Assessment of Food Security and Livelihoods of Refugees from Pakistan Living in Khost and Paktika

Home , Khost

Assessment of Food Security and Livelihoods of Refugees from Pakistan living in Khost and Paktika

Table of Contents

1. Background and Methodology 2

2. Household characteristics 4

3. Household asset ownership 7

4. Livelihoods and household income 8

5. Household expenditure and debt 11

6. Agriculture and livestock 12

7. Household food consumption and source of cereals 13

8. Shocks and coping 16

9. Household food security 19

10. Children’s education 23

11. Protection 25

12. Priorities and skills 27

13. Recommendations 30

1.0 Background and Methodology

Background Afghanistan hosts a protracted population of Pakistani refugees, who fled North Waziristan Agency (NWA) in 2014 as a result of a joint military offensive by Pakistani government forces against non-state armed groups that left the civilian population of Miranshah and surrounding villages forcibly displaced. As at 31 May 2017, UNHCR has biometrically registered over 50,000 refugees in Khost province and re- verified registration data for almost 36,000 refugees in Paktika province, where access remains a challenge. Cultural barriers also influence efforts to comprehensively register the refugee population, particularly women. Over 16,000 refugees receive shelter and essential services in the Gulan camp in Khost province, while most live among the host population in various urban and rural locations. NWA refugees benefit from the generous hospitality of the provincial Afghan government authorities and host communities, due in part to tribal affiliations and shared understanding of the trauma of forced displacement, with some hosted by Afghan relatives. WFP has been providing food assistance to the most vulnerable refugees and in 2016, the number receiving assistance was reduced to 35,000 vulnerable individuals who agreed to be biometrically registered by UNHCR. To better understand the needs of the refugees and the host communities, UNHCR and WFP agreed to conduct a joint food security and livelihoods assessment and to jointly use the findings to design Joint Assessment Mission (JAM). The data collection commenced in May 2017 with the following objectives:  To understand the current food security and vulnerability status of both refugees and host communities.  To understand livelihood opportunities and how they could be linked to livelihood programmes.  To provide necessary information required for comprehensive JAM assessment, which will be implemented after this assessment. Methodology: To draw the sample, UNHCR’s most recent refugee registration database was used as the sampling frame for the refugee sample. It was agreed to have representative sample at 95 percent level of confidence at district level, which would require a sample size of 300 household per district. The two IDP-dense locations of Gulan camp in Gurbuz district and Lakan in Maton district were treated as separate districts. So in total 12 analytical domains were identified. It was also agreed to draw a comparative sample of house community members that was 30 percent of the sample of refugees as an indicative comparator. A two-stage cluster sampling method applied with the first stage being proportion selection to size of villages and the second stage systematic random sampling for selection of households within selected communities. Enumerators, comprised of field staff working in the provinces were trained over three days in Khost province. Adult training and participatory training approach was applied to learn how to select households and administer the questionnaires, with role-play during the last day of training. Total of 43 surveyors and 2 supervisors were trained for the fieldwork. A simple database was developed in Excel based on consultation with two UNHCR partners NGOs (APA and ORCD), considering their familiarity with databases. A one-day training on the database was given to

2 data entry clerks of APA in Khost and for ORCD staff in Kabul. APA was responsible for Khost forms data entry and ORCD for Paktika. One supervisor was assigned to supervise fieldwork in each province and participate in face-to-face interviews with households at least once or twice with each team. They were also required to verify the completed forms in the field and check all that they were fully completed before delivering to data entry staff. Joint supervision by APA and ORCD office representatives and provincial supervisor also took place to make sure quality of the data. Map 1: Survey coverage

2.0 Household characteristics

In total nearly 3,500 households from 12 locations were interviewed for the survey, with 83 percent from Khost and the rest from Paktika. Around 2,600 were refugee households and 800 from host communities. Of these households, 12 percent were headed by women. The percentage of female-headed households varied by location with the highest found in Gulan camp (25 percent) with none found in Nadir Shah Kot, and only a few in Spera. Chart 1: Female headed households by location

30%

25% 25% 23% 24% 21% 20% 17%

15%

10% 10% 8% 7%

5% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% Gulan Gurbuz Lakan Mandozai Matun Nadir Shah Shamal Spera Tani Tere Zayi Barmal Urgoon Camp Kot

For the most part, the education of the household heads is low with most heads having no education or only up to primary level. Gurbuz and Urgoon locations had the highest levels of education of household heads with over 40 percent having at least primary education. Chart 2: Education levels of household heads, by location

100%

90% 8% 7% 8% 5% 10% 80% 4% 3% 10% 9% 11% 11% 31% 70% 22% 60% 50% 86% 85% 40% 79% 79% 80% 80% 79% 77% 71% 70% 69% 30% 58% 57% 20% 10% 0% Gulan Gurbuz Lakan Mandozai Matun Nadir Shamal Spera Tani Tere Zayi Total Barmal Urgoon Camp Shah Kot None Primary Secondary Tertiary Islamic School

Fourteen percent of refugee households and 12 percent of resident households had a disabled member while 7 percent of all household heads were disabled.

Average household size is 7.2 members, ranging from 6 members for refugee households to 10 for resident households. The largest median household size is 14 members found amongst resident households around Gulan camp, which is much higher than the five members for the Gulan refugee households. The largest median household size for refugees was found for those in Bamal, where there were 9 members per household. The median household size was the same for both refugee and resident households in Urgoon. Chart 3: Median household size by location and status

16 14 14 13

12 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5

In terms of housing, refugees in Khost were more likely to live in tents or under plastic temporary shelters, followed by renting a home or living in a room in a relative’s place. Refugees in Paktika has similar housing arrangements except less likely to rent a room and more likely to live in a room in shared place. Two- thirds of residents in Khost had a private home while 20 percent rented a place to live. Nearly all of the residents in Paktika lived in their own private homes. Chart 4: Type of housing by community

100% 2% 4% 4% 90% 12% 13% 80% 70% 16% 22% 65% 60% 6% 92% 50% 40% 30% 3% 55% 6% 56% 20% 10% 20% 8% 0% 2% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika tent, plastic sheeting rented room in relative's place room in shared place private home other

Nearly half of all refugees in both locations could collect drinking water within 15 minutes of their homes while another third in Khost province could collect water in 15-30 minutes from their homes. For refugees in Paktika, access to drinking water took longer with about 20 percent collecting in 15-30 minutes and

5 another 20 percent taking 30 minutes to an hour to collect their drinking water. Access to drinking water was a bit better for residents in host communities, with around 60 in each location managing to collect water in less than 15 minutes. In general, it takes a bit longer for residents in Paktika to collect drinking water when compared to residents in Khost. Around two-thirds of refugee households in Khost were accessing their drinking water from improved sources (pipe, tube well, protected well or protected spring), compared to only one-quarter of refugee households in Paktika. Access to safe drinking water was better for resident households in Khost, with 75 percent using water from improved sources. This was better than resident households in Paktika where just over two-thirds access water from the same sources. Chart 5: Source of drinking water by community and status

100% 9% 3% 8% 90% 4% 16% 80% 10% 17% 42% 70% 60% 33% 24% 44% 50% 3% 2% 18% 40%

30% 30% 35% 20% 20% 21% 10% 12% 13% 11% 7% 0% 1%3% 1% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika piped water tube well open well protected well open spring protected spring canal/kariz other

About half of the refugee households in Khost use a traditional latrine compared to only one-quarter in Paktika where 60 percent had no toilet. About two-thirds of the residents in Khost used traditional latrines compared to only one-third in Paktika, who had the best access to traditional improved latrines. Only a small share of all households were using improved sanitation practices. Chart 6: Type of toilet by community and status

100% 1% 4% 3%1% 7% 3% 6% 90% 12% 14% 15% 11% 80% 12% 70% 33% 60% 45% 50% 58% 40% 67% 5% 30% 47% 20% 33% 10% 23% 0% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika traditional latrine none/bush traditional improved communal flush latrine

3. Household asset ownership

During the interviews, households were asked about the different types of assets they owned, both productive and non-productive types. Then the number of different types of assets were counted per household as a relative measure of household wealth. The chart below shows asset wealth amongst the different populations covered in the survey. Resident households in Paktika were the best off with nearly 80 percent having 6 or more different household assets. Resident households in Khost followed them where two-thirds had 6 or more different assets. Refugee households in Khost were the worst off in terms of asset wealth nearly 80 percent having 5 or fewer different household assets. Refugee households in Paktika were a bit better off. Chart 7: Household asset wealth by community and status

100% 1% 4% 90% 21% 20% 35% 80% 37% 70% 60% 46% 50% 59% 44% 40% 51% 30% 20% 27%

10% 19% 19% 7% 9% 0% 2% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika 0-2 assets 3-5 assets 6-8 assets 9 or more

4. Livelihoods and household income

The chart below shows that both refugee and resident households rely on non-agricultural wage labour as a main livelihood activity. For refugees, this was followed by zakat and remittance while around 8 percent reported having no income source. Livelihoods for resident households was more diverse with more than 10 percent each engaged in small business, agriculture, zakat or taxi/transport services. Chart 8: Main livelihood activities by group

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

refugees residents

By regrouping the long list of livelihood activities into thematic areas, a clearer picture of livelihoods emerges. For refugee households in both provinces, wage labour is still the most important livelihood activity, but for residents in Paktika, skilled labour is the most important activity. For both refugees and residents in Khost, transfers are the second most important livelihood activity while for Paktika refugee households, more than one-quarter reported not having any livelihood. Small business is also an important activity for resident household in Paktika and less so, for resident households in Khost. Chart 9: Main livelihood activities by community and status

60% 54% 50% 50% 45%

40% 37% 38%

29% 30% 28% 27% 27% 24% 20% 20% 16% 17% 17% 14% 13% 12% 9% 10% 10% 7% 8% 8% 7% 6% 5% 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika agriculture livestock skilled labour wage labour small business salaried work transfers none

When comparing main livelihood activities by sex of household head, there are some major differences. Households headed by women are more likely to rely on transfer for their livelihood when compared to me (51 vs 28 percent), while households headed by men were more likely to rely on wage labour and skilled labour for their livelihoods. As indicated in the chart below, all other activities are more often used by male-headed households but with little difference between the groups. Chart 10: Main livelihood activities by household headship

60%

52% 51% 50% 42% 40%

30% 28%

20% 18%

11% 11% 9% 8% 10% 7% 7% 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% 0% Agriculture Livestock Skilled labour Wage labour Small business Salary Transfers None MHH FHH

Chart 11 below shows the mean and median reported per capita monthly income by the different main livelihood activities. It is clear that salaried livelihood activities pay the most, followed by small business and skilled labour. Despite reporting no livelihood activity, those households still managed to earn some money each month. Surprisingly, households relying on livestock or the production and sale of animal products had the lowest per capita monthly income. Chart 11: Per capita reported monthly income (AFS) by livelihood activity

1,400 1,292

1,200 1,089 1,111 1,031 1,000 906 889 870 790 800 707 667 631 574 600 600 600 450 438 400

200

- agriculture livestock skilled labour wage labour small business salary transfers none Mean Median

Report per capita income (AFS) was highest for residents in Paktika and lowest for refugees in Paktika, when comparing the mean. However, the median per capita monthly income was lowest amongst refugee households in Khost, meaning that there was a lot of variation between households in that group.

Chart 12: Per capita monthly income (AFS) by community and status

1,200 1,077

1,000 899 861 797 817 800 714 656 600 600

400

200

- refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika Mean Median

Since wage labour is the most important livelihood in these regions and since both refugees and residents are competing for the same market, the survey investigated changes in availability of wage labour and the daily rate, comparing 2016 and 2017. In Khost, the daily wage rate dropped quite a bit between 2016 and 2017 while in Paktika, it was not too different. However, the rate was fairly comparable across all groups. Number of days worked per month also dropped by 6-7 days for all groups except Paktika refugee households. Transport costs to look for work were much higher in Khost than in Paktika for both groups yet was higher for returnees compared to refugees in both provinces. Chart 13: Changes in labour availability and wage rate by community and status

350 321 314 300 265 268 257 248 249 255 250

200

150

100

37 43 50 23 27 13 20 17 18 19 20 15 22 0 refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika days worked per month - 2017 days worked per month - 2016 daily rate - 2017 daily rate - 2016 transport costs to look for work -2017

5. Household expenditure and debt

Detailed expenditure information was collected from each household, in order to estimate the share of total monthly expenditure devoted to food. Economic analysis shows that the share of monthly expenditure devoted to food decreases as income increases. Based on the analysis in Chart 14 below, resident households in Paktika fare slightly better than the other groups in terms of share of monthly expenditure to food. On the other hand, refugees in Paktika are the worst of all, with more than 90 percent of monthly expenditure devoted to food. Resident households in Khost are slightly better off than refugee households, in terms of share of food expenditure. Chart 14: Share monthly expenditure for food by community and status

100% 3% 3% 1% 2% 9% 90% 13% 16% 21% 80% 70% 60% 50% 90% 84% 40% 81% 77% 30% 20% 10% 0% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika Over 60% 40-60 less than 40%

When asked if they had borrowed money in the past month, 86 percent of refugee households in Khost reported that they had, compared to 71 percent of Khost resident households, 56 percent of refugee households in Paktika and only 49 percent of resident households in Paktika. Most households borrowed to purchase food, while one-quarter of resident households borrowed to pay for medical care. This was also a main reason for Khost refugee households who borrowed. Chart 15: Main reason to borrow in past month, by community and status

100% 2% 1%4% 8% 5% 7% 90% 3% 10% 21% 5% 12% 80% 6% 70% 26% 60% 26% 50% 40% 83% 74% 30% 58% 49% 20% 10% 0% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika purchase food heatlh care, medical purchase agric inputs pay for ceremonies other

6. Agriculture and livestock

Very few refugees reporting having access to agricultural land – only 9 percent in Khost and 7 percent in Paktika. However, more than 80 percent of resident households in Paktika had access to agricultural land, compared to only 46 percent in Khost. Ownership of livestock was reported by 49 percent of refugee households in Khost and 41 percent in Paktika while 72 percent of resident households in Khost and 83 percent in Paktika owned livestock. The main challenge with raising livestock is animal disease and, for households in Paktika, lack of water. Lack of markets for sales was more often reported by households in Paktika than in Khost. The rest of the challenges are found in Chart 16 below. Chart 16: Main challenges with raising livestock by community and status

90% 84% 80%

70%

60% 58% 51% 50% 46% 46% 48%

40% 38% 32% 32% 28% 29% 30% 28% 26% 28% 19% 20% 18% 12% 10% 10% 10% 8%

0% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika lack of veterinary services lack of water lack of pasture animal diseases lack of market

More than half of the households in Khost and the residents in Paktika reported livestock death, compared to only 28 percent of refugee households in Paktika. Main cause of death was disease as shown in Chart 17 below. Chart 17: Main reasons for livestock death by community and status

90% 84% 80% 72% 73% 70% 67%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% 16% 11%11% 12% 11% 10% 7% 7% 7% 8% 4% 2% 2% 2% 0% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika Winter condition Old age Diseases Lack of water Lack of fodder Natural disaster

7. Household food consumption and sources of cereals

For each household, information was collected on the number of days in the past week that the household consumed a food or food group. This 7-day recall information was used to calculate the food consumption score, which is a proxy measure of household food security, reflecting both dietary diversity and food frequency. Then households were classified as having either ‘poor’, ‘borderline’ or ‘acceptable’ consumption in terms of diversity and frequency. Refugees in Khost had the worst consumption, with 9 percent classified as ‘poor’ and another two-thirds with ‘borderline’ consumption. Residents in Khost had the second worst household food consumption while both refugee and returnee households in Paktika appear to be better off and have similar levels of dietary diversity and food frequency. Chart 18: Household food consumption by community and status

100%

90% 24% 80% 39% 70% 69% 60% 79% 50% 40% 67% 30% 57% 20% 28% 10% 19% 9% 0% 4% 4% 2% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika poor borderline acceptable

Residents in Shamal have the worst food consumption, followed by refugee households in Gulan camp and in Tani. Resident households in Gurbuz have the best consumption followed by those in Barmal. Chart 19: Household food consumption by location and status

100% 1% 8% 6% 6% 9% 9% 90% 19% 18% 21% 31% 32% 28% 32% 28% 28% 80% 55% 56% 70% 60% 64% 72% 71% 70% 60% 69% 83% 74% 86% 50% 98% 93% 85% 49% 74% 90% 40% 61% 64% 82% 77% 65% 65% 69% 30% 44% 41% 26% 20% 40% 26% 27% 28% 10% 25% 18% 19% 13% 16% 8% 7% 8% 7% 7% 10% 0% 0% 0%2% 1% 3% 3% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 3% 1% 1% 5%

Poor Borderline Acceptable

As shown in Chart 20 below, households that rely on transfers for their livelihood have the worst household food consumption, with only 21 percent having acceptable consumption. Households reporting no livelihood actually fare better, even than those relying on wage labour, which are the majority of the households. Those engaged in agriculture or who earn a salary have the best consumption in terms of dietary diversity and food frequency. Chart 20: Household food consumption by main livelihood activity

100%

90% 21% 32% 80% 43% 44% 45% 52% 70% 63% 71% 60% 50% 68% 40% 62% 46% 30% 54% 53% 45% 20% 25% 36% 10% 6% 11% 9% 0% 4% 3% 3% 4% 1% agriculture livestock skilled labour wage labour small busines salary transfer none Poor Borderline Acceptable

There is a relationship between household food consumption and reported per capita monthly income. As shown in Chart 21 below, for all groups, households with acceptable consumption have higher reported incomes. It is interesting to note that for refugee households in both groups, the median income for those with acceptable consumption is much higher than that for resident households, perhaps indicating some problems with market access or types of markets located nearer to the refugee communities where they pay more to enjoy better diversity in their diets. The trend for resident households in both groups is nearly identical. Chart 21: Median per capita monthly income by community, status and household food consumption

1200 1,126 1,064 1000 867 857 828 800 754 674 600 600 600 547 500 525

400

200

0 refugee - mean refugee - median resident - mean resident - median poor borderline acceptable

There are major differences between refugee and resident households on how they source the cereals they consumed. Refugee households rely on food assistance mostly while resident households rely on purchase and some production. This is consistent between the provinces. Chart 22: Main source of cereals by community and status

100% 5% 5% 90% 80% 70% 60% 87% 50% 71% 95% 68% 40% 30% 20%

10% 17% 11% 15% 0% 4% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika Own production Cash purchase Credit Food assistance Other

8. Shocks and coping

Households were asked if they experienced any shock in the past 6 months that affected their ability to access enough food for their families. Overall, refugee households in Khost were the most likely to have experienced a shock (69 percent), followed by resident households in Khost (57 percent). Only 41 percent of resident households in Paktika experienced a shock compared to 49 percent of Paktika refugee households. The main shocks reported were loss of employment, reduced income and huge price increases. The chart below compares responses from refugee and resident households. Refugee households were more affected by loss of employment and returning from Pakistan, while resident households were more affected by price increases, illness or death of the household breadwinner or livestock disease outbreak.

Chart 23: Main shocks experienced in the past 6 months, by status

70% 60% 60% 57%57% 52% 50% 48% 44% 40%

30% 24% 20% 18% 11%13% 9% 8%9% 9% 8% 10% 5% 6% 5%6% 5% 2%1% 2% 0% 0% Loss of Reduced Illness or Livesock Huge increase Drought, dry Floods, heavy Snow, late Conflict Return from Road Blocks Moving from employment income death of disease in prices spell rains frost induced Pakistan one location breadwinner outbreak displacement to another Refugee Resident

Chart 24: Reduced coping strategies index (CSI) categories by community and status

100% 90% 16% 80% 37% 51% 70% 60% 60% 47% 50% 33% 40% 30% 33% 27% 20% 37% 30% 10% 17% 13% 0% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika high medium low or none

To determine the extent of household coping capacity to shocks, the households were asked a series of questions about different coping strategies they use when they are having trouble accessing enough food for their families. Then a coping strategies index is calculated and they are classified into one of three groups: high coping (most stress), medium coping (medium stress) and low coping (low stress). The chart above shows that in general, refugee households are under the most stress and are more likely to use coping strategies when facing food shortages or troubles accessing enough food. The resident households in Paktika use coping strategies the least of all four groups. Households were then asked about using livelihood based coping strategies in the past 6 months. Again, the refugee households in Khost were the most likely to use these strategies (74 percent), followed by resident households in Khost (46 percent), refugee households in Paktika (40 percent) and resident households in Paktika (30 percent). The chart below compares the classifications across the groups showing that refugee households in Khost are the most likely to use ‘distress; or ‘crisis’ levels of livelihood coping, followed by the resident households in Khost. One-fifth of the refugee households in Paktika are using distress levels of coping but then 60 percent are using sustainable strategies. The resident households in Paktika are the best off but still there are 25 percent of households using distress or crisis levels of livelihood coping. Chart 25: Livelihood coping classifications by community and status

100% 90% 26% 80% 54% 70% 60% 13% 70% 60% 50% 30% 5% 40% 11% 30% 25% 6% 9% 20% 31% 20% 10% 17% 20% 0% 5% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika distress crisis stress sustainable

Analysis of livelihood coping by main livelihood activity shows that households who rely on transfers are those who also are most likely to have distress levels of coping (47 percent), followed by those relying on livestock (27 percent). Households relying on livestock have the most alarming levels of coping overall, with 71 percent with distress or crisis levels of coping. As expected, households relying on salaried work have the highest levels of sustainable coping (62 percent) followed by those relying on small business activities for their livelihoods. Since more than half of the population relies on wage labour, it is alarming to see that only 32 percent of wage labour households have sustainable levels of livelihood coping. Additional analyses of reported per capita monthly income and livelihood coping shows that, for all groups, households with sustainable levels of livelihood coping also have a much higher monthly per capita income. For the other levels of coping, the income levels were similar.

Chart 26: Livelihood coping classifications by main livelihood activity

100% 90% 26% 32% 30% 80% 47% 42% 53% 70% 3% 55% 62% 5% 60% 16% 18% 8% 50% 44% 10% 4% 40% 8% 30% 7% 26% 30% 26% 28% 25% 47% 20% 24% 27% 10% 22% 24% 17% 15% 12% 7% 0% agriculture livestock skilled labour wage labour small business salary transfer none Distress coping strategies Crisis strategies Stress_Strategies Sustainable strategies

9. Household food security

Household food security was determined by analyzing the food consumption score, share of total monthly expenditure for food and the livelihoods coping strategies index. From this analysis, four groups emerged: severely food insecure, moderately food insecure, marginally food secure and food secure. As indicated in the chart below, very few households are considered to be fully food secure. Overall the refugee households in Khost are the most likely to be food insecure with 70 percent being severely or moderately food insecure. They are followed by the resident households in Khost. The food security situation in Paktika is better with nearly 60 percent of refugee households being moderately food secure and only 26 percent of resident households being food insecure. Chart 27: Household food security by community and status

100% 1% 3% 2% 90% 19% 80% 31% 70% 58% 60% 71% 45% 50% 40% 51% 30% 31% 20% 35% 23% 10% 16% 11% 0% 3% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika severely food insecure moderately food insecure marginally food secure food secure

The chart below shows that the resident households in Gurbuz enjoy the best levels of food security while the refugee households in Tani are the worst off, followed by refugee households in Gulan camp. Chart 28: Household food security by location

100% 3% 0% 1% 9% 5% 7% 15% 10% 13% 12% 11% 10% 12% 90% 22% 22% 27% 29% 31% 29% 31% 31% 80% 47% 70% 57% 60% 86% 85% 50% 40% 78% 64% 58% 30% 53% 61% 30% 39% 50% 20% 25% 27% 10% 18% 15% 21% 19% 16% 18% 16% 13% 0% 4% 2% 7% 1% 1%

Food Secure Marginally Food Secure Moderately Food Insecure Severely Food Insecure

When looking at household food security by main livelihood activity, households relying on agriculture are more likely to be food secure or moderately food secure (65 percent), followed by those relying on salary (55 percent). Again, the households relying on transfers are the least likely to be food secure (16 percent). Only one-quarter of households relying on wage labour are food secure. Chart 29: Household food security by main livelihood

100% 5% 7% 12% 17% 90% 23% 31% 28% 80% 27% 44% 39% 70% 43% 60% 45% 32% 50% 37% 52% 40% 59% 39% 30% 51% 42% 20% 36% 39% 31% 24% 10% 15% 6% 0% 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 1% 1% agriculture livestock skilled labour wage labour small business salary transfers none Food Secure Marginally Food Secure Moderately Food Insecure Severely Food Insecure

When looking at the relationship between per capita monthly income and household food security, there is no surprise that households who are food secure also have the highest per capita monthly incomes. The relationship between median income and food security is less striking amongst refugee households, likely showing some impact of food assistance that is provided to refugees but not to residents. Chart 30: Per capita monthly income by community, status and household food security

1800 1,676 1600 1,523 1,509

1400 1,201 1,221 1200 1,125

1000 900 900 843 840 800 667 575 600 572 600 500 472 400

200

0 refugee - mean refugee - median resident - mean resident - median food secure marginally food secure moderately food insecure severely food insecure

There is a clear relationship between household food security and number of different assets owned by a household. As indicated in the chart below, the percentage of food secure households increases with increased asset wealth, from 12 percent for households owning 0-2 different assets, up to 69 percent for households with 9 or more different assets. It is a linear relationship but not an absolute relationship but it is possible to state that households with the highest asset wealth are not likely to be severely food insecure. Chart 31: Household food security by asset wealth

100% 5% 13% 90% 32% 80% 26% 48% 70% 47% 60% 50% 45% 40% 62% 30% 40% 20% 38% 10% 23% 12% 0% 0-2 assets 3-5 assets 6-8 assets 9 or more Food Secure Marginally Food Secure Moderately Food Insecure Severely Food Insecure

There is a similar relationship between livelihood coping and household food security. The households who are experiencing distress coping situations are also the most likely to be food insecure, with 92 percent classified as moderately or severely food insecure. The households using sustainable livelihood coping strategies are the best off but still only half are considered to be food secure. Chart 32: Livelihood coping and household food security

100% 90% 33% 80% 47% 70% 69% 60% 76% 50% 44% 40% 30% 47% 20% 23% 10% 23% 22% 8% 0% 3% Distress Crisis Stress Sustainable Food Secure Marginally Food Secure Moderately Food Insecure Severely Food Insecure

Lastly, when looking at household headship, households headed by men are less likely to be food insecure than those headed by women, regardless of status. The percentage of severely food insecure is similar between male-headed households and female headed households but there are far fewer food secure households headed by women when compared to me. The situation is worse for both refugee and resident households in Khost. Chart 33: Household food security by gender of household head and status

100% 13% 90% 15% 30% 80% 35% 70% 45% 60% 62% 50% 42% 40% 50% 30% 20% 39% 27% 10% 21% 14% 0% 2% refugee - MHH refugee - FHH resident - MHH resident - FHH Food Secure Marginally Food Secure Moderately Food Insecure Severely Food Insecure

10. Children’s education

The households were asked if they had school-aged children who were attending school. This is an important question since the refugee children have studied in Urdu and need continue to studying in this language until they return home. Attendance was highest for both refugee and resident children in Gulan camp. It was lowest for both groups in Spera location. This is not clear whether it is lack of schools or lack of interest. Chart 34: Percentage of households with school aged children attending school by location

100% 96% 97% 91% 90% 87% 89% 90% 83% 80% 80% 73% 74% 73% 75% 70% 64% 60% 59% 59% 60% 51% 52% 50%

40% 33% 29% 30% 28% 20% 14% 10% 1% 1% 0%

The households were also asked if they felt safe sending their children to school. The chart below shows that in nearly all locations, almost all respondents were comfortable sending their children to school. One extreme case is Spera residents with no responses but this is likely because only 1 percent of interviewed households reported sending their children to school. There may be some safety issues in Gurbuz and Lakan communities that need further investigation. Chart 35: Household feels safe sending their children to school, by location

100% 90% 93% 90% 83% 85% 81% 79% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Households were asked about problem they face with educating their children. From the findings below it is clear that there are some problems in Spera and Tani communities as well as Shamal and Mandozai communities. Households in Gulan camp, Urgoon, Matun and Gurbuz have fewer problems in sending their children to school. Chart 36: Household facing education problems with their children, by location

100% 97% 100% 99% 100% 100% 92% 94% 90% 90% 89% 90% 82% 80% 80% 74%

70% 62% 63% 63% 64% 60% 50% 51% 51% 50% 47% 47% 41% 41% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

The most common challenge in accessing education is physical access to schools. Some of the locations are remote and there are no schools nearby. This is pretty much the same for both boys and girls. Boys have a bigger challenge with language than girls (54 vs 19 percent) do as well as lack of school capacity and the need to keep children at home to work. However, for girls, they biggest obstacles after access are the lack of female teachers (29 percent), family not allowing (27 percent) and language (19 percent). For both boys and girls, marriage or engagement was not a main reason for not accessing education. Chart 37: Types of problems faced with accessing education, by sex

60% 55% 54% 52% 50%

40% 35% 29% 30% 27%

19% 20% 16% 11% 10% 10% 8% 6% 5% 6% 6% 5% 6% 3% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% Physical No female Family did Language Lacking Marriage; Security Too Lack of Child needs Lack of Other Poor health; access teachers not allow documents engagement concerns expensive school to work Tazkira disability capacity Boys Girls

11. Protection

Most refugees are planning to stay in their current location, with a few exceptions. In Nadir Shah Kot and Tere Zayi, only a small proportion are planning to stay where they are. For Barmal, nearly everybody plans to stay. Chart 38: Percentage of refugee households planning to stay in their current location

100% 99%

90% 86% 86% 82% 82% 80% 78%

70% 67% 61% 60%

50% 45% 40% 40% 30%

20% 10% 9% 10%

0% Gulan Gurbuz Lakan Mandozai Matun Nadir Shah Shamal Spera Tani Tere Zayi Barmal Urgoon Camp Kot

For the refugees in Nadir Shah Kot and Tere Zayi, the majority plan to leave and they plan to return to Pakistan. This is a good reason to establish a return process. For nearly all other locations, for those who plan to leave, the destination is Pakistan. Only in Shalam and Urgoon do the returnees plan to move to other parts of Afghanistan. Chart 39: Planned destination for refugees who plan to leave their current location

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 88% 86% 94% 94% 94% 93% 50% 98% 96% 97% 100% 96% 100% 40% 30% 20% 10% 5% 13% 7% 10% 0% 3% 2% 6% 2% 2% 6% 3% Gulan Gurbuz Lakan Mandozai Matun Nadir Shah Shamal Spera Tani Tere Zayi Barmal Urgoon Camp Kot To other district inside this province To other provinces Going back to Pakistan

In terms of refugee safety and protection, for nearly all communities, the refugees feel safe, have physical and social access to markets and also feel that the host community supports them. A notable exception is Mandozai where access to markets and host community support is a bit lower. Also in Shamal, access to markets is more limited. For refugees in Spera, Nadir Shah Kot, Mandozai and Lakan, some refugees feel that their stay would cause a dispute within the host community. Chart 40: Additional refugee information by location

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 28% 19% 18% 20% 16% 8% 11% 9% 10% 7% 5% 6% 6% 2% 0% Gulan Camp Gurbuz Lakan Mandozai Matun Nadir Shah Shamal Spera Tani Tere Zayi Barmal Urgoon Kot feel safe here? have physical and social access to markets stay will cause dispute in host community? host community supports stay

12. Priorities and skills

In order to get a better idea of what type of assistance could possibly be provide to these communities, households were asked about their priorities for the future, which are outlined in the chart below. For refugees, the main priority is food, followed by employment and shelter. For residents, the main priority is employment, followed by food and health care. They also have some preference for shelter and irrigation repair while both groups also prioritize safe drinking water. Chart 41: Community priorities by status

100% 90% 87% 80% 70% 61%61% 60% 51% 50% 45% 44% 40% 30% 24% 24% 20% 23% 21% 20% 14% 14% 9% 10% 10% 4%7% 7% 5% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2%4% 1%3%1% 3% 3% 0%

refugee resident

When analysed by the sex of the household head, some differences emerge. Female-headed households prioritized food and health care much more than those headed by men. They are also slightly more interested in receiving credit or grants. Besides food, male-headed households prioritized employment and shelter a bit more than women did but both were high on their lists. Safe drinking water was also greater priority for male-headed households than for female-headed households. Chart 42: Community priorities by sex of household head

100% 89% 90% 80% 75%

70% 62% 60% 53% 50% 45% 39% 38% 40% 30% 24% 27% 20% 14% 13%15% 8% 10% 5% 5%5% 6% 4% 4% 2% 1% 3%0% 3% 2% 2%3% 1%1% 3% 0%

Male headed household Female headed household

When asked specifically about agricultural activities, 87 percent of resident households in Khost felt that if agricultural activities were introduced, they would increase both income and food security of the households, followed by 73 percent of Khost refugee households and 72 percent of Paktika resident households. Only 22 percent of Paktika refugee households felt that it would be a useful activity. Reflecting the previous section, very few refugee households in Paktika felt that small-scale agricultural activities were feasible. However, the feasibility was recognized by the other communities, with the most popular being kitchen gardens, followed by greenhouses. Chart 43: Feasibility of certain agricultural activities by community and status

80% 74% 70% 63% 61% 60% 55% 55% 50% 50%

40% 37% 33% 30% 27%

20% 9% 10% 10% 8%

0% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika Nursery Kitchen garden Greenhouse

In general, most households need tools, training and cash in order to start their agricultural activities. However, Paktika residents had a slightly larger preference for just having cash to get things started. Chart 44: Household needs in order to start agricultural activities by community and status

100% 6% 90% 80%

70% 62% 60% 81% 85% 78% 50% 40% 30% 23% 20% 9% 10% 5% 13% 7% 6% 6% 7% 0% 2% refugee - Khost resident - Khost refugee - Paktika resident - Paktika Tools Training Cash to buy required items All None

In order to look at options for livelihood interventions, the households were asked about the types of skills their members have. The most common skills overall were livestock and agriculture, followed by weaving. The most common skills for women were weaving and livestock, for both refugees and residents. Chart 45: Skills that household members have, by status and sex

80%

70%

60% 7% 19% 50% 12% 40% 3% 5% 19% 2% 30% 19% 55% 20% 26% 28% 35% 29% 21% 23% 10% 17% 18% 11% 8% 8% 7% 9% 0% 1% 3% refugee - resident - refugee - resident - refugee - resident - refugee - resident - refugee - resident - refugee- resident - refugee- resident - weaving weaving health health agriculture agriculture livestock livestock mechanic mechanic services services construction construction

men women both

13. Recommendations

The survey findings should be used as the basis for a UNHCR-WFP Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) to take place in early 2018. The JAM should then determine the specific programmes to meet the needs of the refugees and the host communities. Based on the survey findings alone, some cluster-specific recommendations are provided below. Food Security and Agriculture Cluster (FSAC)  Targeting exercise to focus on the most food refugee locations in Khost, including Gulan camp, Tani, Spera, Mandozai, Nadir Shah Kot for 12 months of general food distributions, using criteria developed from this report.  Seasonal general food distributions in selected refugee camps, based upon the food security status, using targeting criteria.  Seasonal support for resident communities in Gulan camp, Mandozai, Shamal, Spera, and Tani  Nurseries, kitchen gardens and greenhouse construction for refugees in both provinces and for residents in Khost.  Livestock activities for targeted communities based upon the JAM findings.  Vocational skills training programmes using information from Chart 45 in the report. Shelter  Shelter is a priority for more than half of refugee households and is equally important to both male and female heads of households.  Over half of the refugees in both Khost and Pakitka live in tents or under plastic temporary shelters. Therefore, it is recommended that the JAM assess these shelter needs more carefully and then either provide materials or work with FSAC to implement food-for-work activities to construct more permanent dwellings. Education  The most common challenge in accessing education is physical access to schools. Some of the locations are remote and there are no schools nearby. For girls, their biggest obstacles after access are the lack of female teachers, family not allowing and language. It is recommended to establish community schools in the remote areas in coordination with Education in Emergency working group.  Work with MoE to recruit more female teachers to these schools. Health  Health care was a main community priority, more for residents than refugees and more for female-headed households than male. It is recommended that the JAM mission carefully consider the access to adequate health care by all communities and then formulate a response to improve access, such as mobile clinics and community health programmes.

WASH  Nearly half of all refugees in both locations could collect drinking water within 15 minutes of their homes; however, 60 percent of refugee households in Paktika have no toilet (traditional latrine). It is recommended to request WASH cluster to work with the communities to construct latrines to minimize open defecation in Paktika. Protection  In terms of refugee safety and protection, for nearly all communities, the refugees feel safe, have physical and social access to markets and also feel that the host community supports them. A notable exception is Mandozai where access to markets and host community support is a bit lower. Also in Shamal, access to markets is more limited. Additional studies on market function and supply chain using mVAM from WFP would be useful.  For refugees in Spera, Nadir Shah Kot, Mandozai and Lakan, some refugees feel that their stay would cause a dispute within the host community. Community-based sensitization will be required in those areas.  Since the majority of refugees plan to return back to Pakistan, UNHCR should begin discussions with them on how and when this could take place and then prepare a return plan with a timeframe. This is important to do prior to investment in more permanent housing or other community based support.