"What does it mean to be a host family in the north of ?" Report based on a Host Family Survey By Danish Refugee Council (DRC) Montenegro

Funded by ECHO EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HUMANITARIAN OFFICE (ECHO)

Danish Refugee Council

Table of Content:

Preamble: 1. Background

 1.1 General introduction  1.2 Aim of the survey

2. Methodology  2.1 Selection of methodology  2.2 Geographical selection of villages and interviewees  2.3 Implementation procedures  2.4 Data processing

3. Presentation of the Findings  3.1 Problems connected with being a host family:  3.2 Benefits connected with being a host family  3.3 Living standard  3.4 Relations between IDPs and host families  3.5 IDPs in the community  3.6 Hosting Community

4. Discussion of the findings 5. Conclusion 6. Annexes  Annex 1: Interview guidelines and questionnaire  Annex 2: General statistics  Annex 3: Statistical summary of survey findings  Annex 4: Village descriptions  Annex 5: Village statistics  Annex 6: Evaluation by the interviewers

Preamble: This report is based on information from a survey that aimed at describing the situation of the IDP’s host families in Montenegro through quantitative figures and qualitative analysis. The results will hopefully be useful as a basis for program design targeting not only the IDP population but as well the hosting community in order to secure sustainability of a successful and relevant implementation. A total number of 417 host families have been interviewed in four different municipalities in the north of Montenegro, namely Andrijevica, Plav, , and Rozaje. This report aims at presenting the view of the host families interviewed. The IDPs, the non-hosting families and the local authorities have not been interviewed. It is not claimed that the survey objectively portrays the situation as it is, but the perception of the interviewed host family members as it has been passed on to the DRC interviewers. It is neither claimed that all villages would present the same picture as each area has its unique circumstances. The current report should be read as inspiration and input for organisations interested in the host families. It should not be read as a thorough assessment that can make up for preparation work prior to new relief programs or development oriented projects in the field.

Contradictions have occurred during the interviews as well as between the different answers/feedbacks within one interview illustrating the worlds and perceptions of the persons and thereby the basis for their actions, their everyday, their participation in the household and the community. The survey has not been carried out to statistically verify if the interviewers are wrong or right.

The intention and proposal was to cover Montenegro as a whole involving another international NGO to cover the population in the southern part of Montenegro. However, before the survey started it was clear that the intended organisation did not have the time and finances to carry out the survey. The survey therefore only covers four municipalities in the north.

1. Background

1.1 General introduction

Four years have past since the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement and there are still approximately 23,000 refugees from and Croatia in Montenegro. While the more resourceful refugees have succeeded in decreasing their dependency among other things with the support from self-reliance programs, there are still vulnerable groups who continue to require assistance. During the period from the summer of 1998 to the autumn of 1999, the number of vulnerable refugees and IDPs in Montenegro increased as a result of the ethnic problems developing in .

Presently, there are some 31,000 IDPs in Montenegro. Figures are showing that as many as 80 % of the IDPs from Kosovo are settled in private accommodation. In spite of this figure, very little information has been collected in order to describe the situation in the private accommodations and even more important the situation of the host families. Most relief agencies are today not able to answer the questions "What does it mean to be a host family?" or "How long can the IDPs stay in the current accommodations?" or "What is needed in order to secure a continuous peaceful co-existence between IDPs and host community?" There are a lot of assumptions, but very few facts and statistics that can create the basis for a proper analysis of the future situation and to give input to relevant new initiatives. The majority of the humanitarian aid is currently directed towards the IDPs with only limited benefit and involvement of the host families. An assumption is that still bigger gaps between the IDPs and the hosting community, and between hosting families and non-hosting families are created.

The interest has been to collect information in order to be able to describe the following:

 The changes in the hosting community?  Relations within the host family community?  Relationship between the IDPs and the host family: shared facilities, common activities incl. holidays, contributions to the household, contributions to the hosting community as a whole.  Expectations for the future: timeframe, integration, return etc.  Social status of the host families compared with the non-hosting families from the host family point of view.

1.2 Aim of the survey Objectives of the survey are:

 To provide qualitative and quantitative information about the current situation of the host families in Montenegro in order to define "a host family" and their individual- and community related needs.  To create a basis for defining/discussing implementation of self-reliance projects targeting the hosting community including IDPs and host families.

2. Methodology The working group:

A working group was initiated by DRC with representation from ECHO Podgorica, UNHCR Podgorica, UNOCHA Podgorica, DRC and HELP with the aim of discussing the objective and the interest of the survey, methodology to be applied to the survey, the practical arrangement and follow up on the development of the operation.

Several meetings were conducted in the preparation phase of the survey where DRC got important input for the design and planning. However, it turned out to be a group representing very different interests and the result was that the group was never established as a continuous reference group but rather a group actively involved in the initial phase.

Complementary study:

While DRC was working on the survey design and planning another survey by Premiere Urgence (PU) was supported by ECHO. The survey aimed at collecting concrete information for planning of projects in order to redirect their direct distribution towards more self-reliance activities. PU created an impressive and very informative questionnaire covering nearly all the needed statistical data in connection with concrete future small-scale project designs. In order to avoid overlap, DRC decided to concentrate the host family survey mainly on qualitative information in order to answer the questions:

 What does it mean to be a host family?’ and  How does the future look for the IDPs living with the host families?’

2.1 Selection of methodology It was chosen to apply the qualitative interview as a method to get information from the host families since the aim of the survey was a presentation of the situation of the host families seen from their own point of view. The survey had to identify their world of living, which can only be done through a guiding approach stressing the importance of listening to the stories of the interviewee. An interview guide was developed as a frame for the interviews in order to secure consistency in the notes where the topics/issues of special interest had to be covered by all the three teams still giving the interviewees room to express their opinions of the situation. The interview guidelines and the purpose of the guiding questions were thoroughly discussed with the interviewers before the actual work started.

The interview guidelines were supplemented by a statistical questionnaire, which was developed in order to be able to support the findings from the interviews. The questionnaire was also thoroughly discussed with the interviewers beforehand and the final edition contained their input and comments. The interviewers filled in the questionnaire as a part of the interview dialogue in order not to take the focus away from the general open discussion. The statistical questionnaire and the qualitative interview guide are both attached in Annex 1.

The survey has been a process in itself involving the feedback from the interviewersin the field in order to direct the findings in the notes towards the real situation in the villages. The discussions between national Survey Co-ordinator, the interviewers and the DRC Program Manager took place at weekly supervision meetings where experiences were shared and especially the focus of the interviews as well as note taking was discussed. The observations by the interview team were taken in as a part of the experience sharing, and general discussion about the situation in the visited villages.

2.2 Geographical selection of villages and interviewees

DRC has with the implementation of a host family shelter program established a good reputation in the 7 major municipalities in the north: Berane, Bijelo Polje, Andrijevica, Rozaje, Plav, Kolasin, and Mojkovac. Generally, the hosting communities are very satisfied with DRC and the assumption was that they would be willing to contribute with answers to the questionnaire as well as discussion of the issues stated in the interview guidelines.

Selection of municipalities:

Four municipalities were covered by the survey: Berane, Andrijevica, Rozaje, and Plav. These four municipalities in the north of Montenegro were selected because: 1) they are hosting a large number of IDPs compared with other municipalities, 2) they were well known to DRC because they have been covered by the ECHO funded DRC shelter program in 1999 and the beginning of 2000, 3) DRC is currently implementing a community services program, and 4) limited resources made it important to delimit and prioritise in order to make valid conclusions.

Selection of villages:

The following villages were covered by the survey:

Berane: Buce, Dapsici, Dolac, Donja Rzanica, Luge Ivangradske, Pesca, Babin (small village in Polica), Vinicka

Andrijevica: Slatina, Ulotina, Marsenica Rijeka

Rozaje: Bogaje, Bisevo, Ibarac

Plav: Gornja Rzanica, Masnica, Velika

The mentioned villages were selected based on the following: 1) high concentration of IDPs in the village, 2) recommendations from UNHCR in Berane, 3) recommendations from Premiere Urgence in Berane, 4) DRC’s presence through shelter- and social program, and 5) time restrictions.

Annex 2 shows the number of IDPs in the four municipalities and the selected villages as well as available general statistical information on the municipalities and villages.

Selection of interviewees

The basis for the interviews was the definition of a ‘host family’ as a family who has a certain contact with the IDPs. We have not defined families who rent out/lend out their second house situated in a different area (municipality or village) separated from the everyday in the community where the IDPs are living. Examples of cases not defined as ‘host families’ are families living in Podgorica, Berane or at the cost having IDPs living in their second house in the mountains. However, as it appears in the findings, some interviewed host families are living in a totally separate house but mostly in the same village as the IDPs and have thus been included in the definition ‘host family’. The selection is based on a focus on the selected village community and the majority of the host families in each village have been interviewed.

The host families were identified through the beneficiary list of Premiere Urgence, the host family list from the DRC shelter project and the list of IDPs from MCDP/UNHCR where the host family of the IDPs appears. The MCDP/UNHCR list was used in the field.

Approximately 10 % of the host families in the four northern municipalities have been covered by the survey, with the total number of 417 host families interviewed.

Shop owners

Shop owners in the villages have been interviewed in order to map the changed habits and existing purchasing power of host families and non-hosting families. The shop owners were interviewed in order to get input for the discussion of the response from the host families.

2.3 Implementation procedures

One day training seminar for 6 employed interviewers with following program: a) Introduction to the aim of the survey and to the interview guidelines. b) Group work/role play on different interview techniques. c) Note taking during interviewing. d) Practical arrangements for the coming period. It was decided to conduct the interviews in teams of two consisting of one female and one male as it turned out to be the best possible team composition.

The interview teams in Berane were in charge of the daily management and co-ordination.

The 3 teams visited each village together, using lists with names of IDPs with host families registered by MCDP.

The interviews lasted one hour in average, often with participation by more than one family member. During the interviews one person was in charge of leading the interview and the other of taking notes.

Supervision meeting followed by field visits were conducted once a week in Berane in order to secure the quality of the survey. The supervision was mainly done by the national Survey Co-ordinator in close cooperation with DRC Program Manager

Two days summing up seminar with following program a) Evaluation of the interviews of shop-owners. b) Discussion and identification of key words in the notes in order systematically to process the narrative part of the interviews according to 6 main groups of questions related to the questionnaire/interview guidelines. c) Discussion of the general observations at municipality, village and household level, and summing up on the notes on the individual villages. d) Feedback/evaluation of the process by interviewers.

Problems encountered:

The available lists of IDPs/host families were in some cases incomplete and the interviewers asked the local population for more information in order to cover as many host families as possible in each village.

Some host families were not home the day(s) the interviewers visited the village.

It is estimated that 10% or less (2-3 in each village) have not been real representatives (head of households) and some answers have been "I do not know, ask my husband/son when he comes home". However, the perceptions of these interviewees are adding valuable information to the general picture.

2.4 Data processing

The statistical data from the questionnaire has been analysed by UNOCHA Podgorica using Excel as the basic software. The data processing based on Excel has made it possible to present the data in an easy form though it has limited the possibility of various cross combinations of the answers. Only 413 questionnaires have been included in the processing as 4 questionnaires were lacking important data. In order to be able to present the figures in percentage, there appeared to be a need for additional options for the processing as the following example illustrates: The majority of the answers in Annex 3, table 2.2 (i.e. also in annex 5) are "none of the above". This means that the majority of the IDPs are accommodated in the hosts' own house. The option "none of the above" was needed in order to make the statistics in Excel.

The qualitative analysis has been carried out and presented by DRC. The interviewers have written down the information gathered through the interviews. The notes have been the ‘data’ and the analysis has been based on thorough reading, underlining of key words/indicators related to the topics of interest, supplemented by continuous discussions of the notes with the interviewers to clarify the notes. The field experience and impressions of the interviewers have played an important role in connection with the general picture.

In chapter 3 qualitative and quantitative findings are presented together. The qualitative information creates the frame, which is supplemented by the quantitative figures to give a statistically balanced picture.

3. Presentation of the Findings In order systematically to present the narrative findings of the survey, the feedback from the host families has been divided according to 6 main question categories based on the interview guide (see Annex 1):

 Problems connected with being a host family  Contributions/benefits connected with being a host family  Living standard of the host families  Relations between IDPs and host families  IDPs in the community  The hosting community

It has been decided to present the findings in general though the concrete picture differs from village to village. In order to cover the more specific situations in the villages, reference is made to the village descriptions and statistics in Annex 4 and 5. Additionally, it should be mentioned that there in general has been a significant difference in the feedback concerning the problems and benefits as well as the social relations in connection with host families receiving rent (14 %) and the ones not receiving rent (86 %). Type of accommodation Percentage Total number

Shared house - no rent paid by IDPs 50.9 210

Shared house - rent paid by IDPs 3.1 13

Same house but separate living - no rent paid by IDPs 12.3 51

Same house but separate living - rent paid by IDPs 6.1 25

Separate house - no rent paid 22.8 94

Separate house - rent paid 4.8 20

Total: 100.00 413 Table 1: Type of accommodation of the IDPs

3.1 Problems connected with being a host family:

In connection with the cases where host families are sharing their house with the IDPs (72.4 % including shared premises as well as shared house but separate rooms) shows that the problems faced by the hosts can be divided in the following 3 categories:

1. Increased expenses in connection with food, education, medicine and communal expenses (electricity, water, telephone, firewood)

2. Lack of space, inadequate accommodation

3. Deteriorated furniture, equipment, homestead

Increased expenses:

Host families sharing the premises with the IDPs without receiving rent (50,9 %) are mentioning that the expenses for food and communal expenses have increased. Educational expenses are mentioned by the host families that have additional expenses for school material for the IDP children including transport costs to the nearest local school. Increased medical expenses appears to be an issue for host families that have received elderly or handicapped IDPs (mostly wounded in the war), who are not in the position to take care of themselves.

Accommodation and space:

The biggest problems are presented by 50.9 % of host families who share premises and who do not receive rent. The host families often live in a house that does not have enough space even for the host family itself. The house is often overcrowded and noisy thus anxiety and fights/argues about everyday activities (using the toilet, watching TV, etc.) are common. Many host families claim that they lost their family peace as their daily activities are disturbed (mainly the resting time). The host families are saying that the biggest problem for them is the fact that they are forced to listen to and relate themselves to the problems of the IDPs. They cannot avoid to listen to employment problems, the IDP children asking for things that the IDP parents cannot provide them with etc.

Facilities in the house where IDPs are settled Percentage Total number

Electricity 100.0 413

Water 92.7 383

Bathroom/toilet 82.1 339

Phone 59.8 247 Table 2: Facilities in the house where IDPs are settled. 54 % of the IDPs are sharing house with the host family, which means that they have the same access (data from questionnaire).

Deterioration of furniture/equipment:

The last group of answers is linked to the fact that too many people are using the same items/things for a longer period, which eventually result in deterioration of furniture, equipment, and facilities. This is especially the case in the households where a large number of IDPs have passed through during the past year. Additionally, it should be mentioned that the general purchasing power in the villages is decreasing which implies that very few means are invested in new items.

3.2 Contributions/benefits connected with being a host family

In general, there are contributions and benefits in connection with hosting IDPs. However, the host families do not necessary present the below mentioned as benefits when asked directly. On the question about benefits, the majority have answered that there are no benefits as a host family (64.6 %) whereas the below mentioned has appeared as contributions/benefits in connection with the general discussion/talk. The following four categories will be described based on the information in the notes:

1. Items brought by IDPs from Kosovo: house equipment (TV, freezer, cooker, dishes...), vehicle (car, tractor, truck).

2. Labour: shared household tasks, work in the garden, field, cattle breeding.

3. Financial input: salary, pension, rent, etc.

4. Humanitarian aid: food, clothes, stove, house repair, etc.

Items brought by the IDPs:

According to the host families, the majority of IDPs left everything they owned in Kosovo. The ones who managed to bring their capital items (10.7 %) are now either sharing them with the hosts or the IDPs managed to equip the part of the house where they are settled. Few tractors were brought by the IDPs and they are now in use by the local hosting community like host families and neighbours in connection with work in the field (Polica, Pesca, Donja Rzanica and Luge).

Benefits from the IDPs Percentage Total number

Items brought by IDPs from their home 10.7 44

New ideas/skills/knowledge 1.7 7

Labour input 21.1 87

No benefits at all 64.6 267 Other 3.4 14 Table 3: The host families perception of the benefits from the IDPs (data from questionnaire)

Labour:

The input mostly recognized by host families as an input/benefit is the IDPs’ involvement in the household tasks; work in the home, work in the garden/field, cattle breeding etc. According to the statistical information, 21.1 % of the interviewed mentioned this as a contribution (table 3). This is especially expressed in households where the hosts are elderly persons who used to live alone before the IDPs arrived. The IDPs are in these situations mainly close relatives: son or daughter and families. However, the notes show that IDPs’ contribution and involvement is larger though dependent upon the type of accommodation as shown in table 4.

Type of accommodation Household tasks Tasks outside the household

Percentage Number Percentage Number

Shared house 89.0 % 187 75.2 % 158

Shared house - rent 7,7 % 1 7.7 % 1

Same house but separate premises 45.1 % 23 62.7 % 32

Same house but separate premises - rent 0 % 0 12 % 3 Table 4: Contribution by the IDPs in the 299 families (app. 72% of all interviewed) where the IDPs live in the same house either sharing all facilities or living separately from the host - with or without paying rent. (Data from questionnaire combined with information from notes).

Financial input:

Legally, the IDPs are citizens of FRY and therefore they have the same employment possibilities as any other citizen. However, in reality it is more difficult for the IDPs to get permanent employment as they often do not have the needed employment record which consequently leaves them in an especially vulnerable situation. The host families tell that some IDPs have found temporarily employment with for example private companies or humanitarian agencies. In the cases where the IDPs do not pay rent they may contribute to the household budget with their salaries (10.9 % in total). It should be mentioned that there are still some IDPs who receive modest amounts of money like salaries and pensions from This can be one of the reasons for being registered as IDPs both in Serbia and Montenegro..

Type of contribution from IDPs Percentage Total number

Paying rent 13.1 54

Part of their salary/income 10.9 45

Humanitarian assistance 50.6 209

Do not contribute at all 33.9 140

Other 1.7 7 Table 5: Contributions to the host family by the IDPs (data from the questionnaire).

As it appears from table 5, 13.1 % of the host families are receiving rent when rent is presented as a ‘contribution’. However, in connection with the question of type of accommodation of the IDPs, the percentage is 14.0 %. This can be explained by the fact that some of the interviewed host families are not willing to express it as a contribution, they see other options as more important contributions or the rent is paid to relatives abroad who are the official owner of the house.

Rent is mainly paid when the IDPs are not relatives of the host families (app. 12 % where app. 14 % in total pay rent according to table 5). Additionally, it should be mentioned that more often rent is paid when living in villages close to the bigger towns whereas the IDPs settled in remote villages most often do not pay rent. This can be explained by the fact that IDPs have very few financial means and the majority of them are close relatives to the host family from whom they do not request rent according to the unwritten rules and values of the traditions in the countryside in Montenegro. (Please refer to Annex 5 for more detailed information on each village).

Humanitarian aid:

The humanitarian aid that IDPs are receiving from Red Cross and international agencies (basic food and hygienic items, clothes, stoves) is shared among IDPs and host families mainly in the cases where they are living in the same house without receiving rent (total of 50.9 %). In the cases where their households are divided it appears that humanitarian aid and/or daily activities are generally not shared.

It is worth mentioning that there are host families stating that they appreciate their old often-abounded houses being repaired by international organizations since IDPs are living there. In general they are satisfied with the work done by international agencies on their house but their problems were not solved since these repairs were on the small scale, which means that the houses are still not adequately equipped and repaired to the required standard.

3.3 Living standard

In general, the host families’ opinion is that the living standard has deteriorated during the last ten years no matter if the family is hosting IDPs or not. The general bad economical situation in the country has resulted in an increased number of unemployed persons (not least due to closed factories). At the same time prices of goods and services have increased. UNOCHA reports that the food basket for a family of four has increased 6.9 % since February this year. The labour union has a different content of the food basket but documenting an increase of 20 % since November 1999. At the same time salaries have not increased proportionally, which can be used as a general indicator of the difficult economic situation.

Annex 3 shows that in average the family size of the interviewed host families is 4.2 persons and 1.4 persons have a regular income of some kind. 12.4 % of the families have 3 or more children (0-18 years) and 11.4 % of the households are headed by elderly (65 years or more).

The deterioration of the general living standard is by the host families expressed in the following; decrease of all "luxuries" as for example: holidays, variety in food, clothes, equipment etc., spent savings, and often increased debt. Additionally, a majority of the host families is losing a potential income as they do not receive rent for the premises or land that is in use by the IDPs. 40.7 % claim that hosting IDPs has caused a loss in income.

According to the notes, there is a difference between host families receiving rent and the ones who do not. In the case where IDPs pay rent, host families do not necessary see IDPs’ presence as the main reason for the deterioration of the living standard. The statistical data shows that 33.9 % of the interviewed do not believe that hosting IDPs have increased their household expenditures and the remaining 66.1 % say that mainly the general accommodation expenses (electricity, water, furniture etc.) and food expenses have increased.

Expenses Percentage Number

Accommodation expenses (electricity, water, furniture, etc.) 55.9 231

Food 51.3 212

Health 11.4 47

Educational expenses 12.4 51

Entertainment 1.2 5

Other 2.2 9

None 34.1 141 Table 6: Increased expenses in connection with hosting IDPs (data from the questionnaire).

Help from outside:

The host families list the following as places where they ask for help: Red Cross (social cases), local authorities (municipality), international agencies (house repair, credit), friends, and relatives. In some particular villages in Andrijevica and Rozaje municipalities as Rijeka Marsenica, Ibarac, and Bisevo, a large part of local population have relatives living and working abroad who are supporting them with financial inputs, clothes etc. The large majority of host families said that the municipality is not taking care of them and their problems in connection with IDPs as they emphasize the fact that the municipalities promised them financial compensation for communal expenses (mentioning the electricity). It was promised that MCDP would give financial compensation through the municipality, but the host families feel that they have been cheated so far as the majority still has not received the promised compensation. Few host families mentioned that they got one-month compensation for electricity costs (the period before June 1999). They do not mention the EC in this connection, as they perceive the financial support as coming from the MCDP directly.

The host families suggested the following projects to solve the problems they face: financial inputs, employment for IDPs and/or members of the hosting family, house repair (additional room, toilet, etc.), income generating related activities (for example: mini-diary, bee-keeping, hairdressing saloon, green house, shop, chemical cleaning company). Additionally, it has been mentioned that the local authorities should be more interested and active in connection with the host families’ situation, which includes finding solutions to the IDPs’ problems.

The host families’ perception of non-host families:

In general, the host families’ opinion is that they are in a worse position than non-host families because of the increased living expenditures in the household as well as the fact that they are sharing the IDPs’ problems. The interviewed village shop owners support this perception claiming that the host families have changed their buying habits since the IDPs arrived. In general, the shop owners are saying that host families are buying less and less, especially sweets and candies for their children. They also state that most of the host families are buying goods on credit, paying their debts when they receive salaries and pensions. They are now buying less bulk food (flour, sugar, oil etc.) since the majority of those living together with IDPs are sharing the humanitarian aid received. They emphasize that both host families and non-host families’ living standard has deteriorated as a result of the bad economic situation, that the village population has increased due to the new arrivals, and that the IDPs in general are actively involved in garden works. However, they also hear the opinion from some villagers that the presence of IDPs’ has caused an increase in prices of goods.

3.4 Relations between IDPs and host families

The majority of the host families are hosting IDPs who are close or distant relatives. As it appears in the table below, 79.1 % of the IDPs sharing house with the host family are close relatives. 88.2 % of the cases where the IDPs live in a separate house paying rent, there was no former relationship between the two parts.

Type of IDP Close relatives Distant Friends No relationship Total accommodation relatives

Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. % Nr. %

Share premises with 166 79,1 16 7,6 11 5,2 17 8,1 210 100% host - do not pay rent

Share premises with 0 0 1 7,7 1 7,7 11 84,6 13 100% host - pay rent

In the house, 15 29,4 12 23,5 6 11,8 18 35,3 51 100% separately from host - no rent

In the house, 1 4,0 0 0 0 0 24 96,0 25 100% separately from host - rent

Separate house - do 28 29,8 13 13,8 12 12,8 41 43,6 94 100% not pay rent

Separate house - pay 0 1 5,0 1 5,0 18 90,0 20 100% rent

Total 210 50,9% 43 10,4% 31 7,5% 129 31,2% 413 100% Table 7: This table shows the correlation between the type of accommodation and the relationship between the host family and the hosted IDPs (data from the questionnaires).

It can be seen from table 7 that 43,6 % of the IDPs living in a separate house are not paying rent, which expresses the hospitality of the hosting community. However, it should be stressed that house owners living in town and renting/borrowing out their second house in the more remote areas have not been interviewed. The figures might therefore not show the complete picture of the situation for IDPs living in separate houses.

Vulnerability:

In general, host families perceive the IDPs as vulnerable persons in need of help since they have lost everything and are incapable of foreseeing their future. The host families feel pity for them and when the IDPs are close relatives it is presented as a family duty to help them no matter if they have good or bad social relations. It appears that even if the host family is living in poor conditions and do not have much to share, they still see the IDPs as being in a worse position than themselves since the host family at least is living in their own house on their own land.

In few cases, the host families see the IDPs in a better position than themselves and this is mainly explained with a bad personal relationship, (according to the notes app. 6 % of the interviewees living in the same house as the IDPs express that they have a bad relationship). In these cases the IDPs are described as: 1) too lazy, passive and ungrateful, 2) not adapting to the household rules, 3) not interested in the hard work excusing themselves by the fact that they have never done that before, 4) acting like guests expecting to be served while waiting to return to their homes.

IDPs’ participation:

As mentioned earlier, when IDPs and host families live in the same house the following daily activities are shared; household tasks (cooking, washing, children raising, etc.), resting (TV, newspaper reading, drinking coffee, etc.), gardening, cattle breeding, and work in the field. The interviewees express that it is natural to share these tasks because they live together, because they have become good friends or because they are close relatives. Usually there is no specific division of the daily obligations but only the traditional task division; women are taking care of children, kitchen work and small fieldwork; children are taking care of cattle during the day and men are doing hard physical work. There are cases where IDPs are taking care of land and cattle while the hosts are carrying out their paid work.

With reference to table 4, no common daily activities are shared of the following reasons:

 Gardening and fieldwork is not possible because there is not enough available land  IDPs are not capable (ill, handicapped, too old)  Bad relationship with the IDPs  The host family does not want to mix their household (even if they live in the same house).

Additionally, rarely common daily activities are shared in 27,6 % of the cases when the IDPs are living separately from the host (second house mainly in the same village but sometimes in another village). Special occasions like birthdays, New Year, religious holidays, and family days are celebrated together with IDPs in most of the interviewed families no matter if they live together or not. However, host families are saying that in the present situation there are not many reasons for celebrations and in general the way they are celebrating has changed in the sense that it is very rare that they have big rich celebrations. The majority of the celebrations are modest and the only difference from the normal everyday is slightly better lunch and cake.

Reasons for not celebrating special occasions together are bad social relation between IDPs and host family (estimated 6 %) or lack of any kind of contact (if they are living totally separated connected only by a lease agreement). 3.5 IDPs in the community

It appears that IDPs have good relations with members of the hosting community if:

 They are originally from the region where they are settled now  They have gained new friends among local population  They have adapted to the new environment

The majority of the host families (estimated some 90 % according to notes) say that the IDPs are fraternizing with their neighbours; they are visiting each other, having coffee together, chatting, knitting, helping in the fieldwork (grass cutting, grass gathering, harvest, physical labour and the use of IDPs’ tractors). In the very few cases where there are community activities like infrastructure repairs, the IDPs are involved and contributing with their physical labour (an example is the water system in Vinicka village). In the cases where IDPs are not adapting to the new situation the following reasons are given for why:

 They are not willing; or they are hesitating to be involved in any hard work; some of the IDPs came from towns and they are not familiar with the kind of work in the rural environment; or the host families are claiming that the IDPs are lazy  They are passive, just waiting to return to Kosovo, waiting for help or running from door to door of international agencies  They are not open for new friendships, mostly having contacts only with other IDPs in the village

Information sharing: According to the host families, information of importance for the IDPs as distribution of food, non-food items or other activities of humanitarian agencies are shared through every day contact with neighbors, relatives as well as in the local shop (focal point). The local shop is most often the place where direct distributions by smaller international NGOs are carried out. IDPs are more connected and better informed in the villages where social activities are organized (e.g. DRC’s mobile handicraft workshop in Slatina, handicraft workshop in Polica and Buce). IDPs have problems with getting information on time in remote villages where the houses are more distanced and in cases where the relationship among the neighbors is bad. Some of the host families suggested that important information of distributions and projects should be announced in the local radio or at ‘information board’ in the center of the villages.

Expectations for the future:

As it appears in Annex 3, 85.2 % of the host families claim that the IDPs can stay more than one year, whereas only 10.9 % tell that the IDPs can stay between 0-6 months.

Timeframe for IDPs stay 0 - 3months 3 - 6 months 6 - 12 months More than 12 Total months

Type of accommodation No Percent. No Percent. No Percent. No Percent. No Percent.

Share premises with host - no 11 5,2% 5 2,4% 8 3,8% 186 88,6% 210 100% rent

Share premises with host - 4 30,8% 0 0% 1 7,7% 8 61,5% 13 100% rent

In the house, separately from 9 17,6% 1 2,0% 3 5,9% 38 74,5% 51 100% host - no rent

In the house, separately from 1 4,0% 0 0% 1 4,0% 23 92,0% 25 100% host - rent

Separate house - no rent 8 8,5% 3 3,2% 3 3,2% 80 85,1% 94 100% Separate house - rent 2 10% 1 5,0% 0 0% 17 85,0% 20 100%

Total 35 8,5% 10 2,4% 16 3,9% 352 85,2% 413 100% Table 8: The link between type of accommodation and the time the IDPs can stay. (Data from the questionnaires).

As table 9 shows, it is especially the economic situation including joint economic projects together with the IDPs that would increase the willingness to host the IDPs. Only 1.9 % stress more participation of the IDPs in household- and community work reflecting that the economic situation is the most important factor as a large percentage of the IDPs currently are participating in the common activities inside the household and outside in the yard and/or garden (table 3).

Factors Percentage Number

1. Improvement of accommodation conditions 29.1 % 120

2. Increased income 49.4 % 204

3. More participation of IDPs in household- and community work 1.9 % 8

4. Joint projects with IDPs 22.3 % 92

5. Improvement of local community services 1.7 % 7

6. Other 18.4 % 76 Table 9: The factors that would increase the willingness of the host families to continue hosting the IDPs. Some interviewees have mentioned more than two options; therefore the total number of answers is 507 and not only 413 (data from questionnaires).

Most of the host families are stressing that the improvements of the accommodation (reference is made to table 2) is an important factor that would increase their willingness to continue to host the IDPs. However, they emphasise that the accommodation to be repaired is the accommodation of the IDPs. Since the majority of the host families share premises with the IDPs it will be an indirect improvement of their own accommodation even though it is the rooms of the IDPs that are in focus.

Factors that 1. 2. 3. 4. Joint 5. 6. Other Total in type of would affect Accommodat Increased Participati projects Communi accommodation willingness ion income on ty services

Type of IDP No Perc. N Perc. No Perc. N Perc. No Perc N Perc. Tot N Perc. accommodat o o . o al o ion

Share 70 33,3% 10 51,0 4 1,9% 57 27,1 3 1,4 31 14,8 272 21 129,5 premises - no 7 % % % % 0 % rent

Share 7 53,8% 5 38,5 0 0% 2 15,4 0 0% 3 23,1 17 13 130,8 premises - % % % % rent

In the house, 9 17,6% 36 70,6 0 0% 9 17,6 1 2,0 8 15,7 63 51 123,5 separately % % % % % from host - no rent

In the house, 2 8,0% 12 48,0 1 0% 1 4,0 0 0% 11 44,0 27 25 108,0 separately % % % % from host - rent

Separate 29 30,9% 33 35,1 3 3,2% 23 24,5 2 2,1 19 20,2 109 94 116,0 house - no % % % % % rent

Separate 3 15,0% 11 55,0 0 0% 0 0% 1 5,0 4 20,0 19 20 95,0 house - rent % % % %

Total 120 29,1% 20 49,4 8 1,9% 92 22,3 7 1,7 76 18,4 507 41 Percentage 4 % % % % 3 Table 10: The correlation between type of accommodation and the projects that would increase their willingness to host the IDPs. The numbers refer to the projects in table 9. The "Total percentage" is the percentage of the 413 interviewees mentioning the project. (Data from the questionnaire).

Table 10 shows that there relatively seen are no significant different between the different type of accommodation and fact that an increased income and/or house repair/improvements would make them more willing to continue to host the IDPs. However, it is significant that host families living in a separate house receiving rent have not prioritised joint projects with IDPs whereas host families not receiving rent are relatively interested in joint projects with the IDPs.

The host families have different expectations about the future of IDPs:

 IDPs plan to go back to Kosovo  IDPs plan to go to Serbia  IDPs plan to go abroad  IDPs plan to stay in Montenegro - to integrate  IDPs plan to settle in more developed environment within Montenegro. IDPs would like to move to other places in order to start with new life, but they are hesitating because they do not have a place to live or a secure job.

However, 66.1 % of the interviewed do not see any special factor that would terminate the current ‘contract’. 12.6 % respond that the IDPs want to move to places where they have more possibilities of building a future incl. other places in Montenegro, Serbia and abroad (see Annex 3 for more details). The host families are saying that IDPs’ possible return to Kosovo depends on the security situation (which means return of the VJ and the Serbian police), but they doubt that return will be safe enough in the nearest future.

Willingness to receive IDPs:

90 % of the interviewed host families would receive IDPs again if the need occurs. However, in a few cases the respond was that they would receive IDPs only if they are relatives, if they pay rent or that they would receive them if the community supports them (compensation for communal expenses, house repair, etc.).

The remaining 10 % of the interviewed would not receive IDPs in the future. The following reasons were given:

 They are too exhausted/ their family budget is too weak to receive other IDPs in the future  They are disappointed with the presently accommodated IDPs as they have bad relationship with them  They don’t have proper/adequate conditions in their houses  They lost confidence in the local authorities (the promised financial compensation etc.)

All the interviewees were presented with the question "If knowing the situation as of today, would you have received the IDPs ?" The general answer was ‘Yes’ with the following explanations:  It is natural to help people in need. It could have happened to themselves  It is a duty/obligation to help relatives  They are receiving rent from IDPs

Very few host families said ‘No’ and the main reason for this no is bad relationship between the host family and the IDPs. 3.6 Hosting Community

The survey was aiming at presenting the general situation of the host families in the north of Montenegro including the changes noticed in the hosting community including the community representation, the community activities and the community organisation.

Traditionally, the basic structure of the republic administration is Local Neighbourhood Representation (LNR) acting as a management board on various issues. The inhabitants of the villages geographically covered by the same LNR (the LNR sometimes covers one, and sometimes several villages) elect the members of the representation. The members are usually persons with high influence in the village. The LNR is funded by the municipality, which in turn is funded by the state government (special budget line in the republic budget) and by own sources (different taxes, fees etc).

The only community representatives recognized by the interviewees are the official members of the Local Neighbourhood Representatives (LNR). But, there were cases (for example Bisevo) where the host families told that they do not know who the members of LNR are, what they are doing, which problems they are solving, etc. The interviews did not identify the unofficial village representatives meaning the ones who are listened to by the inhabitants but not necessary member of the LNR. However, it is worth mentioning the Local Islamic Community in Rozaje, which is highly appreciated by the local population because of its engagement in different humanitarian activities as for example gathering donations for poor, distributions of goods for all village population (i.e. meat distribution for the important Islamic holiday), contribution to the construction of mosques as well as an orthodox church in Rozaje etc.

According to host families, the LNR used to be more active before the crisis in the region. They took care of infrastructure such as roads, water systems, electricity installation/supply, instalment of telephone lines, the local school, and the church including graveyard, ambulance and cultural centre. All those activities were organized by the LNR but with active involvement of inhabitants by partly their financial contribution and partly the physical labour. Currently, these activities are very rare and some of them have started but never finalised (for example the church in Vinicka,). According to the interviewees, the main reason for the lack of community projects is that the municipality funds LCR and hardly any of the municipalities are investing in the villages This is more obvious in some of municipalities than in others depending on the political situation.. Another reason is that the population is not motivated to initiate activity themselves. Inhabitants of the villages are more focused on their personal problems (daily question of how to feed the family etc.) and many of the host families who were asked about needs of the community were answering: "See for yourself".

Additionally, it is told that the social relations in the villages have changed after the major political split in 1997, and different political opinions are creating barriers and conflicts within the village population.

Cultural centre:

In the past, the cultural centre in the village was not only a building but also a place for culture and enjoyment. It was a place were all generations could enjoy: the youth went for dancing evenings especially during summer where students were back in the village, the middle aged arranged and participated in folklore evenings, sport activities (i.e. chess, table tennis) etc. But it was also just a place for gathering not least youth-gatherings, weddings, and funerals as well as people from different villages joining special events, competitions etc. The cultural centres were open all the time for everybody, and everyday issues were discussed and dealt with on a regular basis.

The cultural centre is still the responsibility of the official LNR, but today the doors of the cultural centres are closed except in cases of political promotions, elections or funerals in villages where there are no churches/mosques. In some villages (Polica, Velika, Pesca and Dapsice) the cultural centre buildings need repair since they are totally destroyed in other the repairs needed are less comprehensive (Please refer to Annex 4 for more details). Most of the host families are saying that they are interested in "reopening" the cultural centre because they see it as way to keep younger population in the village.

However, it should be mentioned that in the following villages there has never been a cultural centre: Ulotina, Slatina, Rijeka Marsenica, Ibarac, Donja Rzanica, Buce, Luge). 4. Discussion of the findings

This chapter is a general discussion of the findings presented in chapter 3. The discussion will relate the findings to general observations and to some extent to results of other surveys.

Hospitality and benefits:

As it appears from the findings, the majority of the interviewed host families (app. 65 %) claim that they do not get any benefit from the IDPs at all. However, only 1/3 tell that the IDPs do not contribute to the household budget when is appears as a contribution and not a benefit. The contradiction can be explained as a difference of perception of the two terms: "contribution" and "benefit". Benefit may be understood as something more than what the host family have of extra expenses in connection with hosting the IDPs. But it may also be a reality that they look at the household as a common household where no-one benefits but all contribute with what they have being financial, labour or something else.

It appears that rent is paid mainly in cases where the host family has no relationship with the IDPs (table 7 in chapter 3). The Montenegrin culture is very hospitable and in the rural communities it is hardly accepted to refuse to give help and open the doors of your home when people are in need, especially when it concerns relatives. The IDPs were received with open arms as requested by the cultural code of conduct. The issue of being a host was not discussed then and it is still difficult for the host families to discuss the problems related to the situation as a host since it is perceived as complains. Hosting relatives is a duty and there should be no complaints and no benefits derived, not least when it comes to rent. This may be one of the reasons why it has been particularly difficult to get actual/correct figures about rent payment. Another reason could be that they are afraid that receiving rent can have consequences in connection with future help. But in reality the majority of the host families in the rural and remote areas do not receive rent or any other direct financial contribution from the IDPs as both parts have very few financial means. The shop owners point out that the purchasing power in general is decreasing in the small communities, however the host families are in general affected more than the non-hosting families.

Most of the host families did not expect the IDPs to stay as long as they already have but the survey shows that the majority of the host families (app. 85 %) will continue to host the IDPs for more than one year. At the same time it appears that the financial situation is getting more and more difficult in connection with daily expenses etc. Additionally, many host families stress the social burden of hosting families whom they often see as more vulnerable and therefore as some one that they have to take care of. These issues have during the interviews been presented as descriptions of the actual situation, but in other occasions they have come across as complains. It has been observed that generally the poorest people are complaining less. They seem to better accept the tough times and the input needed from their side.

However, it should be mentioned that Berane municipality has 60 unprocessed requests from host families asking for alternative accommodation for the IDPs. Until now the municipality has managed to process 31 requests as the IDPs have been resettled in Dom Zdravlja in Berane. Berane municipality has an official list of IDPs who has requested Collective Center (CC) accommodation. The list is continuously updated (added) and assessments are on-going. Families are given priority according to their vulnerability and condition of accommodation, and allocated whatever space available in the CCs. There is a general lack of space in the CCs and the municipality fear that the requests will continue to arrive and they are afraid of the possible consequences in connection with some of the cases where they cannot meet the needs According to UNHCR Berane, the largest number of request for alternative accommodation is in Berane. However, an increase in the request from Bijelo Polje has been noticed in the last couple of month (from zero to several cases), but the majority still remains to be from Berane.. In general the IDPs prefer private accommodation to CCs and the strong cultural traditions for hospitality will possibly prevent the IDPs to end up without a place to live but it does not prevent a further deterioration of the situation in the household. It is important to listen to the requests as they indicate that even the hospitality has its limits.

Integration?

It appears from the survey findings that many IDPs are contributing in connection with household tasks, tasks in the field and common community projects, which implies that they see themselves as a part of the community - though more or less temporarily. The host families are aware of the fact that some of the IDPs are interested in moving on to settle in environments with more possibilities either within Montenegro, in Serbia or abroad. According to the report "FRY: IDPs and Refugees Living Conditions - Summary" (IFRC/ICRC/YRC from April/May 2000) app. 25 % of the respondent IDPs have not moved since arrival, 36 % have moved once and 28 % have moved twice since arrival. The DRC survey shows that app. 57 % of the host families have hosted the IDPs more than one year, which means since the arrival of the IDPs, whereas only app. 10 % have hosted the IDPs between 0-6 months. This may tell that the IDPs presence in the covered villages is more stable than the general picture of IDPs in FRY.

Concerning integration, the Red Cross movement report shows that app. 26 % of the interviewed IDPs in private accommodation in Montenegro are interested in "immediate integration", 60 % are interested in "integration, but only if not return", 9 % "would rather go somewhere else", and the remaining 5 % are not interested in integration "but I am staying here". The majority of the respondents in the Red Cross movement survey believe that they have "small chances of integration" (27 %), "modest chances" (33 %) or "big chances" (20 %) whereas only the minority believes that they have "very small chances" and "very big chances" (respectively 13 % and 7 %). This shows that the IDPs themselves are interested and believe in integration, however that does not mean that they feel integrated at the present moment. Looking at the IDPs as temporary guest only strengthen the feeling of being more vulnerable, recipients, and none contributing members of a hosting community. A lot of the IDPs have human resources that can and should contribute to the hosting community in the period where they are settled.

The DRC survey has focused on the host families, however the findings could be used for a broader purpose as for example a basis for discussion with the communities. The host families are an important group as they have direct contact with the IDPs but they are not the only group affected by the situation. Based on the experience from integration work with refugees in Denmark the DRC asylum department in Copenhagen claims that the best returnees are the ones who have been integrated in the situation of refuge. The integration means that the refugees feel confident about their position/status in the community. They are left with more than one option for the future (staying, moving within the country or returning) and that is a crucial basis for the optimistic, constructive and successful return. It can of course be debated how the best return is prepared, but less debatable is the fact that there is a need for support in and development of the current situation with IDPs (and refugees) in the Montenegrin hosting community. A recommendation is therefore to support projects actively involving not only IDPs as a separate group but as a part of the community.

Suggested projects:

Linked to the issue of hospitality is the fact that a lot of the interviewed host families fear that the rest of the community see them as benefiting from the IDPs through the help from international organisations i.e. house repair, furniture, direct distributions etc. Some families’ even claim that they would rather say "no thank you" to help given directly to them as host families when it is the IDPs who needs the help. The interviews show that a large number of the interviewee are too proud to go and ask for help even though they are in big need. The pride is a strong cultural factor in the smaller communities in north Montenegro and therefore they prefer to deal with their problems themselves. They claim that the IDPs are more vulnerable, which hides their own vulnerability and makes it more unacceptable to mention own problems. However, as presented below the interviewed host family representatives have mentioned a range of projects that would help them changing their situation.

As mentioned earlier in the report, the concrete projects are of an individual type as: direct financial input, employment for IDPs and/or members of the hosting family, income generating related activities (for example: mini- diary, bee-keeping, hairdressing saloon, green house, shop, chemical cleaning company) and house repair (additional room, toilet, etc.). The direct financial support and the income generating projects are expected to help them dealing with the pressing need for self-support meaning that they would not be forced to ask for help again and again. Shelter of a more permanent character is another issue that is important in order to work on self-reliance strategies for IDPs and the hosting community. The Red Cross movement’s report strongly recommended to find longer-term solutions for the problems of accommodation. Shelter repair is only one solution and only in some situations a solution of a longer term. Another solution is construction of separate settlements for IDPs partly from the private accommodations where no future can be expected and partly IDPs from collective centres.

The infrastructure improvements, cultural centres and other community related projects are mentioned in connection with projects they would like to see, but not necessary presented as projects that would help with the present problems of individual character. However, based on the interviews as well as the feedback from the interviewers, it is obvious that there is a need for new common structures in the communities. It is not possible to rely on the current weak central structures as it was in the past and it becomes more important with self-organisation and self-initiatives.

DRC is in general encouraging income generating projects as a part of the solution to the economic problems arising in war affected communities. The survey concludes that individual income generating projects for the host families might solve some of the listed problems, however given the structures and traditions of the communities other problems might arise if the only focus is the individual basis. The survey indicates that direct support to the host families can increase the gap within the hosting community between host families and non-hosting families. The previous history of refugees in the world shows that it is important to strengthen the hosting community. ECHO is one donor emphasizing that implementing partners are chosen if they have ability and are ready to work with "humanitarian agencies and the basic communities in the third countries concerned". It is in The Sphere project mentioned the agencies responding to a disaster or emergency "should define a strategy for ending the programme, or making a transition to activities that provide support for further recovery, should this be required, when acute needs have been met". Additionally, The Sphere Project identify the following as a key indicator of any intervention: "Members of the disaster affected population are included in the implementation of food programmes, shelter programmes, health programmes, etc" and "Local capacities and skills are used and enhanced" by the programmes. Given the different standards and survey findings mentioned, the recommendation is implementation of projects that are targeting not only IDPs and host families but the community as a whole.

Community based initiatives:

The IDPs are hosted in small communities where community initiatives are rare. There used to be activities around the cultural centres and implementation of infrastructure projects but today traditional local authorities appears to have very limited financial means affecting the general engagement and motivation. No other structures have been established to take over the responsibility of the common tasks. The host families tell that they would like the cultural centres to run again. As it is presented in chapter 3, most of the cultural centres are not functioning as they used to do. The use has been limited to funerals and political events as political promotion, election campaigns etc. But no cultural initiatives are in the process of being implemented according to the interviewees. Based on the traditional authority structure, they expect the initiatives and implementation to be carried out by the Local Neighbourhood Representation (LNR). In reality the LNR has the responsibility of the cultural centre but it is doubtful if the inhabitants would get a negative response on a request for using the cultural centre for different community initiatives. As emphasized by the interviewers, the host families are often focusing on their individual needs and can not necessary see that their needs to a large extent are linked to the general situation of the village. They do not have concrete ideas and proposals for the common needs at the community level. The answer has often been "see for yourself". There is a tendency of passivity and the situation is that the population is waiting for input and initiative from outside.

As it appears in Annex 6, the interviewers point out that the survey has had its own purpose as the interviews with the host families have pushed them to think about their own situation and their own initiatives and responsibility. As they were faced with questions about their own responsibility and initiatives, most of them did not have anything to present, but they were forced to think about the issues. The interviewees also stressed that it was nice to have someone from outside paying attention to their opinions and problems, which they rarely experience.

The interviews could be a first step in a process towards future interventions where more attention is paid to the individual family and their specific needs combined with the needs of the community. The community consist of different individuals and families with different resources and demands that have to be thoroughly assessed. Projects designs should be created together with the resourceful target group and not for them. They have to be listened to and given time if we want to secure that the input is not overlapping and ignoring the existing resources and coping strategies.

Community structures in the future:

Earlier the LNR had a strong backup and support from the municipality, however today the financial contribution and support to the local community is very limited if at all existing. This means that the LNR has very limited possibilities to act in the role they have. In spite of this fact, very few interviewees seem to have reviewed the role of the LNR in order to take up the new challenges in the local communities.

During the interviews it appears that there are persons who are listened to and who are interested in development of their own community, however not necessary officially elected as representatives. Information on the issue has not been systematically collected during the interviews, as there has to be a general participation from various stakeholders in order to create the full picture of the social and power structures of the community.

In order to map the structures of the communities as well as the actual needs and current activities the findings of the survey could be presented to focus groups in selected communities. The focus groups should consist of members who are willing to discuss the actual situation and their common ideas for future interventions. They are the ones who will know who the most vulnerable are, where the need for intervention is etc. It is strongly recommended to place more responsibility with the hosting community as a local partner but it will take time and commitment to build up the needed confidence and facilitate establishment/re-establishment of a representation that is willing to deal with the present common needs of the community including the hosted IDPs. 5. Conclusion

The findings of the survey show that being a host family in the north of Montenegro implies a range of daily problems in connection with financial expenses as well as the social burden of hosting IDPs. The majority of the IDPs are relatives of the host families, however this does not prevent deterioration of the general socio-economic situation of the households and the need for external support to maintain. Based on the strong tradition of hospitality and pride, it is hard to believe that the IDPs will end up in the streets but the families’ requests for alternative accommodation for the hosted IDPs show that it is not all IDPs that can stay in the current accommodation. There appears to be a need for help to the host families as well as longer-term solutions to the accommodation of a certain group of IDPs.

The host families are suggesting various projects that can provide them an income in order to cover the daily expenses, which has increased with the arrival of the IDPs. Given the situation of the host families, the gap within the hosting community between host families and non-hosting families can develop if the aid is directed towards the host families only. It is recommended to target the hosting communities as a whole to strengthen the existing resources and avoid supporting the gaps within the already weak communities.

Currently, the hosting communities are in a transition period where the traditional local authorities have limited means and motivation to act and no alternative structures have been established. International and national organisations could contribute with crucial input in connection with identification and facilitation of community structures in order to strengthen the hosting community to be able to find solutions to the social and economic burden connected with hosting IDPs.

6. Annexes

Annex 1: Interview guidelines and questionnaire Annex 2: General statistics - Number of IDPs registered in the different villages/Number of people in town compared with villages Annex 3: Statistical summary of survey findings Annex 4: Village descriptions Annex 5: Village statistics - on the individual villages Annex 6: Evaluation by the interviewers