Vulnerability Assessment in the Four UMNs Settlements in Ukhiya and Teknaf Upazilla under Cox's Bazar District

Transcription

1 Report Vulnerability Assessment in the Four UMNs s in Ukhiya and Upazilla under Cox's Bazar District Submitted to: International Organization for Migration (IOM) Submitted by: The Nielsen Company (Bangladesh) Limited October 04,

2 October 04, 2017 IOM Cox s Bazar International Organization for Migration (IOM) Parjatan Luxury Cottage (1 3) Cox s Bazar, Bangladesh Subject: Report on Vulnerability Assessment in the Four UMNs s in Ukhiya and Upazilla under Cox's Bazar District Dear Sir/Madam: Please find the report on Vulnerability Assessment in the Four UMNs s in Ukhiya and Upazilla under Cox's Bazar District. We would like to thank you for providing us with the opportunity to submit the report. Should you have any queries, please feel free to contact us. Yours sincerely, Rafeya Azad Manager The Nielsen Company (Bangladesh) Limited 1

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Background/Context of the Programme Objectives of the Assessment 1 2. Methodology Study Areas Target Respondents Approach and Methodology Qualitative Technique 3 3 Findings Demographic Information Livelihood and Food Security Household assets Having at least 2 meals a day Having adequate quantity/quality of food No. of earning members HH main source of income HH minors earning money Vulnerability Assessment Types of Vulnerability Needs Level of vulnerability Findings (Qualitative)... Errore. Il segnalibro non è definito. 5 Conclusions & Recommendations List of Annexure Annex A: Tables Annex B: Questionnaire 2

4 Executive Summary The Vulnerability Assessment in the Four UMNs s in Ukhiya and Upazilla under Cox's Bazar District was carried out collected from 26 August to 30 August, 2017 to assess the vulnerabilities faced by the UMNs in 4 particular areas where they are residing, to understand their needs as articulated by them and to gauge the level of risks they are in. The study was conducted in 3 makeshift settlements, and and in through a sample survey of a total 1068 respondents. A total of 4 of focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with male and female UMNs in the same areas. Demographic Information A total of 534 male and 534 female respondents were interviewed to understand the types of vulnerabilities faced by them. The mean age of the study participants was 31 years. Majority of the population (94% and less) was found to be married at the time of survey. The average month of stay was 78 months for all respondent - lowest in (12 months) and highest in (165 months). Livelihood and Food Security Very low proportion of respondents were found to have any tangible assets, such as animals, vehicles and agricultural land. However, majority of them had at least one person who were involved in income generating activities (ranging from 89 percent to 100 percent in the study sites). Again, 11 percent in, 8 percent in and 1 percent in had none of the household mentioned. In terms of having 2 meals a day, majority of the respondents could afford at least 2 meals a day - (98%), (93%) and (89%). However this proportion was low in (68%). Most of the respondents perceived that the food they have was not adequate in quality/quantity. Most of the respondents had only 1 earning member in their household this proportion was higher in (94%) and (92%) than in (87%) and (85%). Overall, the average monthly household income BDT 2720 across the study sites. Respondents in (BDT 3636) and (BDT 3257) reported to have more household income per month compared to their counterparts in (BDT 2607) (BDT 2532). For majority of the respondents (ranging from 83 percent to 89 percent), their children were not involved in earning money. Vulnerability Assessment Almost three-fifths of the total household members of the respondents (59%) had some serious medical condition. Around 38 percent of those household members were identified to be in need of specific legal and physical condition. The major needs as addresses by the respondents were mostly focused on food (59%), health care services that includes treatment and vaccines (47%), education/vocational education (14%), accommodation (5%) and legal assistance (4%). Around 20 percent of the household members were identified as potential victims of trafficking this proportion was highest in (43%) than the 3 makeshift settlements (21% and less). Children at risk was again highest in (33%) followed by (24%). Out of the total 5253 household members of the 1068 respondents, almost one-fourth of the respondents (24%) was found to be in high risk, more than half them in medium risk (51%) and one-fourth (25%) fell in the category of low risk during the time of the survey. i

5 1 Introduction 1.1 Background/Context of the Programme Bangladesh has been a host to thousands of Myanmar nationals escaping state-sponsored persecution for decades. According to Needs and Population Monitoring (NPM), the number UMNs before October, 2016 was more than 300,000. Following an outbreak of violence on 9 October 2016 in the Northern Rakhine State of Myanmar, approximately 80,000 UMNs fled to Bangladesh. The influx slowed in February, Then again, fresh violence relaunched in Myanmar from July, 2017 and a massive influx started in late August 2017 adding 429,308 more UMNs in the list of population till date 1. These displaced groups are at risk of malnutrition, disease, gender-based and other violence and in dire need of humanitarian assistance 2. Many of these people have a precarious existence with inadequate food intake and diet diversification, or access to health care. Without legal status they are also unable to pursue education and formal employment opportunities, and remain vulnerable to exploitation and serious protection risks 3. Refugees, asylumseekers, stateless persons, irregular migrants and other non-nationals without legal status can experience a broad range of vulnerabilities and thus, require special care and protection based on the vulnerabilities faced by them 4. IOM has been mandated by the Government of Bangladesh to coordinate the humanitarian aid to the Undocumented Myanmar Nationals (UMNs) living in four makeshift settlements in Cox s Bazar District in Bangladesh. In order to better respond to the needs of UMNs, especially the needs of disadvantaged groups like women headed households, elderly, disabled or victims of violence, IOM launched vulnerability assessment. The types of vulnerabilities faced by a group can be multifaceted and dynamic and it may vary based on where they are residing. While conducting the study, our major focus was to identify the group based on their gender, age, health, disability, family reunion and social and legal protection. To understand the current situation of human trafficking, the study focused on both those who have been victims of trafficking and those who are at risk of human trafficking based on their socio-economic condition. This study that focuses on identifying the vulnerabilities faced by the UMNs which was conducted from August 26, 2017 to August 30, 2017 only includes those who were residing in the settlement areas before the recent exodus. 1.2 Objectives of the Assessment The overall objectives of vulnerability assessment was as follows - To identify vulnerable groups in 4 UMNs makeshift settlements in Cox s Bazar District - To understand their needs The assessment was designed to inform on making appropriate services and assistance available for them. 1 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS, NPM Needs and Population Monitoring, Undocumented Myanmar Nationals (UMNs) Bangladesh, Available at 2 Undocumented Myanmar Nationals in Bangladesh Border Camps Need Increased Protection, Humanitarian Aid: IOM, Available at 3 The Rohingya Crisis Echo Factsheet, Available at 4 Identifying and addressing vulnerability: a tool for asylum and migration systems, UNHCR and IDC, 2016, Available at

6 2. Methodology 2.1 Study Areas The study sites consisted of 3 makeshift settlements and 1 host village in Ukhiya and upazilas under Cox s Bazar district. Types of study site (MS) Host Village (HV) Areas , 2.2 Target Respondents To achieve the assessment objectives mentioned, the required data will be collected from the following target respondents using Face-to-face Interview techniques - Undocumented Myanmar Nationals (UMN) in the 4 makeshift settlements 2.3 Approach and Methodology Face-to-face Survey Based on the understanding of the ToR, Nielsen proposed the following methodology for this study: The study aimed to do the mapping of vulnerable groups within the four makeshift settlements of the UMNs in Cox s Bazar. The face-to-face survey was used to identify vulnerable groups and vulnerabilities faced by them within the makeshift settlements. As informed by IOM Bangladesh, out of 3-5 lac UMNs in Cox s Bazar, the following number of UMNs are staying in the targeted makeshift settlements Study Areas Number of UMNs, 75,000 Ukhyia, 17,000, 15,000, 8,755 *Source: IOM The sample size for the vulnerability assessment was calculated using the following formula: n p(1 p) Z e 2 2 Deff Where, n= required sample size p= Estimated value of the parameter = 50% e= Permissible Margin of error=5% z= 1.96 which corresponds to the 90% confidence level Deff (Design Effect) = 1.0

7 Taking 50% as P value, with permissible margin of error- e set at 5%, z at 1.64 (considering 95% confidence level) and Design Effect at 1, the maximum sample size was estimated as 267 that could provide significant result for the target groups separately. Therefore the proposed sample size for the four settlements was 1, Qualitative Technique For qualitative part, respondents were selected following purposive sampling technique. The tentative study participants and sample size is given below: Tools/Techniques Respondents Sample FGD Women UMNs (Adult) 2 Male UMNs (Adult) 2 FGDs 4

8 3 Findings For the Vulnerability Assessment, both qualitative and quantitative surveys were conducted among the makeshift settlement respondents. For quantitative survey, a total of 1068 UMNs were interviewed from their residential areas (four makeshift settlements in Cox s Bazar district), comprising of both males and females of equal proportion. Further, of the 1068 respondents, 692 respondents were from, 138 respondents from, 157 respondents from and 81 respondents were from. 3.1 Demographic Information Age of the Respondents The quantitative survey was conducted among 1068 UMNs, who were 15 years and more. Typically the respondents were of mid-age (average age 31 years). Overall, more than one-fifth (23%) respondents were in the age group of years and another one-fifth (20%) in the years range. The proportion varied little across the makeshift settlement areas. Age of the respondents Table 1: Age of the Respondents, by location (%) Ukhiya s s Overall Respondents 15 to 20 Yrs to 25 Yrs to 30 Yrs to 35 Yrs to 40 Yrs to 45 Yrs and above Yrs Mean Marital Status Most of the respondent s interviewed were found to be currently married (94% and less). The proportion of respondents who were never married was 7 percent in which is comparatively higher than other settlement areas (4%), (2%) and (1%). The other marital status of the respondents were divorced/separated (6% and less) and widowed/widower (5% and less).

9 Figure 1: Marital Status, by location % Never married Married Divorced Separated Widowed/Widower Length of Stay in Bangladesh The respondents were asked how long they were staying in Bangladesh. The average year of stay was 6.5 years for all respondent - lowest in (1 year) and highest in (14 years). Figure 2: Average years of stay in Bangladesh, by location % total

10 A closer look at each of the settlement areas reveals that the proportion of respondents who were staying in Bangladesh for one year or less was highest in (97%) which is higher than any other study areas (39%), (11%) and (5%). And the proportion of respondents who were staying for 121 months or above was highest in (58%) than (44%), (9%) and (1%). In, almost two-thirds of the respondents (39%) interviewed were staying there for 1 year or less, 26 percent for months and 26 percent for 120 months. In, as already stated, most of the respondents (97%) were staying for 1 year or less. Figure 3: Length of stay in Bangladesh, by location % Upto 6 Months 7 to 12 Months 13 to 119 Months 120 Months 121 and above Months Ukhiya 3.2 Livelihood and Food Security Household assets To understand the types of household assets the respondents have, a list of household assets were read out to them and asked whether they have any of those items in their household. The responses from the UMNs revealed that most of them has a person who were involved in any income generating activity (100 percent or less). None of the respondents in and had any vehicle in their possession, whereas a handful (1%) reported to have the same. The proportion of respondents who had animals was also very low across the study areas (4% and less). In terms of agricultural land, only the respondents in (12%) and (2%) admitted to have access. The respondents in and reported to have no access to agricultural land. The respondents who said that they had none of the household assets was higher in (11%) and (8%) than (1%). All respondents in has at least one of the household assets mentioned.

11 Figure 4: Household assets, by location % Vehicles Person who involved in any IGA Animal Access to agricultural land None Ukhiya Having at least 2 meals a day The proportion of respondents who had at least 2 meals a day was lowest in (68%). This proportion was highest in (98%) followed by (93%) and (89%). Figure 5: Having at least 2 meals a day, by location % Yes No

12 3.2.3 Having adequate quantity/quality of food Overall, most of the respondents reported that they did not have quality/quantity of food. The proportion of respondents who said that the food was inadequate in terms of quality/quantity was comparatively higher in (89%) and (89%) than in (80%) and (77%). Figure 6: Having adequate quantity/quality of food Yes No No. of earning members Most of the respondents had only 1 earning member in their household this proportion was higher in (94%) and (92%) than in (87%) and (85%). The proportion of respondents with 2 and above persons who earn is 7 percent and less this data varied little across the study areas. However, proportion of respondents who had no earning member (12%) was found in than in (9%) and (1%). All respondents in admitted to have 1 or more earning members in their households. Figure 7: No of earning members, by location % No earning member 1 Person 2 and above persons

13 3.2.5 HH main source of income After enquiring on the persons involved in earning money, the respondents were asked about their monthly household income from different sources and subsequently their main source of income. Table 2: Monthly household income, by location % Ukhiya Monthly household income No Income to 2000 Tk to 3000 Tk to 5000 TK and above Tk Average Overall, the average monthly household income BDT 2720 across the study sites. Respondents in (BDT 3636) and (BDT 3257) reported to have more household income per month compared to their counterparts in (BDT 2607) (BDT 2532). All of the respondents in were involved in any income generating activities. The proportion of respondents who had no monthly household income was higher in 10% followed by (8%) and (1%). Close to half of the respondents in (48%) and (46%) earn between BDT More than two-thirds of the respondents n (43%) and 3 out of 10 respondents in (30%) in fall in the income range of BDT However, the proportion of respondents who earn BDT 5001 and above is relatively higher in (16%) than other areas (11% and less). Source of Income Table 3: Source of Income, by location % Ukhiya Do not have any income in HH Day labor Small trade Service holder Agricultural labor Unskilled labor Domestic Work Skilled labor Others (Islamic cleric, begging, camp leader, expatriate, chopping wood, kaviraj

14 The major source of income varied in the three makeshift settlement areas and. Majority of the respondents in (76%), (73%) and (67%) were reportedly involved in day labor as main source of income, whereas half of the respondents in (51%) were engaged in agricultural labor for their major income source. Again, 20 percent respondents also mentioned day labor as their main source of income whereas 3 percent and less respondents mentioned agricultural labor as their major income source. Dependence on small trade as the main source of income was found more prevalent in (11%) and (9%) than in (5%) and (3%). And domestic work was identified as major source to earn money in relatively more households in (5%) and (5%) than and (1 percent each) HH minors earning money To understand whether children of the UMNs are involved in any income generating activities, the respondents who had family members aged less than 18 years were asked if those children were earning money. Out of 1068 families, 1010 respondents had family members who were less than 18 years of age. For majority of the respondents (ranging from 83 percent to 89 percent), their children were not involved in earning money. However, proportion of respondents who reported that the child in the family is engaged in earning money was comparatively higher in (12%) and (11%) than (8%) and (6%). Figure 8: Minors involved in earning money, by location % Yes No Not applicable Vulnerability Assessment To assess the types of vulnerability faced by the UMNs in the four study areas, the respondents were enquired on a number of risks Types of Vulnerability Almost three-fifths of the total household members of the respondents (59%) had some serious medical condition. This proportion was highest in (71%) followed by (59%), (52%) and (51%). Around 38 percent of those household members were identified to be in need of specific legal and physical condition.

15 Such persons in need of legal and physical protection was highest in (51%) followed by (40%) and (38%). Such protection needs were felt less by the UMNs in (24%). Around 20 percent of the household members were identified as potential victims of trafficking this proportion was highest in (43%) than the 3 makeshift settlements (21% and less). Children at risk was again highest in (33%) followed by (24%). The proportion of household members of the respondents with this vulnerability was lower in (14%) and (11%). A meagre proportion the household members were found to be disabled (4%), women at risk (4%) and victims of trafficking (1%). Figure 9: Types of vulnerability, by location % Serious medical condition Potential Victims of Trafficking Specific legal and physical protection needs Child at risk Ukhiya Figure 10: Type of vulnerability (total) % Serious medical condition Specific legal and physical protection needs Potential Child at risk Disability Woman at Victims of risk Trafficking Older person at risk Victims of Trafficking Torture Family unity SGBV Single parent or caregiver

16 3.3.2 Needs Upon enquiring on the types of vulnerability faced by the respondents, they were further asked the types needs they have. The responses were spontaneous and reflects their needs as articulated by them. The major needs as addresses by the respondents were mostly focused on food (59%) and health care services that includes treatment and vaccines (47%). Food was mentioned by more respondents in (67%), (62%0 and (60%) than (46%). The proportion of respondents who reported to need health care services was lower in (37%) whereas around half of the respondents asked for the same in the 3 makeshift settlements (ranging from 45 percent to 55 percent). Around 14 percent of them mentioned education/vocational education and 5 percent stated accommodation that are needed by them. The proportion of people who said they would need legal assistance was 4 percent this proportion was higher in (8%) and (6%) than in and 95 percent each). Needs as articulated by respondents Table 4: Needs of the respondents, by location % Overall Respondents Food Health care services (treatment, vaccines etc.) Education/Vocation al education Accommodation /house Legal assistance Basic needs (includes food, accommodation, health, cloth and education) Others Employment Security Family reunion Rehabilitation Incentive to initiate small business Support for the disabled N

17 3.3.3 Level of vulnerability Out of the total 5253 household members of the 1068 respondents, almost one-fourth of the respondents (24%) was found to be in high risk, more than half them in medium risk (51%) and one-fourth (25%) fell in the category of low risk during the time of the survey. More proportion of the household members of the respondents were reported to be in high risk in (32%) than in other areas (27%), (25%) and (13%). Figure 11: Types of risks, by location % High Medium Low Ukhiya

18 4. Conclusions & Recommendations The study revealed a need for further follow-up assessment and development of an intervention plan to reach the people living in vulnerability. Significant vulnerability was evident with a total 24% living in high risk and 51% in medium risk for different vulnerabilities. The major vulnerabilities identified were - Serious medical condition (59%), specific legal and physical protection needs (38%), and persons at risk of trafficking (20%) and children at risk (16%). And the major needs of the respondent were food (59%), health care services (47%), education (14%) and accommodation (5%). It should be noted that not all respondents in the study areas admitted to having 2 meals a day and the proportion of respondents who said that the food was not adequate in terms of quality/quantity was comparatively also high - (89%), (89%), (80%) and (77%). This describes the reason the respondents articulated food as their major needs. And with almost three-fifths of the respondents (59%) having serious medical condition, the second major need as articulated by the respondents was health care services. Our recommendation, in this context, would be to strengthen the service provision in terms providing food and health care services to the UMNs in the areas. Although 38 percent respondents were identified with specific legal and physical protection needs, only 4 percent mentioned legal assistance as their needs. Awareness raising in terms of the types of legal assistance available to them and campaign strategy to encourage them to avail those services is recommended.

19 Annex A: Tables

20 Q1. Sex of the respondent Male Female Q2. What is your age? Upto 20 Yrs to 25 Yrs to 30 Yrs to 35 Yrs to 40 Yrs to 45 Yrs and above Yrs Mean Q3. What is your marital status? Never married Married Divorced Separated Widowed/Widower Q4. How long have you been living in Bangladesh? Upto 6 Months to 12 Months to 119 Months Months and above Months Mean

21 Q5_ROOF. Structure of the Roof of the shelter? Polythene/ Poly/Plastic Triple Straw Tin Q5_WALL. Structure of the Wall of the shelter? Clay Sack Polythene/ Poly/Plastic Fence / bamboo fence / bamboo Triple Tin Q6. Please tell me if any of these items are in your household Vehicles A person who are involved in any income generating activity Animal Access to agricultural land None Q7. Can you have at least 2 meals a day? Yes No

22 Q8. Do you and your family members get adequate quantity/quality of food? Yes No Q9. How many earning members do you have in your family? No earning member Person and above persons Mean Q10. What is the total monthly income of your household from different sources? No Income to 1000 Tk to 2000 Tk to 3000 Tk to 5000 TK and above Tk Mean Q11. What is the main source of income in your household? Do not have any income in HH Daily laborer Small trade Shop Service Agricultural work Tailor Rickshaw/van pulling Domestic Work Driving Skilled labor Islamic cleric (Imam)

23 Begging Hawker Camp leader (majhi) Expatriate Teaching Fishing Masonry Handicraft Cutting trees Tea stall Kaviraj Chopping wood Electrical works Selling ice Cream Selling lumber Q11A. Do you borrow or share anything for your survival? Yes No Q11B. Is any of the minor is earning money in your household? Yes No Not applicable Q12_TOT. HH Member Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight and above

24 Mean Q12B. Sex of the HH member Male Female N Q12C. Age of the HH member Upto 1 Yr to 5 Yrs to 10 Yrs to 17 Yrs to 25 Yrs to 30 Yrs to 40 Yrs and above Yrs N Mean Q12D. Currently living status of the HH member Yes No N Q12E. Relation with HH Head of the HH member Household Head Wife/Husband Son or Daughter Son-in-law or Daughterin-law child Parent/parent in law Brother, Sister, Brother/sister-in-law Niece or Nephew

25 Other relative Not related N Q12F. Type of vulnerability of the HH member Child at risk () Child parent Child spouse Child carer Teenage pregnancy Child engaged in worst forms of child labour Child at risk of not attending school Child with special education needs Child associated with armed forces or groups Child in conflict with the law Woman at risk () Woman at risk Single woman at risk Lactation Older person at risk () Single older person Older person with children Older person unable to care for self Single parent or caregiver () Single HR- parent Single HR- grandparent Disability () Visual impairment (including blindness) Hearing impairment (including deafness) Physical disabilitymoderate Physical disability- severe Mental disabilitymoderate Mental disability- severe Speech impairment/disability Serious medical condition () Mental illness Malnutrition Difficult pregnancy Chronic illness

26 Critical medical condition Other medical condition Addiction Family unity () Tracing required Family reunification required Specific legal and physical protection needs () No legal documentation Unmet basic needs No access to services Multiple displacements Detained / held in country of asylum Detained / held in country of origin Detained / held elsewhere In hiding Absence of witness protection Violence, abuse or neglect Abduction / kidnap Alleged perpetrator Criminal record Security threat to UNHCR/partner staff or others Formerly associated with armed forces or groups Abduction for ransom and reasons other than trafficking Torture () Psychological and / or physical impairment due to torture Forced to egregious acts Witness of violence to other SGBV () Victim/survivor of SGBV in country of asylum Victim / survivor of SGBV in country of origin Forced / early marriage Survival sex Victims of Trafficking () Abduction for trafficking Fraudulent adoption

27 Deception of recruitment and movement for job or study Deceived through promises of marriage Deceived through promises of decent wage/earning overseas Potential Victims of Trafficking () Cheap labor/working at a very low wage Forced into illicit/criminal activities Survivors in desperate need of food Cannot speak local language Access to information and other services other than legal N Q12G. Needs of the HH member Treatment Education Vitamin Accommodation / house Food Legal aid Nutritious food Financial support Employment Security Vaccine Latrine Cloth Rehabilitation Basic needs Job oriented education Adequate remuneration Maternity services Maternal diet Family reunion Women's Health Education Meet the needs of the baby Relief

28 Permission to come to Bangladesh Swing machine Educational materials for disabled Baby food Humanity Family awareness Pre-shelter Wheel chair Fair price Service Women service Women's knowledge Legal documents Food and shelter Stick for walk Water Milk Support Social support Marriage is needed Need to find family member Enough stock of food Health center Light N Q12H. Type of Risk of the HH member High Medium Low N

29 Table - Level of vulnerabilities by gender and age Type of Risk of the HH Head High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low Sex of the HH Member Male Female N Age distribution of the HH Member Upto 1 Yr to 5 Yrs to 10 Yrs to 17 Yrs to 25 Yrs to 30 Yrs to 40 Yrs and above Yrs N

30 Table - Need by gender and age Need1 -Food Need 1- Food Need 2- Treat ment Need 3- Educ ation Need 1- Food Need 2- Treat ment Need 3- Educ ation Need 1- Food Sex of the HH Member Male Female N Age distribution of the HH Member Upto 1 Year to 5 Years to 10 Years to 17 Years to 25 Years to 30 Years to 40 Years and above Years N Need 2- Treat ment Need 3- Educa tion Need 1- Food Need 2- Treat ment Need 3- Educa tion Need2 - Treat ment Need 3- Educa tion

31 Q13_TOT. HH Member living outside of Bangladesh One Two Three Four Six Eight N Mean Q13B. How long have been out of this household for member 1 Month to 6 Months to 12 Months to 72 Months and above Months N Mean Q13C. Where is he living now for member Somewhere in Bangladesh Living in Myanmar Living in countries other than Bangladesh & Myanmar Don t know N Q13D. Why is he living there for member Work there Could not come to Bangladesh Does not want to leave Myanmar Living elsewhere

32 Mad Imprisoned / taken Live with mother Did not come voluntarily Can't walk Due to marriage For income To go to Malaysia N