VULNERABILITY OF INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS IN URBAN SETTINGS Internal displacement, rapid growth of urban areas and proliferation of informal settlements are in the spotlight of public policy debate in Afghanistan at present. This pamphlet discusses characteristics, livelihood strategies and vulnerabilities of households living in informal settlements in three urban centers in Afghanistan. These findings summarize the analysis from a joint World Bank-UNHCR “Research study on IDPs in urban settings”, which illustrates the complexities of displacement and of urban informal settlement growth. Motivated by an existing knowledge gap on these issues, the analysis provides a starting point for discussion among actors directly or indirectly involved with management of problems related to displacement and urban informal settlements, including departments in the Government of Afghanistan, international institutions and stakeholders from civil society. The study documents the significance of displacement as a factor underlying vulnerabilities observed in informal settlements, and identifies IDPs as an extremely deprived segment of the population, even in comparison to the profile of urban poverty in the recent National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (NRVA 2007/08). The study calls for:  going beyond a purely humanitarian approach and looking for sustainable solutions for IDPs in informal settlements;  a comprehensive and integrated developmental approach to displacement in urban areas; and  strengthening existing monitoring and coordination efforts to target the immediate needs of urban IDPs, especially in the initial phases of displacement. Acknowledgements This pamphlet summarizes The authors would like to thank the findings of a joint study by the World Bank “Multi-Donor Trust Fund World Bank’s Economic Policy for Research and Knowledge Work and Poverty Team for South Asia on Fragile States” for funding for this (SASEP) and UNHCR, Afghanistan. project and the World Bank’s Global program for forced displacement in the Sustainable Development Network for insightful guidance “There are some worrying trends in internal Introduction displacement in Afghanistan. Displacement is becoming more protracted for many. For example, people currently displaced by conflict have not been able to return home after the end of local This study is part of a broader World Bank conflicts as quickly as they have in the past, and research on poverty in Afghanistan and focuses there is a risk that these IDP populations are becoming permanently displaced. […] Growing on IDPs living in urban informal settlements insecurity is coinciding with drought and rising food as a potentially vulnerable segment of the and fuel prices in certain areas, and the combined population. In addition, as any analysis of issues effects are likely to be compounded during the related to displacement in Afghanistan today, it winter months. This combination may result in more is framed and takes into account the broader movement toward cities, placing greater demands context of Afghanistan‟s customs, migration on urban service providers and swelling the number history, and recent developments. of urban poor”. Ewen Macleod, Former UNHCR Country Representative for Afghanistan, Migration – either “voluntary” economic migra- at a seminar on “Displacement and Security in Afghanistan” hosted by tion or “forced” due to conflict or natural disaster the Brookings Institution at the University of Bern on June 23, 2008. – has a long history in Afghanistan. For decades, Afghan households and/or individual household members have used mobility both as a way to urban areas affected by high levels of cope “ex-post” with conflict and natural disaster , repatriation have struggled to absorb this as well as to manage “ex-ante” risks associated population increase and to provide for with the rural economy. adequate economic opportunities. Over 25 years of conflict and political instability In this context, the paths of (newly) internally have led to large-scale forced migration displaced persons fleeing conflict, returned movements both from and within Afghanistan. In refugees unable to reintegrate in their places of the early 1990s, 7.5 million people were origin and economic migrants often overlap. All displaced: 3.2 million registered as refugees in three groups often find themselves heading Pakistan; 2.4 million reported by the Iranian towards more secure and economically vibrant government; and an estimated 2 million urban centers. However, this recent phase of displaced within Afghanistan‟s borders. The end rural-urban migration has exacerbated and of Taliban rule in December 2001 and installation expanded the growth of informal and illegal of a new Government triggered significant settlements where many people live in unsafe repatriation movements from neighboring and insecure conditions. countries. At the same time, the resumption of conflict between pro-government forces and While the dividing line between voluntary insurgents has led to new instances of internal migration and forced displacement is often displacement in several parts of the country.1 subtle, conceptual distinctions are important given the risks of poverty associated with each Conflict has had a direct role in “forcing” migra - migration pattern 2 . Moreover, empirical tion movements. Its enduring consequences con- investigation of vulnerabilities specific to forced tinue to push people to move, especially from migrants will better inform the Government and rural areas where the economy has not international organizations that assist displaced recovered from the destruction in physical and persons and, more in general, a particularly social capital assets. Furthermore, those rural and vulnerable segment of the population. Methodological Approach Findings in the study primarily come from analysis Table 1: Areas selected for the IDP survey of two data sources: (i) an ad-hoc small scale No. City Location survey of IDPs in urban informal settlements from 1 Nasaji Bagrami 2 Kabul Kabul Nandari Summer 2010; and (ii) a nationally representative survey of Afghan households, the National Risk 3 Pole Charkhi and Vulnerability Assessment (NRVA) 2007/08 3. 4 Shaidayee 5 Herat Nawabad The IDP Survey consists of both qualitative and 6 Minaret quantitative modules which cover backgrounds, 7 Loya Wiala 8 Kandahar Haji Arab profiles, vulnerabilities, needs and coping strategies of IDPs. By triangulation of data on 9 Mirwais Mina forced displacement flows (both protracted and recent caseload), the size of the urban center, The NRVA 2007/08 is a nationally representative, the relative significance of informal settlements, as well as considering security concerns, three multi-topic household survey. Topics included cities were identified: Kabul, Herat, and are food consumption, demography, housing Kandahar. 4 In each of these cities, three infrastructure, assets and credit, agriculture and informal settlements were selected for the livestock, migration, and child and maternal household survey. The choice of sites was guided health.The 2007/08 survey collects data on a by key informant5 interviews from the inception sample of 20,576 households in 2,572 phase of the study and by information from communities and can be used to obtain a locally available IDPs listings. Approximately 50 representative sample of households‟ living IDP households were randomly selected in each conditions in urban areas6. location (150 for each city), for a final sample size of 452 observations (see Table1). For this study, the IDP sample was compared to a sub-sample of the NRVA (1,119 households) The quantitative survey was complemented by representing the urban poor population. qualitative in-depth research into the relevant According to the official definition of poverty, a human stories of IDP populations, through key household is defined as poor7 if the total value of informant interviews and case studies. The case per capita consumption is less than the poverty studies, which lasted about an hour per line which – following the cost of basic needs respondent, were held with both male and approach (CBN) – was set at 1,253 Afghani per female IDP household representatives based on person per month for 2007/08.8 a set of open-ended questions and guidelines. Profiling IDPs in Informal Settlements Survey results confirm the multifaceted nature of construction, and low quality and unsafe jobs. motives of displacement. While conflict and Focusing on male respondents only, the study insecurity is usually the first reported reason for reveals that, unlike IDPs, the broader category of abandoning a place of origin, economic urban poor work in all sectors of the economy. considerations (such as food security and For example, 12.8 percent of male heads of unemployment) emerge strongly as concurrent urban poor households work in the construction driving factors. Economic motives play an even sector (compared with 50.6 percent of IDPs). stronger role as pull factors shaping migration Among the urban poor, the majority work in paths towards urban centers, which are retail trade (26.2 percent), other services perceived to provide better employment (14.4 percent), and, most noticeably, in public opportunities than rural areas 9 where land sector jobs (11.9 percent versus 0.6 percent of scarcity and insecurity threaten households‟ IDPs). livelihoods. Sectoral differences in employment between Economic and social integration of IDP IDPs and the urban poor are reflected also in the households in an urban context is complex. First - occupation structure. IDP male workers are despite differences between the three cities - 70 mainly day laborers (68 percent), followed by percent of households have lived in their current self-employment and private sector salaried jobs informal sites for more than two years, and most (23 and 6 percent, respectively). In comparison, of the time in hazardous conditions. 10 Second, for the urban poor, self-employment is the most the vast majority of IDP households lack the skills prevalent occupation (49 percent) followed by needed for successful integration in an urban daily labor (25 percent) and public sector economic context. salaried jobs (17 percent). Even compared with the overall population of The study further suggests that such labor market urban poor, IDP household heads have disadvantages increase IDPs vulnerability to substantially lower literacy rates and levels of poverty. education. 80 percent of male IDP household heads are unable to read Figure 1: Distribution of IDPs sample by location and length of settlement or write compared to “only” 64 percent of male heads of poor urban 80 households recorded in NRVA data. 70 The education gap is even wider for 60 50 women. Only one of 100 female 40 KABUL heads or spouses in IDP households is 30 literate versus one in three in poor 20 HERAT urban households. 10 KANDAHAR 0 This strong educational disadvantage 1 YEAR OR (1,2] (2,5] MORE has a direct impact on IDPs‟ labor LESS THAN 5 YEARS market outcomes. IDPs‟ employment opportunities are primarily in Taking the (nominal) earnings Figure 2: Income shares, by source reported by IDP workers, and CASH/IN-KIND assuming no other income source, a DONATIONS daily laborer‟s wage could support 3% two people living above poverty; a salary in the private sector could REMITTANCES LOANS & CREDIT support a household with three 3% 20% OWN SALARY members, and self-employed 42% earnings about four individuals. IDP OTHER households are on average MEMBER(S) composed of nine family members – SALARY 32% one member more than poor urban households in the NRVA sample – with a dependency ratio of two children per adult. income is to IDPs‟ livelihood strategies, Income diversification is vital for IDP households households with inactive or unemployed adults; due to the poor quality of employment. As whose primary income earner is female; with less illustrated in Figure 2, IDP households first rely on economically active members; and with illiterate household head labor income (42 percent of workers are by and large exposed to the risk of total income), then, in decreasing order, on the poverty. Newly displaced households – besides labor income of other household members 11 (32 possibly lacking skills to benefit from the urban percent); on loans from relatives and friends, labor market – are less likely to have other and credit from shopkeepers (20 percent); and income sources, such as loans and credit, and finally on cash/in-kind donations and hence are more vulnerable and in need of remittances (3 percent). Given how crucial labor external assistance. Assessing IDPs Needs and Vulnerabilities Figure 3: Greatest problems faced by IDPs (self-reported) Employment, housing and food security rank highly on the list of UNEMPLOYMENT / UNDEREMPLOYMENT problems for IDPs according to their ACCESS TO HOUSING own self-assessment. When IDP ACCESS TO FOOD respondents assessed the (three) ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY most important problems faced by ACCESS TO WATER ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES their households, about 61 percent ACCESS TO LAND identified issues related to un- or LACK OF LAND TITLE under-employment and issues OTHER related to housing (Figure 3). In INSECURITY addition, almost all other self- LACK OF SAVINGS assessed problems were related to SANITATION FACILITIES 0 20 40 60 80 housing and classified under a broader “access The precariousness of dwelling types is matched to proper housing” category (e.g. access to by the widespread insecurity of tenure, with 85 water, electricity, sanitation, land and security of percent of IDPs not having a land deed tenure…). Access to food was the third most (evidence of ownership or lease agreement) for important problem, and reported by 42 percent their homes compared with 25% of urban poor in of IDPs. similar conditions. Lack of tenure security is a distinguishing feature of informal settlements Interestingly, employment remains a priority which have developed over time as a result of irrespective of settlement time, while concerns poorly functioning land and housing markets, related to “access to proper housing” become and the lack of planning for urban development more pressing the longer the duration of stay, and growth. Lack of sufficient urban planning and IDPs‟ food insecurity tends to decline.12 translates into higher deprivation – with respect to urban poor – vis-à-vis access to services such Barriers to proper housing remain a factor of as potable water, sanitation and electricity. vulnerability, irrespective of the length of displacement. As expected in the survey design The study also reveals the extreme vulnerability (which targeted informal settlements), IDPs live in to food insecurity for IDPs living in informal much more precarious housing conditions settlements. According to the NRVA sample, IDPs compared with the broader category of urban food insecurity is much worse than that of urban poor. About 60 percent live in tents, temporary poor households (Figure 4). Considering extreme shelter or a shack, with the remaining population outcomes, only 7 percent of IDPs report to have mostly in single family houses. Interestingly, while never faced problems in meeting household the share of IDPs living in tents (the most insecure food needs versus 37 percent of the urban poor; housing arrangement) decreases over time, the on the other hand 14 percent of IDPs report to share of those still living in temporary housing be mostly food insecure i.e. to have problems conditions (temporary shelter, shack, or camp) is satisfying food needs several times every month as high as 61 percent among those – compared with only 3 percent of the urban displaced/settled for more than five years. poor. It is likely that the loss of social capital Figure 4: Food security resulting from displacement affects the HOW OFTEN IN THE LAST YEAR HH HAD PROBLEMS SATISFYING FOOD ability of IDPs to manage risk, and NEEDS resilience through social networks. This 40 could possibly explain the higher degree 35 URBAN POOR of food insecurity of IDPs relative to the 30 25 IDP urban poor. The study reveals a 20 substantial decrease in IDPs‟ food 15 insecurity with the duration of 10 5 settlement. In addition to improved 0 economic conditions, due to better NEVER RARELY (1 SOMETIMES OFTEN (A MOSTLY integration in the urban labor market, TO 2 TIMES)(3 TO 6 FEW TIMES (THIS TIMES) EVERY HAPPENS A this may reflect a restored ability to MONTH) LOT) access traditional, network-based risk management and coping strategies. Second, results from the analysis point towards Conclusions the need for an integrated and comprehensive developmental approach to displacement in urban areas. A “durable solution” for displacement in urban This study attempts to unpack some of the issues areas is „achieved‟ when needs specifically related to internal displacement and urban linked to displacement no longer exist. In this re- growth, in particular the profile and vulnerabili- spect, access to proper housing is an enduring ties of IDPs living in informal settlements. condition of deprivation which requires compre- Although limited in its coverage, the study contri- hensive public policy interventions. Urban devel- butes in several dimensions to the ongoing opment in Afghanistan should be underpinned debate. by adequate planning and resources to ensure access to essential services and a minimum stan- First, results from the analysis reveal the dard of living. Such plans should provide for the challenges and limits of a purely humanitarian regularization or relocation of informal settle- approach to displacement in urban areas. ments to mitigate the uncontrolled growth of While conflict is the main driving factor causing slums whose inhabitants remain on the margins households to abandon their communities of ori- of society in impoverished conditions. Clarity of gin, the choice to settle in urban centers is policy and action is a prerequisite to finding just strongly motivated by economic considerations, and practicable solutions to the challenges of with households seeking better employment and unplanned urbanization and its relationship with services. Over 30 years of conflict and insecurity poverty and vulnerability. An appropriate have disrupted rural livelihoods in Afghanistan, legislative and administrative framework should as such many are now seeking alternatives in include dialogue and collaboration between all urban centers to rebuild their lives. In addition, the relevant stakeholders, starting from all the conflict and insecurity continues to threaten per- Ministries potentially involved in the process- sonal security in some Afghan provinces. But, at- including the Ministry of Refugees and tempts to separate forced vs economic motives Repatriation (MoRR) as well as the Ministries of for migration and match migrants to their Urban Development and Housing (MUDH), Rural appropriate “legal framework” does not guaran- Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD), Labor tee a sustainable solution to challenges posed and Social Affairs (MoLSAMD), Agriculture by the growth of informal settlements in urban (MAIL), Defence (MoD) and Finance (MoF) – centers. international organizations as well as civil society More than 90 percent of IDPs reported plans to - communities and their representatives, local settle permanently in the city irrespective of the NGOs and the media. persistence of conflict. About 80 percent were not willing to return to their communities of origin To this end, the Government could appoint na- due to the lack of livelihood opportunities tional and provincial task forces to initiate dialo- (unemployment, land, food insecurity). As a re- gue between the Government, municipality and sult, humanitarian assistance for immediate communities living in the poorest informal urban needs following conflict induced displacement areas to discuss urgent needs and how to im- must be accompanied by long-term develop- prove living conditions, including relocation ment interventions that promote sustainable where the land occupied is unsuitable for integration of IDPs who intend to settle perma- permanent settlement. Such task forces could nently in their current locations. build on the decennial experience of the Government and several municipalities in designing and implementing participatory urban Several factors – specific to displacement development projects targeted at improving the conditions – could explain such vulnerability. First, living standards of inhabitants in informal the skill set of IDPs prevents immediate settlements. integration into the urban labor market. IDPs Policy interventions should acknowledge the often have limited experience outside the rights of all urban dwellers with regards to agricultural sector and extremely high rates of security of tenure, access to public services and illiteracy compared to other poor segments of participation in local development projects, and the urban population. As a result, IDPs‟ could include “guided land subdivisions” (land employment opportunities are - at least initially - offered for sale with various infrastructure to confined to poor quality daily labor which has a accommodate families with different income negative impact on household budgets and levels) under the control of the Government and economic wellbeing. The first year of in viable locations to increase the supply of land displacement is particularly susceptible to food for allocation to low-income families. Another insecurity due to limited earnings potential and option for the Government would be to endorse, the lack of social networks to manage risk and develop and scale up the pilot UN-HABITAT cope with negative shocks. approach to settlement upgrading and The severity of such conditions highlights the regularization in Kandahar and Lashkar Gah, need to monitor the development of informal following appropriate evaluation. settlements and strengthen efforts to assess their communities‟ needs. Again, active collaboration Third, the study identifies specific areas of of stakeholders in the Government, international intervention to assist immediate needs of urban organizations and civil society should be sought IDPs and specific phases of their displacement. to define a common set of criteria used in This study identifies the first two years of profiling the characteristics of households living settlement as the most difficult for displaced in informal settlements and in providing targeted households to provide for their livelihood. assistance in the first years of displacement. 1According to UNHCR figures, over 5 million refugees returned since 2002 increasing Afghanistan‟s overall population by approx imately 20 percent UNHCR Country Operations Profile, Afghanistan (2011). http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e486eb6 2 In particular, based on the recent economics literature on migration, economic migrants would be expected to be relatively better off compared to forced migrants in that the former tend to be “self-selected” groups of the rural population (for example in terms of skills, education, age…) who invest in migration expecting a positive economic return from such a choice. On the other hand, forced migrants are precluded such rational choices as conflict or insecurity compels them to leave to preserve their own safety, irrespective of positive economic returns from migration itself. 3 The NRVA 07/08 household survey is the primary data source used for the current official definition of the poverty line in Afghanistan and for the Poverty Assessment analysis. 4 This selection ensures a balanced geographical coverage between the Center, West and Southern regions, as well as representation of different ethnicities, displacement histories, population profiles, urban settlement and integration patterns. 5 A total of 20 key informant interviews was conducted throughout the project to guide the methodology (pre-field work), assist the teams locally during field work, and provide input on data analysis (post fieldwork). The list of key informant interviews includes meetings with representatives from UNHCR, OCHA, UNHABITAT, Solidarités, Médecins sans Frontières (MSF), Assistance Médicale Internationale (AMI), Action Contre la Faim (ACF), UMCOR, MoRR, and USAID, at the national and sub-national levels. 6 For further details on the NRVA survey, see CSO-EC (2010), National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment 2007/08 – A profile of Afghanistan. [online] http://nrva.cso.gov.af/NRVA%202007-08%20Report.pdf 7 If a household is defined as poor, all individuals in that same household are deemed to be poor. 8 The average value of the poverty line for urban areas is 1,776 Afghani per person. The poverty line represents the typical cost of attaining 2,100 calories per person per day and of meeting some basic nonfood needs, in terms of Fall 2007 prices from urban areas of central Afghanistan. The poverty line reflects regional differences in the cost of living, and also accounts for inflation over the time of the survey. For a detailed description of the methodology adopted to define the poverty line see CSO – World Bank (2011), Setting the official Poverty Line for Afghanistan, Mimeo. 9 92 percent of IDPs covered in the study come from a rural community of origin. 10 One in four households in the study has been displaced since before December 2002. 11 On average, IDP households have only 1.61 active members. 12 As an example, the share of households reporting access to housing as one of the three most important problems increases from 61 percent among families settled for 1 year or less to 67 percent among those residing for more than 5 years. Similar trends are also reported for access to electricity (from 16 to 35 percent), access to land (from 8 to 17.2 percent) and sanitation (from 3 to 8 percent). The only exception to this trend relates to access to water which is reported as one of the three major problems by 45 percent of families settled for 1 year or less and by 23 percent of those residing for more than 5 years.