This background paper was commisioned by USAID as part of a Strategic Agricultural Sector and Fod
Security Diagnostic for Myanmar, led by Michigan State University and in partnership with the Myanmar
Development Resource Instiute - Centre for Economic and Social Development (MDRI-CESD). The broad
objectives of the Diagnostic are to improve USAID’s understanding of the major constraints to
agricultural sector performance and to fod security of vulnerable households in Myanmar, and to
outline core strategies USAID should consider as it designs policies and programs to stimulate broad- based agricultural growth and enhance fod security. In suport of these aims, this background paper
synthesizes the best available data and information on poverty, nutriton, and vulnerabilty to fod
insecurity in Myanmar to identify key vulnerable populations, and outlines a set of strategic options to
improve the fod security of the most vulnerable households.
This synthesis is based on a rapid asesment conducted during a thre-wek field visit (October28 to
November 17, 2012), and pre- and post-field visit desk research. The research draws from thre broad
types of information: 1) national surveys on poverty, malnutriton, and health outcomes; 2) fod
security asesments conducted by UN agencies, donors, and Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)
in select geographic areas; 3) and semi-structured qualitative interviews with key stakeholders acros
seven of the 14 states/regions in Myanmar’s Delta, Dry Zone, and hily regions that the team acesed
during the field visit.
Data availabilty and reliabilty are major constraints to proper asesment in Myanmar. The
Government of Myanmar (GOM) has not conducted a population census since 1983 and this inaction
casts doubt on al other survey work since. The world’s longest runing civil war and miltary- government policies have restricted surveyors’ aces to many parts of the country; even the two
relatively reliable surveys intended to document poverty and nutriton conditons face these limitations. Very few surveys provide sex-disagregated data, which limits analysis of gender aspects of poverty and
vulnerabilty.
The authors fuly recognize this obstacle and yet are in agrement with one long-time observer of
Myanmar; the data may not be rigorous but are “god enough to program against.” This synthesis
therefore intends to provide a broad brush picture of the landscape of poverty, malnutriton, and
vulnerabilty acros Myanmar and focuses on providing a typology of vulnerabilty to inform USAID’s
inital dialogue about posible program and policy design to improve household fod security.