NOVEMBER 25, 2019 THE COX’S BAZAR PANEL SURVEY LIVING CONDITIONS AND ASSET OWNERSHIP FOR THE HOST AND ROHINGYA POPULATIONS IN COX’S BAZAR This is the fourth in a series of briefs to disseminate findings from different modules of the CBPS, by the Poverty and Equity GP. CBPS BRIEF 4, POVERTY AND EQUITY GP 2 H OUSI NG A S S E TS The modules on housing characteristics and assets were administered as part of the household questionnaire of the Cox’s Bazar Panel Survey (CBPS) to the household head or an adult member (age 15+) with substantial knowledge about the daily activities of the household. Data was collected from 5,020 households across camp and host settlements (Camp settlements are defined as areas within the camp boundaries set by the government, UNHCR and IOM jointly. Host settlements are defined as all areas outside of the camp boundaries), on topics of housing conditions and asset holdings. This includes information on the construction material of housing, water and sanitation facilities, lighting and electricity usage, and current and past ownership of assets. The module generates representative statistics for hosts and displaced Rohingya population in Cox’s Bazar; and it can be further disaggregated into hosting areas with low and high exposure to the Rohingya influx. HOST COMMUNITY HOUSING HOST COMMUNITY ASSET R E C E N T LY D I S P L A C E D CONDITIONS IN COX’S BAZAR OWNERSHIP ROHINGYA HOUSING CONDITIONS AND INFRA- HOST HOUSEHOLDS REPORT DISPLACEMENT FROM MYAN- STRUCTURE SERVICES ACCESS ARE LOW RATES OF OWNERSHIP OF MAR WAS ACCOMPANIED BY POOR IN HOST COMMUNITIES. HIGH-VALUE CONSUMER DURA- A HEAVY LOSS IN ASSETS FOR BLES AND PRODUCTIVE ASSETS. THE ROHINGYA. While home ownership is high, housing conditions are poor, especially in high Despite an increase in the ownership The Rohingya in camps suffered a exposure areas. Close to half of all host of household assets since 2017, less heavy loss of productive and house- households use shared water and sanita- than 20 percent of households in hold assets during their displace- tion facilities. Households in low exposure high exposure areas, and only about ment from Myanmar in 2017. While areas receive twice the hours of electricity a quarter of households in low ex- camps provide these households from the grid as those in high exposure posure area own higher value assets with access to improved water and areas. such as televisions and refrigerators. sanitation, these facilities are shared Ownership of productive assets is with many. low for all hosts. CBPS BRIEF 4, POVERTY AND EQUITY GP 3 LIVING CONDITIONS AND ASSET OWNERSHIP IN COX’S BAZAR This brief uses data from the Cox’s Bazar Pan- er level of urbanization in low exposure areas. In el Survey (CBPS) baseline survey to document general, access to services is poor: Half of host housing conditions, access to water, sanitation households rely on unimproved sanitation facil- and electricity, and the ownership of household ities or shared water sources. Moreover, owner- and agricultural and business assets among the ship of assets for productive purposes is limited, host Bangladeshi population and the recently with host households reporting an increase in displaced Rohingya. Despite high rates of home household assets only since 2017. 48 percent of ownership, use of poor housing materials is host households do not have an improved cook- widespread in host areas, particularly in high ex- stove. Among the recently displaced Rohingya posure areas. While access to electricity is wide- population, the loss of assets due to displace- spread, high exposure areas receive only 7 hours ment is stark; and while coverage of services of supply per day, half that in low exposure ar- is good, these are shared across many house- eas. These differences reflect the relatively high- holds, reflecting the density of camp settings. The CBPS is the result of a partnership between the Yale Macmillan Center Program on Refugees, Forced Displacement, and Humanitarian Responses (Yale Macmillan PRFDHR), the Gender & Adolescence: Global Evidence (GAGE) program, the Poverty and Equity Global Practice of the World Bank and the State and Peacebuilding Fund (SPF) administered by the World Bank. CBPS BRIEF 4, POVERTY AND EQUITY GP 4 HIGH RATES OF HOME OWNERSHIP WITH POOR HOUSING QUALITY, ESPECIALLY IN HIGH EXPOSURE AREAS The majority of host households live in an owned in the relatively more urbanized LE areas report dwelling: 87 percent in high exposure (HE) ar- slightly better housing conditions. 13 percent re- eas, and 83 percent in low exposure (LE) areas1. port a brick/cement roof, while 73 percent have Home ownership rates for hosts improved rela- a tin roof. Close to a third of these households tive to 2017, by 2 percentage points for LE hosts, reported having brick/cement walls (compared and 4 percentage points for HE hosts. to less than 24 percent for HE areas). Overall, the poor quality of housing materials is a cause for The quality of construction materials used in concern, particularly in a disaster-prone area these dwellings reflects poor housing standards, such as Cox’s Bazar. and this is particularly true for HE hosts. Most houses in HE areas are constructed with poor Host households report having 2.5 rooms on building materials. 62 percent of HE households average with 1 room for every two members. In live within walls made of mud and unburnt addition, 78 percent of host households report bricks (37 percent); or straw, bamboo or some having a separate kitchen in the house, with type of polyethene (25 percent). Only 7 percent those in LE areas (79 percent) being marginally of these host households live under a brick/ce- more likely to have one than HE households (75 ment roof. 26 percent of them have a roof made percent). Close to half of the households (48 per- from straw, bamboo or a polyethene material; cent) use an improved gas or cookstove with no and 66 percent live under a tin roof. Households differences across high and low exposure areas. WALLS AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION WALLS AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH EXPOSURE HOST OF LOW EXPOSURE HOST 66% 73% 26% 7% TIN 14% 13% TIN 37% 32% MUD/UNBURNT 25% 24% 14% 25% 28% BRICK/CEMENT 14% BRICK TIN MUD/UNBURNT BRICK STRAW/BAMBOO/POLYTHENE/CANVAS STRAW/BAMBOO/POLYTHENE/CANVAS BRICK/CEMENT BRICK/CEMENT TIN OR WOOD 1 To distinguish between host communities that are more or less affected by the arrival of these Rohingya, the survey’s sam- pling strategy uses a threshold of 3-hours walking time from a campsite to define two strata for hosts: (i) Host communities with potentially high exposure to the displaced Rohingya (HE), and (ii) Host communities with potentially low exposure (LE). CBPS BRIEF 4, POVERTY AND EQUITY GP 5 CLOSE TO HALF OF ALL HOST HOUSEHOLDS USE UNIMPROVED SANITATION FACILITIES AND SHARED WATER SOURCES While hosts in HE and LE areas in Cox’s Bazar report access to similar types of drinking water sources and sanitation facilities, HE hosts report a greater reliance on shared and un- improved sources of drinking water. LE areas, which are more urban2, are marginally more likely to rely on shared sanitation facilities. About 39 percent of hosts have access to basic (improved) sanitation, 11 percent have limited (improved, but shared) access, and 48 percent use unimproved sanitation facilities3. Differences across high and low exposure hosts are marginal: HE hosts report a slightly higher use of unimproved and limited sanitation facilities (by 2 and 1 percentage point respectively); while LE hosts report a slightly higher rate of open defecation (of 4 percent). Tube-wells are the primary source of drinking water for host households (89 percent). Households in LE areas report a greater overall reliance on improved sources of water: 8 percent of these households rely on piped public water supply, and 91 percent rely on tube- wells. In contrast, 9 percent of HE households depend on unimproved water sources such as unprotected wells and springs. The major difference in quality of access to water across HE and LE areas comes from the number of households who report using shared water sources. HE households report a lower share of private water sources (42 percent) com- pared to LE households (48 percent); and 12 percent of HE hosts report sharing their water source with more than 25 households as opposed to only 4 percent for LE hosts. HOUSEHOLDS SHARING WATER SOURCES LOW EXPOSURE 48% 43% 5% 4% HIGH EXPOSURE 42% 41% 5% 12% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% PRIVATE 1-10 11-25 >25 SANITATION FACILITIES AMONG HOSTS OPEN DEFECATION UNIMPROVED LIMITED BASIC 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% LOW EXPOSURE HIGH EXPOSURE 2 According to the 2011 census, 83% of HE areas in Cox’s Bazar are rural, while 74% of LE areas (which include Cox’s Bazar Sadar) are rural. 3 Definitions for sanitation indicators follow indicators set by the WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (JMP): 2017 update. Improved sanitation refers only to the type of facility used – in the survey, “sanitary” and “pacca” latrines are classified as improved facilities. Basic sanitation services are defined as use of improved sanitation facil- ities which are not shared with other households. Limited sanitation services are defined as use of improved sanitation facilities which are shared with other households. The survey does not collect the data required to classify facilities as safely managed. CBPS BRIEF 4, POVERTY AND EQUITY GP 6 BROAD ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY ACROSS ALL HOSTS BUT SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES REPORTED IN QUALITY OF ACCESS BETWEEN HE AND LE AREAS 80 percent of host households in Cox’s Bazar have access to electricity from at least one source. Electricity from the public grid and solar energy are the two main sources of electricity report- ed by 88 percent and 13 percent of households respectively. Even though HE areas, which are closer to the camps, report having similar access to grid electricity (89 percent) as households farther away in LE areas (87 percent), there are important differences in the quality of this access. Households in LE areas report receiving 12.2 hours of electricity every day on average, which is almost double the amount that households in HE areas report (6.8 hours per day). HOST HOUSEHOLDS REPORT LOW RATES OF OWNERSHIP OF HIGH-VALUE CONSUMER DURABLES AND PRODUCTIVE ASSETS The CBPS survey collected data on 6 commonly sets has remained broadly constant since 2017, owned household durables and mobile phones while that of household assets has increased. (7 household assets in all), and on 12 productive (i.e. farming or business) assets. While 95 per- A quarter of host households in HE areas own no cent of host households report owning at least productive assets whatsoever, and this number one household asset, only 46 percent report increases to 37 percent in LE areas. This is in line owning a productive asset4. with findings from previous briefs which docu- ment the higher reliance of HE areas on agricul- On average, households report owning 52 per- ture, and of LE areas on wage work. The differenc- cent of these household assets; and 10 percent es in composition of productive assets between of the productive assets. Median ownership of high and low exposure areas reflect the small- household assets is lower, at 25 percent. With- scale and labor-driven agricultural economy in in household assets, LE households are more the HE areas of Ukhia, Teknaf and surrounding likely to own more expensive durables such as areas with these households reporting high own- televisions (9 percentage points), and refriger- ership of livestock and poultry and unpowered ators and electric fans (7 percentage points), agricultural equipment, but low shares in more while other durable ownership is similar across mechanized assets. Ownership of non-agricultur- HE and LE areas. Ownership of productive as- al business assets is low across HE and LE areas. SHARES OF PRODUCTIVE ASSETS SHARES OF HOUSEHOLD ASSETS ACROSS HOST AREAS ACROSS HOST AREAS Non-motorized vehicles TV Motorized vehicles Refrigerator Business assets: machinery, Solar panel equipment, or inventory Improved Unpowered agricultural cook stove equipment Fan Fishing nets Furniture Goats, rams/sheep Cell phone Cows/buffalos 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Poultry 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% LOW EXPOSURE HIGH EXPOSURE 4 Assets owned by households in the sample have been categorized into two types: productive assets i.e. assets that can be used to generate income and household durables. Due to concerns about misreporting that are common to such surveys, figures on cash and jewelry have been omitted from the analysis. CBPS BRIEF 4, POVERTY AND EQUITY GP 7 THE DISPLACED ROHINGYA LIVE IN LARGELY TEMPORARY SHELTERS IN DENSELY POPULATED CAMPS The 2017 Rohingya influx into camps in Cox’s WALLS AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION OF SHELTERS INSIDE CAMPS Bazar defined one of the highest known population densities in the world, currently 98% STRAW/BAMBOO/POLYTHENE/CANVAS standing at 24.2 square meters per person on average. Almost all shelters that house these displaced Rohingya (>95 percent) are 95% STRAW/BAMBOO/POLYTHENE/CANVAS constructed out of straw, bamboo, polythene, or canvas materials. These shelters have less than 2 rooms on average, and just over a quarter (27 percent) reporting having a separate kitchen in house. Three-quarters of camp households report using an improved or gas cookstove for cooking. THE DISPLACED ROHINGYA HAVE SHARED ACCESS TO IMPROVED WATER AND SANITATION FACILITIES 75 percent of the population inside camp report SHARED SERVICES AMONG having access to limited sanitation facilities i.e. CAMP HOUSEHOLDS 74% improved facilities that are shared among house- PRIVATE 1-10 11-25 >25 holds. Beyond that, 2 percent have access to ba- sic sanitation (improved and not shared) and 23 39% percent use unimproved sanitation facilities. No 34% open defecation was reported by respondents, 23% indicating well-implemented and widespread 15% 10% access to WASH facilities across camps. The 4% 1% limited access to sanitation facilities for camp residents is driven by the high incidence of shar- LATRINES WATER SOURCE ing these facilities. One-third of the population (34 percent) reports sharing latrines with more large number of households. Three-fourths of than 25 households; 39 percent share with 1-10 camp households share the same source of drink- households; and 23 percent share with 11-25 ing water with more than 25 households. households. Only 4 percent of camp households report having a private latrine5. Over one-third of households in camps (38 per- cent) have access to electricity. 96 percent of this Similar trends are observed in access to drinking electricity relies on solar powered sources. The water. While almost all households in camps have majority of camp households rely on portable access to improved sources of drinking water (21 sources of lighting such as solar lamps (65 per- percent from public supply lines, 78 percent from cent), battery powered lights (14 percent) and tube-wells), they share these sources with a very kerosene lamps (13 percent). 5 Houses in camps do not have access to attached or private WASH facilities. The term “private” has been used here to maintain consistency of phrasing and refers to public WASH facilities that the households report as not being shared with any other household. CBPS BRIEF 4, POVERTY AND EQUITY GP 8 FOR ROHINGYA HOUSEHOLDS, DISPLACEMENT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A DECLINE IN ASSET OWNERSHIP The asset portfolio of the displaced Rohingya in camps has seen a large change since 2017 with their displacement resulting in large losses of productive assets. The changes in shares of household assets are also indicative of how living conditions for the Rohingya have changed since they lived in Myanmar. Ownership across most household assets have gone down since 2017, with improved cook- stoves being a notable exception. Only 3 percent of the Rohingya camp residents reported owning an improved cookstove before, as opposed to the current rate of 72 percent. SHARES OF HOUSEHOLD ASSETS PRE- AND POST- DISPLACEMENT Cell phone 74% 80% 3% Improved cook stove 72% Solar Panel 72% 57% Furniture 81% 38% Fan 44% 24% Refrigerator 2% 0% TV 5% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% SHARES OF PRODUCTIVE ASSETS PRE- AND POST- DISPLACEMENT Poultry 83% Goats, rams/sheep 60% Cows/buffalos 60% Fishing nets 58% Unpowered agricultural equipment 55% Crop inventory 33% Non-motorized vehicles 27% Motorized vehicles 17% Business assets: machinery, 15% equipment, or inventory Country boat 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 2017 2019 The Rohingya in camps also report heavy losses in productive assets since 2017. The share of households reporting ownership of any productive asset declined from 83 percent in 2017 to only 10 percent in 2019. Currently, poultry is the only income-generating asset reported by a notable share of households (10 percent). 87 percent of households own no productive assets.