IVAP Peshawar Valley Report

IDP Vulnerablity Assessment and Profiling

Report of findings from the Peshawar Valley

Dates of data collection: June 2010 to March 2011 (including a three month gap due to flood response)

INTRODUCTION AND JUSTIFICATION

The displacement crisis that started in August 2008 in Pakistan’s northwest, began when Bajuris fled fighting between the

Pakistani army and armed opposition groups (AOG) in their area of origin and took refuge in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province

(KPK). Since that time, different agencies in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) have seen intermittent fighting,

causing sometimes prolonged displacement into KPK. Fighting between AOG and the Pakistani army also led to the mass

displacement of some 3 million people from the former Malakand Division, encompassing Lower Dir, Swat, Buner and Shangla.

At present, it is estimated that around 800,000 people remain displaced from the military conflict. However, accurate numbers

of this displacement are difficult due to ongoing displacement as well as spontaneous population movement.

A joint government-humanitarian community registration process registered IDPs based on (1) their possession of a

computerized national ID card (CNIC) and (2) their area of origin’s status as conflict affected, as per government of Pakistan

(GOP) notification. The Real Time Evaluation of the response to the displacement conflict noted that “while the registration

exercise was a logistic triumph, the registration criteria were fundamentally flawed and led to inclusion and exclusion errors both

on IDP status and on the need for assistance…thus, the response was category- based (on the registration criteria) rather than

status- based (IDP) or needs-based. The major humanitarian actors accepted the flawed registration and used it as a basis for

their own distributions.”

CNICs are not held by all Pakistani citizens, and many CNICs were deemed invalid due to their condition or lack of required

information. In addition, women from conservative communities rarely have CNICs, putting women-headed households at

particular risk. Many IDPs were disallowed registration and assistance on this basis. Likewise, many people fled areas not

designated by the GOP as conflict affected, for nonetheless legitimate reasons. For example, many fled due to a fear conflict in a

neighboring area would spill over into their area, or because the military or AOG moved through or used their village as a base.

Fear of conflict is considered legitimate criteria under the IDP Guiding Principles, but the registration process did not include

these groups.

To address some of these concerns, the humanitarian community, working in coordination with the government, designed and

implemented the IDP Vulnerability Assessment and Profiling Project (IVAP).

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

The IVAP project has two main objectives: (1) profile the level of vulnerability of every conflict displaced family in KPK to allow

for targeting of in-kind assistance based on family vulnerability; (2) provide general assessment data to the humanitarian

community for the design and implementation of programs to benefit displaced and host communities.

The IVAP aims at interviewing every conflict displaced family. This is accomplished through the following process:

1. Concentrations of IDPs are mapped by Union Council

2. IVAP teams visit every village in every Union Council found to be hosting IDPs (round 1)

3. Elders in every village are consulted, and assist the IVAP team to locate the conflict IDP families and individuals in the

village

4. A snowball sample is used, with each IDP family helping to identify the next family

5. The IVAP teams strictly adhere to the IVAP inclusion policy (Appendix 1) to determine which families will be interviewed

6. Mass communication via posters in hosting villages, newspapers, radio and TV ads advertise the IOM humanitarian call

center where IDPs who were missed in the survey call and register their names and locations

7. IVAP teams revisit and interview all families who call into the call center (round 2)

8. The IVAP teams are monitored by an independent team who travel to the field, ensuring all locations are covered, and

the interviews are consistent and accurate

KEY FINDINGS

The IVAP project has profiled 47,109 conflict IDP families residing in the Peshawar Valley. It is estimated that the IVAP has

interviewed 90% of all conflict IDPs who are willing to be surveyed, in the Peshawar valley. The distribution of these families by

current location and areas of origin are as follows.

IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE RESULTS ARE AS USEFUL AS POSSIBLE TO ASSISTANCE PROVIDERS, THE IVAP KEY FINDINGS ARE

DIVIDED INTO TWO SECTIONS: IDPS LIVING IN HOST LOCATIONS (SHOWN BELOW IN ALL RED TABLES), AND IDPS LIVING IN

JALOZAI CAMP (SHOWN BELOW IN ALL GREEN TABLES).

IDPS LIVING IN HOST LOCATIONS

The IVAP has identified 31,383 conflict IDP families living in host communities in the Peshawar Valley.

Tehsil of Displacement (31383)

Tehsil # of families % of total Tehsil # of families % of total

Charssada 2230 7% Takht Bhai 168 1%

Lahor 739 2% Tangi 1752 6%

Nowshera 2202 7% Town-1 4548 14%

Other (not in list) 3139 10% Town-2 8241 26%

Peshawar 754 2% Town-3 3235 10%

Swabi 1190 4% Town-4 3107 10%

Swat Rani Zai Sub-division 78 0%

District of Displacement (n=47,066)

District # of families

% of total

Peshawar 20086 43%

Nowshera 18199 39%

Charssada 4647 10%

Swabi 2052 4%

Mardan 1115 2%

Lower Dir 967 2%

District of Origin (n=47,109)


% of total


% of total

Bajur 20283 43% Shangla 314 1%

Mohmand 7949 17% Hungu 244 1%

Khyber 6868 15% Buner 231 0%

Kurrum 4952 11% FR Peshawar 202 0%

Orakzai 2490 5% Malakand 126 0%

Swat 1765 4% North Waziristan 42 0%

Upper Dir 819 2% Unknown 18 0%

Lower dir 415 1% FR Kohat 16 0%

South Waziristan 347 1% FR Lakki Marwat 2 0%

RETURN INTENTIONS- IDPS IN HOST SETTINGS

When asked if they wanted to return, 92% of families mentioned a desire to return to their areas of origin. Of those who want to

return both the timeline for return and stated needs for return vary quite significantly. However, the clear majority response to

both questions is that families do not know when they will return, because they are unsure of when it will be safe.

When discussing priority needs to return home, families tended to mention either security during travel, or at the time of arrival

as the first need. After security, both food and assistance to rebuild homes were clear priorities.

Needs to return home (30,486)

1st Need n=30,486

2nd Need n=30,273

3rd Need n=28,866

Composite n=89,625

Security on home arrival 38% 10% 7% 18%

Food 17% 29% 15% 21%

Material for rebuilding house

15% 23% 18% 19%

Security during travel 10% 2% 2% 5%

Transportation 9% 8% 5% 7%

Temporary shelter 4% 8% 9% 7%

Job opportunities 2% 7% 17% 9%

Land 1% 2% 5% 3%

Water 1% 4% 5% 3%

Educational services 1% 2% 4% 2%

Health services 0% 2% 6% 3%

Assistance with rent 0% 1% 5% 2%

Livelihood training 0% 0% 1% 1%

Shelter 0% 0% 0% 0%

Of the 8% who do not want to return, 98% would prefer to settle where they are currently located, rather than relocate to a

third location (2%). For those who would like to remain in their current location, we can see that food is the first priority,

followed by NFI/household items, job opportunities and health services.

14%

1%

1%

2%

82%

If you want to return, when (n=29,122)

Immediately

1-3 Months

3-6 Months

More than 6 months

Don't knowYes92%

No8%

Do you want to return to your area of origin (n=31,325)

Needs to settle where you live now

1st

Need n=2284

2nd

Need n=2228

3rd

Need n=2030

Composite n=6542

Security 0% 1% 3% 2%


Shelter 0% 0% 0% 0%

Food 54% 13% 8% 26%



Land 4% 4% 7% 5%


Water and Sanitation 3% 5% 5% 4%


Material for rebuilding house 4% 7% 7% 6%

NFI/household items 8% 31% 16% 18%


In regards to IDP families’ knowledge of and access to assistance for return, the following was found:

While nearly 75% of families’ houses were damaged or destroyed, only 33% are beneficiaries for housing compensation. In

addition, the majority of IDP families were not aware of any return assistance packages, highlighting the need for mass

communications around return assistance available.

INCOME AND LIVELIHOODS- IDPS IN HOST SETTINGS Income for displaced families is a clear concern. Only 32% make over the threshold for poverty assistance programs in Pakistan

(5000 Rs/month). Fortunate families have more than one source of income, though only about 23% of families are in this

situation, and many of them are reliant on zakat or Benazir income support programs as their first or second source of income.

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

Are you a beneficiary to receive housing compensation (n=26,212)

Was your house damaged/destroyed (n=31323)

Have you received the cash grant of 25,000 rps (n=31323)

Are you aware of any return assistance packages? (n=31,322)

Yes

No

Don't Know

Sixty-six percent of families count unskilled, daily wage labor as their primary source of income. While only around 15% have

semi-stable positions as servants, shopkeepers, skilled wage laborers or sharecroppers.

Loans are very common among IDP families, with 76% of families owing a loan to one or more persons. The average amount of

indebtedness is 150,000 Rs. However, the breakdown of amount owed shows only a quarter of IDPs who have loans owe over

100,000 Rs.

7%

17%

43%

33%

Family Income (n=31,338)

Less than 1000 Rs per month

1000-2500 Rs. per month


More than 5000 Rs. per month

77%

17%

6%

Number of Income sources per family

Families with one source of income

Families with two sources of Income

Families with three sources of income

19604

1611

1177

1176

1189

1051

1026

1016

784

754

Daily wage labour

Servant

Other

Shopkeeper / trader

Door-to-door / or wood trading

Zakat or Benazir income support

Local remittances

Skilled wage labor

Foreign remittances

Sharecropping / tenancy

Main Income source (n=29,703)

6%

14%

27%25%

28%

If you have a loan, how much is it for (n=23837)

< 10,000

10,001-25,000

25,001-50,000

50,001-100,000

> 100,000

4371

Relatives, 21907

Bank, 121

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

To whom debt is owed

Local Lenders Relatives Bank

FOOD SECURITY- IDPS IN HOST SETTINGS While the IVAP uses three indicators to identify food security (meals eaten per day, negative coping strategies and food

consumption score) it must be noted most families surveyed are regular recipients of WFP food assistance. The average, to

acceptable nature of the food security results can largely be attributed to the WFP assistance. As we have seen very low income

and a lack of diversity in livelihoods, if the food assistance were to stop, it can be assumed that the food security of IDP families

would likely plummet.

Both adult males and females are eating an average of 2.8 meals per day. Results of food consumption scores (calculated

according to WFP protocol) as well as the negative coping strategies are below.

SHELTER- IDPS IN HOST SETTINGS Almost all IDP families living in host communities are accommodated in either a mud or brick house, most of which are rented.

The average rental price per month is 2,400 Rs. On average 4.7 persons sleep in each room while more than half of all IDP

families do not own an asset of any kind. Only 32% of IDPs living in host communities in the Peshawar valley have ever received

an NFI kit.

64%

41%

25%

24%

20%

16%

9%

5%

5%

2%

1%

Purchase food on debt

Borrow food, or rely on help from friends

Sold jewelry

Decrease expenses on health care

None of these

Limit portion size at meals

Skipped entire days meals

Women ate less food then men

Took children out of school

Sent family member to work abroad

Begged

Negative Coping Strategies (n=31,328) (more than one answer possible)

2%

0%

48%49%

1%

Type of housing (n=31,338)

Tent

Grass cottage

Mud house

Cement or brick house

Other84%

7%

5%4%

Who owns the house/land where you are now living

(n=31,256)

Rented

Relatives / friends

Own

Other

Food Consumption Score (n=26,502)

Poor 7%

Borderline 46%

Acceptable 48%

The largest household concerns of IDP

families are the lack of money, the high

costs of goods and services,

overcrowding and harsh weather

conditions.

In regards to asset ownership, the most

commonly owned assets are radios and

TVs, followed by bicycles. However, the

majority of families do not own an asset

of any kind.

GENERAL HOUSEHOLD SITUATION- IDPS IN HOST SETTINGS

In order to have a general overview of the situation of IDP families, the IVAP asks two subjective questions: (1) What is the

general physical appearance of the people in the family; and (2) How are the overall living conditions of the family?

Asset Index by number of households owning each asset

No Assets Radio TV Bicycle

Sewing machine Washing machine Fridge/Freezer Heater

Cooking stove Other farm machinery Plough Computer

Moterbike Car/Truck/Taxi Grain mill Microwave oven

41%60%

57%38%

2% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

General Physical appearance (n=31,335) Living conditions (n=31,335)

Bad Average Excelent

Top three housing concerns right now

Concern 1st concern

n=31,179

2nd concern

n=30,999

3rd concern

n=28,196

Composite n=90,374

Lack of money 31% 23% 29% 28%

Overcrowding 30% 3% 5% 13%

Harsh weather conditions 14% 12% 12% 13%

High cost of goods / services

8% 34% 21% 21%

Lack of cooking facilities 5% 13% 17% 12%

Lack of water and sanitation

4% 7% 7% 6%


Privacy 3% 5% 3% 4%

Other 0% 1% 5% 2%

IVAP teams also inquired into the current needs of IDPs

in their location of displacement. The most common

responses overall (composite) were food, assistance

with rent, job opportunities and health services.

ACCESS TO COMMUNITY SERVICES- IDPS IN HOST SETTINGS In order to prioritize hosting community needs, the IVAP also looks at some key community services such as education, water

and health facilities.

81%

15%

4%

Availalbity of Water (n=30,264)

Consistently available

Inconsistantly available

No water

49%

46%

4%1%

Distance to water (n=24,592)

Available inside home

Under 500 mtrs

500 mtrs to 800 mtrs

Over 800 mtrs

82%

84%

18%

16%

Are IDP children allowed to attend local schools (n=15,844)

Are IDP children allowed to sit exams at local schools

(n=15,435)

Access to Education

Yes No

81%

15%

3% 1%

Nearest health facility (n=30,260)

Within 5 KM

6-15 KM

Beyond 15 KM

Don't know

Need right now (31,039)

Need 1st

need n=31039

2nd

need n=30,026

3rd

need n=26,051

Composite n=87,116

Food 48% 14% 12% 26%

Assistance with rent

22% 17% 21% 20%




Water 3% 6% 4% 4%

Educational services

2% 5% 5% 4%

Local transportation

2% 1% 2% 1%


Other 1% 2% 7% 3%

IDPS IN JALOZAI CAMP The IVAP has identified 15,726 conflict IDP families living in Jalozai Camp.

RETURN INTENTIONS- JALOZAI

When asked if they wanted to return, 86% mentioned wanting to return, slightly less

than those living in host communities. The majority do not yet know when they will

return, many mentioning security as the primary deciding factor.

When discussing priority needs to return home, families most commonly mentioned

security, food and shelter.

Needs to return home (15,525)

Need 1st need n=15,525

2nd need n=15,349

3rd need n=14,776

Composite n=45,650

Security during travel 51% 15 6% 24%

Security on home arrival

14% 32% 18% 21%


Food 7% 14% 8% 10%



Land 1% 4% 11% 5%


Water 0% 1% 5% 2%



0% 1% 3% 1%

Transportation 0% 0% 3% 1%


Other 0% 0% 1% 0%

District/Agency of Origin (n=15,726)

Agency # of families

% of total

Bajur 11118 71%

Kurrum 10 0%

Mohmand 1005 6%

Khyber 3554 23%

Other 14 0%

Yes86%

No14%

Do you want to return to your area of origin (n=31,325)

18% 1%

0%

1%

80%

If you want to return, when (n=29,122)

Immediately

1-3 Months

3-6 Months

More than 6 months

Don't know

Of the 14% noting various reason to not want to return, 99% would prefer to

settle where they are currently located, rather than relocate to a third location

(1%). For those who would like to remain in their current location, it is clear that

food is the first priority, followed by health services, shelter and NFIs.

Needs to remain in displaced location (Nowshera)

1st need n=2156

2nd need n=2126

3rd need n=2086

Composite n=6368

Food 63% 15% 5% 28%



NFI / household items 6% 12% 16% 11%


4% 9% 5% 6%


Security 1% 2% 12% 5%


Land 1% 3% 3% 2%

Other 1% 1% 4% 2%

Water and sanitation 1% 2% 3% 2%

Education 0% 1% 1% 1%

In regards to IDP families’ knowledge of and access to assistance for return, the following was found:

While nearly 71% of families’ houses were damaged or destroyed, only 42% are beneficiaries for housing compensation. In

addition, the majority of IDP families were not aware of any return assistance packages, again highlighting the need for mass

communications around return assistance available.

INCOME AND LIVELIHOODS- JALOZAI Income for displaced families is a clear concern, and income for families living on camps, is significantly lower overall in

comparison to those living in host communities. Only 14% make over the threshold for poverty assistance programs in Pakistan

(5000 Rs/month). Fortunate families have more than one source of income, though only about 23% of families are in this

situation, and many of them are reliant on zakat or Benazir income support programs as their first or second source of income.

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

Are you a beneficiary to receive housing compensation (n=12,157)

Was your house damaged/destroyed (n=15,701)

Have you received the cash grant of 25,000 rps (n=15,701)

Are you aware of any return assistance packages? (n=15,701)

Return and Assistance

Yes

No

Don't Know

58%24%

7%

11%

Reasons for not wanting to return (n=2191)

Security situation in the area of origin

Damage or lack of community infrastrastructure

There are more jobs here

There is not enough assistance for returnees

Seventy percent of families count unskilled, daily wage labor as their primary source of income. No other source of income can

compare with day labor but the next most common primary source of income is Zakat/Benazir income support with 8%. The

over dependence on day labor illustrates the extreme uncertainty within which the population of Jalozai resides on a daily basis.

Loans are very common among IDP families, with 85% of families owing a loan to one or more persons. The average amount of

indebtedness is 125,000 Rs. However, the breakdown of amount owed, shows less than a quarter of IDPs who have loans owe

over 100,000 Rs.

22%

31%

33%

14%

Family monthly income (n=15,675)

Less than 1000 Rs per month



More than 5000 Rs. per month

70%

16%

14%

Number of Income sources per family (n=13,952)

Families with one source of income

Families with two sources of Income

Families with three sources of income

70%

8%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

2%

Daily wage labour

Zakat or Benazir income support

Shopkeeper / trader

Door-to-door / or wood trading

Other

Local remittances

Skilled wage labor

Sharecropping / tenancy

Main Income source (n=13,952)

8%

10%

29%29%

24%

If you have a loan, how much is it for (n=13,319)

< 10,000

10,001-25,000

25,001-50,000

50,001-100,000

> 100,000

2482

Relatives, 12730

Bank, 59

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

To whom debt is owed (n=15,271)

Local Lenders Relatives Bank

FOOD SECURITY- JALOZAI

In Jalozai camp, the three indicators used by the IVAP to identify food security (meals eaten per day, negative coping strategies

and food consumption score) are strongly affected by the WFP distribution of food to all families in the camp. As we have seen

both in the on and off camp settings, due to very low income and a lack of diversity in livelihoods, If food assistance were to

stop, it can be assumed that the food security of IDP families would plummet.

Both adult males and females are eating an average of 2.9 meals per day. Results of food consumption scores (calculated

according to WFP protocol) as well as the negative coping strategies are below.

SHELTER- JALOZAI Almost all IDP families living in Jalozai live in a tent. The average family size is 5.3 while the average number of persons sleeping

per room in a tent is 5.2, meaning that almost all families reside together in a one-room tent. Contrary to the situation in host

populations, 95% of all families living in Jalozai have received NFIs.

The largest household concerns of IDP families are the lack of money, harsh weather conditions the high costs of goods and

services, and a lack of cooking facilities.

Top three housing concerns (n=15,653)

1st need n=15,653

2nd need n=15,614

3rd need n=15,047

Composite n=46,314

Lack of money 23% 23% 37% 28%

Harsh weather conditions 29% 18% 16% 21%

High cost of goods / services

3% 24% 20% 15%

Lack of cooking facilities 6% 22% 16% 15%

Privacy 12% 8% 4% 8%

Overcrowding 17% 1% 1% 7%


Lack of water and sanitation

1% 2% 1% 1%

Other 0% 0% 2% 1%

59%

52%

29%

23%

20%

17%

7%

3%

2%

1%

0%

Purchase food on debt

Borrow food, or rely on help from friends

Sold jewelry

None of these

Decrease expenses on health care

Limit portion size at meals

Skipped entire days meals

Women ate less food then men

Took children out of school

Sent family member to work abroad

Begged

Negative Coping Strategies (n=31,328) (more than one answer possible)

Food Consumption Score (n=26,502)

Poor 5%

Borderline 50%

Acceptable 45%

In regards to asset ownership, the most commonly owned assets are radios and sewing machines. However, the vast majority

(77%) of families do not own an asset of any kind.

GENERAL HOUSEHOLD SITUATION- JALOZAI The general overview questions regarding the situation of IDP families, show a higher percentage of families in the ‘bad’

categories when compared to families living in host communities.

Asset Index by number of households owning each asset

No Assets Radio Sewing machine Cooking stove

Bicycle TV Washing machine Other farm machinery

Fridge/Freezer Heater Plough Car/Truck/Taxi

Moterbike Microwave oven Computer Grain mill

43%

68%

56%

32%

1% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

General Physical Appearance (n=15,701) Overall living conditions (n=15,701)

Bad Average Excelent

IVAP teams also inquired into the current needs of

IDPs in Jalozai. The most common responses overall

(composite) were food, job opportunities and

health services.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The IVAP aims to balance gathering accurate data for targeting assistance, with presenting the smallest

burden to the IDP population as possible. In order to do so, the IVAP has streamlined the questionnaire to

avoid asking questions that may not inform decision making. In addition, every survey begins with an

informed consent, explaining what the IVAP is, the time it will take to complete, and the non-guarantee of

assistance.

This data report was last updated on March 18, 2011. For more information you may write to the IVAP coordinator

at [email protected] or register for approval of a log-in to the IVAP website allowing you to assess more

detailed analyses and some of the raw IVAP data.

APPENDICES

1. Inclusion Policy

2. Questionnaire

3. Maps

4. Partners

Current family needs (15,334)

1st need n=15334

2nd need n=14,188

3rd need n=11,700

Composite n=41,222

Food 55% 13% 10% 28%

Job opportunities

20% 34% 18% 24%


Temporary shelter

6% 13% 10% 10%

Other 2% 6% 13% 7%

Livelihood training

2% 4% 12% 6%

Educational services

2% 5% 5% 4%

Local transportation

4% 2% 3% 3%

Water 1% 3% 2% 2%

Assistance with rent

0% 1% 2% 1%

mailto:[email protected]

IVAP Peshawar Valley Report

Documents

Transcript of IVAP Peshawar Valley Report