The Extent and Geographic Distribution of Chronic Poverty in Iraq's Center

Home , Afak, Amarah, Anah, Babil Governorate, Baghdad Governorate, Basrah District

The extent and geographic distribution of chronic poverty in Iraq’s Center/South Region

By : Tarek El-Guindi Hazem Al Mahdy John McHarris

United Nations World Food Programme May 2003 Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 Background:...... 3 What was being evaluated? ...... 3 Who were the key informants?...... 3 How were the interviews conducted?...... 3 Main Findings...... 4 The extent of chronic poverty...... 4 The regional and geographic distribution of chronic poverty ...... 5 How might baseline chronic poverty data support current Assessment and planning activities?...8 Baseline chronic poverty data and targeting assistance during the post-war period ...... 9 Strengths and weaknesses of the analysis, and possible next steps:...... 11 Conclusion ...... 13 Appendix-A: Data Collection and Analysis ...... 15 Appendix-B: Governorate Chronic Poverty Maps ...... 17 Appendix-C: Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor...... 30 Appendix-D: Governorate Tables...... 32

ii Executive Summary

The paper describes an analysis of chronic poverty for the Center/South region of Iraq. The work was undertaken by WFP Iraq, with support from WFP’s regional Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping/VAM unit based in Cairo. The study had two basic objectives; 1) to better understand the magnitude of chronic poverty within the region, and 2) to better understand the geographic and spatial distribution of chronic poverty at a sub-national (district) scale. The data supporting the analysis was based on key informant interviews; with WFP Iraqi national staff participating as key- informants. The interviews were conducted during the months preceding the war, and were part of WFP’s broader contingency planning and emergency preparedness activities.

Using structured interviews, key informants were asked to qualitatively evaluate the prevalence of chronic poverty for districts within Iraq’s 15 “Center South” governorates1. Three key informants were interviewed per governorate, and only districts belonging to the same governorate were evaluated against one another2.

Steps were taken to ensure that all key informants had a firm and common understanding of “chronic poverty”; prior to conducting the interviews. A chronic poverty definition was first reviewed in training sessions, and later reviewed again during the actual interviews. Chronic poverty was defined as:

A set of conditions whereby a household or individual is frequently over long periods of time unable to meet basic needs. Basic needs include adequate food, water, clothing, shelter, health, and basic education. “Chronic” poverty refers to deprivation that is long term by nature.

Also reviewed was the definition of “percent poor”; simply “the percent of the population poor3, within a given administrative area”.

It is important to emphasize that the study occurred during a period when PDS food rations were regularly ongoing. There is general consensus that many Iraqi households would be unable to survive without food rations. A previous Save the Children report on livelihoods in North Iraq concluded:

Most households are extremely vulnerable to external shocks, including unplanned changes in the sanctions system. … They have little (if any) capacity to expand to other coping strategies and economic activities.4

Ration dependency is very high, largely due to the fact that household incomes have fallen dramatically during the sanctions era.

Despite the fact that rations represent a significant income transfer to most Iraqi households; the findings of this study estimate that approximately 21% of Iraq’s Center/South population are chronically poor; or unable to meet their basic needs over long periods of time. By design, this

1 Center South Governorates include all governorates except Erbil, Dahuk, and Sulaymaniyah. For an analysis of chronic poverty for the three Northern governorates see The extent and geographic distribution of chronic poverty in Iraq’s Northern Governorates; ElGuindi, Almahdy, and McHarris; May 2003”. 2 For three of the 15 Center/South governorates (Al Anbar, An Najaf, and Al Qadisiyah) , only one key informant was interviewed due to time constraints. The results reported for these three governorates should be interpreted more cautiously. 3 Percent poor in this context actually refers to the percent of the district population chronically poor. The size of the larger “poor” population (including both the chronically poor; and the transient poor) fluctuates over time; as households fall in or out of poverty due to changing economic circumstances. 4 Understanding Kurdish livelihoods in Northern Iraq; Alastair Kirk and Gary Sawdon, January 2002. study did not attempt to quantify the larger “poor” population. The more inclusive “poor” category encompasses both the transient poor; i.e. those whose poverty status is not long term in nature, as well as the “chronics”. The findings conclude that just over 1/5th of the region is chronically poor, representing approximately 4.6 million of the Center/South’s total population of 22.3 million. These estimates should be interpreted as approximate (i.e. not precise); due to the nature of the approach and methodology used.

The main body of the report includes maps showing the geographic distribution of chronic poverty throughout the Center/South region. Concentrations occur within a relatively small number of districts. Twenty districts contain approximately 3.3 million chronically poor, or about 72% of the 4.6 million total. These same districts account for approximately 62% of Iraq’s total Center/South population. While the general population distribution clearly influences the size and the geographic distribution of the chronically poor population; a significant number of districts have disproportionately large chronically poor populations, due to their high chronic poverty rates. District level chronic poverty rates are shown in the Figure-3 map. The rates are given as percentage figures, and portray the size of the chronically poor population relative to the size of the total district population. The Center/South contains numerous areas with high chronic poverty rates. Two clusters of such districts are located towards the East of the country and border Iran. The first cluster lies east of Baghdad and includes areas within the governorates of Taamim, Salah al Din, Diyala, and Wassit. A second cluster, located in the southeast corner of the country, includes all of Basrah governorate, and most of southern Missan. Basrah governorate is particularly noteworthy in that all of it’s districts are classified as having either high, or very high chronic poverty rates.

Chronic poverty rates for districts containing the administrative centers (governorate capital cities) were significantly lower when compared with rates for other districts. The average chronic poverty rate for districts containing governorate administrative centers was 17%, as compared to 27% for all other districts in the Center/South region. Past developments related to uneven capital spending and investment, or inequitable public sector resource allocation might have contributed to these differences. Further study and research is needed for a better understanding of causal factors.

The report includes some forward thinking about the potential utility of chronic poverty data and maps during the post-war stabilization period. The revitalized Public Distribution System (PDS) will operate for an unknown, although “finite” period of time. The focus of assistance will eventually shift towards longer term reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts, with a subsequent need to implement more targeted and selective interventions. Recovery assistance should logically be targeted to those districts of the country that contain larger numbers or higher densities of chronically poor populations. While future socioeconomic surveys and analyses will undoubtedly shed new light on where future assistance is most needed; time will unfold before such survey results are widely available.

Background:

The main purpose of this report is to present recent findings on the extent and geographic distribution of chronic poverty throughout Iraq’s Center/South region. The analysis occurred within the broader context of WFP’s contingency planning and preparedness efforts. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no recent studies provide details on the extent of chronic poverty for Iraq’s Center/South region, at district scale.

What was being evaluated?

Key informants were asked to consider the prevalence of “chronic poverty” within the districts of their governorates. At the onset of each interview a standard working definition of chronic poverty was reviewed:

A set of conditions whereby a household or individual is frequently over long periods of time unable to meet their basic needs. Basic needs include adequate food, water, clothing, shelter, health, and basic education. “Chronic” poverty refers to deprivation that is long term by nature.

Also reviewed was the definition of “percent poor”; simply “the percent of the population poor5, within a given administrative area”.

Who were the key informants?

WFP has maintained a large staff presence inside Iraq, due to its’ lead agency role in administering the food handling and food distribution components of the UN’s Oil-for-Food Programme. Within the Center/South region6 approximately 159 Iraqi national staff are employed as Food Distribution Observers. Approximately 40 observers were selected as key informants. Observers spend the large majority of their time traveling in the field, and many have been working within their governorates for a period of 5-6 years. During the pre-war period; observers collectively conducted approximately 9,000 household interviews per month. The selection of key informants was done primarily on the basis of: 1) the observer’s field experience, length of time on the job and familiarity with communities within the governorate. 2) exposure to prior training and tools associated w/ the key informant process 3) understanding of the key concepts such as “chronic poverty”.

Interviewers were also WFP staff, and were selected on the basis of: 1) their communication skills and their ability to conduct interviews and record key informant responses in a neutral and professional manner. 2) their understanding of the training and tools associated w/ the process.

How were the interviews conducted?

An interview consisted of one key informant and one interviewer. Three interviews were conducted per governorate; for 12 of Iraq’s 15 Center/South governorates7. Key informants were

5 Percent poor in this context actually refers to the percent of the district population chronically poor. The size of the larger “poor” population (including both the chronically poor; and the transient poor) fluctuates over time; as households fall in or out of poverty due to changing economic circumstances 6 The Center/South region of Iraq contains 15 of Iraq’s 18 governorates. 7 For three governorates; Anbar, Najaf, and Qadissiya only one interview took place due to time constraints; accordingly, results for these three governorates should be used more cautiously.

3 asked to evaluate the “percent poor” in district-1 as compared to district-2, or district-1 as compared to district-3, … until all possible combination of district-pairs within a governorate were evaluated. Respondents were given a list of “response options”, at the beginning of each interview:

Table 1: How does district-1 compare to district-2? Key Informant Much Lower Slightly Same/ Slightly Higher Much Response Options: Lower Lower Similar Higher Higher

In this context, utilizing qualitative comparisons, as opposed to precise quantitative estimates had significant advantages. In general, making comparisons on qualitative and relative grounds is easier than making the same comparison quantitatively. Data collection and analysis procedures are described in detail in Appendix-A/Data Collection and Analysis. The appendix includes documentation describing how qualitative data was used to rank the districts within a governorate according to chronic poverty prevalence. Key informants were subsequently asked to focus their attention only on those districts ranking worst and best respectively; and to give “approximate” quantitative estimates of the percent chronically poor for each focus district. Appendi-A also includes a description of how these reference quantitative estimates were used, together with “weights” derived from the qualitative data, to interpolate quantitative estimates for remaining districts. Resulting estimates should be interpreted as approximate (i.e. not precise); due to the nature of the approach and methodology used.

Main Findings

The extent of chronic poverty

Slightly over 1/5th (21%) of Iraq’s Center/South population was found to be “chronically poor”; accounting for 4.6 of the region’s 22.3 million people. The results represent a segment of the overall poor population; i.e. those amongst the poor whose deprivation is long- term or near constant in nature. By design, this study did not attempt to quantify the larger “poor” population8, nor did it attempt to quantify the even larger PDS dependant population.

It is important to emphasize that the study occurred during a period when PDS food rations were regularly ongoing. Household dependency on the rations has been (and continues to be) very high largely because household incomes have fallen so dramatically during the sanctions era. There is general consensus that many Iraqi households would be unable to survive without food rations. A previous Save the Children report on livelihoods in North Iraq concluded:

The findings herein conclude that just over one-in-five Center/South households were unable to meet their basic needs even after taking into account assistance provided through the PDS. During the war, income generating activities for many Iraqi households came to a halt, or near halt; as more pressing concerns such as personal safety and survival took precedence. Many shops and private sector businesses remain closed, numerous public sector employees have not been paid during the past months, and in general economic activity remains stifled. Vulnerability to poverty,

8 The more inclusive “poor” category encompasses both the transient poor; i.e. those who fall in and out of poverty over time; as well as the chronics. 9 Understanding Kurdish livelihoods in Northern Iraq; Alastair Kirk and Gary Sawdon, January 2002.

4 food insecurity, and malnutrition has undoubtedly risen, and as such the immediate resumption of assistance through the PDS or other means ranks high as an urgent priority.

The regional and geographic distribution of chronic poverty

The data were mapped to depict the geographic distribution and spatial patterns of chronic poverty throughout the region. The map below shows the chronically poor population per district:

Figure-1:

The findings suggest that a large number of chronically poor are highly concentrated in a relatively small number of districts. Twenty districts (those shaded red above) contain approximately 3.3 million chronically poor, or about 72% of the 4.6 million total. These same districts account for approximately 62% of Iraq’s total Center/South population. Approximately 77% of Iraq’s population is urban10; and is mostly concentrated within large cities or in close proximity to the historical fertile-crescent framed by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

10 http://www.sesrtcic.org/members/irq/irqhome.shtml

Figure-2

While the geographic distribution of chronically poor is clearly associated with the general population distribution; the relationship is not always direct. Clear exceptions to the rule can be found, with a significant number of large population districts having relatively small populations of “chronically poor”. The converse situation described was also found; with a significant number of districts having large chronically poor population sizes relative to their total population.

Estimates of “chronic poverty rates” were also mapped. The rates are given as percentage figures, and portray the size of the chronically poor population, relative to the size of the total district population. Food aid or other forms of humanitarian assistance distributed in districts with high chronic rates of poverty has a greater chance of reaching needy households. The Figure-3 map, on the following page, shows the geographic distribution of chronic poverty rates.

Figure-3

The Center/South contains numerous areas with high chronic poverty rates. Two clusters of such districts are located towards the East of the country and border Iran. The first cluster lies east of Baghdad and includes areas within the governorates of Taamim, Salah al Din, Diyala, and Wassit. A second cluster, located in the southeast corner of the country, includes all of Basrah governorate and most of southern Missan.

Basrah governorate is particularly noteworthy in that all of it’s districts are classified as having either high, or very high chronic poverty rates, as shown in the Figure-3 map above. Districts with the highest rates are located towards the east and include Al Madiana, Al Qurnah, Shatt Al Arab, Abu Al Khasib, and Al Faw. Al Basrah district (containing the governorate capital Basrah city) was reported as having the lowest chronic poverty rate within the governorate (34%); a figure still high by national standards.

7 and investment, or inequitable public sector resource allocation might have contributed to these differences. Further study and research is necessary for a better understanding of causal factors.

A series of governorate level thematic maps were produced so that district level differences in chronic poverty could more easily be visualized. Each map features the districts within a single governorate and displays data showing both chronic poverty rates as well as quantitative figures/estimates regarding the size of the chronically poor population. The maps are contained in Appendix-B: Chronic Poverty Governorate Maps; and a sample map for Missan governorate appears below in Figure 4.: Figure 4

How might baseline chronic poverty data support current assessment and planning activities?

Current assessment activities are clearly focused on averting a large scale humanitarian crisis by ensuring that basic needs; security, water, electricity, health, food, … are provided in a timely manner. Within the food sector, assessment teams are identifying the support and assistance needed to enable a reactivated and fully functioning PDS system. Food sector assessments are also aimed at getting a better understanding of whether emergency food aid will be required prior to the first round of post-war nation wide food distributions. Priority vulnerable groups and institutions that might require more urgent assistance include: • pregnant and lactating women, • young children prone to malnutrition risk, • IDPs unable to support themselves, and not receiving adequate support from others, • the “poorest of the poor” who might have already sold off their food advance rations to meet other basic needs, • households and individuals directly and severely affected by the fighting,

8 • hospitals, orphanages, or similar social institutions with inadequate access to food.

Re-establishing a fully functioning national PDS social safety net, with full rations, full geographic coverage, regular and timely food distributions … is a major undertaking; due to the sheer size and multiple components of the network. Several variables such as the security environment, administrative arrangements for MOT staff payments, high fuel prices, the food resource and pipeline situation, … are likely to contribute to operational constraints with regards to near-term and full PDS re-vitalization.

For whatever reasons if near-term blanket PDS coverage is delayed, “pocket areas” of rising food insecurity could develop. If this scenario were to play out; food insecure households would look first to family members, friends, neighbors, and community institutions as potential sources of assistance. The ability of communities to meet such needs will depend largely on their own local economic resources. Better off communities, where chronic poverty is less prevalent, will be in a stronger position to provide assistance and vice-versa. Districts and communities with relatively high rates of chronic poverty should logically rank high as priority areas where full PDS resumption is more pressing, or where pre-PDS assistance could be needed. Appendix-C contains a table listing all of the Center/South districts, sorted/ranked according to their chronic poverty rates, along with estimates of the number of chronically poor per district. Appendix-D contains the same information, tabulated according to governorate.

Baseline chronic poverty data and targeting assistance during the post-war period

WFP’s current operations in Iraq are squarely focused on re-establishing the PDS in order to avert a future and potentially near-term humanitarian crisis. As planners and decision makers look beyond the short-term period, a policy dialogue on the future of the PDS is likely to develop. Future decisions regarding the PDS, or any new social safety net; should be supported by a thorough and comprehensive analysis which takes into account current and future PDS dependency. Proposed scenarios will need to pay particular attention to the economic well being of low to middle income households; i.e. those that are most dependant on current PDS assistance. Data and information is needed to better understand the socioeconomic characteristics of these groups so that future actions, and their ramifications, are well understood beforehand. A solid knowledge base covering poverty, food security, social welfare, nutrition, and other related fields is needed to inform the emerging policy dialogue. If assistance were to be targeted more selectively, what would be the impact of scaling back, and how would the large population that is currently dependant on assistance cope without it? What targeting criteria would be used? How would poverty, food security, and malnutrition be monitored during a transition period so that coverage/assistance could expand and contract as required? The feasibility of building up a nation wide monitoring capacity, utilizing either the key informants based pairwise comparison approach or an alternative tool such as a coping strategies index/CSI, is currently being considered. WFP will continue to dialogue with concerned institutions on issues related to capacity building and future initiatives.

The data and information contained in this study allow for only a preliminary look at the size and geographic distribution of “the poorest of the poor”. This group represents a small and limited segment of the larger “PDS dependant population”. The comprehensive knowledge base alluded to above will have to address and inform a much more demanding set of questions and issues. Future efforts aimed at building up an adequate knowledge base will need to directly address the following information needs: • Who are the PDS dependants, in terms of their socioeconomic characteristics, their demographics, their livelihoods, etc. …

9 • Why is current PDS dependence high; and what are their current and likely future constraints that prevent self-sufficiency? What are the main constraints on income, access to food, and other basic needs? • What types of assistance (in-kind, price subsidies, cash, …) are likely to be most effective ? • What sectors, and possibly sector specific activities, would be most appropriate as channels of assistance? • Which government ministries and institutions are best suited for administering a future social safety net programme? • Are there capacity short-falls regarding institutional abilities to administer and deliver aid, and if so; what kind of support is most needed to build up administrative capacity?

A variety of approaches, methodologies, and tools are available for generating the analytical outputs that can serve as the foundation for the new knowledge base. Creative adaptations of already tested tools, such as the “pair-wise” tool used herein, should be considered for future utilization. The tool could be adopted to generate new information designed to address current qualitative information gaps. Rather than asking key informants to qualitatively compare the prevalence of chronic poverty in various locations; key informants within a community could be asked to produce a consensus list describing the “types” of households most dependant on external assistance. A list for a hypothetical community is shown below:

• households whose main income earner/head of household is female • households with more than 5 children per family • households whose main income earner is recently deceased, as a result of the fighting (i.e. war widows) • households dependant on small scale agriculture; farming less than 2 ha. of land • households with one or more family members handicapped or disabled • house holds whose main livelihood is tied to animal husbandry, owning less than 20 sheep on average.

Key informants could then be asked to qualitatively compare either the food security status, poverty status, or PDS dependency status, of various groups, against one-another. The qualitative data could then be processed to generate a vulnerability or dependency ranking for each household type described above. The pairwise comparison tool could also be used to generate new information on the “why” of vulnerability and dependency. Key informants could be asked to generate a consensus list describing the 5-7 most important constraints that contribute to either food insecurity, or a lack of sufficient household income. A list for a hypothetical community is shown below:

• lack of employment opportunities • lack of nutritional awareness; contributing to high rates of micro-nutrient deficiency • shortage of marketable job-skills • high costs associated with accessing potable water • high costs for basic health services • high fuel costs, contributing to both higher transportation costs, and higher commodity costs for those commodities not produced locally.

The qualitative data pertaining to community “constraints” could then be processed to derive ranks and weights reflecting the relative importance of each constraint. Such information would have

10 obvious relevance as an input for prioritizing future types of assistance; and could be tailored for planning sector specific assistance, or even for planning activities within sectors.

Improvements regarding the utilization of the pair-wise comparison tool could contribute to a much more solid and credible understanding of those issues already examined in this paper; namely the extent of poverty or food insecurity within the country, and it’s geographic distribution at community scale. The geographic unit of analysis could be lowered to the sub-district level, making the key informants task of evaluating poverty or food insecurity prevalence an easier one. Secondly, using a minimum of five key informants per area evaluated would allow for a more rigorous analysis of variance; or in other words for safer “convergence of evidence” findings.

Complimentary quantitative sample surveys could be carried out in a limited number of test case areas. This would facilitate a comparison of key informant pair-wise comparison results with the results of more traditional sample surveys. Conducting traditional household income and expenditure sample surveys can be both time-consuming and expensive. Generating results with statistical validity at community scale often requires employing large numbers of data enumerators, interviewing a large number of households, with all the associated administrative and logistical operating expenses. Capturing and quantifying household income, expenditures, and consumption data often requires lengthy questionnaires with a long list of questions designed to capture every possible household income, expenditure, and economic activity. While sample survey results often inspire “higher confidence” amongst users, these more traditional quantitative approaches have their own set of data quality and reliability issues. Respondents’ willingness to report income or expenditures truthfully, accurately capturing informal income, and quantifying expenditures in multiple locations where market prices vary represent only a few of the challenges associated with sample survey implementation.

Results from comprehensive household income, expenditure, and consumption surveys, designed to support national planning and resource allocation at community level, are unlikely to be available during the near-term. Combining alternative sources of information (such as the data generated from the currently circulating OCHA rapid assessment forms) with data collected from future key informant initiatives, could yield fruitful results. Similarly, a greater and more systematic extraction of map and satellite image based information (on physical infrastructure, access to public utilities, social infrastructure, land quality, …) could contribute to more informed resource allocation decisions in the future. Opportunities for integrating data collection and analysis activities that are currently separate, put with the potential of being mutually supportive and complimentary, should be actively explored by all concerned parties.

Future assistance, channeled either through social safety nets, or through recovery or development modes should proportionately be targeted to communities containing larger numbers or higher densities of chronically poor populations. The findings of this study provide for an initial “fist cut” understanding of where future assistance is likely to be needed most. The experience and lessons learned, specifically regarding the potential utility of the approach and tools used, should contribute to more effective data collection and analysis initiatives in the future.

Strengths and weaknesses of the analysis, and possible next steps:

The analysis is based on key informants understanding and perceptions of chronic poverty conditions throughout the country, just prior to the onset of war. Positive elements associated with the undertaking are described below:

11 1) The results capture key informants understanding of relative differences across districts and populations in terms of their chronic poverty status. The key informants who participated in the exercise have spent long periods of time traveling and working amongst the communities being evaluated.

2) The findings provide a recent snapshot of chronic poverty just prior to the war, and therefore can be described as “timely”.

3) The data were collected and reported at district scale to facilitate the targeting of future humanitarian assistance in a relatively precise manner.

4) A rigorous methodology was used to maintain and cross check data quality during the data collection, and analysis stages.

Weaknesses or “opportunities for future improvements” are described below:

1) Key informants were asked to evaluate “percentage chronically poor” at district level. Before conducting the exercise the question of “at what scale should the data be collected” was discussed. Although there was general consensus amongst key informants that making comparisons at sub-district level would have been easier; time and operational constraints led to a decision to work at the more aggregated district scale11.

3) All of the key informants were WFP employees and therefore the issue of a single agency bias could be raised as a legitimate concern. Knowledge and awareness of poverty conditions throughout the country resides within a multitude of agencies, organizations, etc. . If the analysis were to be undertaken again, selecting either key informants from various organizations and backgrounds, or perhaps more ideally, selecting from actual community members with no particular organization affiliation, could make for a significant improvement. Such an approach would yield the added benefit of building ownership and consensus amongst participants.

11 For a few governorates the data was actually collected at sub-district scale; this data was subsequently aggregated for the purpose of reporting the findings at one consistent “district” level across the country.

Conclusion

The previous sections describe WFP’s recent analysis of chronic poverty within the Center/South region of Iraq. The work was undertaken within the broader context of contingency planning and preparedness, during the weeks prior to the war. The data supporting the analysis was gathered during late-February to early-March 2003, and thus provides for a timely snapshot of baseline chronic poverty conditions.

A key informants based approach was used and approximately 40 WFP national staff participated as interviewees. Participants were selected considering their “field experience”, their familiarity with the areas/communities evaluated, and their understanding of chronic poverty. Most key informants had received training in Amman approximately one month prior to data collection. The training served to familiarize participants with key concepts and operational procedures associated with data collection and analysis.

A working definition of “chronic poverty” was used to ensure that interviewees were clear about “what” they were being asked to evaluate. Chronic poverty was defined as:

Key informants were asked to compare districts within a single governorate, in terms of the prevalence of chronic poverty within the areas evaluated. Respondents chose from a pre-defined list of qualitative response options, designed to highlight differences amongst districts. The qualitative responses were then processed resulting in quantitative relative “weights” for each district evaluated. The weights captured the importance of each district in terms of the percentage of its’ population “chronically poor”. Participants were then asked to provide approximate quantitative estimates (percent chronically poor) for only the two districts ranking “worst” and “best” within a given governorate. These figures were then used together with the weights data to generate a set of “percentage chronically poor” figures for each district. The statistical measure “variance” was used to identify the two out of three key informants whose estimates were closest to one another. These estimates were then averaged together to produce a final set of “percent chronically poor” figures for each district. These quantitative percentage estimates, and by extension the absolute estimates of the number of chronically poor, should be interpreted as approximate and not precise; due to the nature of the approach and methodology used.

Approximately 21% Iraq’s Center/South population was described as chronically poor; i.e. those “who are frequently, over long periods of time, unable to meet their basic needs”. By design, this study did not attempt to quantify the larger “poor” population, which includes undoubtedly large segments of the population, whose poverty is more “transient” in nature. The findings conclude that just over 1/5th of the region is chronically poor, representing approximately 4.6 million of the Center/South’s total population of 22.3 million.

The report includes maps highlighting the geographic distribution of chronic poverty throughout the Center/South region. Concentrations of large chronically poor populations occur within a relatively small number of districts. Approximately 72% of the focus population was located within only twenty districts. These same districts account for approximately 62% of Iraq’s total Center/South population.

13 District level chronic poverty rates are shown in the Figure-3 map, within the main body of the report. Appendix-B contains a series of maps (one governorate per page), designed to facilitate an easier viewing of the data. Numerous areas with high chronic poverty rates are dispersed across the Center/South region. Despite such dispersion, the national map depicts clear and identifiable clusters of “worse off” districts. One such cluster lies east of Baghdad and includes select districts belonging to Taamim, Salah al Din, Diyala, and Wassit governorates. A second cluster, located in the southeast corner of the country, includes all of Basrah governorate and a number of Missan’s southern districts. Basrah is particularly noteworthy, in that all of its’ districts are classified as having either high, or very high chronic poverty rates.

Districts containing administrative centers (governorate capitals) had an average chronic poverty rate of 17%. The corresponding figure for those districts not containing governorate capitals was a substantially higher 27%. Uneven capital spending and investment, or inequitable public sector resource allocation in the past, might have contributed to these differences. Further study is needed for a better understanding of causal factors contributing to regional disparities.

The relevance of chronic poverty data to WFP’s current PDS revitalization efforts and emergency operations was examined. While blanket PDS coverage of the entire population is planned for the near future, operational constraints related to a variety of issues (security, pipeline, counterpart capacity…) are likely to present real challenges. If near-term blanket PDS coverage is delayed, rising food insecurity in pocket or even larger areas could develop. Households facing food insecurity would likely look first to family members, friends, neighbors, and community institutions as potential sources of assistance. Worse off communities, where chronic poverty is more prevalent, will be challenged to provide such assistance. Districts and communities with relatively high rates of chronic poverty should logically rank high as priority areas where full PDS resumption is more pressing, or where pre-PDS assistance could be needed.

Lastly, the report highlights the need to build up the existing knowledge base on issues related to poverty, food security, nutrition, and other related themes. The need for an informed and active policy dialogue on the future of the PDS provides ample justification for investing in data collection and analysis activities designed to support such a dialogue. While baseline information is needed as the foundation for a knowledgebase, monitoring data and information will also be needed to track changes over time. The current de-facto policy of providing global PDS assistance to all is unlikely to be extended indefinitely as a long-term policy. At some point in the future PDS, or another social safety net in a modified form, is likely to adopt a strategy embracing more selective targeting to those most in need. Under such a scenario, assistance will likely be phased out or scaled back in a gradual manner, so that severe economic hardships and social disruptions can be avoided. The monitoring capacity alluded to above would have a substantial role to play in such an environment. Humanitarian agencies currently operating in Iraq have a strong incentive to ensure the future effectiveness of a national monitoring capacity, so that assistance designed to address poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition can be provided in a flexible and equitable manner.

Appendix-A: Data Collection and Analysis

Interviewers asked key informants to compare the prevalence of chronic poverty in one area vs. another (i.e. “compare District-1 to District-2”). A matrix was used to record these pair-wise comparison responses. An example of a partially filled matrix is shown below:

Table 1: Matrix for Recording Key Informant Responses District-1 District-2 District-3 District-4 District-5 District-1 same slightly higher Much higher much lower same/similar District-2 same District-3 same District-4 same District-5 same

The qualitative response data was later coded using numeric fractions. The numeric fractions represent the comparative standing, or relative position of each district within a district pair. For example, if two areas were evaluated as having the “same” (or similar) food insecurity rates, the data was coded with a value of 1/1; indicating relative “parity” with regards to each district’s food insecurity rate. The codes covering the full range of response options are shown below:

Table 2: Codes for Qualitative Key Informant Responses Key Informant’s Much Lower Slightly Same/ Slightly Higher Much Response: Lower Lower Similar Higher Higher Code Assigned: ¼ 1/3 ½ 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1

The coded data made it easier to perform consistency checks (quality control), during the data processing. An example of a consistency check is given below; to illustrate the process:

If district-1 was evaluated as lower than district-2, and district-2 was evaluated as lower than district-3, then district-1 should logically be evaluated as much lower than district-312.

Numeric “weight” values were also generated, by processing the coded matrix data using the pair- wise comparison technique13. A district’s weight value reflects its’ importance, in terms of it’s food security rate. The weight values were then used to rank the districts within a governorate.

How were the quantitative estimates of “percent chronically poor” generated?

Key informants were subsequently asked to focus their attention only on those districts ranking worst and best respectively; and to give “approximate” quantitative estimates regarding the percent of these district populations chronically poor. Percentage estimates were interpolated for the remaining districts utilizing the generated weights. Having the data in percentage units, allowed for a comparison of results across governorates.

12 When unacceptable consistency scores were detected; key informants were either asked to re-consider those particular “pairs” that contributed to the unacceptable consistency score. In a few cases, the entire interview (and responses) were discarded, and later substituted w/ another key informant’s responses, with acceptable consistency scores. 13 The software program used was IDRISI32. Idrisi is a non-profit project within Clark Labs: a research center within Clark University dedicated to furthering the development and understanding of computer-assisted geographic analysis. The procedure by which the weights are produced follows the logic developed by T. Saaty under the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). For information on the Analytical Hierarchy Process see Saaty, T.L., 1977. A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structure. J. Math. Psychology, 15, 234-281.

15 This series of data processing steps resulted in district level “percent poor” estimates from each key informant interviewed. The statistical measure “variance” was used to identify the two out of three key informants, for each governorate, whose estimates were closest to one another. The closest estimates were then averaged together to produce a final set of “percent chronically poor” estimates for each district. These quantitative percentage estimates, and by extension the absolute estimates of the number of chronically poor, should be interpreted as approximate and not precise; due to the nature of the approach and methodology used.

16 Appendix-B: Governorate Chronic Poverty Maps

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Appendix-C: Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor Note: Data/estimates should be interpreted as approximate and not precise; due to the nature of the approach and methodology used. Percent Total Chronically Population Governorate District Population Poor Chronically Poor Basrah Shatt Al Arab 106,000 85% 90,100 Basrah Al Madiana 158,800 73% 115,600 Basrah Al Qurnah 137,400 66% 91,000 Basrah Al Faw 21,700 61% 13,200 Diyala Kifri 42,000 55% 23,100 Basrah Abu al Khasib 126,800 54% 68,400 Qadissiya Afak 110,100 43% 47,700 Diyala Balad Ruz 99,600 41% 41,100 Baghdad Saadam 1,036,800 40% 414,700 Salah Al Din Touz Hourmato 153,400 40% 61,400 Basrah Al Zubair 277,200 39% 107,100 Salah Al Din Al Shirkat 121,500 39% 47,300 Missan Al Mijar al Kabir 118,300 39% 45,600 Wassit Badrah 20,600 38% 7,700 Misssan Al Kahla 23,400 37% 8,600 Diyala Khanaqin 160,400 36% 57,800 Basrah Al Basrah 1,052,200 34% 352,500 Baghdad Al-Kadhimiya 778,500 34% 265,700 Missan Al Miamona 84,600 34% 28,400 Taamim Dibis 34,300 34% 11,700 Taamim Daquq 40,200 31% 12,600 Qadissiya Ad Diwaniyah 441,400 30% 132,500 Salah Al Din Bayji 134,000 30% 40,500 Diyala Al Khalis 255,900 29% 73,400 Muthanna Rumaitha 212,900 29% 61,500 Thi Qar Chibayish 68,900 29% 20,000 Taamim Kirkuk 622,200 28% 171,600 Babil Al Hashimiyah 275,300 28% 75,700 Salah Al Din Al Door 46,700 28% 13,100 Taamim Haweeja 151,300 27% 41,300 Baghdad Al-Mahmudiya 250,100 26% 64,300 Baghdad Abu Ghraib 189,400 26% 48,700 Baghdad Al-Mada'in 117,500 26% 30,200 Diyala Ba`qubah 467,900 25% 117,000 Diyala Al Miqdadiyah 198,600 25% 49,800 Missan Qal`at Salih 83,000 25% 20,600 Missan Ali al Gharbi 39,200 23% 9,100 Salah Al Din Balad 167,600 22% 37,300 Wassit Al Hayy 136,200 22% 30,000 Salah Al Din Tikrit 130,300 22% 29,100 Babil Al Mahawil 212,800 21% 45,400 Muthanna Al Khithir 68,100 21% 14,000 Karbala Ain Al Tamur 20,400 21% 4,300

30 Appendix-C (continued) Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor

Percent Total Chronically Population Governorate District Population Poor Chronically Poor Wassit Al Aziziya 112,900 20% 22,700 Anbar Ar Rutbah 24,800 20% 5,000 Muthanna As Salman 6,400 20% 1,300 Thi Qar Refai 279,800 19% 51,800 Anbar Al Haditha 75,800 19% 14,500 Missan Al Amarah 454,700 18% 79,600 Salah Al Din Samarra 188,700 18% 33,000 Ninewa Sinjar 166,500 16% 26,400 Anbar Al Qa'im 116,100 16% 19,200 Ninewa Al Shikhan 58,100 16% 9,400 Anbar Anah 37,200 16% 6,100 Baghdad Al Karkh 1,541,500 15% 231,200 Baghdad Rusafa 1,302,000 15% 195,300 Baghdad Al-Adhamiya 808,500 15% 121,300 Qadissiya Al Hamza 149,700 15% 21,900 Thi Qar An Nasiriyah 578,600 14% 78,500 Babil Al Misiab 279,900 14% 38,600 Muthanna As Samawah 250,300 14% 35,000 Thi Qar Suq ash Shuyukh 229,800 14% 31,400 Wassit Al Noamania 107,600 14% 14,700 Thi Qar Shatrah 315,000 13% 39,400 Babil Al Hillah 617,800 11% 68,000 Karbala Al Jadwal al Gharbi 161,700 11% 17,000 Anbar Hit 105,800 11% 12,100 Ninewa Makhmur 76,000 11% 8,200 Wassit Al Kut 374,500 10% 36,800 Qadissiya Shamiya 185,300 10% 18,900 Anbar Ar Ramadi 444,600 9% 41,200 Anbar Al Fallujah 425,700 8% 34,100 Ninewa Tilkef 167,600 8% 13,000 Najaf Al Manathera 132,600 8% 10,400 Karbala Karbala 541,800 7% 39,000 Najaf An Najaf 522,000 7% 35,700 Najaf Al Kufa 275,400 7% 18,500 Wassit As Suwayrah 161,600 7% 10,500 Ninewa Hatra 37,700 7% 2,500 Ninewa Talafar 300,900 6% 17,300 Ninewa Al Hamdaniyah 125,700 6% 7,900 Ninewa Al Ba'aj 88,400 6% 5,700 Ninewa Mosul 1,432,200 5% 76,700

31 Appendix-D: Governorate Tables Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor Note: Data/estimates should be interpreted as approximate and not precise; due to the nature of the approach and methodology used.

Table-1: Anbar Governorate Percent Total Chronically Population Governorate District Population Poor Chronically Poor Anbar Ar Rutbah 24,800 20% 5,000 Anbar Al Haditha 75,800 19% 14,500 Anbar Al Qa'im 116,100 16% 19,200 Anbar Anah 37,200 16% 6,100 Anbar Hit 105,800 11% 12,100 Anbar Ar Ramadi 444,600 9% 41,200 Anbar Al Fallujah 425,700 8% 34,100

Table-2: Basrah Governorate Percent Total Chronically Population Governorate District Population Poor Chronically Poor Basrah Shatt Al Arab 106,000 85% 90,100 Basrah Al Madiana 158,800 73% 115,600 Basrah Al Qurnah 137,400 66% 91,000 Basrah Al Faw 21,700 61% 13,200 Basrah Abu al Khasib 126,800 54% 68,400 Basrah Al Zubair 277,200 39% 107,100 Basrah Basrah 1,052,200 34% 352,500

Table-3: Qadissiya Governorate Percent Total Chronically Population Governorate District Population Poor Chronically Poor Qadissiya Afak 110,100 43% 47,700 Qadissiya Ad Diwaniyah 441,400 30% 132,500 Qadissiya Al Hamza 149,700 15% 21,900 Qadissiya Shamiya 185,300 10% 18,900

Table-4: Najaf Governorate Percent Total Chronically Population Governorate District Population Poor Chronically Poor Najaf Al Manathera 132,600 8% 10,400 Najaf Najaf 522,000 7% 35,700 Najaf Al Kufa 275,400 7% 18,500

Appendix-D: Governorate Tables (continued) Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor

Table-5: Taamim Governorate Percent Total Chronically Population Governorate District Population Poor Chronically Poor Taamim Dibis 34,300 34% 11,700 Taamim Daquq 40,200 31% 12,600 Taamim Kirkuk 622,200 28% 171,600 Taamim Haweeja 151,300 27% 41,300

Table-6: Babil Governorate Total Percent Population Governorate District Population Chronically Poor Chronically Poor Babil Al Hashimiyah 275,300 28% 75,700 Babil Al Mahawil 212,800 21% 45,400 Babil Al Misiab 279,900 14% 38,600 Babil Al Hillah 617,800 11% 68,000

Table-7: Baghdad Governorate Total Percent Population Governorate District Population Chronically Poor Chronically Poor Baghdad Saadam 1,036,800 40% 414,700 Baghdad Al-Kadhimiya 778,500 34% 265,700 Baghdad Al-Mahmudiya 250,100 26% 64,300 Baghdad Abu Ghraib 189,400 26% 48,700 Baghdad Al-Mada'in 117,500 26% 30,200 Baghdad Al Karkh 1,541,500 15% 231,200 Baghdad Rusafa 1,302,000 15% 195,300 Baghdad Al-Adhamiya 808,500 15% 121,300

Table-8: Diyala Governorate Total Percent Population Governorate District Population Chronically Poor Chronically Poor Diyala Kifri 42,000 55% 23,100 Diyala Balad Ruz 99,600 41% 41,100 Diyala Khanaqin 160,400 36% 57,800 Diyala Al Khalis 255,900 29% 73,400 Diyala Ba`qubah 467,900 25% 117,000 Diyala Al Miqdadiyah 198,600 25% 49,800

33 Appendix-D: Governorate Tables (continued) Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor

Table-9: Karbala Governorate Total Percent Population Governorate District Population Chronically Poor Chronically Poor Karbala Ain Al Tamur 20,400 21% 4,300 Karbala Al Jadwal al Gharbi 161,700 11% 17,000 Karbala Karbala 541,800 7% 39,000

Table-10: Missan Governorate Total Percent Population Governorate District Population Chronically Poor Chronically Poor Missan Al Mijar al Kabir 118,300 39% 45,600 Missan Al Kahla 23,400 37% 8,600 Missan Al Miamona 84,600 34% 28,400 Missan Qal`at Salih 83,000 25% 20,600 Missan Ali al Gharbi 39,200 23% 9,100 Missan Al Amarah 454,700 18% 79,600

Table-11: Muthanna Governorate Total Percent Population Governorate District Population Chronically Poor Chronically Poor Muthanna Rumaitha 212,900 29% 61,500 Muthanna Al Khithir 68,100 21% 14,000 Muthanna As Salman 6,400 20% 1,300 Muthanna As Samawah 250,300 14% 35,000

Table-12: Ninewa Governorate Total Percent Population Governorate District Population Chronically Poor Chronically Poor Ninewa Sinjar 166,500 16% 26,400 Ninewa Al Shikhan 58,100 16% 9,400 Ninewa Makhmur 76,000 11% 8,200 Ninewa Tilkef 167,600 8% 13,000 Ninewa Hatra 37,700 7% 2,500 Ninewa Talafar 300,900 6% 17,300 Ninewa Al Hamdaniyah 125,700 6% 7,900 Ninewa Al Ba'aj 88,400 6% 5,700 Ninewa Mosul 1,432,200 5% 76,700

Appendix-D: Governorate Tables (continued) Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor

Table-13: Salah Al Din Governorate Total Percent Population Governorate District Population Chronically Poor Chronically Poor Salah Al Din Touz Hourmato 153,400 40% 61,400 Salah Al Din Al Shirkat 121,500 39% 47,300 Salah Al Din Bayji 134,000 30% 40,500 Salah Al Din Al Door 46,700 28% 13,100 Salah Al Din Balad 167,600 22% 37,300 Salah Al Din Tikrit 130,300 22% 29,100 Salah Al Din Samarra 188,700 18% 33,000

Table-14: Thi Qar Governorate Total Percent Population Governorate District Population Chronically Poor Chronically Poor Thi Qar Chibayish 68,900 29% 20,000 Thi Qar Refai 279,800 19% 51,800 Thi Qar An Nasiriyah 578,600 14% 78,500 Thi Qar Suq ash Shuyukh 229,800 14% 31,400 Thi Qar Shatrah 315,000 13% 39,400

Table-15: Wassit Governorate Total Percent Population Governorate District Population Chronically Poor Chronically Poor Wassit Badrah 20,600 38% 7,700 Wassit Al Hayy 136,200 22% 30,000 Wassit Al Aziziya 112,900 20% 22,700 Wassit Al Noamania 107,600 14% 14,700 Wassit Al Kut 374,500 10% 36,800 Wassit As Suwayrah 161,600 7% 10,500