Report for Household Emergency Assesment Tool (HEAT) Faryab Province, Afghanistan Contents 1

NOVEMBER 2019

Report for Household Emergency Assesment Tool (HEAT) Faryab Province, Afghanistan Contents 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Assessment Objectives...... 2 1.3 Methodology ...... 3 1.4 Sampling ...... 3 1.5 Targeted Population ...... 3 1.6 Respondents ...... 4 1.7 Duration of the survey ...... 4 1.8 Data collection methods and analysis ...... 4 1.9 Data collection techniques ...... 4 2. Findings……………………………………………………………………………………...5 2.1 Additional Vulnerability & Health ...... 5 2.2 General Assessment ...... 5 2.3 Financial & Asset Assessment ...... 7 2.4 Food & Nutrition Assessment ...... 7 2.5 Wash Assessment...... 9 2.6 Shelter ...... 11 2.7 Returnees...... 11 2.8 Beneficiaries priorities ...... 14 2.9Gender-based violence ...... 14 3. Summery…………………………………………………………………………………...16 4. Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………17

1. Introduction

1.1 Background NCA conducted a Humanitarian Needs Assessment in Pushtun Kot district and Maymana city of Faryab province. The assessment applied qualitative and quantitative method of data collection from the communities with 218 respondents were interviewed out of which 192 were male and 26 were female respondents. The assessment pursued to explore the humanitarian needs of IDPs, Returnees and Underserved Host communities of the targeted area. This survey in conducted different villages of pushunkot district and maymana city that includes: Onjalad, Aoladarbab, Damkol, Hussain Abad, Imam Sahib, Khaki khaani, Kharij-e-Paitakht, Marska, Momin Abad, Qator, Surkhab, Taklikhana, Wazir Abad, 3rd Zone of Maymana City and 1st Zone of Pushtun Kot District.

Maymana is the capital city of Faryab Province in northwestern Afghanistan, near the Turkmenistan border. It is approximately 400 km northwest of the country’s capital Kabul, and is located on the Maymana River, which is a tributary of the Murghab River. The population of Maymana was 149,040 in 2015making it one of the largest cities of northwestern Afghanistan.Maymana is located at the northern foot of the Torkestan Range at an elevation of 877 m (2,877 ft) on the old terrace of the Qeysar or Maymana River, which is a right tributary of the Murghab River. The Maymana River branches off of the Band-e Turkistan River 50 km south of the city. The highlands of the Maymana region generally possess a very rich topsoil which supports the seasonal agricultural activities.

Pashtun Kot district is located in the center of Faryab Province, south of the provincial capital Maymana. The population is 277,000 (2002) with an ethnic composition of 60% Pashtun, 5% Tajik and 55% Uzbek.Between 24 April and 7 May 2014, flash flooding from heavy rainfall resulted in the destruction of public facilities, roads, and agricultural land. Assessment findings reported 319 families in total were affected, six people died, 517 livestock were killed, 350 gardens were damaged/destroyed, and 524 jeribs of

1 agricultural land was damaged/destroyed in Kata Qala, Nadir Abad, NaweKhoshk, and Chakab.

Figure 1: Map of Faryab district showing Two assessed districts

1.2 Assessment Objectives This assessment is conducted to evaluate and identify IDPs, Returnees and Host Communities who are effected and displaced due to war and natural disasters in faryab province. The main focus of wash team was to know the basic needs of most vulnerable people with possible solution and manage them with different sources. The main objectives of the wash assessment were:  To assess the current situation and to find out the humanitarian basic needs of IDPs, Returnees and Host Communities, particularly the households who are affected and displaced by conflict and natural disasters;  To collect data and information from the field for new projects development and planning;

 To find out the neediest and vulnerable households sand understand the challenges being faced by them;  To find possible solution for affected households of targeted area.

1.3 Methodology NCA conducted a Humanitarian Needs Assessment in, Maynama and Pushtun Kot district, Faryab province. Keeping in mind the cultural restriction, separate teams of male and female surveyors were assigned to conduct the survey. The assessment questionnaire was studied by NCA team and field team was trained. The assessment applied qualitative and quantitative methods for data collection through household interviews, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and interview with the Key Informants in targeted area. Targeted households were identified in consultation with local authorities and community leaders. Total, 218 individuals were interviewed out of which 88% were male and 12% were female respondents. the collected data is analyzed with Microsoft excel to find out the precise result.

1.4 Sampling Targeted Area: Maymana and Pushtun Kot district Total number of villages: 15 Villages per district: Maymana = 11, Pushtun Kot = 4 Total number of Households: 218 Methodology: Random sampling

1.5 Targeted Population

Table 1: Assessed Household per district

Districts Conflict Natural Documented Undocumented No Sample induced Disaster Returnees Returnees Displacement Size IDPs IDPs Maymana 151 11 5 7 20 194 Pushtun Kot 77.8% 5.7% 2.6% 3.6% 10.3% 100%

1.6 Respondents Respondents included children, men, women and the elderly from IDPs, Returnees and host communities. The assessment team managed to visit all members of the selected communities due to its inclusive composition i.e. it comprised of both men and women enumerators.

1.7 Duration of the survey The assessment lasted for 3 days. It ran from 28 October 2019– 30 October 2019. Prior to the commencement of the assessment, a planning meeting was convened to pore over the survey instruments and to consider all the likely scenarios that may arise during the assessment and how to mitigate them.

1.8 Data collection methods and analysis A questionnaire survey was conducted data was collected and analyzed using an excel spreadsheet.

1.9 Data collection techniques The following techniques were used to collect relevant data:  Household survey  Focus Group Discussion  Key Informants

2. Findings

2.1 Additional Vulnerability & Health

Figure 2: Head of Household

According to survey 89% of interviewed 9% 2% households head were male and 9% were female, while 2% of household head were 89% children (Fig2). about 41% of families have more than 3 children under 5-year age. The Man Head HH Woman Head HH targeted families also having disable members Children Head HH in their families with the ratio of 25%. Study shows that 22% of families includes chronically ill members. Less than half of children in targeted communities are fully immunized having the ratio of 45%. 23% of children are partially immunized, 31% of children do not have immunization card and other 1% of children are not immunized. Figure 3: Tuberculosis victims in assessed people Tuberculosis (TB) is a major challenge in

Afghanistan. According to WHO, (2017 data) 47,406 6% TB positive cases were detected in Afghanistan. The targeted communities are having a ratio of 6% of TB patients(Fig3).

The respondents mentioned that some of their family 94% members lost their lives in last month because of different causes. Yes No

2.2 General Assessment The survey result shows that large number of respondents are displaced due to conflict. Which is about 77.8%. 5.7% of respondents are displaced due to natural disasters, 2.6% of respondents are documented returnees and 3.6% of respondents are undocumented returnees, while 10.3% of respondents are host communities from the targeted areas(Fig4).

Figure 4: Displacement category

77.8% 80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% 10.3% 5.7% 2.6% 3.6% 10%

0% 1 Conflict IDPs 78% Natural disaster IDPs 6% Documented returnee 3% Undocumented returnee 4% No displacement 10%

Figure 5: Obstacles causing not returning to place of origin 96% of IDPs of the mentioned areas said 4% 3% 3% that, they cannot go to their place of origin, due to war, poor economy, community tensions and having not shelters(Fig5). And all the people who lives in the targeted areas not feeling safe and they are worried about 90% the risks i.e. Mines UXO/IED, conflict, clashes between armed groups, natural Lack of security Community Tension disaster, community tensions etc. that are Poor economy No shelter exist in the targeted areas.



2.3 Financial & Asset Assessment

Figure 6: Respondents income sources Based on survey’s findings the targeted people 26.5% have different kinds of income sources. 63.3% 3.6% respondents mention that, their income source 63.3% 6.6% is daily wages, 26.5% respondents’ working Daily wages source is shop keeping, 6.6% of respondents Farming are farmers, other 3.6% of respondents are Government employes government employees (Fig6). Shopkeeper Their displacement also put a bad impact on their monthly income and about 78% of respondents contracted a debt more than AFS 8,000. Generally, in Afghanistan people have livestock, while in the targeted families about 87% of respondents don’t have livestock. About 89% of people left their assets in their place of origin due to conflicts. The respondents said that they don’t have access to agricultural land to cultivate in the current area.

2.4 Food & Nutrition Assessment

Figure 7: Respondents having access to market The Assessment reveals that 87.5% of respondents 12.5% have access to nearby markets where they meet their daily needs (Fig7). The average distance to nearby markets are3km. Due to poor economy, about 9% of 87.5% respondents eat three meals per day, 43% of respondents eat 2 times of complete meal, 44% of Yes No respondents eat one complete meal per day, other of 4% are the respondents who do not eat complete meal (Fig8). Figure 8: complete meal per day

The respondents coping with the difficult situation in 4% 0 order for them to survive on limited food which they get 9% 1 time 2 times because of poor economy. The assessment found that 44% 3 times the targeted people use many methods such as: Relay 43% None

7 on less preferred and less expensive food, borrow food or rely on help from friends and relatives, restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat, limit portion size at mealtimes, reduced number of meals eaten in a day, and send children to work(Fig9). Figure 9: Food strategy of respondents

25% 20% 15% 23% 10% 18.9 16.8 15.8% 13.6 5% 11.9 0% Relay on Borrow food, or Restrict Limit portion size Reduced nember Sent children to lesspreferred food rely on help from consumption by at mealtimes of meals eaten in a work and less expinsive friends and adults in order for day food relatives small children to eat

Figure 10: Food Stock lasting limit

The above mentioned strategies 90.0% affected all members of families and 80.0% putting bad impact on their health. 70.0% Overall, the targeted people don’t 60.0% have a proper food stock due to poor 50.0% economy. Survey shows that 77.4% 40.0% 77.4% 30.0% of respondents do not have any food 20.0% stock, 16.1% respondents have a 10.0% 16.1% food stock for less than a week, 5.4% 5.4% 0.0% 1.1% of respondent have a food stock for 1 No stock Less than a 1-3 weeks Up to 3 week months to 3 weeks, while only 1.1% of respondents said that their food stock last up to 3 months (fig10). About 64% of respondents said that their children been withdrawn from nutrition feeding program as a result of displacement.

2.5 Wash Assessment

Figure 11: causes of limitation to access water According to assessment 36% of 70.00% 61.68% respondents do not have access to 60.00% enough water for drinking, bathing and 50.00% 40.00% cooking purposes. 64% of 30.00% 21.56% respondents have access to enough 20.00% 13.77% water but this access sometime been 10.00% 2.99% limited because of different reasons 0.00% such as restriction from host Yes,By host communities Yes, By security threats communities, security threats and Yes, physical contraints No because of physical constraints(Fig11). There are however different types of water sources in targeted areas from which these people collect water. 26% of respondents use hand pump water point, 30% of respondents collect water from dug well, 13% of respondents get water from stream or river, 24% of respondents use pipe scheme, 2% of respondents collect water from Kandas, 5% of respondents get water from other sources (Fig12). These sources are located on different distance from theirs houses. 37.4% of respondents said that the nearby water point is located up to 500m, 23.3% of them said that they collect water from water points located at ad distance 0.5-1km from their homes, 36.2% said they travel a distance from 1km-5km to reach their water collection point, while 3.1% of the respondents mention that their water collection point is located about more than 5km from their homes(Fig13). Figure 12: sources of water Figure 13:Distance to nearby water source

35% 40.0% 30% 35.0% 30.0% 25% 25.0% 20% 20.0% 37.4% 15% 30% 36.2% 15.0% 26% 24% 10% 10.0% 23.3% 13% 5% 5.0% 5% 3.1% 0% 2% 0.0% Hand Dug Stream Pipe Kandas Other up to 0.5 to 1Km 1 to 5Km more than pump well or river line 0.5Km 5Km 9

The team found that 51% of respondents are not satisfy from water quality of these sources and they mention these water sources do not provide a stable supply of clean water.

Figure 14:Types of Latrine facility

The assessment further reveal that 89% of 3.5% respondents in targeted area having latrine facility. 31% of respondents said that their 21.9% 38.3% latrine facility does not provide privacy, 36.3% safety and dignity to all members of family and. The types of latrine facility that are exist in the targeted area are: communal Open defecation Community latrine latrines, family pit latrines and family VIP Family pit latrine Family VIP latrine latrines. Those respondents who do not have latrine facility, use open area for defecation (Fig14). 49% of the respondents said that natural disasters completely destroyed their water sources and latrine facilities, 39.5% of respondents said that their water sources and latrine facilities are partially destroyed due to natural disaster. Other 11.5% of respondents mention that their water source and latrine facility are unharmed(Table2).

Table 2: Level of destruction of water sources and latrine facilities due to natural disaster

Destruction Level Completely Destroyed Partially Destroyed Unharmed

Percentage 49% 39.5% 11.5%

2.6 Shelter

Figure 15: Types of Shelters

According to assessment the people (IDPs, 1% 0 0 0 Returnees, host community) of targeted areas lives in their own houses, tents, and rented houses. The people with poor economy who 42% cannot afford rented houses or cannot find any 54% proper place, live in open air (Fig15). People who live in rented houses pay a monthly base 1% rent from 800 up to AFS 22,000 per month. 2% The respondent mentioned that their houses House Host Tent Rented House Open air are also been affected by natural disaster. 10% of targeted people said that their houses are completely destroyed due to natural disaster, 38.5% of people said that their houses are partially destroyed, while 51.5% of people said that their houses are unharmed(Table3). Table 3: Level of Destruction of Houses

Destruction Level Completely Destroyed Partially Destroyed Unharmed

Percentage 10% 38.5% 51.5%

2.7 Returnees

Figure 16: NIC holders in family The assessment reveal that in targeted areas, 1.9% 27% are those families whose all members have Tazkira (NIC). 55% are the families in which 27.2% some of family members have Tazkiza, 15% are the families in which only the head of the 55.4% 15.5% household hasTazkira, only 2% are the families in which nobody has Tazkira(Fig16). In all 218 targeted households, only 83 children All Only HH head Some Nill

11 have their birth certificate. Among the targeted returnees, 59% of families do not have proof of registration (POR) card, while only 9% of families have POR cards. 28% are families in which some of members have POR, other 4% are those families in which only head of household has POR (Fig17). Figure 17: POR holder in family 65% of respondents said, they will have plan to 4% stay in current area and will settle there, other 9% 35% of respondent mentioned that, they do not have plan to stay in current area and they will 28% leave this place once the situation is normal. 59% The respondents said, they don’t receive any assistance or humanitarian aid having ratio of

97%, only 3% of respondents said they received All Only HH head Some Nill assistance that includes: shelters, kitchen equipment and blankets from government and NGOs(Table4). Table 4: assistance received

Source of assistance Government NGOs No assistance received

Percentage 3.33% 1.66% 95%

In the targeted people only 19% of respondents have own lands of which, 86% do not have documents of land ownership. They cannot build house for their self because of poor economy. The respondents mentioned that, some of their household’s items which they need for their daily use such as: kitchen materials, fuel, warm cloths, blankets, water containers, hygiene supplies etc. these items are shown in chart (Fig18).

Figure 18: needs of respondents

20% 18% 20% 15% 14% 14% 15% 10% 9% 10% 5% 0% Kitchen Fuel Warm Blankets Water Hygiene Other eqiupment cloths container supplies

Figure 19: attending School The team found that, 51% of the girls attend school, while 49% of the boys attend school (Fig19). The respondents said that there are 49% many obstacles for the families to send their 51% children to school. Long distance to school, language in school, lack of documentation, security concerns, cost and some of other Boys Girls problem are main challenges for children’s education (Fig20).

Figure 20:Challenges for children's education 46%

50% 43% 40% 30% 20%

10% 8%

2% 1% 0%

Language Lack of documentation Security concers Cost Other

2.8 Beneficiaries priorities

Figure 21: basic needs of respondents On the base of assessment, the respondent listed their basic needs, but they priorities food 26% items, shelters and safe drinking water, assessment showsthat the respondent’s most 54% 20% basic need is food items with the ratio of 54%, clean and safe drinking water is the second priority with the ration of 26% and third priority food items shelter water is shelter with the ratio of 20% (Fig21).

2.9Gender-based violence

Figure 22: Respondents age This assessment targeted the people with different category of age, 81% of respondents 11% 8% were adults, 11% of respondents were elder having age of 60+, other 8% of respondents were children. Assessment shows about 86% 81% of the people are displaced from villages. Other 14% are displaced from cities(Fig22). children adulte elders

Figure 23: Educational status of respondents

Most of the respondents of targeted 80% 70% areas are uneducated with the ratio of 60% 50% 67%, 10% of respondents complete 40% 30% 67% only primary school, 4% of 20% 10% 10% 4% 11% 5% 3% respondents attended school up to 0% secondary education, 11% of respondents completed high school education, while 5% of respondents are university graduated. Other 3% respondents avoid to tell about their educational background (Fig23).

38% respondents left their houses due to security threat to their family during the conflict, 22% of respondents left their houses because they had personal security thread, 21% of respondents left their houses because they excluded from education in that area, 5% of respondents left their houses because of unemployment, 5% of people didn’t left houses, and 3% of people left their houses because of other reasons (Fig24). Figure 24: Reason of leaving house in conflict

30% 28%

25% 22% 21% 20% 16% 15%

10% 5% 5% 5% 3%

0% Did not leave Thread to Thread to Excleded from Excluded from Lack of health Other home security/family personal education employment care security

The respondents further mentioned the status of available facilities in targeted areas such as: general medical care, reproductive health services, supplies, police, food, non- food items, legal aid and psychosocial assistance which is explained in below chart (Fig25). Figure 25: Status of available facilities in targeted areas

120%

100% 1% 2% 0% 2% 5% 10% 6% 11% 4% 10% 24% 27% 24% 19% 14% 80% 42% 60% 88% 89% 40% 74% 73% 73% 76% 82% 56% 20%

0% General Reproductive Supplies Police Food non-food Legal Aid Pshychosocial medical care health items assistance services

Difficult Easy Don't Know

3. Summery  More than half of targeted children were not fully immunized;  Most of respondents cannot go back to their place of origin due to lack of security, poor economy, lack of security and having no shelter;  The displacement put bad impact on their daily income;  The targeted people do not have sufficient meal due to poor economy;  Half of the targeted people are not satisfied from available water quality in targeted areas;  89% of targeted families’ water sources and latrine facilities are destroyed due to natural disaster;  A number of targeted people are living in open air because they do not have shelters;  Half of the targeted people houses are destroyed in the result of natural disaster;  95% of targeted people did not received any assistance from government and NGOs;  Cost, languages in school, lack of security and lack of documentation are the main obstacles for children education;  Food item, shelter and safe water is the basic need of targeted people;  Access to all basic needs such as general medical care, reproductive health services, supplies, police, food, non-food items, legal Aid and psychosocial assistance is difficult for targeted people.

4. Recommendations  Need to Conduct meeting with health promotion NGOs and government regarding children immunization;  Should Design and implementing of the socio-economical projects for the targeted people to make their economy better;  Distribution of sand water filter/ceramic filters in targeted people to make their drinking water quality better;  Installation of hand pumps and emergency latrine facility in targeted areas for increasing quantity of clean drinking water and providing the people a safe and secure latrine facility;  Distributing of emergency shelter/tents in targeted areas’ people who live in open air and whom houses are destroyed due to natural disaster;  Discussion with DoRR and other humanitarian aid agencies to provide humanitarian assistance in targeted areas;  Developing emergency school /shelter school in targeted areas to provide education to affected children.