Summary of Participatory Assessments with internally displaced and conflict affected people in Ukraine APRIL – JUNE 2015 BACKGROUND This document summarizes the findings of eight Par- were held not only within communities, but also in ticipatory Assessments (PAs) comprising of more collective centres, bomb shelters, and modular cen- than 400 focus group discussions held with inter- tres in government and in non-government con- nally displaced people (IDPs), with members of the trolled areas. Both rural and urban locations were communities which host them and conflict affected visited. people conducted between April and June 2015. The results presented below offer analysis which is During the discussions people explained in their own specific to the age, gender and diversity of the peo- words the protection risks and unmet rights which ple interviewed. Understanding risks faced by people they currently face as a result of displacement. In- which are specific to their situation is critical to the terview teams consisted of trained staff and volun- design of response programming which is both ef- teers from government, NGOs and the United Na- fective and appropriate. tions community. UNHCR re-affirms that internally displaced people Focus groups were held in Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, must be at the centre of decision making regarding Luhansk, Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Zaporizhzhia regions. De- their own protection and welfare and expresses ap- tailed reports for each of these locations are avail- preciation for all people who assisted with this pro- able. Given the high concentration of internally dis- cess. This overview is a summary text only. Detailed placed people, sub-reports specific to Mariupol and findings for each of the eight locations mentioned Sievierodonetsk have also been prepared. Sessions above are available separately upon request. KEY FINDINGS Freedom of movement The real impact of the Temporary Order on Control difficulty in applying from the non-government con- of the Movement of People, Transport Vehicles and trolled area; (ii) lack of knowledge of where and how Cargo along the Contact Line in Donetsk and Luhansk to cross; (iii) long distances between checkpoints, regions (Temporary Order) was detailed during focus including while passing through territory between group discussions. In brief, displaced people, particu- checkpoints; (iv) long delays at government check- larly adults, cited confusion, frustration and in some points, sometimes for many days; (v) lack of recep- cases fear regarding all aspects of the complex pro- tion after crossing the line of contact. In some locations, internally displaced “To see our families, it is a very expensive, people stated a perceived requirement dangerous and illegal journey. It took me to turn to informal and unofficial chan- nels in order to receive a pass. Others three days to travel with my children from stated interest in following routes which Chernukhino and I have to pay UAH 2,500 avoid checkpoints in order to cross. Chil- dren spoken with in the non-government All the money that I have”, a displaced woman controlled area in April 2015 mentioned from Luhansk region concerns regarding their high school ex- aminations. cess of passing to and from the non-government controlled area to the government controlled area. Real impacts upon people include the inability to flee, lack of access to goods and services, lack of access Concerns raised include: (i) the pass permit system, to medicine, lack of access to pensions, and lack of including long waiting times, lack of transparency and access to education. Access to housing In accordance with the IDP law, internally displaced Housing concerns include: (i) gaps in housing while dis- people are entitled to free temporary accommodation placed; (ii) lack of building materials to repair former for a period of up to six months from the date of homes and technical and labour assistance necessary registration. For large families, disabled people and the to complete repairs. Some displaced people stated that elderly an extension is possible. their original homes were completely destroyed and that they did not know where to turn. 2 For example, in Donetsk shelter concerns “Why does the government not to initi- were related to the fact that many people still continue to live in destroyed houses, ate criminal proceedings against those who bomb shelters and overcrowded collective took our housing, which we’ve spent a life- centres, with some of those living in collec- time’s earnings for? My wife and I are not tive centres being under threat of eviction. IDPs in Donetsk and Sievierodonetsk also in that age to live in a state of uncertainty”, reported cases of looting and vandalism of IDP from Donetsk region their property. Due to the inability to access adequate accommodation, some families in Sieviero- lack of access to housing for Roma was particularly donetsk had to settle in abandoned houses which re- noted due to ethnicity and large families. In Kyiv and quire major renovation and insulation. In Zaporizhzhia, Kyiv region, long-term housing was one of the top landlords reportedly refuse to rent apartments to sin- priorities identified by IDPs and many stated that un- gle males out of fear that they may have particular less a more durable solution for housing is identified, political views or may support separatists. they would have no other option but to return to the non-government controlled area even if the conflict The situation in collective varies from region to region continues. The high cost of utilities represents a sig- In Kharkiv, Sievierodonetsk, Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia, nificant financial burden for families, particularly as IDPs residing in collective centers fear evictions and displaced families often still have to pay for the util- have little guarantee of being able to continue to re- ity costs for their homes in the area of origin. Finally, side in the collective centre long-term. In addition, the compensation for damaged property was also raised number of collective centers is insufficient. None of as a serious issue that requires resolution at the high- the regions have a common collective center manage- est level. ment system: payments for utilities are set randomly, allocation of space per person is not adequate, and there are no com- mon management standards. In many cases, such as in Kyiv region, many collec- tive centers are located in remote areas, affecting access to services and livelihood opportunities. Concerns raised with regard to rented ac- commodation in the mentioned locations were in many ways similar: lack of afford- able housing, unwillingness of landlords and real estate agents to rent to IDPs, requirement to pay rent several months in advance and lack of basic items. In Kyiv it was specifically noted that large families and families from the Donbas area face discrimination when finding homes. In all locations it was also noted that following the implementation of Resolution no. 79 “We were just few steps from death”, say a couple of on the verification of IDP’s place of residence, many retired residents from Zolote. “The rocket landed in the landlords refused to rent apartments to IDPs or even middle of the yard and blasted half of our house”. requested them to move out in order to avoid verifica- tion by the State Migration Service. In Dnipropetrovsk, Photo: UNHCR Ukraine/M. Pavlovic Employment and livelihoods The adult population is facing enormous challenges than elsewhere in the country, IDPs are particularly finding employment. Many of those able to find work vulnerable, which can give rise to protection risks re- are still not able to provide for all the needs of their lating to marginalization, engagement in risky coping family (rent, clothes, food, education, healthcare, etc.). strategies and susceptibility to fraudulent schemes, etc. IDPs from the east and especially from Crimea are not IDP job seekers in all locations overwhelmingly report able to access bank accounts, property or business at difficulty in finding employment due to discriminatory the place of origin and people cannot sell or re-register practices by local employers, often offering lower sal- their property. In Kyiv, where the cost of living is higher aries and reduced incentive packages to IDPs. 3 Restrictions of movement affect access to livelihoods school childcare facilities are unavailable. The employ- in areas such as Donetsk, and Sievierodonetsk where ment situation is also highly challenging for IDP fami- restrictions on the transfer of goods have increased lies staying in remote locations which require travel to potential employers, particularly “I have been working for 37 years in a factory in given low wages and high trans- Donetsk. I did not have time to dance, I was work- port costs. Young people and ing tirelessly. And now when I have finaliy retired, university graduates expressed pessimism about employment the Government does not pay my pension, which opportunities and requested is my right, and I have to live in misery. How is relocation to other regions in Ukraine where there might be that possible?”, retired IDP woman in Donetsk more chances to find a job. Changing qualification and skills prices and created a shortage of basic food items. in order to adjust to different labour markets is a chal- Furthermore, IDPs in eastern regions also complained lenge. Overall, in all locations IDPs complained about that their vegetables or live- stock were either damaged or “I worked in Popasna, everything is destroyed stolen, while prices for seeds and other agricultural items there now. Here I cannot find a job for more than had increased, limiting people’s three months. Employment record remained at the ability to produce basic food products. In several locations, enterprise. It turns out I cannot neither register IDPs aged 50 to 60 years old at employment center, nor I receive finance assis- reported that it is extremely tance as IDP”, a displaced man in Northern Donetsk difficult for those who are reaching retirement age to find work as employers prefer to hire younger people.