IVAP- Progress, Findings and Next Steps

IVAP Timeline Mar 2011 Completion of Peshawar Valley IVAP May-July 2010 IVAP Pilot Aug 2010 RTE Nov 2010 IVAP restart 2008 Start of displacement Ongoing- Registration process July 2010 update on findings shared and endorsed by all (WFP, PDMA, FDMA, SSG, OCHA) April 2010- PSM , DSTF tasked with a vulnerability assessment with assistance to continue to vulnerable families June 2010 –PSM reaffirmed assistance would continue to IVAP vulnerable Oct 2010- PSM note that IVAP should continue and assistance (including food) should continue to the vulnerable May 2010- HCT update of IVAP pilot presented Jan 2011- HCT update of IVAP and results shared at separate meeting March 2010- PSM agreement for assessment RTE: “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.”

Partners FRD

Objectives The IVAP project has two main objectives Provide general assessment data to the humanitarian community for the design and implementation of programs to benefit displaced and host communities. Profile the level of vulnerability of every conflict displaced family in KPK to allow for targeting of in-kind assistance based on family vulnerability

Progress The IVAP project has profiled over 60,000 conflict IDP families It is estimated that the IVAP has interviewed 90% of all conflict IDPs who are willing to be surveyed in the Peshawar Valley

Key Findings

Host vs Camp Population District Households Lower Dir 969 DI Khan 207 Charsadda 4628 Unknown 20 Mardan 1351 Nowshera 2669 Swabi 2050 Kohat 9526 Peshawar 22765 Total 44185 Vs Camps No. of Families 15,726

Vs Return Intentions Off Camp On Camp Of those who want to return, most state that families do not know when they will return, because they are unsure of when it will be safe. Priority needs to return home were: food, material for rebuilding and security

Registration Off Camp On Camp Vs

Current Family Needs Off Camp On Camp Current family needs right now (n=43774) 1st need n=43774 2nd need n=42489 3rd need n=37040 Composite n=123303 Food 45% 14% 13% 25% Job opportunities 33% 18% 22% Assistance with rent 17% 21% Health services 4% 12% 20% 11% Temporary shelter 5% 8% 6% Water 7% Educational services 2% Other 0% 3% Livelihood training 1% Local transportation 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. On Camp Current family needs (15,334) On Camp 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% Health services 8% 19% 26% 17% Temporary shelter 6% Other 2% 7% Livelihood training 4% 12% Educational services 5% Local transportation 3% Water 1% Assistance with rent 0% The most common responses overall (composite) in On Camp were food, job opportunities and health services.

Vs Family Monthly Income Off Camp On Camp Only 32% of IDP families make over the threshold for poverty assistance programs in Pakistan (5000 Rs/month). Only about 23% of families have more than one source of income.

Income Source Off Camp On Camp Only around 15% have semi-stable positions as servants, shopkeepers, skilled wage laborers or sharecroppers. On Camp

Food Security Off Camp On Camp 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 were regular recipients of WFP food assistance at the time of the survey. The average, to acceptable nature of the food security results can largely be attributed to the WFP assistance. Households surveyed since February show, on average, lower food consumption scores than prior to February. Both adult males and females are eating an average of 2.8 meals per day. The most common coping strategies are borrowing food and purchasing food on debt. Food Consumption Score (n=40,132) Poor 8% Borderline 52% Acceptable 40% On Camp Food Consumption Score Poor 5% Borderline 54% Acceptable 41%

Top three housing concerns right now (n=43,899) Shelter Off Camp Top three housing concerns right now (n=43,899) 1st need n=43899 2nd need n=43649 3rd need n=39222 Composite n=126770 Lack of money 32% 23% 28% High cost of goods / services 8% 33% 21% Lack of cooking facilities 6% 15% 18% 13% Overcrowding 29% 3% 5% 12% Harsh weather conditions 11% Lack of water and sanitations 7% Privacy 4% Security 1% 2% Other 0% The largest household concerns of IDP families are the lack of money, the high costs of goods and services, lack of cooking facilities, and overcrowding.

Disclaimer All analysis of data from IVAP was done of families that would by internationally all be considered vulnerable. Almost all families earn less than $.60 per person/day, far below the $1/day worldwide standard. The analysis presented here is to give an understanding of the range of vulnerabilities across a population that is considered highly vulnerable.

Vulnerability Analysis Vulnerability Score Index CAMP Population Most Less 80% 20% Most Vulnerable Less Vulnerable 60% 40% OFF CAMP Population Vulnerability: Relative ability of the family’s ability to meet their daily food and shelter needs

Vulnerability Profiles Vulnerable on Camp Average monthly income 2900Rps (>600/person, $.21/day) 76% do not own an asset of any kind Borderline food consumption scores (due to assistance) Approximately 2 of 6 family members are vulnerable/dependant1 Most Vulnerable off Camp Average monthly income is 3100 Rps (<600/person, $.23/day) 72% do not own any assets Poor to Borderline food consumption scores 2 of 5 family members are vulnerable/dependant Less Vulnerable off Camp Average monthly income 6150 Rps (>1000/person, $0.46/person/day) Likely to own asset of some kind Reasonable to borderline food consumption scores Approximately 1 of 5 family members are vulnerable/dependant1

Assistance Planning Unsafe: Khyber Kurrum North Wazeristan Vulnerability Status Vulerable Less Vulnerable Area of Origin Safe FATA 10,600 2350 Safe KP 2000 1250 Unsafe 22,100 8100 Unsafe: Khyber Kurrum North Wazeristan South Wazeristan Bajur (Mamund, Nawagi) Mohmand (Upper Mohamnd, Safi) Orakzai Reasons those from “safe” areas are still displaced: Individual threats Land/housing concerns Health and education services Don’t believe it is safe Political involvement No economic opportunities and destruction of buisnesses Reasons the safe don’t want to go, integration with wfp

Jalozai Population Movement

Host Locations of IVAP Most- Location Targeting Host Locations of IVAP Most- Vulnerable Families On Camp 15,726 Charssada 3,310 Mardan 857 Nowshera 1,746 Peshawar 12,984 Swabi 1,408 Lower Dir 628 Kohat, DI Khan, Tank, Hungu Unknown

Data Sharing Direct Family Targeting Community Data UN agencies (WFP integration) Other assistance providers Open to all Methods: IVAP Updates Periodic Reports IVAP Website: www.ivap.org.pk – also useful for specific data analysis

Next Steps Improve access to data Determine how the data will be used to target assistance Developing tracking systems for assistance Determine the next steps for IVAP Finalize data collection Updating for new displacements Updating of vulnerability status and location changes

IVAP INCLUSION POLICY In every village assessed every effort will be made to work with the community leaders and elders to correctly identify only and all of the conflict IDPs. The inclusion policy is explained to all elders and they must sign to having assisted the IVAP team to find every IDP in the community who fits the profile. Profile: They self identify as having fled their area of origin due to: Individual threat Treat of insecurity Conflict in the area No economic opportunities Families who have fled districts that are not considered to be conflict affected (per the government list) will be included if they express that they fled due to Families who self identify that they fled their area of origin due to the flood, or any other natural disaster will not be assessed Families will not be denied assessment due to Lacking CNIC Lacking prior registration as a conflict IDP

Community Elders/Members IVAP Process: Round 1 Mass Advertisement Community GOAL: Every Village in Every Hosting UC WFP Monitors Protection Team and Committees Concentration maps Team Leaders Planning Teams Community Elders/Members

IDP’s Who have been left in Round 1 Round 2 and Vulnerability Community IOM Teams IDP’s Who have been left in Round 1 Protection Team Are you and IDP? Yes O No What is your district of origin? Conflicted districts None of these North Waziristan Khyber Lower Dir Swat Upper Dir Buner Mohmand Shangla Malakand Orakzai Kurrum Bajur South Waziristan Individual Threat Within the last month? Threat or Insecurity Last 1-3 months Conflict in the area Last 3-6 months Harsh weather conditions Last 6-12 months No Economic opportunities More than 1 year ago More than 2 year ago More than 3 year ago Data Cleaning Filled house hold information is fed into system Vulnerability Index Most Vulnerable Least Vulnerable GOAL: Every IDP household profiled for vulnerability