919, ,000 3,000

Transcription

1 IOM BANGLADESH Needs and Population Monitoring (NPM) NPM Site Assessment: R7 REPORT Round 11 December 2017 globaldtm.info/bangladesh Following an outbreak of violence on 25 August 2017 in Rakhine State, Myanmar, a new massive influx of Rohingya refugees to Cox s Bazar, Bangladesh started in late August Most of the Rohingya refugees settled in Ukhia and Teknaf Upazilas of Cox s Bazar, a district bordering Myanmar identified as the main entry areas for border In crossings. late August 2017, a mass influx of Rohingya refugees occurred from the Rakhine State of Myanmar into Cox s Bazar in Bangladesh. Refugees are living in Ukhia and Teknaf upazilas in Cox s Bazar, a district bordering Myanmar where Previous inflows were recorded in October 2016, when approximately 87,000 crossed into Bangladesh, and other the main border crossing points are located. waves were registered during the previous decades. The number of Rohingya refugees, both registered and unregistered, 11 November residing to in 7 Cox s December, Bazar prior 1,635 to locations August 2017 in collective is estimated sites to and be host around communities 213,000 individuals. were assessed by NPM From enumerators. These 1,635 locations are located within two formal refugee camps, three makeshift settlements established before the August 2017 influx, thirty-three new spontaneous settlements both around and separate from the refugee camps and makeshift settlements, and 65 locations where Rohingya were identified living in host communities. Rohingya Population in Cox s Bazar, Bangladesh (22 July 2018) K 919, ,000 3,000 POPULATION, MOBILITY AND TYPE OF SITE POPULATION, MOBILITY AND TYPE OF SITE Revised estimate of Total Rohingya Estimated number of New Arrivals population in Cox s Bazar 22 Jul since 25 August 2017 POPULATION, DISTRIBUTION AND DEMOGRAPHICS Estimated number of Newly Identified* between R10 20 May R11 22 Jul (*) Between 20 May and 22 July 2018, no dramatic inflows were recorded. However, the improved methodology and wider coverage of NPM Site Assessment allowed to assess a higher number of locations and to gather more precise information. The increase between NPM SA 10 and NPM SA 11 should be attributed minimally to new arrivals, and largely to the refined methodology and tools, including the NPM majhee block mapping released in March [Type here]

2 NPM R11 Report July 2018 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND SETTLEMENT TYPE The NPM Site Assessment (SA) collects information about the overall Rohingya population, including refugees who arrived before 25 August It does not collect information on the entire Rohingya population in Bangladesh, but in Cox s Bazar district only. The NPA SA covers all sites where Rohingya refugees have been identified irrespective of the location type, including collective and dispersed settlements, locations in host communities and formal refugee camps. Information is collected through interviews with Key Informants (KIs), particularly majhees (community leaders in collective sites). In the assessment, conducted between 2 and 22 July 2018, an estimated 919,000 individuals (approximately 215,000 households) were identified in 1,927 locations 1. Of these, 85% were living in collective sites, 13% in collective sites with host communities, and 2% in dispersed sites in host communities. 2 Of the total population, 33,956 were registered refugees (UNHCR, July ), who live in the only two formal refugee camps (Kutupalong and Nayapara refugee camps), counting for less than 4% of the total identified refugee population. The remaining 885,000 were unregistered refugees who live in all locations including the formal refugee camps. Between NPM SA 10 and NPM SA 11 an increase of almost 3,000 individuals was recorded. However, such an increase should not be attributed to new arrivals. Rather, the refined methodology, the increased coverage and the finalization of the NPM majhee block mapping exercise allowed the identification of gaps and areas to be reached that were not previously assessed. Table 1: Distribution of individuals and households by type of site. Type of settlement Collective site Collective site with HC Dispersed site in HC Total Total locations assessed 1, ,927 4 Total households 182,874 28,496 3, ,748 Total individuals 782, ,738 14, ,563 The majority of the Rohingya refugees live in Ukhia Upazila, comprising 80% of the total households and 80% of the total identified individuals. The second largest group lives in Teknaf, comprising 20% of households and individuals. Table 2: Distribution of individuals and households by Upazila of residence. Upazila Cox's Bazar Sadar Ramu Teknaf Ukhia Total Households 1, , , ,748 Percent 1% 0% 20% 80% Individuals 5,393 1, , , ,563 Percent 1% 0% 20% 80% 1 Blocks in collective settings and villages/communities in dispersed sites. The NPM majhee blocks mapping is available on Humanitarian Response and HDX. 2 The ISCG and Site Management Sector revised the definitions of the site types in March The classification is confirmed while names are provisional. Further information available in NPM Methodology document. 3 Data from UNHCR Family Counting Factsheet (18 July 2018). 4 The total population includes the population of Shal Bagan (Camp 26) based on NPM Baseline 11 and confirmed by local SM. However, because of change of governance system, no key informants nor final borders were available at the time of assessment, hence the assessment on a block level was not possible and therefore not included in the total. Page 2

3 International Organization for Migration Cox s Bazar Bangladesh SEX AND AGE DISAGGREGATED DATA AND VULNERABILITIES The Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner (RRRC), supported by UNHCR, has been conducting a Family Counting (FC) exercise in the collective sites and collective sites with host communities. The results were compared with the population estimates gathered by NPM. In most cases, the two figures were quite aligned. Where discrepancies exist, these were generally attributed to boundary issues or movements between the dates of the two assessment exercises, as well as to the different methodologies used by each exercise. To coordinate better with the Family Counting Exercise, NPM did not collect demographic data during Round 11. While vulnerability data is collected, it is more accurate at a household level, and therefore NPM recommends using the demographic and vulnerability data collected by the Family Counting exercise, as follows: Table 3: Population disaggregation by sex and age (RRRC/UNHCR 18 July 2018). Sex/Age 0 to 4 5 to to to Total Male 9.4% 11.6% 6.8% 18.4% 1.6% 47.8% Female 9.1% 11.0% 6.8% 23.6% 1.8% 52.2% Total 18.5% 22.6% 13.6% 42.0% 3.4% 100% Table 4: Percentage of families with vulnerabilities (RRRC/UNHCR 18 July 2018). 16% 5% 4% 4% 2 % 2% 1% 1% serious older persodren disability separated chil- older person at single fa- medical risk with chilther condition at risk dren single mothers unaccompanied child Page 3

4 NPM R11 Report July 2018 MULTI-SECTORAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FINDINGS! SITE MANAGEMENT Access: Reportedly, 66% of locations were only accessible by foot. However, the level of access varied remarkably across different settlement types. The locations that were least accessible were those located in highly congested collective sites, where most refugees live, accounting for 58% of locations with no other access than foot; The situation in collective sites with host communities was different. These locations accounted for 7% of those accessible on foot only. In dispersed sites in host communities, where only a minority of the refugee population live, accessibility was not a significant issue. These locations accounted for less than 1% of locations accessible on foot only. Graph 1: Accessibility by percentage of assessed locations. Graph 2: Accessibility by percentage within a type of settlement. 6% 11% Collective site 66% 9% 8% Collective site with host community Dispersed site in host community 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Accessible by motorbike, bicycle Accessible by car, 4x4 Accessible by large truck Accessible by CNG/Tomtom Accessible by foot only Access to distributions: Reportedly, in most of the assessed locations, the population did not face major difficulties in accessing distributions. In over 88% of assessed locations it was reported that only some or no-one faced difficulties. In less than 6% of locations, KIs reported that approximately half of the population faced difficulties. In only 76 locations, corresponding to less than 4% of the total accessed locations, it was reported that most people or almost everyone had problem accessing to distribution. Graph 3: Proportion of population facing difficulties in accessing distributions by number of locations and settlement type. Everyone or nearly everyone Most people About half of people Some people No-one or almost no-one Collective site Dispersed site in host community Collective site with host community Page 4

5 International Organization for Migration Cox s Bazar Bangladesh ( SHELTER Shelter materials: Shelter arrangements across collective sites and collective sites with host communities were reportedly quite homogeneous. Roofing was reported to be predominantly tarpaulin sheeting, while only in a very small amount of locations shelters reportedly had CGI roofing. Tarpaulin sheeting was reported to be the main wall material in 67% of location, while in 28% bamboo was largely used. Only in a small number of locations, less than 1% and mainly in dispersed sites, dirt or mud was reported to be the main wall material. Shelter needs: The most frequently requested shelter items were tarpaulin sheets and bamboo, the two most used materials for shelter construction in most sites. Graph 4: Urgent shelter material needs by number of assessed locations and settlement type. Tarpaulin sheets Bamboo Rope Collective site Tools Sandbags Timber Wire Collective site with host community None Dispersed site in host community Family needs: The most frequently requested items were cooking fuels and torch/solar lamps. This corresponded to the question on needs prioritization, which also ranked cooking fuel and firewood as most in need, while lighting was mentioned as major concern regarding safety. Graph 5: Urgent family material needs by number of assessed locations and settlement type. Cooking fuel Torch_solar lamp Kitchen set Collective site Stove Clothing Floor mats Moquito nets Blankets Collective site with host community None Dispersed site in host community Page 5

6 NPM R11 Report July 2018 * WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE Water Access: A minimal number of locations are reported to have a significant lack of access to water for their population. In 45% of the locations, most people/everyone were reported to have access to water. It is worth noting that in 7% of assessed locations (134 locations) less than half the population were reported to have access to water. Graph 6: Access to water by number of assessed locations and settlement type. Everyone or nearly everyone Most people About half of people Some people No-one or almost no-one Problems regarding access to water: Most of the issues raised regarding water access were related to the lack of water points. The three most reported issues were long waiting time (64%), distance to water points (51%), and lack of sufficient water points (47%). The quality of water was reported as a problem in about 20% of the locations assessed. Graph 7: Problems in accessing water by number of assessed locations and settlement type. Waiting time at water points Distance to water points Lack of sufficient water points Water points not functioning Don t like taste _ quality _ etc Lack of water storage containers No access problems Some groups do not have access to water Don t Know Hand washing: The main issues related to handwashing were attributed to lack of handwashing practice as norm within the community. Page 6

7 International Organization for Migration Cox s Bazar Bangladesh Over 50% of the key informants reported that hand washing is not a normal practice within their community. Lack of soap was the second most mentioned issue, counting for over 30% of the responses. Graph 8: Main problems about handwashing by number of assessed locations and settlement type. Hand washing is not a normal practice Soap is not available Lack of water for handwashing None Soap is too expensive Don t Know Access to latrines: Access to latrines remained a challenge in the refugee settlements, where more than 40% of locations assessed reported that half of their population or less have access to latrines. The most frequently reported reason preventing access to latrines was lack of separation between female and male latrines, reported in over 70% of the locations. Less than 10% of the assessed locations were reported to have latrines separated between male and female. Latrines were reported to be equipped with locks in over 70% of the assessed locations. Page 7

8 NPM R11 Report July 2018 Graph 9: Main problems related to latrines access by number of assessed locations and settlement type. No separation between men and women Toilets are full/non functional Toilet areas do not have sufficient lighting Latrines are unclean_unhygienic There are not enough facilities There is not enough water Facilities are too far away It is not safe/private People prefer to defecate outdoors None Don t Know Graph 10: Structure of latrines by percentage of assessed locations. Latrines separated between men and women Latrines have locks on the inside Adequate lighting surrounding all latrine facilities 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% YES NO Don't know Page 8

9 International Organization for Migration Cox s Bazar Bangladesh + HEALTH Available health services: Multiple health services were reportedly available for the refugee population, especially maternity and child health. Vaccination services were reported to be available in more than 85% of the assessed locations, while delivery service was reportedly available in 78%. Psychosocial support and mental health care support services were however scarce, as they were reported to be available in less than 15% of the assessed locations. Graph 11: Available health services by number of assessed locations and settlement type. Vaccination services Birthing and delivery services Antenatal care Consultation services Mobile health clinics Rehabilitation support Mental health care Psychosocial care None Access to health facilities: Most of the assessed locations were reported to have an accessible static health facility within 30 minutes walking distance. Graph 12: Distance to nearest health facility by number of assessed locations and settlement type. 15 mins walk or less 16 to 30 mins walk 31 mins to 1 hour walk More than 1 hour walk No access to static health facility Page 9

10 NPM R11 Report July 2018 Graph 13: Distance to nearest health facility by percentage within a type of settlement. Collective site Collective site with host community Dispersed site in host community 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 15 mins walk or less 16 to 30 mins walk 31 mins to 1 hour walk More than 1 hour walk No access to static health facility The most frequently mentioned problems regarding access to health services was the long waiting time. Graph 14: Problems regarding access to health care by number of assessed locations and settlement type. Waiting times are too long Health facility is too far away Not aware of available health services Insufficient types of health services Physical access, terrain, and safety on route Healthcare is too expensive Staff do not provide capable care Don't know Page 10

11 International Organization for Migration Cox s Bazar Bangladesh ) FOOD SECURITY, NUTRITION AND LIVELIHOODS Access to food distribution: In most of the assessed locations, access to food distribution was not reported to be a problem. In less than 5% of the locations it was reported that most and/or everyone were facing problems accessing food distribution. Graph 15: Access to food distribution by number of assessed locations and settlement type. Everyone or nearly everyone Most people About half of people Some people No-one or almost no-one Don't know Food consumption: Although access to food distribution was not reported to be an issue by most of the key informants, in over 40% of the assessed locations it was still reported that the population have two meals or less per day. Graph 16: Number of locations reporting more than half of the population having 1 or 2 meals per day. Collective site with host community Dispersed site in host community Collective site Income source: The refugee population are still reported to lack income generating opportunities, as work internally in the settlements is scarce, and work externally is prohibited. The predominant response was that there is no available income source, reported by 70% of the key informants. The secondst frequent response was daily labor, and the third is sales of humanitarian assistance, both being mentioned in about 20% of the assessed locations. Page 11

12 NPM R11 Report July 2018 Graph 17: Sources of income by number of assessed locations and settlement type. No income source Casual day labour Sale of humanitarian assistance Petty trade street vendor Small business Unskilled wage labour Basic needs assistance Gathering and selling of firewood or other Skilled wage labour Fishing Agricultural production and sales Remittances from abroad Zakat Begging Nutrition programs: Nutritional services for children under 5 and pregnant and lactating women were reported to be widely available and accessible within the refugee settlements. Nutritional service for children under the age of 5 were reported to be available in more than 90% of the assessed locations, followed by nutritional services for pregnant and lactating women, which were reported to be available in more than 80% of the locations. Graph 18: Available nutrition programs by number of assessed locations and settlement type. Children under 5 Pregnant and lactating women Girls between None Don't know Page 12

13 International Organization for Migration Cox s Bazar Bangladesh & PROTECTION Restrictions of movement: Difficulties in movement to access distribution sites or the market was not reported in high numbers, showing that movements for the refugee population to access basic needs was not restricted when this was inside the settlements. However, 95% of respondents were reported to face restriction of movements when crossing checkpoints, meaning when leaving the refugee settlements. This was only reported in collective sites and collective sites with host communities, not in any dispersed sites in host communities. More than 75% of the key informants reported restriction of movement into the forest for firewood collection. Graph 19: Restrictions of movements by number of assessed locations and settlement type. While crossing the check points While collecting fire wood in the Going to work (in any) Moving from one camp to another Going to market No restrictions At distribution site Don't know Prefer not to answer Page 13

14 NPM R11 Report July 2018 % EDUCATION Access to education: Informal education facilities were reported to be widely available throughout the refugee settlements, with more than 98% (1899) of key informants reporting the availability of Temporary Learning Spaces (TLS) or Moktabs. In more than 60% of the assessed locations, there was reported to be a TLS within 15 minutes walking distance. In 18% (357) of the assessed locations it was reported that there was no access at all to a TLS. However, of these 357 locations that were reported to have no access to a TLS, 323 reported that they did have access to a Moktab. Graph 20: Distance to Temporary Learning Space (TLS) by number of assessed locations and settlement type. 15 mins walk or less 16 to 30 mins walk 31 mins to 1 hour walk More than 1 hour walk No access Barriers to educational opportunities were observed throughout the refugee settlements, affecting the enrollment of children into educational services. The existence of barriers to education for girls were reported 1.4 times more than for boys Lack of teachers Distance and/or lack of transport Unable to continue education due to marriage Language of tuition not understood or difficult to understand No school equipment and books Lack of toilet separation for girls and boys Need to engage in other livelihood activities Lack of appropriate education programme Safety and security risks 0 Girls Boys Graph 21: Barrier to Education for girls and boys by number of assessed locations. In 58% of the assessed locations, key informants mentioned the existence of educational barriers for girls. The main reason provided were social norms and values (30% of assessed locations) and lack of appropriate educational programs (20% of assessed locations). In 41% of the assessed locations barriers to education for boys were reported. Differently from girls, social norms and values were not as relevant, while the main reason provided wa the lack of appropriate educational programs (26% of assessed locations). Page 14

15 International Organization for Migration Cox s Bazar Bangladesh l COMMUNICATION WITH COMMUNITIES (CwC) Information on humanitarian services: Key informants mentioned multiple sources of information that were reportedly useful for the refugee population. Over 60% of the key informants reported the Army as a source of useful information, followed by information hubs, majhee meetings and CiCs, all of them mentioned by more than 40% of the key informants. Graph 22: Main source of information by number of assessed locations and settlement type. Army Information hub Majhee meetings Camp in Charge (CiC) Hub_staff Humanitarian staff_volunteers Site Management office_staff Imam Community Preparedness Programme (CPP) Radio Concern raised by the communities: The main concerns of the refugee population mentioned by the key informants were lack of fuel, lighting and electricity, and safe shelter. The last two were also raised in the question assessing safety, while concern over fuel was already reported among the most urgent family needs. Graph 23: Main concern for the community by number of assessed locations and settlement type. Fuel Lights and electricity Safe shelters Access to safe drinking water Flooding, landslides, and cyclones Education Hygiene and sanitation Safety and security Health Humanitarian distributions Language and communication Access to other camps and mobility None Registration, legal services etc Page 15

16 NPM R11 Report July 2018 NEEDS SEVERITY RATING and NEEDS PRIORITY RANKING Key informants were asked to rate each need from not severe to extremely severe. After that, KIs were invited to rank the top three most important needs, from the first most important to the third most important. The questions were formulated in this way so that the former would allow for comparison of locations by severity of need. The latter would allow to identify the priority of needs within a same location. Table 5: Summary of needs severity rating by number of locations. Page 16 Extremely Severe Very Severe Moderately Severe Somewhat Severe Not Severe Cooking fuel and firewood Water Job opportunities Food assistance Shelter NFIs Safety and security Sanitation Education for children Healthcare Psychosocial support Skills development Mobility Don t Know Table 6: Summary of needs priority ranking by number of locations. Severity First Need Second Need Third Need Cooking fuel and firewood Water Food assistance Job opportunities Shelter Education for children Sanitation Safety and security Healthcare NFIs Psychosocial support Skills development Mobility Table 7: Summary of most frequently mentioned needs. Most frequently mentioned Needs Number of locations Percentage of locations 1 Cooking fuel and firewood % 2 Water % 3 Food assistance % 4 Job opportunities % 5 Shelter %

17 International Organization for Migration Cox s Bazar Bangladesh METHODOLOGY IOM Bangladesh Needs and Population Monitoring (NPM) is part of the IOM s global Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) programming. DTM is IOM s information management system to track and monitor population displacement during crises. Composed of several tools and processes, DTM regularly captures and analyzes multilayered data and disseminates information products that us help better understand the evolving needs of the displaced population, whether on site or en route. Context Following an outbreak of violence on 25 August 2017 in Rakhine State, Myanmar, a new massive influx of Rohingya refugees to Cox s Bazar, Bangladesh started in late August Most of the Rohingya refugees settled in Ukhia and Teknaf Upazilas of Cox s Bazar, a district bordering Myanmar identified as the main entry area for border crossings. The number of Rohingya refugees, both registered and unregistered, residing in Cox s Bazar prior to August 2017 is estimated to be around 213,000 individuals. NPM Site Assessment (SA) The NPM Site Assessment (SA) routinely collects information on numbers, locations, movements and multi-sectoral needs of Rohingya refugees in all areas most recently affected by the sudden influx. The NPM SA collects information about the overall Rohingya population, including refugees who arrived before 25 August Information is collected by a team of 80 enumerators through field level key informant (KI) interviews using a closed-ended KoBo questionnaire. The findings of the KI interviews are triangulated at the field level through direct observations, and spontaneous community group discussions. On average, during a two-week data collection period a single round of the NPM SA collects approximately 1800 face-to-face interviews with individual KIs. The NPM SA consists of two separate but interlinked phases; a baseline study and the full multisectoral needs assessment. 1. NPM SA Baseline The NPM SA Baseline provides an overview of key population figures whilst also identifying the locations to be assessed during the full NPM SA. Firstly, previous NPM SA locations are verified, and afterwards new locations are identified and added. Displacement and population figures are recorded as well as the exact GPS coordinates of the KI. The NPM baseline thus is the foundation of the 2 nd stage multisectoral needs assessment. 2. Multisectoral needs assessment The multisectoral needs assessment gathers information on the living conditions, needs of populations residing in the locations pre-identified by the NPM baseline. The data collected by the assessment focuses primarily on displacement trends and figures, multi-sectoral vulnerabilities, priorities of assistance, and future objectives. The questionnaire has been compiled to support the Inter Sector Coordinating Group (ISCG) with sectors leaders and their information managements teams engaged throughout. The SA is comprised of two sections sets of information; population figures and multi-sectoral needs. Timeframe and data collection cycle The SA collects information on the total number of families identified in the assessed location at the time of data collection. A baseline assessment is conducted on average every month. A full NPM assessment is conducted on average on a bimonthly basis. At the end of each exercise, baseline or assessment, NPM shares its most updated information on population figure Page 17

18 All NPM products, including datasets, maps, GIS tools, infographics are reports, are available at: NPM Portal: Humanitarian Response: HDX: For any queries, please contact: [Type here]