Monitoring & Evaluation

Overview

The Income Restoration Program（IRP)  has been fully monitored by both 3rd-parties and several project committees. Monitoring methods follow the guidelines of Asian Development Bank（ADB）to meet requirements of international good practice.

１．Purpose and Outline of Monitoring and Evaluation 

-Monitoring aims at:

(1) Verifying whether project activities are being effectively implemented in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness.

(2) Assessing whether and how well these activities are achieved to meet the stated goal and purpose of the project.

-Monitoring methods follow the Draft Guidelines on Monitoring & Evaluation of Resettlement (21 April 2003, ADB).

-There are 2 types of monitoring stages: monitoring during resettlement (mostly during the pre-construction stage) and monitoring after resettlement (mostly during construction), so called post-resettlement monitoring.

-Monitoring covers resettlement implementation of two areas: Zone A and Zone B.

Zone A

Total Area…	400ha
Targeted Households…	81 Project Affected Households（PAHs）
Targeted Persons	382 Project Affected Persons（PAPs）

Zone B

Total Area…	208ha
Targeted Households…	162 Project Affected Households（PAHs）
Targeted Persons	624 Project Affected Persons（PAPs）

（as of Dec.2020）

All the monitoring and evaluation activities are summarized in the following Table .

[ Outline of Internal and External Monitoring ]

Internal Monitoring

• 

External Monitoring

• 

＊RIC… Relocation Implementation Committee
　RWP… Resettlement Work Plan
　IRP… Income Restoration Program
　TSMC …Thilawa SEZ Management Committee
　IRPISC…Income Restoration Program Implementation Sub-Committee 

２．Internal Monitoring

2-1.The Objectives of the Internal Monitoring

During the Resettlement Phase

i) To monitor whether assistance is provided in accordance with RWP 

ii) To examine unforeseeable issues on the assistance package at the time of planning it.

After the Resettlement Phase

i) To monitor progress of IRP

ii) To monitor settlement status after resettlement 

iii) To examine further measures if necessary

2-2.Main Parameters of Weekly Monitoring Report

1)Infrastructure such as water supply, well, drainage, road, electricity, house-condition

2)Sanitary condition such as garbage, toilet

3)Livestock

4)Planting

5)Livelihoods

Weekly Monitoring Reports can be found here :

Weekly reports list

３．External Monitoring

3-1.The Objectives of the External Monitoring

External monitoring is conducted by an independent third party, TWA Rural Development that is a monitoring expert. 

The objectives of external monitoring are to provide an independent periodic review and assessment of: 

(i) Achievement of resettlement objectives

(ii) Restoration of the economic and social base of PAPs

(iii) Effectiveness and sustainability of entitlements

(iv) The needs for further mitigation measures.

3-2.Main Parameters of External Monitoring

1)Demography

2) Livelihoods

3)Income and expenditures

4)Food security

5)Housing and infrastructure

6)Perception of living conditions and infrastructure at the　resettlement site

7)Ownership of moveable assets

8)Education for children

9)Health care

10)Environmental conditions

11)Participation in the Income Restoration Program (IRP)

12)Social networks

3-3.Historical External Monitoring Reports

Ablity to access the full report of all the External Monitoring Report here.  Please find the key observations of each report as follows.

Key observations

– More than two-thirds of PAPs reported an increase in their expenditure since resettlement and many have less income than expenditure.

– 96% of children above 5 years old are attending school which is a higher rate than the pre-resettlement level.

– Overall PAPs at the RS have a mostly positive perception of their living conditions and infrastructure compared to before the resettlement. 

– More than two-thirds of PAPs reported an increase in their expenditure since resettlement/displacement. So many have less income than expenditures.

Key observations

– Odd jobs, wage workers and home businesses were common livelihoods, with only a few PAPs still doing rice farming and cash crops. At the time of the survey, more PAPs were raising livestock compared with before resettlement.

– Amongst PAPs, in general, income had slightly increased at the time of the second survey. 

– Although PAPs’ expenditure still outweighed their income, provision of home account training to PAPs at the RS had contributed to bringing their expenditure into closer alignment with their income.

– 100% of children above 5 years old surveyed are attending school.

Key observations

– The stability of household head jobs had increased significantly since the second monitoring survey, and the nature of many peoples’ employment had changed.

– Average income had increased amongst all PAPs except some of those that sold or rented houses at the RS and those that were economically displaced (rather than physically displaced).

-Average expenditure decreased amongst most groups although, for some, it still exceeded their average monthly income. 

– Savings amongst resettled peoples (Group A) had increased, in particular in response to microfinance initiatives introduced through the IRP.

Key observations

– The household head’s jobs changes of people living at resettlement site (A) of Zone A increased to 23％. As displacement disrupts the traditional livelihood system of PAP, their livelihood systems have been transformed.

– Less than 50％ of PAPs and non-PAP‘s households practice savivg.

– Terms of current environmental conditions at the resettlement site, some PAPs still reported bad toilet conditions because of being overflowed.

– Less than 50 % of PAPs and Non-PAPs’ households practice any savivg. 

Key observations

– All respondents become more conscientious of their health by information sharing among them.

– PAPs living at resettlement site (A) from Zone (B) participated in vocational training more than 4^th monitoring report.

– It is said that some PAPs still have bad toilet conditions, but water is in good quality and the water meter is present and its charges will be paid by PAPs. There is no complaint about the electricity supply bill.

– Throughout the periods of five consecutive EMS, the earning of PAPs living at the resettlement site (A) from Zone A slightly increased and their expenditure was decreasing before the 4th EMS.

Key observations

– Monthly average income of PAPs living at Resettlement Site (A) of Zone A increased little by little throughout consecutive external monitoring surveys.

– Over 90% of PAPs expressed that they had the feeling of security and safety at current houses.

– 48% household members who attended vocational training among PAPs living at resettlement site.

– It is found that primary income source and secondary income source mostly came from wagework for different categories of PAPs and Non-PAPs, but some PAPs depended on bank interest. 

– Some PAPs mentioned that many PAPs living outside the resettlement site were not accessible to vocational training.

Key observations

– 73% of Self-relocated PAPs(A) own their houses after resettlement. Their current housing condition is better than the previous one because the PAPs formerly lived in hut.

 – Some of PAPs received vocational training, and provided positive feedback. They mentioned that it was helpful in finding a job. However, most PAPs from Phase 3 are not interested in attending mainly because they need to cancel their current jobs if they attend the training.

– Majority of respondents said that they do not have savings and some PAPs are not easily accessible to Microfinance programs.

– The majority of Self-relocated PAPs (A) appear to be satisfied with current housing condition compared to before displacement. 95％ think the housing condition is better than before, and 86％ think the toilet condition is better than before.