrationdat

me supplementatof income asidech different socioncomecompared

Remaininresponde

RespondebothnonfandmigraRespondemigrants

Respondenonfarm

14

ocioeconomer householdesomesourc

pondents froghmeansothesual laborer oom agriculturrsmall farmerlturalactivitie50% of whohe exception

rers ingettinecourseof thepatternswerons. Inthe fouceonadditionthebetteroffd over 80%veral instanceproportion

GWAY REGION6

yRegion.Howevetawas captured

tion. The data one from agriculturoeconomic groudtoothersources

gnts

entswithfarmincomeantsentswith

entswithincome

micdsce

merorers,es,mof

nghereurnalinofes,of

er,in

nlyralups.

Qualitative

FIGURE 4:P

Aidprograhowandcaassistancetraining foralready a pNGOs, couldMandalay,fhairstyleprThird, remcapitalinst

BOX2: P

ThedaughtesupplementAfterobservmicrofinance

received furhouse to presearch,heforseveralcsheinvestedAnother enopportunitytailoring tratraining endtailors to setailorswerelandlesshou1400kyatpeA residentimprovehisfarmland anhowever,he

0%20%40%60%80%100%

SocialandEco

ROPORTION OF

amsandremiapitalforsucin setting upr vocational spreexisting md facilitate neforexample,vroducts.Seconittances fromtartingupnewPROCESSTRAC

erofa villageherfamilysinvingthebusinee organizationrther assistancrovide her anercigaretterocigarettecompdingoldandinntrepreneurialtostartatailo

aining and sewded, the entreewclothing forworkingfulltusehold, reporerdayasagricof Myaing towfamilys liveli

nd sell his caefoundthatw

onomicMonito

RESPONDENTS

ittanceswerechbusinessep nonfarm inskills, whichwmarket for thetworks to nevillagersbenefnd,villagerswm migration wwbusinesses.ING: AID PROG

DIV

administrator

ncomebyworkessforawhilen to start herce from her fnd her emplollingbusinesspanies.Shewanexpandinghe

villager inoringbusinesswing machineepreneur cut ar the factory.imeinhisbusrted that sheulturallaborerwnship in Mahood.At the tattle to financorkingintheo

oringRoundFo

WITHNONFAR

eimportantss.Villagersbenitiatives. Firwas successfuhose skills orew markets.fitedfromtra

wereabletogawere also oft

RAMS & REMITTVERSIFYr inThaungthakinginherfrie,sheappliedfr own cigarettfather, who reyees with woemployed10wasabletomakerfamilysthanThazi townsafterobservins to six woma dealwith aAt the timeoiness.Oneofthadmanagedrto20003000agway left totime,hehad tce his journeyoffshorefishing

ourReport

RMINCOME, MA

sourcesofteenefited fromrst, aid progrul in areas whwhere outsiIn several QSiningeitherinainincreasedaten an impor

TANCES ENABLE

township,Mandscigarettefora300,000kte rolling busenovated partorking space.workerswhorke30,000kyatnakaplantation

hip, MandalangthatoneNGmen in the villgarment factof research, fivthewomen,wto increaseh

0kyatperdayaThailand seveto rentouthisy. After arrivigindustrydidn

Remainingrespondents

Respondentnonfarmincmigrants

Respondentmigrants

15

ANDALAY REGIO

echnicalknowthree formsrams providehere there waders, includinSEM villagesntailoringoraccesstocredrtant source

E PEOPLE TO

andalay,used trollingbusineskyatloanfrominess. She theof the familyAt the timerolledcigarettetaweek,whicn.ay, noticed aGOhadprovidelage. When thory for the neveoutof the swhocamefromer income froasatailor.en years ago ts threeacresng in Thailannotallowhimt

s

swithbothomeand

swith

ON

wofedasngininit.of

toss.maenysofesch

anedheewsixmam

toofd,to


sendmuchmoneybackhome.HethenhiredabrokertofindhimworkinMalaysia,wherehesubsequentlyworkedasadriver inananimalfeedfactoryforfiveyears.Withhisjobinthefactory,hewasabletosendaround200,000kyateverymonthtohis family inMyanmar. These remittanceswere a great help to his family, evenenabling them to lend somemoney toothers.Two yearsago,hiswife suggestedthat they should open a grocery shop in the village using savings from hisremittances.InFebruary2014,eventhoughhecouldextendhisvisa inMalaysia,hedecidedtoreturn home to be with his family. Celebrating his return, his family held a bigreligiousceremonywhichcostaround5millionkyat,2.3millionkyatofwhichwasdonatedbyhisrelatives.Nowadays,inadditiontothegrocerystore,healsobreedsandsellsgoats.Hemakes500,000kyateverythreemonthsfromhis20goats.Fromtheircombinedincome,hisfamilyhadrecentlymanagedtobuildanewbrickhouse.

Inone township inAyeyarwady,better infrastructure alsoenabled suchdiversification. In Ayeyarwady Region, the construction of two new bridgeshadimprovedaccesstotownshipmarketsforvillagersfromtwoQSEMvillages.Villagers reported hearing of plans to build two more bridges. Theimprovements had not only cut the travel time to the township but alsoprovided some new livelihood opportunities. In one village, for example,approximately 20 men had started to supplement their income by operatingmotorbiketaxis.Through diversifying, householdswere able to getmore regular incomeacrosstheyear.Theagricultural cycle in thedryzoneprovided farmerswithreturns only at harvest time and limited the overall number of agriculturalbased days of employment for casual laborers. Respondents invariablyidentifiedthebenefitsofasteadystreamofincomeacrossthecourseoftheyearasaprimaryreasonforseekingtoestablishnonfarmsourcesof income.Somerespondents also noted that theywere able to reduce their debt levels or theamountofmoneytheyneededtoborrowintheagriculturaloffseason.

MIGRATION& REMITTANCES "IfoundmyfriendsdoingbetterbymigratingandIfeltlikeIalsowantedtodoso.

That'swhyIdecidedtogo."Landlesscasuallaborandseasonalmigrant,MandalayRegion

Trends inmigrationalsohighlightedhowsocialnetworksandstructuraleconomic factorsshapedpeoples livelihoodschoices: the same slack nonpeak agricultural labor market and weather shocks that prompted nonfarmdiversification also prompted a continuing increase in migration, which wasfacilitated by peoples social networks. QSEM 3 observed the effects of suchmigration, including on remittances and a further tightening of the peakagricultural labor market. Similar trends were observed in this round ofresearch,althoughthereweresomevariationsinmigrationpatterns.

THISHDIFFICUAGRICUALSOLINCREAFACILITENTRESOCIALRECEIV

HISTORYOFLABOULTIESANDULTURALUNCEREDTOACONTINASEINMIGRATIOTATEDBYTHENCHMENTOFPELNETWORKSINVINGLOCATIONS

OR

RTAINTYNUINGON,ITSELF

EOPLES

.

Qualitative

MIGRAT ION

MigrationestimatetheFigure5estipopulationAsthefigurregions,atl

FIGURE

MIGRAT ION

First,itleaving.A

Migrationhad to cerregion toInternationand, to ainternationhad traditipermanentinthisoptioin Chin Stadestination7Forvariousrestimate fromnumbers, foredata exist. LIFreceive someremittances, thnothousehold

0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%

10.00%12.00%14.00%

SocialandEco

INCREASED continued tenumbersofpimatestheavepervillage,agresindicate,mleasttenperceE 5:ESTIMATED

PATTERNS VAtstartedwithoAboutsevenho

Yangon.

patternsdiffrtain labormYangon, oralmigrationrlesser extenalmigrationaionally firstmigrationtotonhadreducate itself. Acrs available reasonsthesefigu village leaders.examplebycombFTs Midterm Suform of remitt

hiswould indicatlevel,arehighbu

6.70%8.80%

%%%%%%%%

onomicMonito

to increase.peoplecurreneragenumberggregatedformigrationleveentofthepopDPROPORTION O

AR IED STRONGoneortwopeoouseholdshaveVillageAdmin

feredbyregimarketsfora history ofremainedthent, Shan Statalsoexistedinbeen to MaltheUnitedStaed,primarilyross regions,for internauresarelikelytoVillage leaders abining formeranurvey, estimatestances from migte that theQSEMutnotexcessively

6.80%

3.30

%

11.30%

QSEM2

oringRoundFo

ResearchersntlymigratingrofmigrantsaeachstateorelsvariedbystulationwasesOF POPULATION

LY BY REGIONopleleaving.NeleftItseemsnistrator,Ayey

ion,reflectinexample, the

f social tiespreferredforte.Lower butnMagwayandlaysia as aates,butrespodueto improthere was ational migra

obeanoverestimare likely to overndcurrentmigranthat close to 10gration. Assumin

Mcalculations,why.

0%1.30%

5.20%3.8

/3 QSEM4

ourReport

s asked villafromtheirvilasaproportioregion,forQStateorregionstimatedtobeN MIGRATINGPE

NowwholehoustheearningsyarwadyRegio

ng theaccesse proximity oto particula

rmofmigratiot still signifidRakhine.InCstepping groondentsclaimovedeconomian increase ination. Where

mate.Thefiguresrestimatewhennts.Very fewalte0% of householdng that not allhichcalculateat t

8.70%

11

0%

10.10%

4

17

age leaders tlage.onoftheoveraSEM2/3and4nbutinhalfthemigrating.ER VILLAGE

useholdsaresarehigherinon

theseregionof Ayeyarwadr destinationoninChinStacant levelsChin,migratioound for moredthatinterecopportunitien the rangeeas previous

srepresentarouasked to calculaernativesourcess (not populatiomigrants provithepopulationan

1.20%11.90%

to

all4.7he

nsdyns.teofonreestesofsly

ghateof

on)dend


internationalmigrationwasconcentratedprimarilyonThailandandMalaysia,opportunitieselsewhere inSoutheastAsia(forexampleBrunei), intheMiddleEastand,foronevillageinRakhine,eveninJapanwerenowavailable.Seasonalmigrationwas prominent only in the dry zone. Almost 80% ofhouseholdswithmigrantsinMandalaywereinvolvedinseasonalmigration,andover 40% inMagway. InMandalay seasonalmigration correlated closelywithage.Onethirdofmigrantsfromrespondenthouseholdswereundertwenty,andallbutoneofthesesoughtseasonalmigrationopportunities.Manymovedtotheborder regions with China or Shan State to look for work in the offpeakagriculturalseason. InMagway, themostsignificantseasonalmigrationwasinthetownshipwherepeopleattemptedtobenefitfrompetroleumextraction.TABLE 6:MIGRATION PATTERNS OF KEY INFORMANTS PER REGION

Region/State #ofmigrants8

#ofKIinterviews

%ofKIwithfamily

migrating

TypeofMigration GenderIntl Domestic Seasonal Male Female

Ayeyarwady9 18 77 17% 83% 0% 61% 39%Chin 39 73 36% 95% 0% 5% 82% 18%Magway 51 88 38% 24% 35% 41% 65% 35%Mandalay 63 87 30% 6% 13% 81% 59% 41%Rakhine 28 76 26% 39% 57% 4% 79% 21%Shan 28 87 26% 71% 4% 25% 64% 36%

SOCIAL NETWORKS WERE CR IT ICAL IN SHAP ING MIGRAT ION CHOICES Variations in migration patterns were especially pronounced atvillagelevel, reflecting the importance of social networks in facilitatingmigrationopportunities.Withintownshipsitwasquitecommonformigrationrates tovarywidely.Forexample, inTharSi township inMandalay,migrationwas estimated in one village at 1.2% of the population, 7.6% in the secondvillageand15.6%ofthepopulationinthethird.Thisreflectedtheimportanceofsocialnetworksinfacilitatingmigrationopportunities.BOX3: PROCESSTRACING:SOCIAL NETWORKS, POOR AGRICULTURAL RETURNS,AND

AFFORDABLE TRANSPORT LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN MIGRATIONInoneremotevillage inMyaingtownship,Magway,adeclineinfarmgatepricesandan increase in the strengthof socialnetworks ledmigration todouble thisyear.Jaggery was the primary income source for the village, but its price had8Keyinformantswereaskedifanyoftheirfamilymemberswerecurrentlyexperiencingmigration.Thisrepresentstheoverallnumberoffamilymembersexperiencingmigration.Therecanbemorethan one familymemberperkey informant.Key informantswithmigrants from theirhouseholdswerealsolikelytohavebeenoversampledonthebasisthatasmallproportionofkeyinformantswereselectedspecificallyduetotheirmigrationexperiences.9In Ayeyarwady, the data for these questions relating to actual migration experiences wasdocumentedinawaythatwasdifferenttootherareasandassuchisnotcomparable.

SOCIALNETWORKSENABLEDMIGRANTSTOFINDJOBSANDINSOMECASESREDUCEDTHERISKSANDSPREADTHEBENEFITSOFMIGRATING


declined in the past three years.Villagersobserved, however, that families ofmigrantswhowenttoSingaporeandtoShweLi,atownborderingChinatowhichtransportationwasaffordable,weredoingwell:theyhadbeenabletorebuildtheirhousesanddonatemoreforreligiousfestivals.Socialnetworksenabledmigrantstofind jobs.ThevillagerswhowenttoShweLisoughtworkopportunities instonecarving factories.After theysettleddownandbuilt their network, some of them found higherpaying jobs in construction ortransportation,forinstanceasbusconductors.Lowtransportationcostsmeantthemigrantscouldreturntotheirvillageatleasttwiceayear.Socialnetworksalsohelpedtoreducetherisksofmigratingandensurethatthebenefitsofmigrationcouldbemorewidelyfeltbydifferentsocioeconomicgroupsinthevillage.AmonkfromthevillagehadnetworksinSingaporethroughwhichhehelpedvillagersobtainworkashousemaids.Thisyear,hehadhelpedmorewomentomigrate toSingaporebycovering their initialcostofpassport, ticket,andworkpermit.Once they arrived in Singapore, a friend of his acted as their agent. Thearrangement was for the women to pay the agent fees and repay the monk ininstallments after they started working and receiving their new salary. Thearrangementhad twobenefits.First,because themonkknew theagent receivingthe women in Singapore, the women could be certain that they would not betrafficked.Second,sincetheagentfeeandtheinitialcostofmigrationcouldreach2,5003,000USD,asking thewomen topayonlyafter they started receiving theirsalaryensuredthatevenwomenfrompoorerhouseholdswouldbeabletomigratetoSingapore if theysowished.Themonkalsoassistedsomemen to findwork inSingapore,butthesemen,unlikethewomen,wouldhavetopaytheagentfeesandmeettheinitialcostsofmigrationupfront.As in previous QSEM rounds,there weregender, age and socioeconomicgroupdifferencesinmigrationpatterns.Therewereseveraldynamics.First,menweremore likely tomigrate thanwomen. In thedryzoneandShanStatethedifferencewasnotpronounced,withbetween35%41%ofmigrantsbeingwomen.InChinandRakhinestatesthevastmajorityofmigrants,approximately80%,weremen.Second,femalemigrationwasprimarilylimitedtopeoplefromlower socioeconomic groups.With the exception of Rakhine State, wherewomenfromvarioussocioeconomicgroupsmigrated,inallotherregionsonlywomen from landless or small landowner households were likely tomigrate.The same correlation between socioeconomic status and migration was lessevident for male migrants. This indicates that migration for women wasprimarily a strategy influenced by economic necessity, and given thechoicewomenwouldbelessinclinedtomigratethenmen.

There was also an increase in women and young people wanting tomigrate.Aswithpreviousrounds,womenfactored inperceptionsofpersonalsafety in determiningwhere tomigrate,which limited their desire tomigrateinternationally.However,acrossmostregionsitwasreportedthattherewasanincreaseininterestamongwomenfordomesticmigration,inparticulartoworkin urban areas. There was also a perceived increase in youth seeking to


migrate.Almost70%ofmigrants fromthehouseholds interviewedwereunder30 years of age. The research indicated an increase in those even youngerseeking seasonalmigration opportunities. This included teenagers inMagwayfindingworkincoffeeshopswithintheirregionorworkingintheborderareawithChina.GroupsofyouthswerealsomovingtoShanfromMandalayforfourmonth contracts, for example to help in watermelon farming. In Shan south,there was allegedly some increased seasonal migration to work on opiumplantations.

Onlyonehouseholdhasgoneaway.Thisisthefirsttimeforourvillage.Villageelder,AyeyarwadyRegion

Finally, there were reports of increased wholeofhousehold migrationawayfromvillagesinAyeyarwady.Ineightoftheninevillagesvisited,villageleadersreportedthatasmallnumberofhouseholdsintheirvillagehaddecidedtomovethewholefamily,primarilytoYangon.Asthequotesaboveindicate,inthesevillagesthiswasperceivedtobeanewphenomenon,indicatingthatsomelandlesspeoplewereseeingtheirfutureelsewhere.Althoughmigrationoverallprovidedpositivereturns,particularformsofmigration could also prove a highrisk strategy. Across several locations,researchers documented cases of failed migration. The consequences of thiswere most severe where it involved people seeking to illegally migrateinternationally. Box 4provides an example of failedmigration fromMandalayRegion.BOX 4: PROCESSTRACING:DIFFICULTIES FACED BY ILLEGAL MIGRANTWORKERS FROM

MANDALAYIn2013,twosiblings fromMandalay lefttowork inThailandbasedonabrokerspromisethattheywouldfindworkin45days.Withaloanof800,000kyat($820)at an 8 per cent interest rate per month, they paid 650,000 kyat ($660) for abrokers fee, 120,000 kyat ($120) for the agents fee in Myawaddy, a townbordering Thailand, and 30,000 kyat ($31) for transportation. After arriving inMyawaddy, however, they found out that they needed a letter of employmentfromacompany inThailandtoapplyforapropervisa.Theystayed intheagentshouseforamonthwhilewaitingforthelettertoarrive.Tiredofwaiting,theytriedtoworkwithanothernonregisteredagent.InsteadofbeingsenttoThailand,theyweresenttostay inawarehousewith700otherprospectivemigrants.The livingcondition in thewarehousewas terrible,with themigrantseatingvery little riceanddryfishcurryeveryday.Theybegancontractingscabiesandotherdiseases.Aftersixmonthsofwaitinginthewarehouse,sixmigrantsledtheotherstoreporttheagenttotheMinistryofLabour,Employment,andSocialSecurity.TheMinistrystaffdidnotofferhelp.Theytriedreportingthecasetothepolicestation,butalsotonoavail.When theycontacted thebroker thatconnected them to their initialagent, the broker said hewas not responsible for how things turned out. Soonafter, their agent told them that the agency office had burned down and theiridentification cardsand fakepassportshadbeen caught in the fire.Theyhadnooptionbuttoreturntotheirvillages.

MIGRANTSFACEDCONSIDERABLEOVERALLRISKS,HOWEVER,ESPECIALLYWHENATTEMPTINGTOMIGRATEILLEGALLYOVERSEAS,ANDHADFEWAVENUESOFREDRESSWHENTHINGSWENTWRONGWITHAGENTS


At the timeof research, theyhad sold theircow topartially repay the loan theytook. Theyworked as casual laborers,more indebted and in aworse economicconditionthanbeforetheymadetheinvestmenttomigrateabroad.

SOME RISK OF INCREASING INEQUALITY The positive trends in livelihood outcomesdid not benefit all groupsequally,highlighting therisk thatongoingstructuralchanges in theruraleconomy will exclude some social groups or lead to increasedinequality.TheQSEM identifieda (small) rangeofgroups thatdidnotbenefitfromtheseimprovedoutcomesorwhoexperiencedincreasedhardshipoverthelast twelvemonths.Thesegroups fell into twocategories:agroupwewill callthe marginalized poor, who were essentially completely unable to realizesufficientreturnsonlabororlandfortheirhouseholdsandcouldnotdiversifyormigrateto increaseincomes;andthevulnerablepoor,who,evenif theydidbetterthisyear,werenotabletotakeadvantageofstructuralchangeasmuchasthosewithgreateraccesstocreditorland.MARGINAL IZED POOR: THOSE UNABLE TO BENEF IT A smallnumberof groupswere essentially completelyunable to realizesufficientreturnsontheirlabor,landoranyotherproductiveassettobeable to support their households, and didworse this year even thoughmostdidbetter.Themostprominentgroupfacinghardshipoverthelastyearin QSEM villages was subsistence fishermen, who, despite some smallimprovements, have overall faced a persistent decline in the fish catch overQSEM rounds, the scale ofwhich in someearly roundshasbeen catastrophic.Householdswhodependedonsubsistencefishingforalivingwerepresentinallnine villages in Ayeyarwady, seven villages in Rakhine and two villages inMagway. Itwas identified as the primary source of income for approximately13% of households in Ayeyarwady in QSEM 2. In at least half the villages inRakhine, a combination of poor catches and a lack of capital to invest innewequipment to improve their catches meant that subsistence fishermen wereworseoff. InAyeyarwadyRegion, peoplewho reliedon subsistence fishingastheirprimarysourceoflivelihoodhadapoorqualityofcatchforoneofthemainfishcatches(hilsa),whereasinMagwayfishermencomplainedaboutchangesintheriverconditionsthatresultedinlowercatches.Thefishcatchhasdeclined.Wedontevenknowthepriceforbigprawns(which

weusedtocatch)anymore.Subsistencefisherman,RakhineStateThefishcatchisnotbadbutthepriceoffishisnotverygood.Thefishisinjured

becausethebigfishhasbeenpryingonsmallerfish.Smallcommercialfisherman,AyeyarwadyRegion

Householdsatriskofbeingexcludedtendedtobesmall,landlessorsmallfarmer households having limited members capable of working, whichprevented them fromdiversifying,migrating,orseekingotherreturnsontheirlabor.Suchhouseholdsbydefinitionhavenoorverylittlelandthattheycanuseasanasset,andbecausetheylacklandascollateral,havefewersourcesof credit andhigher interest rates than landedhouseholds.These households,

CERTAINMARGINALIZEDSOCIALGROUPSDIDNOTBENEFITFROMTHESEIMPROVEMENTSANDWEREATRISKOFBEINGLEFTBEHIND.THESEINCLUDEDSUBSISTENCEFISHINGHOUSEHOLDSANDLANDLESSORSMALLFARMERHOUSEHOLDSTHATLACKEDACCESSTOCAPITAL,WEREFUNCTIONALLYLANDLESS,ANDBECAUSEOFTHEIRHOUSEHOLDCHARACTERISTICS,INCLUDINGSMALLSIZE,WEREUNABLETOMIGRATE,DIVERSIFYORSEEKOTHERRETURNSONTHEIRLABOR.


includingsomesmalllandowninghouseholds,inparticularinthedryzone,didnot benefit fromany improvements in agricultural returnsand similarlywerenot in a position to diversify their income sources. As discussed above, justunder20% of small landowner households interviewed in Magway andMandalaydidnothavealternativeincomesourceswithintheirhouseholdasidefromfarming.Accordingtoresearchers,thesehouseholdswerepredominantlyeitherverysmallhouseholdunitsorhadnonworkingagememberssuchastheelderlyorsmallchildren.Assuchtherewaslesscapacityforfamilymemberstoeithermigrateorseekalternativesourcesof incomeand therebyseekreturnsontheirlabor.VULNERABLE POOR: THOSE ABLE TO BENEF IT BUT ONLY SL IGHTLY Other groups were benefiting, but not as much as those with greateraccesstocapitalorland.Wherechanges in livelihoodpatternshadoccurred,lowersocioeconomicclasses,smalllandownersandcasuallaborers,weremoreconstrainedinmakingthetransition.Small landowners and casual laborers found itmore difficult to changeagriculturalpatternsorinvestinnonfarmopportunities.Thebenefits thatresulted from changing agricultural patterns in Chin State or investments innonfarmopportunitiesinthedryzoneaccrueddisproportionatelytothebetteroff.ThiswasmostevidentinChinStateand,inparticular,inthemovetowardsgardencultivation.Asdiscussedintheboxbelow,thistransitionwasdrivenbybetterofffarmersandentrepreneurswithaccesstotherequiredcapital.Lowersocioeconomicgroupswerelesscapableofmakingtheseinvestmentsand,asaresult,undertookthetransitionmoreslowly.Similarimpedimentswereobservedindiversifyingintononfarmincomesources.InMagway,forexample,thepracticeofpetroleumextractionrequiredsomecapitaloutlayforequipmentsuchaspipesandmachinery.Casuallaborerscommonly needed to pool capital in groups of five or six tomeet these costs,whereas the better off were able to meet the expenses themselves and, as aresult,solelybenefitfromtheprofits.Broader structural constraints also restricted opportunities for the lesswell off. Issues such as access to credit or electricity connectivity wereimportant facilitators of economic productivity and represented barriers forcasual laborersorsmall landowners.Accesstoelectricityprovidesanexampleof these impediments. Additional research was conducted on access toelectricity in a small number of QSEM villages. Nine of the thirteen villageswhere researchwas conductedhad some formof access to electricity beyondindividualconnectionssuchassolarpanelsorgenerators.10However,coveragewas universal in only two of these nine villages. Elsewhere, coverage variedfromalowof38%to67%ofhouseholdsineachvillage.Themainconstraintsforaccessingelectricitywerethecostsofconnectingtothenetwork,generallybetween 3,5005,000kyat per household once electricitywas available in the10Twovillageshadaccessthroughthegrid.Threeothervillageshadaccessthroughhydroschemes,oneeachmanagedbygovernment,aprivatecompanyandthecommunityitself.Theremainingfourvillageshadaccessthroughcommunitymanagedgenerators.

OTHERSOCIALGROUPSWEREABLETOBENEFIT,BUTLESSTHANTHOSEWITHGREATERACCESSTOCAPITALORLAND.STRUCTURALCONSTRAINTS,SUCHASALACKOFELECTRICITY,ALSOPOSEDBARRIERS.


village,andmonthlyrates,between2,00025,000kyatdependingonusageandtypeofservice.Thesecostsexcludedpoorervillagersfromaccessingelectricity,oftenaprerequisitetodevelopingalternativelivelihoodoptions.BOX5: PROCESSTRACINGCASE STUDY:TRANSITIONTO PERMANENT FARMINGLEADS TO

POSSIBLE INEQUALITY IN CHINThereare indications that theshift inagriculturalsystems inChinState isbeingexperienced differently by different socioeconomic groups.A return on profitsgenerally correlated with the capital available to make initial investments.Intermediateandpoorfarmerspurchasedseedsatalmostnocostbuthadtowait5years or more for returns. Wealthier farmers, on the other hand, purchasedtransplantsfromShanStatefor300kyat/plantwhichborefruitin23yearsandatmuchhigheryield.Asthesewealthierfarmerswereabletoinvestinnotonlymorebutalsohigherqualityorangeplants,theyhaveconsequentlybeenthefirstandasyetonlygrouptowitnesspositivereturnsontheirinvestment.Differences in market entry across socioeconomic groups reflect a morefundamental divergence in approach to the transition. Wealthier farmers hadtransitioned to oranges as a primary livelihood activity. Intermediate and poorervillagers however had to hedge their bets and as such continued to engage inshifting agriculture for immediate consumption purposes. Perceptions differ too.Wealthier farmers described their orange growing initiatives as wealth creatingopportunities, pointing to regional and local improvements in infrastructure thatwouldaddresskeyaccesstomarketbarriers. Intermediateandpoorfarmersweremorelikelytodescribetheirinvestmentsintermsofseekingtocoverbasiccostsorengageinlessphysicallydemandinglabor.Shiftingcultivationhasmeantthat,historically,economiclevelsacrossthevillagewererelativelyuniformandthiseconomicequalitywascloselytiedtocommunalsocial norms, but there were indications in these Chin villages that this waschanging.Traditionallyfarmerswereallocateduseofcommunallandonanannualbasis.Theprocessofallocatingcommunallanddominatedsocialpractices.Theshiftto orange production has increased individual control over land leading to theemergenceofwealthaccumulationbysomelocalfarmersataratedisproportionateto the rest of the community. In this context, and with the move away fromcommunallandmanagementandthecenterofsocialpractices,thereisapossibilityofimplicationsforlocalgovernancestructuresandsocialrelationsmorebroadlyinthesecommunities.

PERCEPTIONS OF MOBILITY & ATTITUDES TO CHANGE

Peopleslivelihoodsstrategieswereshapednotonlybyrealchangesinthephysical and economic environment, but also by their subjectiveassessment of their future prospects.Respondents were asked about theirvision for the future and the factors that influenced how they viewed theirfutureprospects.Theseperceptionsvariedconsiderablyacrosssocioeconomicgroups. Here, the five most prominent factors affecting perceptions of futureeconomicopportunityareoutlined.


First, people invariably linked investments in infrastructure to bettereconomicopportunities.Ruralcommunitiesthathadseensomeinvestmentininfrastructure, in particular in roads, were most optimistic about futureeconomic opportunities. In Chin State, road access had improved somewhat,albeitfromalowbase.Villagersidentifiedthoseandotherongoinginvestmentsin infrastructure as a reason to be optimistic about their economicopportunities. Similarly, in several villages inAyeyarwady, theconstructionofbridgeslinkingvillageswithtownshipcentersledvillagerstoconsiderinvestinginmotorbikestoenablethemtotakejobsasmotorbiketaxisinthetownship.Now,transportationsystemsareveryreliable.Sowewillbreedchickens,pigsanddocoffeeplantations.Previously,itemsareonlysoldwithinthevillage.Butnow

theyarebeingdeliveredinthecities.Farmer,ChinStateSecond,nonfarmopportunitiesandmigrationwereincreasinglyidentifiedas importantaspectsofanystrategy to improve livelihoods.As discussedabove, people in rural communities were increasingly looking at eitheralternativestoagricultureorwaystosupplementtheiragriculturalincome.Thiscovered diversifying into nonfarm opportunities rurally or migrating. Thesepathwayswere increasingly seen as alternatives to farmingwhen consideringstrategiestoimprovetheirlivelihoods.Migrationisresultinginbettereconomicconditions.Nowthecasuallaborersoneafteranotherhavestartedowningmotorbikes.Betterofffarmer,MandalayWeca

qsem_round_4_report.pdf

Documents