DRC PIN Urban Poverty Report

ACRONYMSACF.....................Action Contre la FaimAREU...................Afghanistan Research and Evaluation UnitARTF...................Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust FundCS.......................Case StudyCSI......................Coping Strategy IndexCSO.....................Central Statistics OrganisationDDS.....................Dietary Diversity ScoreDRC.....................Danish Refugee CouncilFAO.....................Food and Agriculture OrganisationFCS.....................Food Consumption ScoreFGD.....................Focus Group DiscussionHFIAS..................Household Food Insecurity Access ScaleIDLG....................Independent Directorate for Local GovernanceIDP.......................Internally Displaced PersonIFPRI...................International Food Policy Research InstituteJICA....................Japanese International Cooperation AgencyGDMA..................General Directorate for Municipal AffairsGiZ.......................Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale ZusammenarbeitKII........................Key Informant InterviewKIS.......................Kabul Informal SettlementKSP.....................Kabul Solidarity ProgrammeKURP...................Kabul Urban Reconstruction ProgrammeLRRD...................Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and DevelopmentMICS...................Multi-Indicator Cluster SurveyMOLSAMD..........Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, Martyrs and DisabledMoPH..................Ministry of Public HealthMoRR..................Ministry of Refugees and RepatriationMRRD..................Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and DevelopmentMUDA..................Ministry of Urban Development AffairsNGO.....................Non-Government OrganisationNNS.....................National Nutrition SurveyNSP.....................National Solidarity ProgrammeNRVA...................National Risk and Vulnerability AssessmentPIN......................People in NeedPSU.....................Primary Sampling UnitUNHCR................United Nation High Commissioner for RefugeesUNODC................United Nation Office on Drugs and CrimeVAM.....................Vulnerability Analysis and MappingWASH..................Water, Sanitation, HygieneWB.......................World BankWFP.....................World Food ProgrammeWHH....................Welt Hunger HilfeExecutiveSummaryThis urban poverty study showsalarmingly high levels of poverty andfood insecurity and low levels ofresilience in the main Afghan cities.The urban poor are the first impactedby the slowdown of the Afghaneconomy and the political turmoil linkedto the presidential elections and arenow in distress.4 Urban Poverty Report

esilience remain scarce in the city.The main interventions working onlivelihoods are small-scale, shorttermvocational training, of whichimpact remains limited given thepoor level of skills that beneficiariesusually reach, the lack oflinks to the market and the overallsaturated urban labour markets.Although a small number of actorstry to address issues of food securityand households’ resiliencein the city, the study showed thatbuilding resilience of urban householdsneeds long-term programmingon key issues that can bringactual transformation: education(especially for women), structuralimprovement of the business andproductive sectors, and social protectionmechanisms in particular.• Beyond the informal settlements,addressing widespread urbanpoverty – This study proved thatRecommendations for all stakeholdersurban poverty is widespread – andincreasing – beyond the limits ofthe few areas identified by nationaland international actors. In particular,households with specificprofiles and pockets of poverty areto be found everywhere in the cityand cannot be easily type-case byconvenient indicators and descriptors.Yet most of the assistanceis concentrated on a few smallsettlements: across the 5 cities,12% of non-residents of the KISreported having received assistance,compared to 30% for KISresidents.Addressing the poverty and resiliencegap in urban populationsshould be a priority for nationaland international stakeholders in acontext of growing urbanisation inthe country. This requires long-termand sustained interventions from bothnational and international actors.Build the resilience of urban households through a long-termcommitment to:Access to basic services: Bridge the gap betweencities in terms of access to basic services,as they play a key role in building resilience in thelong run. Community-based programming, basedon community contribution in cash and labourforce, is a sustainable way of improving andmaintaining basic services in the city and shouldbe further supported. Donors should maintaintheir focus on infrastructure investments, lookingat the gaps in other cities than Kabul, and especiallyfocusing on Kandahar, where the situation isconsiderably worse, especially when it comes toaccess to electricity.Access to education and literacy: This studyshowed that education is a determinant of householdresilience. It is also a safeguard againstinter-generational transmission of poverty. Yet,access to education is still unevenly distributedacross the 5 major cities and by gender: living inthe city does not guarantee access to education.Long-term commitment to education projects –especially those aimed at increasing girls’ accessto high school and higher education – should stillbe at the top of the agenda.Workforce qualification: Vulnerability and foodinsecurity in the cities are first and foremost aproblem of access to stable livelihoods. Structuralchanges are required for the urban workforce todiversify their skills and step away from casuallabour that keeps households in a circle of debtand poverty. Designing long-term programmesof qualification for urban skills – specialising inservices and business management in particular –would help reduce the increasing gap between theurban labour supply and demand.Recognize an urban geography of poverty by adjustingtargeting to the profiles of poverty in the cities:At the community level: The study has shownthat IDP households were particularly vulnerablebut that poverty and lack of resilience werewidespread beyond the limit of the informal settlementsidentified by the KIS Task Force, as peopleother than IDPs and IDPs living outside the KIS arealso vulnerable. The geographic scope of interventionsshould therefore increase beyond the KIS.Communities with a concentration of IDP households,especially those who have been recentlydisplaced,should be targeted as a priority, butprogramming should also focus on other vulnerablehouseholds whether from the host communityor with different migratory profiles.At the household level: Use fine targeting methodo-Address urban households’ difficulties in accessing food by:Building on existing female livelihoodstrategies: This study did observe forms oflivelihood accessible to women (albeit in a limitedscale). Usually home-based, they include tailoring,sewing, pistachio shelling, cleaning chickpeas,cleaning wool etc. These represent interestingopportunities for women to be economically active.Yet, the study shows that women’s weak positionin the labour market means that they work for extremelylow salaries. Organisations could work onbuilding the bargaining power of these women bysetting up cooperatives of production and playingan intermediary role in salary negotiations.logies: the Resilience Index: the study shows thatthere was little stratification amongst urbanpoor. Targeting is highly challenging and should bebased on a solid combination of indicators to avoidarbitrary delineation between poor groups. Oneoption is to opt for blanket targeting of hot spotsof poverty and food insecurity in urban areas.Another option – especially if resources arelimited – is to base targeting on a refined grid ofselection criteria. The study points at key variablesto identify the most vulnerable householdsin the city. A simplified resilience index (detailedin the recommendation section below) based onproxy means allows for a robust identification ofthe poorest. This system can be explained to communitiesto avoid resentment.Developing specific protection and livelihoodprogrammes for households with addictedmembers: The study shows that these householdsare at particular risk, as addicts often use anyincome or asset available to purchase drugs. Drugaddiction being stigmatised, these households losethe support of their communities, leaving childrenand women in a situation of high vulnerability. Addictionwas also a significant predictor for foodinsecurity. While drug addiction is increasing inAfghan cities, the response of national and internationalactors should be built up to prevent situationsof extreme vulnerability. Organisations likeDRC with a specific focus on displaced populationsshould also take addiction into account in theirprogramming as drug use and associated risksare particularly high – and increasing – amongreturnees. The issue of addiction among returneehouseholds from Pakistan and Iran is a questionthat DRC should approach through a regionalstrategy, as drug use often starts in exile.Building long-term mechanisms of socialprotection: Urban households suffer from a lackof safety nets and the dissolution of communitybasedprotection mechanisms. Yet, this studyshowed that mechanisms of social protection –such as the pension distributed to the disabledand victims of mines – could have a real impact onfood security. Investing in sustainable systems ofsocial protection should therefore be a priority tofill the gap left by receding systems of communityand religious charity. In particular, the trainingof social workers embedded in the communitiesshould be a priority to identify households at particularrisk and improve the referral mechanisms– within and outside communities.10 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 11

Tailor awareness raising campaigns and training to the gapidentified within households to increase food security andimprove nutritionTarget male members of households withtraining on food literacy: The study showedthat male members of households are in chargeof purchasing food in a large majority of urbanhouseholds. The poor diets of urban householdsalso show a low level of awareness about thebenefits of diversified diets. Men should thereforebe targeted as a priority by awareness-raisingcampaigns surrounding food. The study found thatfood budget was often the key determinant of foodchoices, meaning that training on food literacyshould include components on budget-managementand take into account the constraint of lowbudgets.Increase awareness raising about hygienepractices surrounding food, especially forwomen: The survey shows that levels of awarenessabout appropriate hygiene practices are stilllow amongst the urban poor, leading to increasedrisks of diarrhoea, especially for children. Specifictraining on hygiene requirements for food preparationshould be provided. This could be incorporatedinto entrepreneurial or social activitiesoffered for women – a class on food safety in mealpreparation for example. Community kitchens area good model to follow for this type of interventionsin urban settings.Raise awareness about the impact of teaconsumption during meal on iron absorption:Tea consumption during meal inhibit the absorptionof iron, an issue particularly problematicwhen no enhancing factors (fish, meat etc.) areconsumed as is the case for most Afghan households.Advocate for tea to be consumed betweenmeals instead of during the meal to address theproblem of iron deficiency, particularly for pregnantwomen, women and children.Significantly build up awareness raising onadequate breastfeeding practices: Breastfeedingpractices were found to be highly inadequateto provide for infants’ nutrition needs in thecities. A large effort of awareness-raising shouldtarget mothers but also female health workersworking on deliveries in public clinics for themto provide adequate information and care afterthe birth. At the community level, women centrescombined with EDC centres could be establishedwithin the communities as places where careand development services for young children areeasily available, along with training focusing onbreastfeeding.TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................ 5INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................15Background And Objectives Of The Study................................................................................. 15Research Objectives..................................................................................................................... 17Research Framework................................................................................................................... 17Structure Of The Report.............................................................................................................. 21METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................................22Building A Resilience Score......................................................................................................... 22Geographic Scope......................................................................................................................... 23Quantitative Data.......................................................................................................................... 23Qualitative Data............................................................................................................................. 25Constraints And Limitations........................................................................................................ 272. VULNERABILITY AND FOOD INSECURITY: THE PLIGHT OF AFGHAN CITIES................................29A. Urban Profiling: Key Migratory Patterns.............................................................................. 31B. High Levels Of Vulnerability And Food Insecurity In The Cities......................................... 35C. Satisfying Levels Of Access To Basic Services................................................................... 473. DETERMINANTS OF FOOD INSECURITY AND LACK OF RESILIENCE................................. 52A. The Impact Of Migration & Displacement On Food Insecurity And Vulnerability............ 56B. Social Vulnerabilities: Key Drivers Of Food Insecurity And Lack Of Resilience.............. 61C. Education And Access To Services Limit Vulnerability....................................................... 71D. Food Availability: High At The Community Level, Low At The Household Level................ 73E. Food Utilisation: Problematic Hygiene Practices................................................................. 744. RESISTING TO SHOCKS: URBAN MECHANISMS OF RESILIENCE.............................................81A. Which Shocks Impact Urban Households?............................................................................ 83B. How Do The Urban Poor Resist Economic Shocks?............................................................ 855. CONCLUSION - PROGRAMMING FOR THE URBAN POOR...........................................................92Gaps In Existing Urban Programming........................................................................................ 94Recommendations.......................................................................................................................101ANNEXES..............................................................................................................................................114REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................12412 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 13

1IntroductionBackground and Objectivesof the Study“Even if the diversity of food available ishigher in urban areas, the rate of foodinsecurity is also higher. Because in the city,you have to pay for a lot of other things, notonly food items. Households have to pay fortheir rent, for electricity… So in terms of thequantity of food that households are able toaccess in the city, urban households areactually worse-off.”Pic. 1.1 Photo credit: Lalage SnowA new urbanity – definedas an urban lifestyle, withurban characteristicsand traits – is blooming inAfghanistan, supported byan estimated 5.7% annualurban growth rate since2001 1 . Still in majorityrural, the country is joiningthe global trend of urbanisationwith at least 30% ofthe population now livingin cities, 50% of which inKabul 2 . According to theWorld Bank, the urbanpopulation should represent40% of the Afghanpopulation by 2050 3 . Wheninsecurity plagues the restof the country, Afghanurban areas are oftenperceived as rare safehavens. Much of the country’sstability rests nowin the capacity of urbancentres to remain strongeconomic and social hubs.14 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 15

Afghanistan’s rapid urbanization is theresult of migration and displacement dynamics:rural to urban migration, economicmigration, significant conflict-induced internaldisplacement fuelled by high levels ofinsecurity, especially in the remote districts,and sudden displacements of populationdue to natural disasters such as drought,landslides and floods. Displacement trendsare on the rise as Afghanistan completesa full security and political transition, withvisible signs of instability and heightenedconflict directly impacting civilians. Afghan citiesare often perceived as better-off than ruralareas as they benefit from:• Security from conflict, which is on therise in most rural districts;• Prosperity in a country where poverty,un- and under-employment are prevalent;• Availability of basic services where accessto water, electricity and health isstill an everyday challenge in the majorityof provinces and many rural areas.A few urban centres are the recipients ofmost displacement patterns: Kabul firstand foremost, and the four other importantregional capitals: Herat and Mazar-e-Shariffor their booming economy; Kandahar andJalalabad as bastions of relative securityin provinces where insecurity in rural areasis increasing. Afghanistan counts todayover 6 million Afghan refugee returnees andapproximately 1 million internally displacedpersons – the majority of whom migrateto urban areas with little or no intentionto return home 4 . At a time of decreasingvoluntary returns to Afghanistan – 11,000refugees returning as of July 2014 (UN-HCR) – economic migrants and internallydisplaced persons (IDPs) now composemost of the influx of populations towardsthe cities today. The urban population profileis changing as a result.Afghan cities are at the intersection of twomajor dynamics: multiform migration tourban areas and economic drawdown thatpoint to urban poverty as one of the acutechallenges for Afghanistan in the comingyears. The urban challenge in 2014Afghanistan is three-fold:1. National and municipal authorities lackthe financial and technical capacitiesto manage displacement. The questionof unregulated urbanisation is increasinglyturning into a heated political issuein spite of recent legislative improvements.In particular, the IDP Policy supportedby the Ministry of Refugees andRepatriation (MoRR) and UNHCR, theInformal Settlement Upgrading policy,which should soon be finalised, and theNational Food Security Policy open theway for a more solid legal framework fornational authorities and international actorsto operate. Yet, urban poverty is stilla ‘black box’ for many actors operatingin Afghanistan 5 . In 2014, necessaryservices and infrastructure, social andlegal frameworks and non-governmentalsupport are not in place to tackle thischallenge.2. Informal settlements are burgeoningwith new groups settling in areas fallingoutside of out-dated municipal plans,making it difficult for municipalities toprovide adequate levels of services topeople living there. These informal settlementsare now a common feature ofAfghan cities and represent an estimated80% of the Kabul population and69% of its residential land 6 . While populationshave invested in these areasand develop them in some ways, theseincreasingly represent pockets of urbanpoverty. Strikingly, the latest 2011-2012National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment(NRVA) noted an increase in foodinsecurity between 2007 and 2011 inurban areas, reporting an augmentationfrom 28.3% of the urban population to34.4% in 2011-12 7 .3. Urban poverty is on the rise with worryingsigns of economic collapse inAfghanistan: national economic growthhas slowed down significantly under thecumulative effect of the withdrawal ofinternational military forces, reductionof international funding and reduction ofprivate investments due to the currentinstable political context 8 . Construction,transportation and services sectors thathad benefited from the internationalpresence are now in decline, discombobulatingthe dynamism of the urbaneconomy.Where is the data to inform policymakers?In the absence of a census, data are lackingto inform policies and programmes inurban areas. In a city like Kabul, assistanceand knowledge are concentrated on themain group that has been identified asneeding humanitarian assistance: InternallyDisplaced People (IDPs) within the KabulInformal Settlements (KIS) 9 . Outside theselittle is known about urban poverty. This iseven truer for many international organisationsand donors, which have focused effortson rural areas for the past decade andhave only recently turned their attention tothe challenges faced by Afghan cities.Research ObjectivesThe objectives of the study are three-fold:Building KnowledgeThe research providesevidence-based analysis onthe levels of food security,vulnerability and resilience ofthe Afghan urban population. Inparticular, it compares migrationgroups (host community,Internally Displaced Persons(IDPs), returnees and economicmigrant), across the fivemajor Afghan cities – Kabul,Herat, Jalalabad, Mazar-e-Sharif and Kandahar – andacross gender.Informing ProgrammingThe study provides actionablerecommendations for PIN andDRC to develop their urbanprogramming. In particular,both organisations plan ondeveloping urban livelihoodprojects, including urban agricultureprojects, and will userecommendations to informtargeting and implementationfor pilot programmes inMazar-e-Sharif, Herat andJalalabad.Precise data on levels of poverty,vulnerability or food security in the citiesare lacking, as is a precise identification ofvulnerable sub-groups, across gender, ageor migration history.On the other hand, a precise knowledge ofthe nature of resilience in the Afghan urbanpopulation is also lacking: what mechanismsprevent households and communitiesfrom starvation? What factors makesome households more resilient to shocksand instability than others? What strategies,if any, do individuals, householdsand communities build up to survive anddevelop in difficult environments?The present research was commissionedby the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) andPeople in Need (PIN) to fill this knowledgegap and uncover the nature, level andcomplexity of poverty, food security and resilienceamongst Afghan urban householdsand communities. DRC and PIN commissionedthis study in the framework of atwo-year project funded by the EuropeanUnion under its ‘Linking Relief, Rehabilitationand Development’ (LRRD) programme.AdvocacyThis research unlocks solutionsto the challenges ofurban poverty. It provides evidenceand recommendationsfor national and internationalactors on the strategic andprogrammatic adjustmentsneeded to better apprehendurban poverty and food insecurity.4. See Samuel Hall-NRC-IDMC-JIPS (2012), Challenges of IDP Protection – Research Study on the protection of internally displaced persons in Afghanistan. 5. Quote from aKey Informant Interview (KII) with an NGO-worker in Kabul. 6. World Bank (2005), ‘Why and how should Kabul upgrade its informal settlements’ in Kabul Urban Policy Notes,Series n.2, p.1. 7. Central Statistics Organisation, (2014), National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment 2011-12, Afghanistan Living Conditions Survey. Kabul, CSO, p. 51.8. World Bank (2013), Afghanistan Economic Update, p.3. Available at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/16656/820120WP0WB0Af0Box0379855B00PUBLIC0.pdf 9. Kabul Informal Settlements (KIS) are 50 locations identified by the humanitarian community and the Ministry of Refugees and Repatriation (MoRR) for thedistribution of humanitarian assistance, especially in the winter. An official list is kept and updated by the KIS task force, gathering the main organisations working in these areas.16 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 17

KEY RESEARCH QUESTIONS 4 PILLARS OF FOOD SECURITY 11What are the determinantsof food insecurityand vulnerability in urbanareas?Who are the urban poor? What is the impact of displacement,migration and return on poverty and food insecurity?Poverty LineProportion of food in total household expenditureFood Consumption ScoreHousehold Food Insecurity Access ScaleCoping Strategy IndexSources of income and type of employmentWhat is the level of access to basic services?Distance to nearest health facility and schoolWater systemElectricityWhat are the determinants of food insecurity?By migratory profilesRegression analysis of factors impacting vulnerabilityAVAILABILITY access use - utilisation stabilitySufficient quantities of foodavailable on a consistentbasisThe ability for household toproduce and or purchase thefood needed by all householdmembers to meet their dietaryrequirements and foodpreferences as well as the assetsand services necessaryto achieve and maintain anoptimal nutritional status.Based on knowledge ofbasic nutrition and care, aswell as adequate water andsanitation, each member ofthe household is able to getan intake of sufficient andsafe food adequate to eachindividual’s physiologicalrequirements. Additionally,an individual’s health statuscan affect her/his ability toabsorb or utilize nutrientsfrom food.1. Ecker, O & Breisinger, C (2012): The Food Security System, A new Conceptual Framework. IFPRI Discussion Paper.Food security can be a temporarystate as it depends onthe stability of supply and accessto food. This can be impactedby prices and weathervariability as well as politicaland economic shocks.How resilient are theurban poor and based onwhich mechanisms?How can programming bestaddress urban food insecurityand vulnerability?Research FrameworkMain Concepts and Definitions1. Themes and Indicators:Food Security, Vulnerabilityand ResilienceThis research was designed with thekey concepts of food security, vulnerabilityand resilience. With the reductionof poverty, hunger and malnutrition byhalf by 2015 as the first of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs), resilienceis attracting more and more attention inthe humanitarian and development community.Yet its definition – and perhapsmore importantly, its practical applications– remain flimsy. In a country whererobust mechanisms linking humanitarianWhat is the level of resilience of the urban poor?How does it vary across migratory groups and gender?What specific shocks impact food security in urban areas?What are the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ coping strategies householdsrely on in urban areas?Where are the gaps in the coverage of urban food insecurity?Which type of interventions would help building up the resilienceof urban poor?and development assistance are still beingdeveloped, words like resilience provide aconceptual transition beyond emergencyrelief, care and maintenance, to longerterm solutions.Key concepts used for this research aredefined as follows:Food Security‘Food Security exists when all people,at all times, have physical, social andeconomic access to sufficient, safe andnutritious food for a healthy and active life’(1996 World Food Summit). Food securityis necessary to maintain optimal nutritionalstatus, in terms of both caloric intakeand sufficient quality (variety and micronutrientintake) 10 . Practitioners further• The concept of resilience is complementarydefined the components of food securityrisks/hazards’ 13 vulnerability, using cut-off points adaptedduring the 2009 World Food Summit,which pointed at four main pillars necessaryto understand the factors underpinningfood security at the household level.Food insecurity, particularly in the longterm,to that of vulnerability: it is‘the ability of groups or communitiesto cope with external stresses and disturbancesas a result of social, politicaland environmental change 14 .has an impact on nutritional status(micronutrient deficiencies, stunting,wasting, etc.), which can in turn affectboth physical and mental health. Althoughfood insecurity largely stems from povertyor income inequality, it is not a necessaryresult of poverty. Additionally, food insecurityhas been identified among householdsclassified as non-poor. 12The concept of resilience provides a goodbasis to analyse households’ and communities’strategies to prevent and cope withcrises that may endanger their food security,as it draws a dynamic picture of foodsecurity, whereby components other thanaccess to food are taken into account.There is little consensus amongst stakeholderson how to measure resilience. TheVulnerability and Resilience:Both concepts of vulnerability and resilienceare useful as they offer a dynamicpresent study used the FAO-EU resiliencetool, which takes into account a largerange of factors affecting resilience:understanding of poverty. They proposea multi-faceted concept of poverty that • Social Safety Netsgoes beyond access to food and income • Access to Basic Servicesand takes into account dimensions such • Assetsas access to services or household’s • Income and Food Accessadaptability to shocks:• Adaptive Capacity 15• Vulnerability is ‘the degree to which asystem is susceptible to and unable tocope with adverse effects of specificIn order to collect comparable data, theresearch was based on existing standardindicators of food security, poverty and10. FAO, Food Insecurity Information for Action, Practical Guides, 2008. 11. Ecker, O & Breisinger, C (2012): The Food Security System, A new Conceptual Framework. IFPRI12. Nord, M., Andrews, M. & Carlson, S., 2005. Household Food Security in the United States, 2004, USDA Economic Research Service. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR11/ 13. IPCC, (2001) 14. Adger (2000), ‘Social and ecological resilience: are they related?’ in Progress in Human Geography, 24:347. 15. EU-FAO, ‘MeasuringResilience : A Concept Note on the Resilience Tool’. in Food Security Information for Decision-Making – Concept Note18 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 19

to the Afghan context. A resilience scorewas also calculated taking into accountthe five main dimensions of resiliencementioned above and using context-specificcut-off points for each indicators. Theresearch team developed the resiliencescore based on the FAO-EU model anddrawing upon a similar system developedby People in Need in Mazar-e-Sharif forease of comparison 16 .Each component o f household resilienceis assessed through a series of indicatorsto generate a composite index ofhousehold resilience. “This index gives anoverall quantitative “resilience score” thatclearly shows where investments needs tobe made to further build resilience” 172. Target Groups:Comparing MigrationGroupsThe research is based on the comparisonof levels of resilience across four key migratorygroups: returnees, IDPs, economicmigrants and host community, usingstandard definitions for each of them:Concept Definition SourceStructure of the ReportThe report will be structured as follows:• Chapter 1: Introduction and Methodology– introduces the research context,the objectives of the study andthe analytical framework it was basedupon. It gives a detailed overview ofthe methodology used for the study.• Chapter 2: Urban Profiling – focuseson assessing levels of food insecurityand vulnerability in the 5 targeted citiesand across groups under scrutiny.• Chapter 4: Resilience of the UrbanPoor – looks at coping mechanismsand analyse resilience amongst theurban poor.• Chapter 5: Recommendations forAction – will analyse existing programminggaps and suggest recommendationsfor PIN and DRC as well as forother stakeholders.Internallydisplacedpersons“Persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged toflee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particularas a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict,situations of generalised violence, violations of human rightsor natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed aninternationally recognised State border.” IDPs are considered to bein displacement until they are able to find a durable solution. The UNrecognises three main durable solutions: return to the place of origin,local integration or re-settlementUN Guiding Principles onInternal Displacement(as cited in “Challengesof IDP Protection”• Chapter 3: Determinants of UrbanPoverty – analyses the main determinantsof vulnerability and foodinsecurity and looks at the four pillarsdetailed above.RefugeesAny person who “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted forreason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular socialgroup or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality andis unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protectionof that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outsidethe country of his former habitual residence as a result of suchevents, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. ”1967 Protocol relating tothe Status of RefugeesReturneesThose who have gone through the process of return, “the act orprocess of going back.” In this study, the term refers to returnedrefugees. Returnees are considered as such until they are fully ‘reintegrated’in their society of origin. Reintegration can be defined as“a process that should result in the disappearance of differences inlegal rights and duties between returnees and their compatriots andthe equal access of returnees to services, and opportunities “2013 UNHCR StatisticalOnline PopulationDatabase2004 UNHCR Handbookfor Repatriation and ReintegrationActivities, p.5EconomicMigrantsThose who choose to move in order to improve their lives and livingconditions, internationally or within a country. Economic migrants aretreated very differently under international law.UNHCR Refugee Protectionand Mixed MigrationHostCommunityA community that has IDP, returnee or migrant households livingamongst non-migrant householdsAdapted from UNHCR:IDPS in Host Families andHost communities.16. See Annex.2 for detailed breakdown of the resilience score per indicator. 17. Ibid, p.1.20 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 21

MethodologyTargeted Cities - Quantitative SurveyBuilding a Resilience ScoreThis research was designed to providerepresentative data of both the urbanpopulation of the five main Afghan citiesand the main migration groups living inthese cities. Based on a series of quantitativeand qualitative tools, the methodologyoffers opportunities to triangulateinformation through a household survey,a community survey and qualitative data.Quantitative tools were designed usingstandard indicators in use in the country tocreate a robust index of urban resilience.These key variables were combined tocreate a resilience score based on cut-offpoints adapted to the Afghan context. Thedetail of the resilience score is available inAnnex.KEY INDICATORS OF FOOD SECURITY AND POVERTYFood SecurityVulnerabilityEarly Child DevelopmentQuantitative Component of the ResearchSurvey of 5,411 householdsSurvey of 149 communities• Food Consumption Score (FCS): a proxy indicator measuringcaloric intake and diet quality at the household level based onthe past 7 days food consumption recall for the household.• Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)• Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), which isbased on the perception of households of their level of foodsecurity and the usual responses that household would giveto a situation of food insecurity 18 .• Coping Strategy Index (CSI)• Per capita consumption to compare household based on the2011-2012 official poverty line of 1,710 AFN per person permonth• Monthly Income• % of food in total household expenditure• Dependency Ratio• Household Asset• Debt and Savings• Access to basic services• Access to assistance• Literacy and Education• Initiation of Breastfeeding• Exclusive breastfeeding18. Coates, J, Swindale, A and Bilinsky, P (2007), Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for measurement of household food access: Indicator guide v3. Washington,DC: FHI 360/FANTA.Qualitative Component of the Research45 Focus Group Discussions28 Case Studies42 Key Informant InterviewsGeographic ScopeResearch and data collection were conductedover the months of May and June2014 in five major Afghan cities: Kabul,Herat, Jalalabad, Mazar-e-Sharif, Kandahar.These cities were selected for thestudy because they represent the mainurban hubs of the country and allow theresearch to have a wide geographic span,covering five of the main regions of thecountry. These cities are also of specialinterest for PIN and DRC’s programmingQuantitative DataHousehold Survey (5,410)Questionnaire – The household surveywas based on a questionnaire of 94closed questions. The questionnaire wasdeveloped so as to comprise the migrationprofile of households, and the mainstandard indicators to measure povertyand food security of households, indicatorsof hygiene and breastfeedingpractices as well as key socio-economicindicators. A rapid overview of the keyfood security and poverty indicators usedfor the study is provided in annex.Sampling – The household survey includedfour main categories of respondents ineach city: local residents, returnees, IDPsand economic migrants. The sample sizeaimed at capturing 270 respondents percategory for a total of 1,080 respondentsper city and 5,400 respondents in total.This sample size gives us representativedata at the city level with a statistical rigorof 5% of margin of error and 95% confidencelevel.Within each city, the sampling was basedon a grid approach, to allow for a comprehensivecoverage of the cities. Inorder to include informal settlements inthe study, cities were not defined basedon their administrative boundaries but ontheir physical characteristics: cities wheredefined as spaces with a continuum ofdense residential areas. Each city was dividedinto Primary Sampling Units (PSUs)based on a grid approach. A total of 30to 34 PSUs were defined per city so as toensure a geographic mapping that coversvarious socio-economic categories acrosseach part of the cities, including informalsettlements. The field teams cover 30 to34 PSUs in 10 days in each city based onthe following sampling strategy:22 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 23

• to avoid bias and to respect culturalconventions, FGDs were conductedwith groups of male and groups of femalerespondents separately. Groupsof 5 to 7 respondents were gatheredfor each FGD. In each city, to theextent possible, a same number ofFGDs were conducted with men andwith women. FGD were moderatedby national consultants and based onstructured guidelines covering variousaspects of intra-households issuesrelated to poverty and food security,including access to livelihoods,seasonality, purchasing habits andhygiene practices.Qualitative Data CollectionTable 1.3• Case Studies (25) – Case studiesaimed at capturing the experience andspecific challenges faced by vulnerablemembers of the communities,including female-headed households,widows, elderly heading householdsand families with disabled or addictedmembers. Case studies were conductedthrough a one-to-one in-depthinterview based on a series of openquestions.• Key Informant Interviews (42) – Aseries of KIIs was conducted at thenational and city level in order to getperspective from practitioners and keystakeholders on the issue of food securityand urban poverty. KIIs targeteddonors, Non-Governmental Organisations(NGOs) operating in urbanenvironment, UN agencies workingon related issues and governmentalactors (at the ministerial and municipallevel). Key informant interviews lastedapproximately one hour and wereconducted based on semi-structuredguidelines and adjusted to each kindof respondents, based on their area ofexpertise to collect the most relevantdata from each of them.The following table summarises qualitativedata collected for this research:Constraints and LimitationsImpact of Afghan Presidential Elections– Most of the fieldwork for this study wasconducted during the presidential electionsin Afghanistan. This had an effect onboth:• The sample, as teams were not ableto reach their targets in Jalalabad andHerat because of the second roundand as a tense security context forcedteams to be cautious and avoid certainareas in the city;• The findings, as elections have had abrutal effect on the Afghan economy,stopping investments and reducingdemand for daily labour significantlyin the months before the elections.The elections have had a negativeimpact on the livelihoods, income andfood security of the urban poor. Theresults of the present study are likelyto have been impacted by this difficulteconomic environment and this studyrepresents a snapshot of the difficultsituation mid-2014.Exclusion Bias of the wealthiest areas– The wealthiest areas of cities are difficultto survey because it raises importantsecurity issues for the field teams, as theyare composed of highly secured compounds,often protected by armed guardsand checkpoints. They have not been includedin the sample 20 . There is thereforean exclusion bias of the wealthiest areasof the cities and a focus on middle classand poor areas of each city. Yet, the gridapproach did allow for a large geographiccoverage of urban areas.Complex identification of migration patterns– Most Afghan households are characterisedby complex migration history,a complexity that can hardly be capturedby a quantitative survey. In particular,causes and motivations to move are morecomplex that the dichotomy betweeneconomic migrant and internally displacedhouseholds, leading to difficulties in theidentification of these groups. Often,households have moved in response toa combination of intricate factors. Forthe purpose of this research, team leaderswith years of experience of workingon migration-related issues trained enumeratorsspecifically for them to be ableto go round the problem of identificationthrough follow-up questions to respondentsbut categories of IDPs and economicmigrants must not be considered aswatertight, as they overlap very often inpractice.Impact of seasonality on findings – Thesurvey was conducted in May and June,i.e. is in the post-harvest period for all thefive cities. This is considered as the bestperiod in terms of food security. Yet, asshown in the research below, the impactof seasonality on urban markets andaccess to food for urban households islimited as households’ livelihoods are nottied to agriculture and food supply in thecity is not largely reduced. The impact ofseasonality on the findings is thereforelimited.Challenges with data collection in Kandahar– Kandahar appeared as an outlieron some food security indicators, possiblythe result of a different understanding ofthe question by enumerators using Pashto.A series of call backs was organisedto check and triangulate the data. Thistriangulation showed a difference in theresults found for the Food ConsumptionScore as the second round of data collectionfound a FCS more in line with the profileof the city and of other urban centres.The findings from this triangulation wereintegrated in section 2.Overview of Qualitative Data Collection26 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 27

lower proportion of IDPs in Herat (13%) issurprising given how heated the issue ofinternal displacement is for the capital ofthe Western region. This low result can beexplained by several factors, including thefact that Herat counts important settlementsof protracted IDPs outside the limitof the city, such as Maslakh, and that theIDP settlements inside the city (Minaret orKareezak for example were surveyed lateron during the data collection, hence notincluded in the random sample on whichthese results are based). Still, the lowerproportion of IDPs in Herat shows that theproportion of IDPs spread out in the city isperhaps lower than stakeholders considersit to be. In the mix of factors that leadhouseholds to live their place of origin tosettle to the city of Herat, a lot of themrank economic necessity first.Displaced households moving to Afghanistan’surban centres stem almostexclusively from rural areas. While Mazare-Sharifand Kabul attract substantialnumbers of arrivals from other provinces,apparently as hubs of work opportunities,migration to the other cities stemsin majority from rural areas in the sameprovince. Rural backgrounds mean thatdisplaced households settle in the cityInternal Displacement and its reasonsFigure 2-1unprepared to the specificities of life inthe city, in particular in terms of economicopportunities, making integration in urbansocio-economic structures more difficult.Conflict fuelling internaldisplacementInternal displacement is first and foremosta consequence of conflict andpersecution. Yet, Mazar-e-Sharif countsa higher proportion of natural-disasterinduced IDPs, a fact that can be explainedby the recurring droughts that touch theNorthern and Central regions, pushingpeople to abandon their place of origin tomove to Mazar-e-Sharif (figur 2-1).The bulk of city inhabitants arrived in thecity they currently live in more than threeyears ago as reported by 76% (±2%) ofrandomly-selected respondents. Lookingspecifically at IDPs shows that a largepart of this population has now enteredprotracted displacement with 28% of theIDPs who set up more than three yearsago having moved to the city between 5and 10 years ago and 37% between 11and 20 years ago. The impact of the timein displacement on poverty is analysedfurther in section 3.15098157132630% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Why did you move to this city?Figure 2-2Pull Factors - Why did you move to this city?‘We don’t haveparticular relationswith thePashtun of ourcommunity becausewe don’tspeak the samelanguage. Butthey live theirlives, we live oursand we do nothave any problemswith oneanother.’FGD Women, Herat, Naw AbadUrban Assistance Programmesare not a pull factorIt is important to note that the existenceof assistance programme onlyseems to play a very marginal rolein the decision-making of uprootedpopulations. Given the scarcity ofassistance programme targetingurban population as a whole, it isunlikely that assistance is an importantfactor. This is an importantfinding given the debate on urbanassistance fuelling more displacement,especially when it comesto the Kabul Informal Settlements(KIS). This study goes against thiscommon assumption that urbanprogrammes of assistance will encouragefurther displacement andmigration, as other much strongerfactors determine the choice ofhouseholds to move to the fivebiggest Afghan cities.Social integration in the city:The importance of socialnetworksAfghan urban centres are attractivehubs as they are perceived asoffering what remote rural areascannot – or cannot anymore – offerrural populations: job opportunities,safety and basic services. Evenwhen urban labour markets aresaturated and basic services overstretched,it is the “myth of the city”that bring people to the cities: figure2.3 (below) shows that the existenceof work opportunities in the cities(50.5%), security in urban areas(39.7%) and the existence of existingnetworks (24.3%) are the threemain pull factors determining thechoice of destination for displacedand returnee populations. The existenceof social networks is fundamentalin influencing the choice oftheir destination, confirming pastresearch 22 . Indeed, as relatives areone of the primary sources of supportand potential assistance, theirpresence in the city is crucial fornewly-arrived households. Qualitativedata showed that most householdswere satisfied about theirmove to the city and did not faceparticular challenges integrating.In particular, only very rarely intercommunitytensions were reported.Patterns of residency varied significantlylocation by location and donot allow to conclude on a certaintrend: certain areas see householdsfrom different ethnic groups andInternal Displacement and its reasons (n= 741)22. Harpviken, Kristian Berg (2009) Social Networks and Migration in Wartime Afghanistan. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.32 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 33

Food consumption score (FSC)Food consumption score by cityFigure 2-8Figure 2-9Food Consumption Score (Random Sample)On the food expenditure scale, Mazar-e-Sharif displays particularly alarming levelswith over half of its urban poor (55% ±4%) dedicating more than 60% of theirtotal household spending to the purchaseof food. On the whole, two out of five ofthe surveyed households fit this criterion.The Food Security and AgricultureCluster (FSAC), which conducted a foodsecurity survey in 2013 with a large ruralcomponent, had found 28% of householdsconsidered to have a poor accessto food) 30 . As the FSAC Assessment waslargely conducted in the post-harvestseason, it is likely that rural householdswould spend less of their total expenditureon food. Still, except in Mazar-e-Sharif, amajority of urban households spend morethan half their budget on non-food items,indicating a certain diversity of expenditures.Qualitative fieldwork suggests thatrent, electricity, transportation and healthexpenses are also important in the budgetof urban households.Uncertain food security in urbanareasFindings on food security largely corroborateindicators of poverty, drawinga rather bleak picture. Urban areas arecharacterised by high levels of food insecurityacross the board, despite notablevariations across cities. The followingsection examines these variations in thequality of urban diets and access to foodof households amongst the urban population.Food Consumption ScoreAccording to the Food ConsumptionScore (FCS), which weighs the differenttypes of food consumed during the previousweek, 20% (±2%) of urban Afghanssuffer from poor food consumption, whilea further third are borderline, leaving lessthan half with acceptable levels of consumption,despite the fact that the surveywas conducted post-harvest.Categories were defined based on theclassification established by the FSACwith a FCS below 28 considered to bepoor, between 28.1 and 42 borderline andabove 42 acceptable 31 as shown in figure 2-8.While worrying, these figures indicate aslightly higher level of food security inthe biggest Afghan cities than in the restof the country, if compared to the findingsof the NRVA. The latter found 34.4%of urban households to be food insecurealthough NRVA’s calculation is based oncalorie intake 32 . If broken down by city, thesurvey found significant differences: thefood consumption score which measurescaloric intake and the quality of diet at ahousehold level yields surprisingly positiveresults for the city of Kandahar, with 80%Food consumption score by city(± 4%) of inhabitants enjoying acceptablefood consumption. Conversely, only 30%to 50% of those surveyed in other citiescould claim this status. Mazar-e-Sharifand Herat present the higher proportionsof households with poor food consumptionwith respectively 31% and 25% ofhouseholds reporting poor levels of foodconsumption in both these cities.Given the fact that Kandahar representedan outlier on this indicator, a secondround of data collection was organisedto check and triangulate the data on foodconsumption in the Southern city. Thesecond set of data was collected basedon a random selection of households fromthe first survey. The data was collectedthree months later and in different conditions,hence is not directly comparable,but provides a robust basis to triangulatethe FCS in Kandahar 33 .The second round of data collection inKandahar suggests a profile of the population’sfood consumption more alignedwith the four other cities, as shown infigure -2-10.According to this smaller sample, 47%of households enjoyed acceptable foodFSC in KandaharFigure 2-10FSC in Kandahar – Second data collectionconsumption, 29% of them were borderlineand 24% had poor food consumption.This still puts Kandahar at the topof the 5 cities in terms of the proportionof households reaching acceptable foodconsumption, alongside Jalalabad. On theother hand, it does point at a significantissue of food security in the city given theproportion of households having poor orborderline food consumption.Given the high level of food insecurityfound by this study in Kandahar, andgiven the profile of the four other cities interms of food consumption, policy makersshould not over-estimate Kandahar’s30. Ibid. 31. Ibid, p.36 32. NRVA 2011-12, p. 53.33. 246 households were randomly selected from the first sample and were asked the same questions on food consumption than during the first survey.38 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 39

Dietary Diversity per cityTable 2-1:Dietary Diversity per city. Numbers represent the average number of days per week that each food group is consumed.Dietary diversity was also measuredthrough the household dietary diversityscore (HDDS) recording all the food consumedby a household over the past 24hours per food groups.These various indicators of dietary diversityshow:• The poverty of urban diets ingeneral, as cereals (usually bread)remain the basis of urban poor’sdiets. Eating meat, fruit, or dairyproducts remain relatively rare evenfor urban households. This wasconfirmed by the qualitative data,which showed that meat was usuallyconsumed once a week in the bestcases to once a month in general.Eggs were a more common sourceof protein. Most households reportedeating bread and vegetables,accompanied by tea, for the threemeals of the day. Tea consumptionat mealtime inhibits iron absorption,limiting utilization of nutrients, a keyaspect of food security. Fruits werealso often considered to be too expensivefor households’ budgets.• Compared to the national figuresfound by the NRVA, the general dietarydiversity has decreased amongurban households, a likely consequenceof a decrease in purchasingpower since 2011. For example, theNRVA found an average of 2.6 daysof protein consumption per weeknationally and 3.3 days per week inurban areas35. This survey found amaximum of 1.88 days of consumptionof proteins per week identifiedamong the population in Kandahar.While the consumption of sugar andoil is equivalent to that found in theNRVA, the consumption of tubers,dairy products and fruit is lessimportant amongst the householdssurveyed for this study. The onlypositive finding is the fact that theconsumption of vegetables is significantlyhigher among urban householdsthan recorded in the NRVAranging from 3.1 days on average inHerat to 5.38 in Mazar-e-Sharif.positive results based on the FCS collectedin the first survey. Kandahar’s inhabitantsenjoy higher levels of dietary diversity(see below) but poor food consumption isstill an issue for the city.Looking at dietary diversity providesanother way to assess the quality ofurban diets based on the diversity of foodcomponents that households consume 34and to qualify the results of the food consumptionscore to see if variations acrosscities have to do with the diversity of foodavailable in each city.34. Household dietary diversity calculated with a 7-day recall periodHousehold Dietary Diversity per cityTable 2-2:Dietary Diversity Score by CityFigure 2-11Dietary Diversity per City – 7-day recall. Red (1 to 4): Poor; Yellow (5 to 7): borderline; Dark green (8-9): acceptable.Household Dietary Diversity per city (24-hour recall)40 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 41

• Vegetables are seen as affordable,especially compared to fruit or meat.Does you menu vary a lot?No, not a lot. Only with the season.How often do you eat meat?Once every two weeksHow often do you eat vegetables? A few times a weekHow often do you eat fruit?It depends on seasons. Once a week or soDoes you menu vary a lot? Sometimes we cook bolani!How often do you eat meat?We may be able to eat chicken once a month.How often do you eat vegetables? We eat vegetables oftenbecause they are one of the cheapest food we can get.How often do you eat fruit?We never eat fruit because they are expensive.• Looking at dietary diversity unveilssignificant differences between thecities, with households in Kandaharreporting a more diversified diet, withthe highest average number of days ofconsumption of proteins, a significantlyhigher average of days of consumptionof dairy products than the othercities (4.98) and a higher average consumptionof tubers. Mazar-e-Sharif onthe other hand shows a significantlyless satisfying profile in dietary diversity,with the worst averages on severalkey food groups, in particular protein(0.45). Vegetables are an exception,as Mazar-e-Sharif scores high for theaverage number of days of consumptionof vegetables. These findings areconfirmed when looking at households’food consumption over the past24 hours: Kandahar shows the highestproportions of households havingconsumed key food groups such asprotein, vegetables and dairy products,while Mazar-e-Sharif consistentlyshows low consumption of thesefood groups. The higher consumptionof dairy products in Kandahar canbe linked to the higher proportion ofhouseholds owning livestock (23%),compared to other cities. Overall, thelowest household dietary diversityscore was recorded in Mazar-e-Sharif.These differences in dietary diversity andquality explain why Kandahar and Jalalabadscored higher on the FoodDoes you menu vary a lot?No, not much because we have to save money.How often do you eat meat?Once every monthHow often do you eat vegetables?Every day, usually for dinner.How often do you eat fruit? Never.Does you menu vary a lot?No, not much because we have to save money.How often do you eat meat?Once every monthHow often do you eat vegetables?Every day, usually for dinner.How often do you eat fruit? Never.Food insecurity by cityFigure 2-12HFIAS breakdown by cityConsumption Score, as the consumptionof dairy products and proteins representthe highest weights in the FCS comparedto other food groups. One explanation fora better dietary diversity in Kandahar andJalalabad is the proximity with Pakistan,from where food products are importedfor cheaper prices. This difference in foodprices also explains why Mazar-e-Shariffares poorly on the food expenditure ratioindicator. Qualitative data showed thathouseholds in Kandahar report frequentlyeating eggs and dogh (traditional liquidyogurt).“Even if the diversity of food available ishigher in urban areas, the rate of food insecurityis also higher. Because in the city,you have to pay for a lot of other things, notonly food items. Households have to pay fortheir rent, for electricity… So in terms of thequantity of food that households are able toaccess in the city, urban households are actuallyworse-off.”KII – WFP, KabulHousehold Food Insecurity Access ScaleThe Household Food Insecurity AccessScale (HFIAS) is based on the principlethat “the experience of food insecuritycauses predictable reactions and responsesthat can be captured and quantified” 36 .It shows whether households experiencedanxiety related to accessing food in theprevious month and if they reduced thequantity and quality of their food 37 . Morethan half the residents of the coveredlocations are characterised as “severelyfood insecure” according to the HouseholdFood Insecurity Access scale, andthat number rises to 84% (±1%) when the“moderately food insecure” are included.For example, nearly one household in fivereported at least one family member goingwithout food for a day at least once in theprevious four weeks.This indicator also showed marked differenceof levels of food security among thecities, following roughly the same trend aspoverty, with the exception of Kandahar,which stands out with the highest level offood insecurity despite its moderate povertylevel and relatively good profile basedon the food consumption score. (Figure2-12)It is also of some interest that the citiesthat enjoy the highest proportions ofhouseholds with acceptable food consumption– Jalalabad, Kandahar– also sufferfrom the highest proportions of severefood insecurity. Because the measuresdiffer – with the FCS focusing on overalladequacy of consumption and the HFIAS36. Coates, J., Swindale, A., Bilinsky, P. (2007) Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Household Food Access Indicator Guide (v.3). Washington,DC : FHI 360/FANTA. p. 1 37. FAO (2008), Report on Use of the HFIAS and HDDS in two survey rounds in Manica and Sofala Provinces, Mozambique. p. 3.42 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 43

Accessing Health Facilities: Easier in Kabul and HeratTABLE 2-4access to piped waterFIGURE 2-15Piped Water: Inexistent in KandaharStark difference also appears betweencities when looking at access to piped waterAccess to Health Facility per cityAccessing Health Facilities: Easier inKabul and HeratArea observations show clear patterns bycity in terms of access to basic services,with Kabul and Herat benefiting fromeasier access to health facilities, whilethe average distance to a health facilityis significantly higher in Mazar-e-Sharifand Kandahar, and to a lesser extentJalalabad, as highlighted in table 2.3. Thisreflects the various levels of investmentsin the public infrastructure of each city.Public Electricity: widespread but notequally reliableA vast majority of communities (83.9%)reported being connected to the publicgrid, across the board, with only Kabulreporting a slightly lower proportion(74.3%), a fact that can be linked to thehigher proportion of IDP settlements –usually excluded from public basic services– than in the other cities. Within thecommunities, and also to a large extent90 to 100% of households were reportedto be benefiting from electricity, a fact thatconfirms the findings of the householdssurvey where 79% of households reportedhaving access to public grid and an additional4% to solar electricity. Overall,the level of access to public electricityis high across the 5 cities targeted andconfirm the impact of living in a city onaccess to public services, as only 63.8%of rural households reported having hadaccess to any source of electricity in thepast month for the NRVA 42 .Yet, the main differences appear when itcomes to the reliability of access to electricity,as Kandahar appears to be significantlydisadvantaged compared to the4 other cities. This could even get worseas electricity provision is expected todeteriorate with the withdrawal of internationaltroops. In 28% of communitiessurveyed, electricity was considered tobe not reliable (several power cuts a day)or not reliable at all (days without electricity).On the other hand 29% of communitieshad access to very reliable and43% to reliable electricity (a few powercuts per week). Here there are significantdifferences between cities with Kandaharby far in the worst situation as 48% ofcommunities said that access to electricitywas not reliable and 32% said that itwas not reliable at all. On the other end ofthe spectrum, Mazar-e-Sharif and Heratfare much better. Kandahar’s poor accessto reliable electricity is also confirmed bythe household survey as households inKandahar were much more likely to reportlong cuts of electricity (37% vs. 11% inthe overall sample) and much less likely toreport reliable access to electricity all day(6% vs. 45% in the overall sample).For piped water as well, Herat benefits froma better provision of public services, whileKandahar is significantly disadvantaged withonly 5% of communities reporting access topiped water. To compensate for the absenceof piped water, a majority of communitiesrely on wells dug inside households’ compounds,in Kandahar and in other cities alike.Private wells are a reliable source of safewater, as long as deep waters are not contaminatedby pollution. As soon as water isprovided through a pipe system, communitieshave to pay through a system of metersmeasuring their consumption.In 94% of communities visited,there was no public sewagesystem. In general, people rely onsceptic tanks within their owncompounds and organise at thecommunityPrices reported varied from 25 AFA per cubicmeter to 40-50 AFA depending on areas.When households rely on wells for water,they do not have to pay for their consumption.In the absence of proper sewage system, therisk of contamination of underground wateris increasing in Afghan cities. The topologyof Kabul and the high rates of informalsettlements make it a challenge for basicservice provision to the increasing number ofhouseholds living on the slopes of the hills ofthe city, especially when it comes to sewagesystem and piped water schemes.42. NRVA (2013), p. ivArea Observations - % of communities reporting access to piped water per city48 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 49

Key findings - section 3Current conditions of the urbanpoor vary dramatically basedon their migration history: IDPs– especially recently-displaced –are at a clear disadvantage• Economic migrants and returneestend to do as well or better thanthose who never left, in terms ofprecarity, while IDPs live under considerablystarker conditions.• 36% of IDPs have poor foodconsumption based on the FSC,compared to 26-27% for economicmigrants and only 16 to 18% ofreturnee households.• 68 (±3%) of IDPs are categorizedas “severely food insecure”, whilereturnees matched residents at58-59%, with economic migrantsfaring best at 49 (±3%).• Higher levels of vulnerability andfood insecurity translate into significantlylower levels of resilienceof IDP households. IDPs were ata clear disadvantage in Herat andJalalabad, Kabul and Kandahar to alesser extent.• The present study confirms thatnewly-displaced fare significantlyworse than other IDPs and urbanpoor more generally.• Lack of access to adequatehousing and to land are two typesof vulnerability particularly prevalentamongst urban IDPs.Extreme vulnerability fuelled bysocial vulnerabilities: femaleheadedhouseholds, addictionand forms of employment as keydrivers of vulnerability• A regression analysis showed thatthe main determinants of extremevulnerability were a) belonging to afemale-headed household; b) havinga single source of income in thehousehold; c) addiction and d) toa lesser extent casual labour as amain source of income.• Having a disabled member ofhousehold (male adult) appearedas a counter-indication for foodinsecurity, although it did have animpact on poverty. This suggeststhat the pension received by disabledpeople has a positive impactof households’ resilience.• Seasonality of casual labour makeswinter a particularly difficult seasonfor urban poor, except in Jalalabadwhere seasonality has a more limitedimpact.• Education on the other hand is astrong determinant of food securityand of resilience for urbanhouseholds. A significant gapremains between genders in termsof literacy, reducing women’sabi-lity to cope with shocks.Food Security in the city isimpacted by access to incomeand nutrition security bt poorhygiene practices• Food availability is not a major determinantof food insecurity within thetargeted Afghan cities, which do notsuffer from food shortages. Little pricevolatility exists based on seasonalitybut food prices have increased overthe past 5 years. In contrast to ruralareas, seasonality only contributes tofood insecurity through casual labourin the five Afghan cities studied.• Urban households cannot rely on selfproductionto complement their foodintake as only a marginal proportionof households own livestock (13%) orgrow produce (7%), further reducingtheir ability to absorb income shocks.• Hygiene practices and awareness remainproblematic in many households.Only 33% of respondents reportedwashing their hands before eatingand only 21% of female respondentsanswered before preparing food. Poorhygiene practices are a risk factor fordiarrheal disease and poor nutritionalstatus, especially for under-five-yearoldchildren.54 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 55

Mean resilience index by city and migration statusFigure 3-3Overall, this comparison of vulnerabilityand food insecurity levels across migrationgroups show that forced displacementis a stronger determinant ofpoverty and vulnerability than return.Returnees come back to the country withsets of skills and networks that increasedtheir resilience upon return. Furthermore,returnees often had time to prepare fortheir return and benefited from variousforms of assistance upon return, in particularUNHCR’s return package, whichincludes a cash grant and shelter assistancefor a large proportion of returnees 45 .Some movements of returns had beencarefully planned ahead, like for examplethe Hazara community of Jebrail in thecity of Herat, who had purchased landbefore moving back to the city.The internally displaced on the other handare usually forced to leave suddenly andhave little choice in the decision to leave.In majority coming from rural areas (seeabove), they lack the skill set, literacyand urban habits that would facilitatetheir arrival. Unlike economic migrants,they also have to leave rapidly and withlittle preparation, putting them at risk ofdire poverty, especially in the first yearsof their displacement. The community ofeconomic migrants of Darbi Iraq in Heratfor example is a good example of howcommunities and households preparetheir migration to mitigate the risks theywill face upon arrival:“People started arriving from Badghis,from Shindan, from Pashtun Zargan,from Guzarra (districts of Herat province)to settle here. Mostly, these familiesmoved because they had no workin their place of origin. There are only2 IDP families in the community. Mostof the people own their house here. Ingeneral, they bought their house herebefore coming to the neighbourhood.They bought the old houses, the emptyhouses of the area. Poor people settledhere because the land is very cheap: 3beswa cost 500, 000 Afs.”Darbi IraqCommunity Leader, Herat CityRecently displaced households:vulnerable among the vulnerableThe situation of IDPs in Herat suggeststhat some stratification exists amongstIDPs based on their time in displacement,a trend noted by NRC and UNHCRduring an IDP profiling in 2014 in Kabulcity 46 . The present study confirms thatthe newly-arrived are amongst the mostvulnerable groups as the newly-arrivedIDPs fared significantly worse than theaverage urban poor in this study:Mean Resilience Index by City and Migration StatusNotably, residents of Kabul who never lefthave the lowest average resilience scoreof all groups, with all migrants in Kabulat a considerable disadvantage (20-40points). Of further interest is that Heratireturnees, who overwhelmingly spenttime in Iran, are significantly more resilientthan even the residents who remained.This indicates that Iranian returnees derivedsome advantage abroad that madethem more resilient than other groupsupon return. Literacy and education aretwo of the benefits of having spent sometime in Iran. It must be noted that theresults in Herat are linked to the inclusionin the sample of the recent caseloads ofIDPs who arrived from Badghis and Ghorprovinces at the end of 2013 and havesettled in Herat in the camps of Kareezak,Pashtan, and Shahee Dayee checkpoint.Given their recent arrival and dire livingconditions, these IDPs present very highlevels of vulnerability and food insecurity,a reminder that integration in the city’ssocio-economic fabric is particularlydifficult to achieve for those who areforcibly displaced.Recently displaces households224 IDP respondents reportedhaving been displaced less thanone year ago in the entire sample,168 of whom are in Herat city.The main indicators show a sharpdifference in well-being betweenthis group and the means of all respondentsand of protracted IDPs:• HFIAS: Recently displaced IDPsscore a mean of 15.4 (±0.9)compared to a general populationmean of 10.0• On the household hungerscore, recently displacedhouseholds also score higher,with 2.15 compared to ageneral mean of 1.1. With amargin of error of 0.2 andscores ranging between 1 and6, this is a significant gap.• The mean consumption expenditureof recently displacedhouseholds is considerablylower than the entiresample at 962 AFA against1322 AFA for the entire sample.• Finally, the mean resiliencescore of recently displacedhouseholds is significantlyhigher than the generalpopulation mean at 208.5 (± 5points) against 157.9 for theentire sample 47 .>Both in terms of poverty and offood security, recently displacedhouseholds live in considerabledistress and enjoy significantlyworse living conditions than theaverage urban households.45. See MGSoG-Samuel Hall(2013), Evaluation of UNHCR Shelter Assistance Programme. 46. KII with UNHCR and NRC 47. Two-tailed test for the means of the group; 95% confidence interval.58 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 59

Overview of main factors for each indicatortable 3-1INDICATORSevere food Insecurity based on Household FoodInsecurity (HFIAS)Severe Hunger (Household Hunger Scale)Most determinant factors1. Addiction2. Female head of household3. Low level of education1. Female head of household% of food in total household expenditure > 60% 1. Casual labourCASE STUDY 1> JalalabadSparghai is a 45-year old widow. Sheis originally from Ghazi Abad but herhousehold moved to Jalalabad foreconomic reasons a long time ago. Herhusband died 15 years ago and Sparghaihad to take care of 6 children. “Itwas very difficult to adjust when hedied and my children were frequentlylacking food”. Today Sparghai relies onthe support of her father and on theincome brought by her two sons whoare respectively 12 and 10-year old.She is frequently worried about thequantity of food that she will be able toprovide for her children, as the householdconstantly lacks money.Poverty (income < 1,710 AFA/person/month)Extreme Poverty (income below median amongsthouseholds with income < 1,710/ person /month)Lower Income1. Male disabled adult2. Addicted member of household3. Casual labour as source of income1. Having 1 or less sources of income2. Being disabled3. Addiction4. Having a female head of household5. Casual labour as source of income1. Addiction2. 1 or less source of income3. Female head of householdCASE STUDY 2 > Mazar-e-SharifBibi Hawa is 50 years old. Originallyfrom Charkent district in Balkh province,she lived 3 years in Iran with herhusband before coming back to Mazare-SharifCity. Her husband was aporter and passed away 10 years ago,leaving Bibi Hawa alone with her 3 children.“I was in a critical economic situationwhen my husband passed away.It was the case until my sons were oldenough to earn money themselves. Wedidn’t have money to buy food and weall had to be patient when food waslacking on the table. Nowadays, my 16-year old son is a carpenter and earnsmoney for the family. But I am still veryoften unable to afford the kind of foodthat my children would prefer eating.Overview of main factors for each indicator based on multinomial regression testFemale-headed Households/WidowsFemale-headed households show signsof extreme poverty, food insecurity andvulnerability. In the general sample, 626households reported being headed bya woman, or 11.6% of the total numberof households. Having a female head ofhousehold appeared to be a strong determinantof severe food insecurity, to be thestrongest determinant for the householdto experience severe hunger. Looking atextreme poverty – i.e. households fallingbelow the median amongst householdsWHAT IS THE MARITAL STATUS OF Female Heads of Households?FIGURe 3-5Marital Status of Female Heads of Householdsbelow the poverty line – shows that afemale-headed household is a significantdeterminant for extreme poverty.Female heads of households and widowshave to adapt to difficult socio-economicconditions in a society where a) the typeof jobs and salaries accessible to womenare scarce and low; and, b) the independencyof a female head of household isnot guaranteed and they have to rely onthe generosity of relatives to survive. Thefollowing cases studies illustrate thesedifficulties:CASE STUDY 3 > HERATZamarud is originally from Karrukhdistrict, her family moved to Herat Citybecause of the repeated droughts andthe lack of economic activities there.Mother of two sons and two daughters,Zamarud lost her husband 12 yearsago. Upon the death of her husband,she faced a difficult situation, as shehad to stand up against her family toavoid being married to her husband’sbrother. She was also in a very difficulteconomic situation. She refused theCASE STUDY 4 > KABULZakia (55) is a widow. She is also theeldest member of her family and headof the household. Zakia is no strangerto the tragedies of war. First, she losther husband in the conflict and later 2of her children died in a rocket attackwhile they were at university. She nowhas 3 daughters and 1 son remaining.1 of her daughters is married and has3 children. She depends on the incomebrought by the son-in-law who is acasual labourer. Another of her daughtersis married in Pakistan and it hasforced marriage and decided to startworking for her children. The absenceof livelihood was very tough for thefamily at the beginning but Zamarudmanaged to find various incomegeneratingactivities. She is nowinvolved in cleaning wool, cleaningand shelling pistachios and is a housecleaner for various families in thecommunity. Life is still not easy butZamarud manages to put food on thetable for her children.been 2 years since she last saw her.The remaining stays with her.Money is very hard to come by. Sheearns money by washing clothes in theresidential block close by. Her sonin-law’sincome is split between hisown family and hers so she does notget much of it. Out of desperation the13-year old son go out to the marketto work as daily labourer. He goes unsupervisedto the market and spendsall day there before returning in theevening. >62 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 63

4RESISTINGSHOCKS:URBAN MECHANISMS OF RESILIENCE“It is very common for me to give credit tothe people of the community. All the credits Igave are written down here. But I give creditto the persons I know only. I don’t give creditto the returnees from Iran and Pakistan becauseI only want to give credit to the families Ireally know.”Pic. 4.1: Shopkeeper shows his notebookwhere he keeps track of all the creditsof the community members – Kabul> Urban households struggleto adjust to the current economicdrawdown> At the household level, verylittle coping mechanisms areavailable for urban households,who mostly rely onnegative strategies reducingtheir food quality and quantity.Yet, existing safety nets atthe community level – informalcredit and charity – offersome protection to urbanhouseholds, a protection thatis lacking for recently-displacedIDP households.Shopkeeper, Kabul80 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 81

Gaps in ExistingUrban ProgrammingThe humanitarian and development interventionin Afghanistan has long been‘rural-centred’, based on the demographicprofile of the country and the dire needsfor basic services and humanitarian assistancein remote areas. The urbanisationtrend and all the challenges it entails –especially in terms of poverty and resilience– still have to attract the attention ofdonors and international actors to supportnational institutions that lack the financialand technical capacities to respond adequatelyto these challenges. This sectionwill look at the existing programmes in thecities and the main gaps of these interventionsin order to shape the recommendationsection.Main streams of programming inurban areasThree main types of programming co-existin the cities: a) large-scale programmesof infrastructures supported by a fewkey donors; b) emergency assistance forinternally displaced people; c) small-scaleprojects run by non-governmental organisations– national and international – focusingon specific target groups within thecity.Support to urban infrastructuresUrban areas have attracted large-scaleinfrastructure programmes supported bya few key donors, such as the JapaneseInternational Cooperation Agency (JICA),the German Cooperation agency (GiZ),the World Bank and USAID. Focusing onkey urban infrastructures, such as roadpavement, water supply or municipalplanning, these programmes have allowedfor a real improvement in the life of urbanresidents over the past decade. Pumpingin important sum of money – USAID KabulCity Initiative alone had a budget of $120million – these programmes have focusedon the main cities of the country first, withKabul, Herat or Mazar-e-Sharif or Kandaharattracting important funding.These progammes were usually coupledwith huge investment in capacity-buildingfor municipal authorities and staff of keyline departments, the Independent Directoratefor Local Governance (IDLG) andthe Ministry for Urban Development Affairs(MUDA). Capacity-building was designedto cover both procurement, planning andmonitoring on the one hand and the requiredtechnical capacities for urban planningon the other: GIS, technical surveysetc.Two different approaches can be identifiedin the direct interventions of donors onurban development:• A top-down and technical approach– with sometimes over-ambitiousprogrammes on the one hand;• An increasing component of community-basedprogramming focusingon community participation and withgreater chances to be sustainable.JICA’s Project for the Promotion of KabulMetropolitan Area Development illustratesthe first of these approaches, as the agencybrought in important technical expertiseand support to Kabul Municipality forthe development of a ‘Greater Kabul’ thatwould include a ‘New City’ in the closedistrict of Deh Sabz. JICA also prepareda master plan for the New City and a newMasterplan for the existing Kabul. Thisenormous project was broken down inthree phases, focusing for the first phaseon an initial development area close tothe city before extending further. Yet, thedevelopment of the New City is on holddue to the numerous land conflicts surroundingthe development of Deh Sabz.The project encountered a high level ofresistance from local communities to apoint where the situation turned violent.JICA is also suspicious about the transparencyand capacity of the Deh SabzNew City Development Authority (DCDA)they set up to overview the project in thedistrict. The project is halted until the landconflicts are solved, security is deemedsatisfying and the DCDA has securedadditional funding to pay for the hugeinfrastructure projects. Another exampleis the World Bank-funded Kabul UrbanReconstruction Programme for a total of$31 million between 2005 and 2008 butextended several times until completionof some components of the programme,which focused heavily on the upgradingand development of urban services (watersupply, sanitation, solid waste management…)in Kabul.On the other hand of the spectrum, UN-HABITAT is implementing another typeof urban development programme, alsosupported by JICA and based on communities’participation. UN-Habitat supportsthe establishment of a representative bodyat the community level, an urban equivalentto the CDCs established in rural areasby the National Solidarity Programme ofthe Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation andDevelopment. These local bodies decidethe priorities of the community in termsof development and overview the implementationof projects. In majority, urbancommunities request the construction ofroads for their communities. Whicheverthe project, communities are asked tocontribute for 30-40% of the investmentwhile JICA covers for the rest of the costs.The community is also expected to providelabour and to improve the drainagesystem and footpaths in their area. Theimportant community contribution meansthat community members are invested inthe success of the project and its sustainability.• Taking into account the fact that accessto basic services is an importantdimension of poverty and resilienceand that poverty is fuelled by the lackof access to basic services in theinformal settlements, these large-scaleprogrammes served an importantfunction to support urban development.Emergency Assistance for internallydisplaced personsAnother stream of assistance targetingurban areas provides emergency humanitarianassistance to the IDPs livingin the informal settlements of the cities.The emergency assistance for newlydisplacedis supposed to last for threemonths maximum but the dire situation ofIDPs in some of the informal settlementshas called for further assistance to bedistributed to IDP households in needs.This assistance distributed in the city isborn out of the conclusion that some IDPchildren and adults still die of cold andhunger in the harsh winter of the cities ofthe North and West in particular (Kabul,Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat). An importantcomponent of the assistance providedincludes winter kits to help IDP familiessurvive winters. Still, most of the assistanceis concentrated in the areas listedby the Task Force in charge of coordinatingemergency assistance for IDPs.Kabul is the city where the assistanceefforts have been the most intense forIDPs through the framework of the KIS.SolidaritŽs Internationales, Welt HungerHilfe (WHH), Action Contre la Faim (ACF)or Ashiana, have been able to go beyondemergency assistance and to provideeducation services and vocational training,or to work on WASH projects withinthe settlements.Emergency assistance for IDPs in the citiesraises increasing questions for organisations,donors and national authoritiesalike. Repeated calls for emergency assistancefor the winter is now consideredwith increasing frustration by the donors,who question the relevance of an interventionthat has to be repeated every year.Assistance to the KIS – also informallycalled IDP camps – is an extremely heatedand politicised question for municipal andnational authorities who do not supportany type of mid- or long-term interventionswith these populations.94 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 95

Assistance received by migration statusFigure 5-1Assistance received by migration grouppartners to address the dire needs ofurban caseloads. These IDPs wereduly identified and assisted upon theirarrival in the city, especially duringthe difficult winter they had to pass inHerat. Yet, no mechanisms exist for afollow-up on their assistance after thethree-month limit of emergency assistanceand authorities in Herat havefailed to support adequately thesepopulations. The present assessmentprovides more evidence that thesepopulations are particularly at riskbut a robust framework to implementdurable solutions for IDPs in the citiesis slow to emerge.national and international actors. In particular,households with specific profilesand pockets of poverty are to be foundeverywhere in the city, and cannot beeasily type- cast by convenient indicatorsand descriptors. The urban poor areeverywhere in the 5 cities surveyed forthis study. Yet most of the assistance isconcentrated on a few small settlements:across the 5 cities, 12% of non-residentsof the KIS reported having receivedassistance, compared to 30% for KISresidents.Challenges with programmingin the cityAd-hoc and targeted interventions forvulnerable groupsEven if it remains marginal, at a small andlocal scale, some NGOs have also startedworking on urban poverty, usually throughad-hoc interventions designed to targetspecific sub-groups. Initiatives with streetchildren, households combatting drugaddiction and small vocational trainingshave been developed. These initiatives aredisparate, non-systematic and characterisedby their small-scale and localisedimpact but they are often based on a fineground knowledge of urban populationsthat can be of use for other actors enteringthis field of interventions. War Childin Herat is a good example of an organisationtargeting vulnerable women andchildren in the city, in an effort to combatpoverty in urban areas. Save The Childrenis also active in urban areas with specificprogrammes targeting street children.Interestingly, the WFP has recently startedpaying more attention to urban areas anddeveloped an unconditional cash andvoucher programme for urban areas. Theprogramme will aim at targeting 32,000households in Herat, Jalalabad, Kabuland Mazar-e-Sharif for a total of approximately244,000 individuals impacted. Theprogramme is designed like an urbansafety net with a cash distribution of 2000AFA every 3 months for the most vulnerablefamilies. The main selection criteriainclude disability, elderly heads of householdsand female-headed householdsliving in the city. An e-voucher componentof this programme has been piloted in Kabulto test the feasibility of e-distributionthrough mobile money in urban areas.Main Gaps in interventionsidentifiedUrban poverty and food insecurity remainlargely unaddressed by national and internationalactors, as funding and programminglargely focus on rural issues. Additionally,there are several gaps in currentapproaches:• Beyond emergency assistance – a“no man’s land” for IDPs? The caseof recently displaced IDPs from Ghorand Badghis in Herat raises a seriesof questions on the ability of nationalauthorities and their internationalWinterization is a failure. Donors arenot interested. Even the IDPs are fedup. People themselves are asking fordurable solutions.KII – HLP Task Force• Between humanitarian assistance andlarge-scale development/infrastructureprojects – a missing link: This studyshowed that urban livelihoods remainedlow and instable and that theoverall level of resilience of poor urbanhouseholds has not improved drasticallyover the past decade, except forimproved access to basic servicesin some parts of major Afghan cities.Initiatives to build resilience remainscarce in the city. The main interventionsworking on livelihoods are smallscale,short-term vocational training,of which impact remains limited giventhe poor level of skills that beneficiariesusually reach, the lack of links tothe market and the overall saturatedurban labour markets. Although asmall number of actors have tried toaddress issues of food security andhouseholds’ resilience in the city, thestudy showed that building resilienceof urban households needs long-termprogramming on key issues that canbring transformation: education –especially for women – and structuralimprovement of the business andproductive sectors in particular.Beyond the informal settlements, addressingwidespread urban poverty –This study proved that urban poverty iswidespread – and increasing – far beyondthe limits of the few areas identified byProgramming in the city is not easy andrequires a long-term engagement of actorsto understand the dynamics theyare dealing with. Here are several of thechallenges that Afghan cities pose to thesuccessful implementation of projects:• Opposition and reluctance of municipalauthorities who consider theissue of unregulated urbanisation asa dynamic that can and should bereversed, in spite the wealth of evidenceshowing the contrary. Thereis therefore an important reluctance– and sometimes an open opposition– to humanitarian assistance beingdelivered in urban areas, as they asseen as fuelling rural to urban migrationand increasing the problem ofurban poverty. This is especially thecase for recently-displaced IDPs, whoare unwelcome in most of the citiessurveyed for this study. This translatesinto a constant battle between humanitarianactors and municipal authoritiesover the type of projects that can orcannot be implemented, especially inthe KIS.• Targeting outside the pre-identifiedinformal settlements is a difficultexercise as actors lack cohesivecommunity structures on which torely on for an accurate identificationof the most vulnerable. Plus the fact96 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 97

that extremely vulnerable householdsmay be found within relatively well-offcommunities make it difficult for actorto catch households in need. Fewindicators allow for a robust targetingstrategy as the overall level of povertyand vulnerability is high everywhere inthe city.• Saturated labour markets in the citymake it difficult for livelihood interventionsto succeed in having an impact,at least when they are implementedbased on the current model of shortterm(3 or 6 months of training) trainingand little follow-up on the abilityof beneficiaries to enter the labourmarket.• Access to land is a heated issue forurban populations, especially in Kabul,where informal settlements havedeveloped at a high pace over thepast decade. Urbanisation and largemovements of land grabbing havecontributed to increase the pressureon land in Afghan major cities. Takingreports of eviction and fear of evictionas a proxy for the land pressure urbanhouseholds are subjected to showsthat Kabul, Kandahar and Jalalabadhave higher levels of pressure on land:19%, 26% and 22% of households reportedhaving faced these issues overthe past 12 years, as opposed to 14%in Herat and 3% in Mazar-e-Sharif.Programming in these three cities mayprove more challenging and requirestaking into account access to landfrom the early stages of the projectdesign. The issue of land calls for twokinds of approaches: a) consideringinitiatives that are not land-intensive(ex: sack agriculture); and, b) factoringin programmes’ design and timelinethe skills and tine necessary to secureland arrangements.PROGRAMMING FOCUS:DEVELOPING AGRICULTURE IN THE CITY?BEST PRACTICES:HELP’s PROGRAMME OF URBAN AGRICULTURE IN HERATPIN and DRC’s Programming - Under the LRRDprogramme of the EU, PIN and DRC are looking intodeveloping programmes of urban agriculture, atype of programming that PIN has already startedto develop with some success in Mazar-e-Sharif.Urban agriculture can be defined as “the productionin the home or plots in and around urban andperi-urban areas. (…) It can include green rooftopfarming, backyard gardens, community gardens,commercial farms and public institutional gardensmanaged by schools and hospitals.” 67 This type ofprogramming is appropriate for areas where landis scarce as it only requires limited spaces.Urban agriculture in Afghan cities:> Highly Relevant - The results of this study supportthe development of initiatives based onurban agriculture in the cities. The relevance ofthese is proven by a) the low level of resilienceof the urban poor; b) their inability of self-producewhen moving to the city; c) the high levelsof inactivity of women in urban areas.> Higher Interest amongst women - The interestfor urban agriculture is much higher inJalalabad, Kandahar and Mazar-e-Sharif than inKabul and Herat. This can be linked to the higherproportions of households owning livestock inthese cities and, in the case of Kandahar, withthe stronger networks between rural areas andthe city. Overall, this suggests that Herat andKabul – and to a large degree Mazar-e-Sharif– may be increasingly turning towards urbanlifestyles that are seen as incompatible with agriculturalactivities. Yet, interestingly, the surveyfound a higher level of interest amongst femalerespondents, of whom 52% noted that theywould be interested in such training, comparedto 44% for their male counterparts. Furthermore,experience shows that most respondentsrequest training in sewing or tailoring, despitethe market saturation around these activities.> Support of national authorities – Overall,governmental and municipal actors interviewedfor this study showed support and a certainlevel of enthusiasm for potential programmes ofurban agriculture, as this type of programmingoverlaps with some of the priorities they haveidentified for urban development: a) small andmedium enterprises and livelihoods on the onehand; b) greeneries and environmental concernson the other. They all noted the caveat that thistype of initiatives should be developed in closecooperation with municipal authorities, whichcould be of great support to address the questionof land that may render any initiative of thiskind difficult.HELP implemented two projects of gardening andsmall agriculture in Herat. In Jebrail, HELP providedtraining on how to plant produces. The organisationhelped communities finding two big plotsof land to rent and develop. An agreement wasfound with landowners to share the production tocover rent: 25% to the owner, 75% to the producers.HELP organised beneficiaries in 2 groups of30 people per plot, covering in total 60 families.Trainees were trained to work together and thetool kits at the end were pooled to allow for thepurchase of more expensive equipment. A longtermapproach was adopted to provide counsellingand technical support after the end of the trainingand to identify all the technical hurdles that couldendanger the sustainability of the project: irrigationsystem, provision of seeds, provision andmaintenance of material etc. Agriculture engineersare in charge of following-up with targetedcommunities.The second project puts the emphasis on marketintegration and is implemented in Shebeekan.HELP established a women training centre, wherewomen learn food processing and produce yogurtand butter. HELP identified potential groups whocould be responsible for transporting productsto Herat to increase the market opportunities ofwomen’s productions. HELP also identified adequateselling points in the city where the productscould be sold for a good price, increasing thesustainability of the project. The whole system isnow in place and well-rooted in the community.67. Peprah, K. Amoah, S.T., Akongbangre J. (2014) : Ç Sack Farming : Innovation for Land Scarcity Farmers in Kenya and Ghana È in International Journal of InnovativesResearch and Studies, vol.3, Issue 5, p.31.98 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 99

RecommendationsAddressing Urban Poverty and the Resilience Gap:For all actors> Build the resilience of urban households through a long-termcommitment to:• Access to basic services: Bridge the gap between cities in terms of accessto basic services, as they play a key role in building resilience in the long run.Community-based programming, based on community contribution in cash andlabour force, is a sustainable way of improving and maintaining basic servicesin the city and should be further supported. Donors should maintain their focuson infrastructure investments, looking beyond Kabul at the gaps in other cities,and especially at Kandahar, where the situation is considerably worse, especiallywhen it comes to access to electricity.• Access to education and literacy: this study showed that education is a determinantof household resilience. It is also a safeguard against inter-generationaltransmission of poverty. Yet, access to education is still unevenly distributedacross the 5 major cities and by gender: living in the city does not guaranteeaccess to education. Long-term commitment to education project – especiallythose aimed at increasing girls’ access to high school and higher education –should still be on the top of the agenda.• Workforce qualification: Vulnerability and food insecurity in the cities are firstand foremost a problem of access to stable livelihoods. Structural changesare required for the urban workforce to diversify their skills and step away fromcasual labour that keeps households in a circle of debt and poverty. Designinglong-term programmes of qualification for urban skills – specialising in servicesand business management in particular – would help reduce the increasing gapbetween the urban labour supply and demand.> Recognize an urban geography of poverty by adjusting targeting to theprofiles of poverty in the cities:• At the city level – Kandahar showed high levels of food insecurity and poor accessto basic services further reducing the resilience of households living in thatcity. Mazar-e-Sharif also fared poorly on a number of food security indicators,suggesting that these two cities may need more attention than cities like Kabul orHerat and Jalalabad, located in areas of high return where a lot of urban interventionsare concentrated.• At the community level – the study has shown that IDP households wereparticularly vulnerable but that poverty and lack of resilience was widespreadfar beyond the limit of the informal settlements identified by the KIS Task Force,as people other than IDPs and IDPs living outside the KIS are also vulnerable.The geographic scope of interventions should therefore increase beyond theKIS. Communities with a concentration of IDP households, especially those whohave been recently-displaced, should therefore still be targeted as a priority, butprogramming should also focus on other vulnerable households whether from thehost community or with different migratory profiles.• At the household level – Use fine targeting methodologies: the ResilienceIndex: the study shows that there was little stratification amongst urban poor.Targeting is highly challenging and should be based on a solid combination ofindicators to avoid arbitrary delineation between poor groups. One option is toopt for blanket targeting of hot spots of poverty and food insecurity in urbanareas. Another option – especially if resources are limited – is to base targeting ona refined grid of selection criteria. The study points at key variables to identify themost vulnerable households in the city. A simplified resilience index (as detailedbelow) based on proxy means allows for a robust identification of the poorest.This system can be explained to communities to avoid resentment.> Address urban households’ difficulties in accessing food by:• Building on existing female livelihood strategies: This study did observe formsof livelihood accessible to women (albeit in a limited scale). Usually home-based,they include tailoring, sewing, pistachio shelling, cleaning chickpeas, cleaningwool etc. These represent interesting opportunities for women to be economicallyactive. Yet, the study shows that their weak position in the labour market meansthat they work for extremely low salaries. Organisations could work on buildingthe bargaining power of these women by setting up cooperatives of productionand intervening in salary negotiations.• Developing specific protection and livelihood programmes for householdswith addicted members: The study showed that these households were atparticular risk, as addicts often use any income or assets to purchase drugs.Drug addiction being stigmatised, these households lose the support of theircommunities, leaving children and women in a situation of high vulnerability. Addictionwas also a significant predictor for food insecurity. While drug addictionis increasing in Afghan cities, the response of national and international actorsshould be significantly built up to prevent situations of extreme vulnerability.Organisations like DRC with a specific focus on displaced populations shouldalso take addiction into account in their programming as drug use and associatedrisks are particularly high – and increasing – among returnees. The issue ofaddiction among returnee households from Pakistan and Iran is a question thatDRC should approach through a regional strategy, as drug use often starts whileabroad.• Building long-term mechanisms of social protection: Urban households sufferfrom a lack of safety nets and the dissolution of community-based protectionmechanisms. Yet, this study showed that mechanisms of social protection – suchas the pension distributed to the disabled and victims of mines – could have areal impact on food security. Investing in sustainable systems of social protectionshould therefore be a priority to fill the gap left by receding systems of charity. In100 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 101

particular, the training of social workers embedded in the communities should bea priority to identify households at particular risk and improve the referral mechanisms– within and outside communities.> Tailor awareness raising campaigns and training to the gap identifiedwithin households to increase food security and improve nutrition:• Target male members of households with training on food literacy: The studyshowed that male members of households are in charge of purchasing food ina large majority of urban households. The poor diets of urban households alsoshow a low level of awareness about the benefits of diversified diets. Men shouldtherefore be targeted as a priority by awareness-raising campaigns surroundingfood. The study found that food budget was often the key determinant of foodchoices, meaning that training on food literacy should include components onbudget-management and take into account the constraint of low budgets.• Increase awareness raising about hygiene practices surrounding food, especiallyfor women: The survey showed that levels of awareness about appropriatehygiene practices were still low amongst the urban poor, leading to risks ofdiarrhoea amongst children. Specific training on hygiene requirements for foodpreparation should be provided. This could be incorporated into entrepreneurialor social activities offered for women – a class on food safety in meal preparationfor example. Community kitchens are a good model here.• Raise awareness about the impact of tea consumption duringmeal on iron absorption: Tea consumption during meal inhibitthe absorption of iron, an issue particularly problematic when noenhancing factors (fish, meat etc.) are consumed as is the casefor most Afghan households. Advocate for tea to be consumedbetween meals instead of during the meal to address the problemof iron deficiency, particularly for pregnant women, women andchildren.• Significantly build up awareness raising on adequate breastfeeding practices:Breastfeeding practices were found to be highly inadequate to provide forinfants’ nutrition needs in the cities. A large effort of awareness-raising shouldtarget mothers but also female health workers working on deliveries in publicclinics for them to provide adequate information and care after the birth. At thecommunity level, women centres combined with EDC centres could be establishedwithin the communities as places where care and development services foryoung children are easily available, along with training focusing on breastfeeding.> Work on capacity-building of key urban actors:Urban poverty depends heavily on the capacities of urban authorities to respondto the needs, an area where the gaps are still blatant in the country. Workingclosely with relevant urban actors on projects can help staff from municipalities,MUDA and IDLG, learn on the job and increase their capacity.> Learn from existing successful UN-Habitat programmes:UN-HABITAT has developed successful programming in urban areas that is worthreplicating 68 , in coordination with the agency. In particular, the efforts to incrementallyregister properties, collect small municipal taxes and deliver servicesto informal settlements are seen as particularly successful by communities andmunicipal actors alike. Based on the principle of community contributions, theyshow that urban households are ready to invest in their communities, if they aresupported through carefully-designed projects. UN-Habitat could partner withother organisations interested in urban programming to increase the geographicscope of their programmeFor PIN and DRC:Programming on Urban AgriculturePIN has started implementing a pilot project on urban agriculture addressing the issueof food insecurity and lack of resilience in the cities, with the support of the EU. Someof the modalities of implementation detailed below have already been tested by PIN,which will be able to provide lessons learned for DRC. DRC is now also looking intoit and should learn from the lessons drawn by PIN during its pilot. Projects of urbanagriculture will typically include a training component and a start-up kit at the end of thetraining for households to be able to develop their activity. The present study providesseveral indications how to practically implement this type of programmes in urban environment:Targeting>At the household level> Disregard traditional poverty indicators:The present study showed that indicators of poverty are not equally useful toidentify finer stratifications among the urban population, as poverty is widespread.Relatively soft data like income or expenses are relatively unreliable anddo not discriminate enough between sub-groups and types of vulnerabilities. Thepoverty line – based on monthly expenditure per member of households – doesnot provide an adequate frame to identify vulnerable households in the cities.> Use a Simplified Index of Vulnerability:A more robust and comprehensive method of targeting can be based on a userfriendlysimplified index of resilience using the following indicators:• The Food Consumption Score (FCS): this indicator is a good basis for a robustprofiling of the level of vulnerability of a household. It is also relatively easy to useand analyse and provides a very handy tool for monitoring and evaluation of theimpact of the programme.• The household dietary diversity score (HDDS): also important in urban areaswhere one of the important threats to food security is poor diets.68. See http://www.fukuoka.unhabitat.org/projects/afghanistan/detail20_en.html for more detail.102 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 103

• The Coping Strategy Index (CSI): There is a need to complement the FSC bylooking at the practices born out of food insecurity and the potential risks thatthey raise for families. The CSI also provides a relatively handy tool to do so andidentify risky practices that may endanger the households’ resilience in the longer-run.Follow-up indicators can be used to refine the analysis of harmful copingstrategies and identify, in particular, households where women regularly limit theirown quantity of food for other household members to be able to eat. This can beparticularly problematic if the woman is taking care of a new-born and should betherefore monitored.• Number of sources of income: as detailed above, the number of sources ofincome is a real determinant of vulnerability and lack of resilience amongst urbanhouseholds. It is also a solid and easily quantifiable indicator, as long as the ageand gender of the income-earners are duly recorded. In the current labour market,a male income-earner relying on casual labour is likely to earn around 5 timesthe daily income of a female income-earner. The only exceptions to this are if femalemembers of households were able to secure stable employment, especiallyin the public sector. On the other hand, casual labour is also too widespread tooffer a robust selection criterion in and of itself.• Households with specific types of vulnerabilities: the present study confirmedbased on robust statistical evidence the weigh certain factors play in households’vulnerability, confirming that the ‘Persons with Specific Needs’ (PSN) typologyestablished by UNHCR and other organisations is an adequate tool to test vulnerability.In particular, households with addicted members; female-headed households/widows,elderly-headed households are particularly determinant criteria ofselection.• IDP households: This study proved that IDP households are significantly morevulnerable than other migratory groups, and that they need a longer period ofadjustment to the city than economic migrants or even returnees who receivedspecific support. IDP households should therefore be selected in priority. Yet,this comes with the caveat that IDP households are often still quite mobile uponarrival in the city and households would frequently move before finding a suitablelocation. Urban agriculture requires time and investment from households. IDPhouseholds should therefore have spent at least a year in the community to beselected, in order to prevent the risk of households dropping out in the middle ofthe project.• Exclude from the selection: households whose heads of household havereceived higher education; households with more than 2 income-earners; householdswith at least one income-earner having a full-time contract.Conducting a thorough community assessment before starting a project is a necessarybut time-consuming and difficult exercise. The series of indicators detailed above canhelp limiting the assessment to a few meaningful indicators to prevent organisationsfrom wasting time of data collection and analysis. If organisations have enough internalcapacities for a more in-depth assessment, the complete resilience index used for thisstudy, with detailed cut-off points is available in annex 69 .69. As mentioned previously, this resilience index was designed based on the standard indicators and cut-off points used for Afghanistan and used as a basis the one PINdeveloped for its programming in Mazar-e-SharifThe following box gives an overview of the simplified index of vulnerability that canguide beneficiary selection at the household level.SIMPLIFIED RESILIENCE INDEXFood AccessIncomePSNMigration andDisplacementResilience>At the individual levelFood ConsumptionScoreHousehold DietaryDiversity ScoreCoping StrategyIndex# of source of incomeType of incomeHousehold ProfileMigratory ProfileLevel of educationof head of household< =28.0 3028.1 – 42 15> 42.0 0< 5 205-8 10> 8 0< 8 08.1 – 15 515-28 10> 28 15< 1 201-2 10> 2 EXCLUDECasual labour 20Full-time jobEXCLUDEFemale-headed household 20Household with addicted members 15Household with disabled male adult 15IDP Household: recently-arrived 20IDP Household:arrived more than 3 years ago10Returnees, local residentor economic migrants0Higher educationEXCLUDESecondary School and High school 0Primary School 5None 20> Building women’s resilienceGive responsibility to female members of households: the study showed that a)women were more interested by this kind of initiatives; b) most women were inactiveor unemployed, meaning that the opportunity cost of the time spent in trainingand following activities is likely to be limited for the household, hence moreaffordable than for their male counterparts; and, c) women are in charge of foodpreparation. Selecting female members of households in priority is also a way toincrease the impact of the project through a series of secondary effects:• Strengthening women’s position in the households and decision-makingpower: As highlighted above and observed in many past researches, women’srole in decision-making remains limited, especially when they do not contribute tothe households’ income and well-being. Putting them in charge of a project that104 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 105

will ease family consumption is a good way to strengthen their position and responsibilities inthe family.• Increase the opportunities for women to socialise around a common project: whether implementedat the community or at the household level, urban agriculture projects should fostercollective management and problem-solving mechanisms, offering for women a forum of discussionand socialisation that is often blatantly lacking.• Additionally, a community kitchen project model could be used to increase women’s resilience.Such project could provide women with both a place to socialize, and training on smallbusiness skills, food safety (building upon findings regarding hygiene), and nutrition. Suchprojects have provided income-generating opportunities for women and improved participants’nutritional intake and budgeting skills in similar settings. 70Community kitchens is a term used to “describe community-focused and –initiated cooking-type programmes.(…) Community kitchens are known as providing an opportunity for a small group of peopleto meet regularly in order to prepare a meal. (…) Community kitchens focus on developing participantresilience for those experiencing food insecurity and social isolation rather than creating and supportinga cycle of dependency and emergency food relief” 71 .• Set-up self-help groups for female beneficiaries to discuss the difficulties they face and potentiallyuse the structure for micro-loans when needed. As shown in recent studies conductedfor the Danish NGO Mission East in Northern Afghanistan, Self Help Groups not only have aneconomic role to pay, but they also strongly contribute to community mobilisation, awarenessraising, and social cohesion – and especially among female members of the community. Consideringthat it is often more difficult for women to find a job in urban areas, setting up self-helpgroups may be a pragmatic gender-inclusive instrument.> Target male members of the community with training on technical services needed forurban agriculture:The project can be designed to associate both male and female members of the community,hence increasing acceptance. Urban greenhouses, irrigation system or transportation and storageof produce require specific skills and support that can be left in the hands of male membersof the community, who can then find a source of livelihoods linked to the project. Training inplumbing or maintenance of solar panels can be combined with the training women receive inplanting.Implementation ModalitiesPreliminary Steps> Privilege projects of urban agriculture based on group work: Training groups of people to worktogether present several advantages in terms of impact and sustainability of projects. Singlehouseholds often do not have the capital or labour force to cultivate a plot of land. Working withgroups of beneficiaries leads to a higher community involvement in the project and gives theopportunity to pool resources to fund the necessary equipment. For example,instead of 15 or 20 tool kits, beneficiaries can receive one more expensive pieceof equipment that will allow for a better productivity. A collective approach alsolimits the risk of funds being wasted on households giving up mid-way.> Secure access to land: A key obstacle for urban households to rely on self-productionis accessing land, especially in cities like Kabul where the pressure onland is so high. Poor households usually do not have enough bargaining powerto negotiate access to a plot, as landowners will not trust them and they will nothave the ability to engage some collaterals. PIN and DRC should therefore workon mechanisms for communities to access plots of land. This includes:• Prioritise the allocation of a plot of land by the community as a form of contributionto the project. The more invested the community is in the project, the morelikely it is to be sustainable.• In case no land is available, enter into directly negotiations to secure a leasesystem with private landowners by guaranteeing the transaction. The interventionof a third party can help guarantee a fair relationship between the communityand the land owners.> Coordinate with municipal authorities from the outset of the project. Urbanagriculture projects represent interesting authorities for non-governmental actorsto link up and work closely with municipal authorities on non-controversial issues.• Involving governmental authorities in the selection of target areas and in the negotiationsto access land: MUDA noted that they had access to land more easilythan private or non-governmental actors and that they would be willing to establishleasing systems with landowners to develop urban agriculture or establishgreenhouses in the city.• Coordinate with greenery projects supported by municipalities and IDLG forthe establishment of community gardens: greeneries is part of municipalities’mandate and could represent a good incentive for urban authorities to supportinitiatives relative to urban agriculture.• Include a representative of the municipality (preferably a female staff in thedepartment overseeing greeneries) in the training.> Assess access to water, price of water and potential tensions before implementation:the present study found that access to water and its price could varysignificantly for communities. In majority, water did not represent an issue ora source of tension for urban households but a sudden initiative of urban agriculturecan change these balances. The risk for conflict needs to be assessedat the local level and questions of access to water discussed with householdsand community leaders to prevent future tensions. In order for projects of urbanagriculture to be sustainable, it is preferable to select communities with relativelyeasy access to water. The project must include an irrigation plan for householdsand communities, to be discussed and approved by community representatives.70. Iacovou M, Pattieson D, Truby H, Palermo C. Social health and nutrition impacts of community kitchens: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition, 2011. 16(3): 535-543.71. Ibid, p. 535.106 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 107

Establish production systems as autonomous as possible: Urban poor householdshave very little resources to sustain any productive system that requires importantinputs. To the extent possible, households should be trained to establishintra-households systems supporting their production. That may include for examplerudimentary systems of rainwater collection and storage as well as watersavingirrigation systems such as drip irrigation. Additionally, a proper “compostcorner can be established to allow for composted material to age before beingused” for the production. 72> Plan for winter: Greenhouses can also be envisaged to extend as much aspossible the period of cultivation and counter the seasonality of urban income.Inexpensive ways of heating can be prioritised: big rocks, cements and bucketsof water left in the greenhouse during the day can help maintain an acceptabletemperature at night when they radiate the heat back out 73 , a system that PIN haspiloted in Mazar-e-Sharif. More expensive but offering interesting opportunities,solar greenhouses can also be considered. This solution requires more technicalequipment, including solar collector, water storage tank, piping systems and apump.> Plan for winter 2: Aid and emergency actors may develop prepositioned stocksto avoid predictable (seasonal) pipeline breaks, as there is a recurrent correlationbetween food insecurity and natural hazards, with seasonal peaks between: 1)December and March (= extreme cold according to OCHA’s hazards calendars),and 2) March and June (= floods), indicating not only the importance of implementingshort-term humanitarian relief, but also the necessity to anticipate predictablehazards through prepositioned stocks. In this regard, UN agencies andNGOs operating on emergency situations in urban and peri-urban areas criticallyneed to engage more directly with agricultural seasonality if it is to address thisfundamental source of risk and vulnerability.> In cases where access to land plots is impossible, consider other forms of urbanagriculture that do not require land plots, such as sack agriculture or rooftopagriculture. This option can be particularly interesting for households living in areaswith insecure land tenure and for the KIS, where municipal authorities do notallow long-term development programmes. This option should also be privilegedwhen working with recently-displaced IDPs, as these may move again and as itcould be more difficult to secure access to land for them. “Sack gardening or verticalgardening are forms of urban agriculture where the cultivation of plants takesplace in large sacks filled with soil.” 74 (See next page for details).Selection of Products & Activities> Prioritize a combination of urban productions to address the issue of food diversity.The present review of food security in urban areas showed that urban dietswere poor and not diversified. In particular, dairy products, proteins and fruitsare lacking. Vegetables are easier to grow but are also more commonly integratedinto urban diets, usually the second food source after bread and rice. Combiningproductions would allow for communities to benefit sooner from their productionsTWO CASE STUDIESON SACK GARDENING IN KENYA & GHANA 75Sack agriculture allows for urban poor householdswho could not afford more expensive f orms of urbanfarming to increase their access to food andgenerate income from sale of the produce. The authorscompare two initiatives of sack agriculture,one in Kibera (Nairobi), one in Balawa in the UpperWest Region of Ghana.Methods & Materials: “Sack gardening allowsfarmer to grow food by planning 20 to 40 plantsinside and on top of a 50kg sack filled with soil andusing stones or PVC to create a vent in the middleof the soil through which water is distributed tothe plants in the sack. The material used for thevent is of importance because it determines howefficient they system will be at providing water toall part of the sack. Stones prove more efficientat this than PVC vent.Example of kale production in sacks: “Once thekales have reached a certain age (3-4weeks), theyare uprooted and planted in a sack garden. Thesack used was a manila sack filled with a combinationof soil and compost manure. The sack wasfilled initially to about 12 inches with the treatedsoil, then a hollow tin was placed right at thecenter and filled with ballast. Soil was thereafteradded surrounding the tin up to its top and thetin was then pulled. Once it was almost empty,the tin was topped with more ballast and this wasrepeated until the sack is full. This sack thereforehad soil mixed with manure and in its centre a pipemade of stones to water the vegetation. Once full,20 liters of water is poured right at the centreof the stone area; then the sides of the sack arepierced with holes of 2 to 3 centimeters for theseeds to be planted. The holes are made in such away that every line has eight holes and there arefive lines for a total of 40 holes in any given sack.The kales are left to grow for 2 to 3 months toreach maturity. A 50kg sack has enough manure tobe used for 3 years.The authors note that using sacks, soil andstones for the vent means a very limited financialinput for households. Composts made out of solidwaste can also be used for the soil.Example of possible productions: kale and spinachas leafy vegetables adapt well to sack agriculture.Crops growing vertically – such as pepper or eggplants – work also well, while tomatoes may bemore difficult.Possible threats: Weather variations and humiditymay decrease the durability of the sacks.Possible partners: Solidarités Internationalessupported this kind of project in Kenya and couldprovide lessons learned.75. Ibid.with the vegetables but also to work on the longer-term on food diversity by alsoplanting fruits. Initiatives of poultry raising and small livestock raising can also bedeveloped in areas where the shortage of protein and dairy products is particularlyblatant.> Select products based on local conditions, preferences and markets: Trainingon urban agriculture must be specific and tailored to the communities where it isimplemented. Before selecting the products to grow, a rapid assessment mustshow what communities want to eat and would be able to sell easily on the localmarket.72. True Consulting Group (2007), Best Practices in urban agriculture : a background report for the city of Kamloops to support development of a urban agricultural strategy.p. 42. 73. http://www.gardenandgreenhouse.net/index.php/past-issues-mainmenu-18/35-website-exclusives/819-winter-greenhouse-gardening-tips 74. Peprah,K. Amoah, S.T., Akongbangre J. (2014) : Ç Sack Farming : Innovation for Land Scarcity Farmers in Kenya and Ghana È in International Journal of Innovatives Research andStudies, vol.3, Issue 5.108 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 109

Choose types of products and species that are better suited for storage: Thestudy confirmed that seasonality had a strong impact on urban poor households,which usually are short of income and see their food security deteriorating atthat time of the year. Root vegetables, potatoes or onions are for example mucheasier to store than tomatoes or peppers which will not be stored easily. Growingproducts that can be harvested well into the winter can be a way to curve theimpact of seasonality on urban households.Training and Tool Kits> Include a component of food literacy, nutrition and WASH to the training inorder to cover various aspects of food security, including food utilisation, foodsafety, diet diversity and adequate breastfeeding practices.> Encourage community contribution: Community members, whether directbeneficiaries or not, should be encouraged to contribute to the project in orderto reinforce ownership and acceptance within the community. Small contributionscan include tools, sacks, seeds while richer community members should beencouraged to lease small plots of land.> Plan for flexible tool kits: Tool kits will have to be adjusted to the needs of thetargeted communities. In particular, groups of beneficiaries can be offer the opportunityto ‘pool’ their tool kits to purchase a more expensive piece of equipmentthat can be of higher benefit for the community. PIN and DRC’s technicaladvisers should be closely involved in the discussions surrounding the request forequipment and help communities identify their needs.Monitoring and Follow-up> Plan for a long-term follow-up mechanism and post-completion training fromthe beginning of the project: Urban agriculture are not short-term projects asthey require to build the trust of the community and to be available to follow-upand help beneficiaries solve the many issues they will potentially face in theiractivity. Regular on-site visits should be planned and beneficiaries should be ableto contact their trainers even after the end of the project for technical assistance.> Setting up public monitoring and warning mechanisms: A comprehensive systemto ensure the protection of vulnerable and poor households in emergenciesmust include timely and reliable monitoring procedures, accompanied by a mechanismto ensure compliance at the field level. Such a system would establishconsistent standards and methodologies for identifying, documenting and verifyingchild rights violations and using this information to mobilize public opinion,inform policymaking and resource allocation and guide program interventions.In this regard, and considering the increasing politicization of socio-economicissues in Afghanistan, it is important to identify objective monitoring and warningprocedures – such as source triangulation, through a multi-facetted monitoringand evaluation approach (external independent evaluation, internal monitoringfrom partnering NGOs, and community-based evaluation).> Include research for potential market integration after pilot: Potential marketniches should be identified for future phases of projects to include a componentof transformation and processing (for example of dairy products), of transportationand commercialisation. In the mid- and long-term, the project should aim atgoing beyond subsistence agriculture and at supporting beneficiaries entering themarket by helping them adding value to their production through processing.> Regularly assess the income and indebtedness levels of urban and peri-urbanhouseholds and communities: As shown in this survey, there is evidence that thepoverty level of urban households is largely under-estimated. In this regard, it iscrucial to get an accurate sense of households’ income and indebtedness on acontinuous and frequent basis, to adequately measure their actual dependencyon informal or formal sources of credit loaners (banks, hawalas, local economicpredators, etc.)For Donors> Endorse strategic shifts:• From rural-centred interventions to urban programming: This study providesample evidence of the blatant economic crisis that Afghan cities face and the riskit generates for urban population. The urban poor is increasingly poor and thatraises political, social and security risks for the stability of the country. In spite ofefforts and improved capacities, municipal authorities do not have the technicaland financial capacities to adjust to the movement of urbanisation. Donors’ attentionmust adjust and take on board the dynamics of urbanisation and internaldisplacement.• Creating “spaces of resilience”: Urban community centres:Support programmes aiming at improving key infrastructures for food securityin urban areas: An important proportion of food produces is lost becauseof inefficient or inadequate infrastructures. That includes in particular storagefacilities; transportation infrastructures and sanitation facilities to limit theamount of waste throughout the food chain.Creating community centres at local spaces for resilience: assistancerequires physical locations for stakeholders to reach the poorest and accompanythem to practices that are fit with urban characteristics and an urbanlifestyle, especially for those displaced and new to such contexts. The set-upof community centres is needed to reach out to the most vulnerable – includingfemale-headed households who live within invisible physical and socialboundaries.> Emphasize support to:• Longer-term development projects best suited to building resilience amongstthe urban poor: Urban poverty is first and foremost a question of developmentand resilience of households will be built through a better access to services,higher levels of qualification and access to qualified jobs. This requires the commitmentof donors for longer projects, as the one-year time span does not suiteither development projects or urban agriculture projects. For these to be sustainable,organisations must be able to build relations in the community and to110 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 111

provide technical assistance long after the end of the training. This will only bethe case through a long-term commitment with the communities selected.• Programmes inducing structural economic changes: Afghan labour marketsare saturated with under-paid and under-qualified workers and Afghan keyeconomic sectors suffer from the competition of Iran and Pakistan products,with which they are not in a position to compete. Development programmesshould aim at counterbalancing the weaknesses of Afghan productive sectors(high costs of production in particular) with qualified labour that wouldsupport local production and make it able to stand international competition.Only structural changes will support the urban poor in the long term: labourqualification; improve business models and companies’ cost efficiency andperformance. This type of programmes requires long-term support and commitmentfrom donors.• Mid-size cities to counter-balance urban growth: Most of the investmenttargeting urban areas focuses on the five cities under study. This is logical asthey concentrate most of the urban population and are the main destinationof economic migrants and IDPs. Yet, Afghan national authorities are calling fordonors to acknowledge the needs of mid-size cities, such as Khost, Kunduzor Ghazni for example. Investing in mid-size cities would be a way to counterbalancethe unregulated growth of Afghan major cities by offering alternativelocations for economic migrants and IDPs to settle.> Advocate with the new administration for:• An early approval of the informal settlements upgrading policy: The policyshould help significantly the work of municipal authorities and support theirability to tackle urban poverty at their level. The approval of the policy shouldtherefore be high on the agenda of the new administration, once the latter isin place. Donors should keep a close watch on the process and advocate fora rapid approval and follow-up process.• The implementation of the IDP policy and the official recognition of otherdurable solutions than return: As mentioned above, the IDP policy offersinteresting solutions to address the question of IDP caseloads in urban areas.Its implementation will not be easy and may raise important opposition, inparticular from municipal authorities. Donors should also advocate for therecognition by municipal authorities and by the new administration of thenecessity to envisage other durable solutions than return for IDPs, given theoverwhelming intention of IDPs to settle in the cities.For Municipal Authorities and Urban Actors> Following the National IDP Policy, acknowledge the need for durable solutionsother than return- such as local integration – for IDP caseloads living in the cities and coordinatewith humanitarian actors to identify opportunities for land distribution and relocation.This study, as others have in the past, confirm that IDPs are, in an overwhelmingmajority, not willing to go back to their place of origin. Taking on boardthat reality as early as possible will help planning and prevent the establishmentof pockets of extreme poverty in the middle of Afghan key cities.> Livelihoods - Actively support projects of urban agriculture in urbanareas:This type of programming is well adapted to the needs of the urban poor andshould receive the support of municipal and governmental authorities. Theseauthorities can bring a valuable support in securing access to land through leasingsystem. Projects of urban agriculture can be articulated with the programmessurrounding greenery led by municipalities.> Infrastructure - Plan for the development of warehouses for storage inurban areas:The lack of such facilities induces an important spoilage of food and the inabilityto keep seasonal produce and reduce the impact of seasonality.> Social support - Establish social support community centres:The study shows the dissolution of community-based protection mechanisms.Establishing physical spaces where community members can meet and discusstheir issues, as well as receive counselling to solve these issues would help fillingthat gap directly at the community level. These social support communitycentres could be established first for women first as way to exchange ideas, findsolutions and discuss best practices about the key social issues identified in thestudy: breastfeeding practise, hygiene practices or anxiety relative to access tofood.• Social protection mechanisms to be developed for female-headed householdsand elderly-headed households: Despite a social protection strategyfor 2008 to 2013, existing mechanisms of social protection are very scarceand cover only families of martyrs and disabled (including the victims of mineaccidents). Yet, this study confirms that widows and households headed byelderly are often in a situation of dire needs and have little means to accesslivelihoods. These categories should be targeted in priority for future developmentof government-led social protection mechanisms.112 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 113

ANNEX. ANNEX. 1 1 1ANNEX 1Resilience Resilience Index Index Indexannexesand referencesCategory Category Category Question Question in Question Survey in Survey in Survey Answer Answer Options Answer Options Options Scoring Scoring Scoring Total Total Maximum Maximum Total Score Maximum Score ScoreFCS FCS FCS 42.0 0 0 0HDD HDD HDD 8 0 0 0HFIAS HFIAS HFIAS Severely Severely Food Severely Food Insecure Insecure Food Insecure 30 30 30100 100 100Moderately Moderately Food Food insecure insecure Food insecure 20 20 20Mildly Mildly Food Mildly Food Insecure Insecure Food Insecure 10 10 10Food Food Secure Secure Food Secure 0 0 0HHS HHS HHS Severely Severely Hungry Severely Hungry Hungry 20 20 20Moderate Moderate Hunger Moderate Hunger Hunger 10 10 10Little/No Little/No hunger Little/No hunger hunger 0 0 0Can Can you you Can Read Read you and Read and Yes Yes and Yes 0 0 0Write Write Write No No No 10 10 10What What is your is What your level is level your of of No level Schooling No of Schooling No Schooling 20 20 20education education education Primary Primary Primary 10 10 10Secondary Secondary Secondary 10 10 10High High School School High School 10 10 10College College Diploma College Diploma Diploma 10 10 10University University University 0 0 0Post Post Grad Grad Post Grad 0 0 0Madrassa Madrassa Madrassa 15 15 15Other Other Other 10 10 10Do you Do have you Do have electricity you electricity have electricity No Electricity No Electricity No Electricity 5 5 5in your in your house in house your house Public Public Grid Grid Public Grid 0 0 0Personal Personal Generator Personal Generator Generator 0 0 0Access Access to Basic Access to Basic to BasicSolar Solar Electricity Electricity Solar Electricity 0 0 0Services Services ServicesOther Other Other 0 0 090 90 90What What is What the is the main is main the Spring main Spring Water/River/lake/Canal/RainSpring5 5 5source source for source for drinking drinking for water drinking water waterwater water water Water Water Tank Water Tank Tank 5 5 5Other Other Other 0 0 0Is the Is water the water Is source the source water for source for No No for No 5 5 5drinking drinking drinking on on your your on Yes your Yes Yes 0 0 0compound?compound?How How many How many minutes many minutes More minutes More than than More 30 minutes 30 than minutes 30 walking minutes walking walking 10 10 10does does it take it does take to it bring to take bring to Between bring Between 15 Between and 15 30 and minutes 15 30 and minutes 30 walking minutes walking walking 5 5 5drinking drinking water drinking water to the water to the Less to Less than the than 15 Less minutes 15 than minutes 15 walking minutes walking walking 0 0 0house? house? house?How How clean How clean is clean your is your We is your do We not do do We not anything do not anything do to anything the to water the water to the water 0 0 0water? water? water? I don’t I don’t know I know don’t know 5 5 5Other Other Other 10 10 10None/Open None/Open field field field 15 15 15Urban Poverty Report 115

What kind What of latrines kind of Traditional latrines pit Traditional latrine pit latrine 10 10do your do household your household Other Other 0 0members use? members use?Are you sharing Are you the sharing No the No 0 0latrine with latrine another with Yes another Yes 5 5household? household?Does adult Does male adult No male No 5 5member/elder member/elder have Yes have Yes 0 0Tazkira TazkiraHave you Have ever you Yes ever Yes 0 0received received any No any No 10 10assistance assistance from any from anyorganisation? organisation?Have you received Have you any received Yes, Job any Placement/Business Yes, Job Placement/Business Start up 0 Start up 0assistance for assistance a job? for Grant a job? GrantNo No 10 10Social Safety Social Nets Safety NetsHave you received Have you any received Yes any Yes 0 0assistance assistance from No from No 10 10personal network? personal network?Have you received Have you any received Yes any Yes 0 0assistance assistance from No from No 10 10International InternationalOrganisations? Organisations?What is your What present is your Temporary present Temporary Shelter Shelter 30 30housing arrangement? housing arrangement? Rented Family Rented house/shared Family house/shared with 5 with 5others othersOthers Others 0 0Do you own Do land? you own land? Yes Yes 0 0No No 10 10Do you have Do a you land have No a land No 5 5Assets Assets deed certificate deed certificate Yes Yes 0 0Livestock Livestock Ownership Ownership Cattle/Buffalo/Horse/Donkey/Mule 0 0Index Index Poultry/Goat/Sheep/other Poultry/Goat/Sheep/other 5 5No Livestock No Livestock 10 10Durable Asset Durable Index Asset No Index Asset Ownership No Asset Ownership 25 25Little Asset Little Ownership Asset Ownership 15 15Moderate Asset Moderate Ownership Asset Ownership 10 10High Asset Ownership High Asset Ownership 0 0Main Source Main of Source Unemployed of Unemployed 10 10household income? household income? Day Labourer/Unpaid Day Labourer/Unpaid Family 5 Family 5Worker/Domestic Worker/Domestic Worker/Apprentice Worker/ApprenticeOther Other 0 0Any other Any sources other of sources Yes of Yes 0 0income? income? No No 5 5Is there any Is there school any No, school there are No, some there who are don’t some who don’t 10 10Adaptive Adaptive aged child which aged child is not which All school is not aged All school children aged go children to school go to school 0 0Capacity Capacity attending school? attending school?How much How of much your All of income your All income 10 10household household income is income More than is half More than half 5 5spent on food? spent on food? Other Other 0 0How much How of much your All of income your All income 10 10household household income is income More than is half More than half 5 5spent on spent fuel and on fuel Other and Other 0 0heating? heating?408090408090What does the What HH does 100 AFS 55work? work?How much is How your much >500 is AFS your >500 AFS 00household able household to save

ANNEX – INDICATORSAnnex 2 - indicatorsFood Consumption ScoreThe FCS is a “proxy indicators to measure caloric intake and diet quality at household level,giving an indication of food security of the household. It is a composite score based on dietarydiversity, food frequency, and relative nutritional importance of different food groups.” 76 TheFCS was calculated based on the food groups, weighting system and cut-off points used bythe Food Security and Agriculture Cluster (FSAC) for their food security assessment conductedin 2013. The weights applied for each food group were as follows:Food GroupCereals and tubers 2Pulses 3Vegetables 1Fruit 1Meat, fish and eggs 4Dairy products 4Sugar, sweet 0.5Oil, fat 0.5Condiments, spices 0To calculate the FCS, and based on the FSAC methodology, the research team:1. Used standard 7-day food frequency data. As cereals and tubers were surveyed asdifferent food groups, the higher number of days either cereals or tubers wereconsumed was chosen. This differs from the FSAC’s formula but only leading tostatistically insignificant variations in the results of the survey.2. Multiplied the values obtained for each food group by its weight and created newweighted food group scores.3. Summed the weighed food group scores, thus, creating the food consumption score(FCS). The most diversified and best consumption with maximal FCS at 112 meansthat all food groups are eaten 7 days a week.The research used the FSAC’s thresholds : a FCS below 28 means a poor food consumption,a FCS between 28.1 and 42 a borderline food consumption, a FCS above 42 an acceptablefood consumption. These three categories were used to calculate the percentage ofhouseholds of poor, borderline and acceptable food consumption.Food Consumption IndicatorPercentage of food expenditure in total household expenditure. The thresholds and categorieswere based on the Food Security Cluster Assessment. In Afghanistan:76NRVAWeight• Poor: Food expenditure is more than 60 percent of total household expenditure;• Average: food expenditure is at 40-60 percent of total household expenditure;• Good: food expenditure is less than 40 percent of total household expenditure.Samuel Hall 2014: A Study of Poverty, Food Security and Resilience in Afghan cities - Final Report 106Coping Strategy IndexThe CSI used for the study was also based on the methodology developed by the FSAC, asfollows :The CSI (more accurately, it is RCSI: Reduced Coping Strategy Index) is used to quantify theseverity of food-based coping strategies. A 7 days recall period is used. It is based on a numberof robust negative coping strategies and applies a standard weight depending on the severityof the coping strategy. It is very useful for comparing across regions and countries, or acrossincome/livelihood groups, because it focuses on a set of behaviours. The maximal CSI is whenall strategies are applied every day. There are no universal thresholds for RCSI. The weightedscore is calculated by multiplying the frequency by the weight. But the higher the RCSI, themore severely the coping is applied by a household, hence the more food insecure thehousehold is.The weight are as follows :Coping StrategyRely on less preferred and less expensive foods 1Borrow food or rely on help from friends or relatives 2Limit portion size at mealtime 1Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat 3Reduce number of meals eaten in a day 1Household Dietary Diversity24-hour recall periodWeighFor a greater precision, additional data was collected to measure the dietary diversity ofhouseholds over the past 24 hours. The score per household is calculated by coding either “1”if the food has been consumed or “0” if it has not and adding up the result for each food group.The HDDS indicator is the sum of all HDDS divided by the number of households.7 days recall periodBased on the NRVA, the research team calculated a household dietary diversity score basedon a 7-day recall period. This gives a) the average number of days per week each food groupis consumed by different sub-groups of the sample; b) a score between 0 and 10 calculatedfor each household based on whether they consumed each of the various food groups overthe past seven days.Poverty lineThe NRVA calculated the poverty line in Afghanistan based on per capita consumption. Thepoverty line equals the typical cost of attaining 2,100 calories per person per day and ofmeeting some basic non-food needs. The official average poverty line for Afghanistan in 2011-12: Afs 1,710 per person per month. A household is defined as poor if the total value of percapita consumption is less than the poverty line 77 .77NRVA, p.177Samuel Hall 2014: A Study of Poverty, Food Security and Resilience in Afghan cities - Final Report 107118 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 119

Annex 3ANNEX 3Durable Asset IndexThe durable asset ownership index is created by assigning weights to the various commoditiesasked for in Q33 of the household questionnaire. The index scores the ownership level on ascale of 0-100 where 0 being no assets in possession and 100 being all assets. The weightsare assigned based on the cost of the various items and their ability to support the family interms of livelihood or other comforts. The following weights are used for the commodities andthen summed across all commodities:AssetWeightFridge 10Stove 10TV 10Radio 5VCR 5Mobile 5Computer 10Sewing 5Iron 5Bicycle 5Motorcycle 5Car 10Tractor 15List of Informal Settlements identified by the Task Force and included in the sample for thisstudy:CityKabulHeratName of SettlementDarulamanChahari QamberBagh-e-DawoodKabul NindaraiBagrami Hussain KhilChaman-e-babrakSarake Do Karte NawKareezakShayee Dahee checkpointPashtoonMunaratThe categories were defined as follows:1. Category 1-High Assets Ownership: 50-1002. Category 2-Moderate Asset Ownership: 25-453. Category 3-Low Asset ownership: 5-204. Category 4-No Asset Ownership: 0Samuel Hall 2014: A Study of Poverty, Food Security and Resilience in Afghan cities - Final Report 109120 Samuel Urban Poverty Hall Report 2014: A Study of Poverty, Food Security and Resilience in Afghan cities - Final Report 108Urban Poverty Report 121

Annex 4ANNEX 4Urban Governance: threats and opportunitiesA complex institutional landscapeSeveral national institutions intervene in urban governance, often with overlapping scope ofresponsibilities and agendas. The Ministry of Urban Development Affairs (MUDA),Independent Directorate for Local Governance (IDLG) and municipalities are the key actorswhen it comes to urban governance. The following graph traces the relations and hierarchiesbetween these actors:While most of the planning – especially developing masterplan and detailed plan for cities –should be in the hands of MUDA, IDLG and municipalities are fighting to get a stronger role inplanning. MUDA does not have the capacities to develop detailed plans for all the cities,making it difficult for municipalities to fulfil their own responsibilities, as they have to rely onoutdated plans. A recent agreement between municipalities, IDLG and MUDA led to anagreement and a new delineation of responsibilities. Municipalities will be in charge ofdeveloping detailed plans that will be signed off by the ministry in order to accelerate theprocess. Kabul is on a different regime and works as an autonomous entity, leading tooverlapping responsibilities with the MUDA. Kabul Municipality (KM) has its own engineeringand planning departments, independent from MUDA.This complex – and overlapping – institutional landscape has consequences on the responseof authorities to urban poverty. In particular, the inability of MUDA to develop new detailedstrategic plan for municipalities means that those are stuck with old detailed plans that do notreflect neither the boundaries nor the population of Afghan cities. In particular, it does not allowfor municipalities to intervene in informal settlements, which are not mapped and integrated inthe detailed plans, further fuelling urban poverty. Municipalities need legal basis to deliverbasic services to urban population and the plans are the key instrument in that regard.Recent Improvements in the legal framework surrounding urban developmentInformal Settlement Upgrading PolicyA dynamic of regularisation of informal settlements is ongoing in the 5 biggest Afghan cities,which should help authorities collecting municipal taxes and delivering services to the urbanpoor. This process should be significantly easier when the cabinet approves the InformalSettlement Upgrading Policy, formulated by the MUDA with the help of UN-HABITAT and theWorld Bank. Work on this policy started in 2008 with the establishment of a steering committeegathering most of the important urban actors. This rather slow process finally gave way to adraft of the policy, waiting to be passed by the cabinet. If approved, the policy will greatlyfacilitate the work of municipal authorities by providing the legal grounds they need to intervenein informal settlements, although a clear implementation plan will need to be articulated first.“The main achievement of this policy is that municipalities will be allowed to legally intervenein these informal settlements. It is a huge challenge at the moment, as they don’t have the rightand capacity to do so. When municipalities start working in the informal areas, those will beintegrated in the formal system.”KII – UN HabitatStakeholders consider the policy as a great opportunity as it will allow organisations to workmore easily in the informal settlements and to implement longer-term programme there.Still, it is important to note that a time criterion has been set in the policy to determine whichinformal settlements will be included in the upgrading process. Only the informal settlementsexisting for more than 20 to 30 years will be formalised through that process, leaving out thenewer IDP settlements 78 . It is very clear that, while accepting that their cities have grownexponentially over the past decade, municipal and governmental authorities are still stronglyopposed to the additional growth that more recent arrivals of IDPs bring to the cities. Municipalauthorities still consider the return to their place of origin as the sole durable solution availablein their cities, although past studies and the present survey have shown repeatedly that mostof these populations had no intention to go back. It is important to note that the question isparticularly heated in Kabul and Herat, two of the cities attracting important movements ofinternal displacement.“The IDP camps will never be included in these areas because they are very temporary. It isnot possible to integrate them. It is not needed because they are not permanent structures.”KII – MUDA“We are not happy with the IDP Settlements. They are not the poor people of Kabul. They area burden to the city and taking space that we need for other purposes.”KII – Kabul Municipality.IDP PolicyThe IDP Policy, articulated by the MoRR, also offers interesting opportunities for nationalactors to address the problem of urban poverty for internally displaced. The options offered by78KII MUDA, Planning Department.Samuel Hall 2014: A Study of Poverty, Food Security and Resilience in Afghan cities - Final Report 110Samuel Hall 2014: A Study of Poverty, Food Security and Resilience in Afghan cities - Final Report 111122 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 123

the IDP Policy are ‘huge’ 79 to address the problem of assistance to IDPs, including completestop to forced evictions, social housing options and land distribution or relocation. The IDPPolicy also introduces significant protective measures to frame forced eviction of IDPs.Stakeholders agree that the main challenge with the IDP Policy will come with implementation,especially as it is supported by a ministry relatively weak to address the huge issues it raise,especially surrounding access to land tenure and relocation of IDP settlements. The MoRRhas for example little traction to influence the position of Kabul Municipality on IDPs. To moveforward with the implementation, the IDP task force agreed on a road map. In 2015,implementation road maps will be drafted for 9 pilot provinces, that should include Balkh,Jawzjan, Kunduz, Baghlan, Nangahar, Herat, Baghis, Kandahar, Wardak and Kabul althoughthe list is not finale.Position of urban authorities on assistance in urban areasThe relationship between humanitarian actors and municipal authorities is often tense, inparticular on the question of assistance to IDPs. Apart from this highly politicised issue,governmental actors working on urban issues point at the following aspects of theircollaboration with international actors: Regret the lack of coordination on urban development priorities – Whilegovernmental actors praise the support of some key donors on urban development(JICA and the World Bank in particular), they find regrettable the fact that someimportant urban development programmes are designed and implemented with verylittle coordination with the line ministries, in particular MUDA and IDLG-GDMA. Theurban programme of GIZ in Kunduz city or USAID Urban development programmesare examples of this. This prevents national institutions to present the priorities ofdevelopment they have identified for each city. Regret the focus on short-term assistance – National authorities are pushing for astronger focus on development for urban areas. Most of them consider emergencyassistance as not having its place in Afghan cities because they keep populations insituations of dependence and do not guarantee any long-term impact for urbanpopulations.“International NGOs sometimes work with urban poor but it is not effective. They arejust helping people on the short-term. They are neither generating any employmentnor resolving the issues. Food distribution is not the solution.”KII – Municipality of Herat Support projects of urban agriculture – Overall, governmental and municipal actorsinterviewed for this study showed support and a certain level of enthusiasm for potentialprogrammes of urban agriculture, as this type of programming overlaps with some ofthe priorities they have identified for urban development: a) small and mediumenterprises and livelihoods on the one hand; b) greeneries and environmental concernson the other. They all noted the caveat that this type of initiatives should be developedin close cooperation with municipal authorities, which could be of great support toaddress the question of land that may render any initiative of this kind difficult.79KII – HLP Task ForceSamuel Hall 2014: A Study of Poverty, Food Security and Resilience in Afghan cities - Final Report 112REFERENCESSamuel Hall’s Relevant Reports:• 2009, Majidi, Returning refugees in urban areas,for NRC• 2011, Research Study on IDPs in urban settings –Afghanistan, for the World Bank and UNHCR• 2012, Challenges of IDP Protection in Afghanistan,for NRC• 2012, Sustaining the Working Poor in Kabul InformalSettlements: an Evaluation of Solidarités International’sVocational Training Programme,for Solidarités International• 2012, Time to Move to Sustainable Jobs : A Study ofthe State of Employment in Afghanistan,for ILO.• 2013, Cost of Hunger Study,for WFP• 2013, Cash Programme Review for IDPs in the KabulInformal Settlements,for DRC• 2013, Afghanistan’s Future in Transition: A ParticipatoryAssessment of the Afghan Youth,for UNICEF, DMOYA, UNFPA and UNDP• Forthcoming, Understanding Urban Displaced Youth.• Forthcoming, Evaluation of Cash-Based AssistanceProgrammes to Internally Displaced People in theKabul Informal Settlements,for WHH and DRCOther SourcesAdger W.N, (2000),‘Social and ecological resilience: are they related?’ inProgress in Human Geography, 24:347Alinovi, L (2009),‘Measuring Household Resilience to Food Insecurity:Application to Palestinian Households’,Working Paper for the EC-FAO Food Security Programme.Beall, J. & SchŸtte, S. (2006),‘Urban livelihoods in Afghanistan’, Synthesis Paper - AREUCentral Statistics Organisation (2014),National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment 2011-12.Afghanistan Living Conditions Survey. Kabul, CSO.Coates, J., Swindale, A., Bilinsky, P. (2007),Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) forMeasurement of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide(v.3). FHI 360/FANTACollins, G. (2008),Technical Guidance Sheet: Urban Food Security andNutrition Assessments, funded by ECHO and DfID.DOLSA-War Child, Social Protection Mechanisms in Herat,Afghanistan : A mapping reportEcker, O & Breisinger, C. (2012),‘the Food Security System, A New Conceptual Framework’in IFPRI Discussion Paper 01166EU-FAO,Measuring Resilience: A Concept Note on the Resilience ToolFANTA III,Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) forMeasurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide,Version 3 (2007)FAO (2008),Food Insecurity Information for Action, Practical Guides.FAO (2008),Report on Use of the HFIAS and HDDS in two surveyrounds in Manica and Sofala Provinces, Mozambique.FAO (2012),The state of food insecurity in the worldFSAC, (2013),124 Urban Poverty Report Urban Poverty Report 125

Seasonal Food Security Assessment – Afghanistan (July-September 2013).Harpivken, K.B., (2009),Social Networks and Migration in Wartime Afghanistan.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Iacovou M, Pattieson D, Truby H, Palermo C.Social health and nutrition impacts of community kitchens:a systematic review.Public Health Nutrition, 2011. 16(3): 535-543IFPRI (1998),“Urban Challenges to Food and Nutrition Security : A reviewof Food Security, Health, and Caregiving in the cities” inFCND Discussion Paper No 51Jones AD, Ngure FM, Pelto G, Young SL.What are we assessing when we measure food security? Acompendium and review of current metrics.Advances in Nutrition. 2013. 4:481-505MCN-MoPH-UNODC (2009),Afghanistan Drug Use SurveyMCN-MoPH-UNODC (2012),Afghanistan Drug ReportMinistry of Public Health-UNICEF (2013),National Nutrition SurveySwindale, A., Bilinsky, P (2006),Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for Measurementof Household Food Access: Indicator Guide (v.2).Washington, DC. FHI 360/FANTA.True Consulting Group (2007),Best Practices in urban agriculture : a background reportfor the city of Kamloops to support development of aurban agricultural strategyUN (2004), Guiding Principles on Internal DisplacementUN-HABITAT (2012),State of the World’s Cities 2012-2013 – Prosperities ofCitiesUNHCR (2004),UNHCR Handbook for Repatriation and ReintegrationActivitiesVAM (2010),Kenya Urban Comprehensive Food Security & VulnerabilityAnalysis (KU-CFSVA) and Nutrition AssessmentWFP (2008),Food Security Assessment in Urban Areas of TajikistanWFP (2009),Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook, SecondEditionNord, M., Andrews, M. & Carlson, S. (2005).Household Food Security in the United States, 2004, USDAEconomic Research Service. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR11/Peprah, K. Amoah, S.T., Akongbangre J. (2014) :“Sack Farming : Innovation for Land Scarcity Farmers inKenya and Ghana” in International Journal of InnovativesResearch and Studies, vol.3, Issue 5.Ruel, M.T et alii (1998),‘Urban challenges to food and nutrition security: a reviewof food security, health, and caregiving in the cities’ inFCND (IFPRI) Discussion Paper, n¡51Schütte, A (2006),Searching for Security : Urban livelihoods in Kabul. CaseStudy Series126 Urban Poverty Report

UrbanPovertyReportA Study of Poverty,Food Insecurity andResilience in AfghanCities