1

NORTH WAZIRISTAN AGENCY

Mir Ali Tehsil

Mirali/Spinwam and Bobali Shashi Khel villages

IDP RETURN INTENTION SURVEY

March 2015

2

1. Background North Waziristan Agency (NWA) is part of FATA and is bordering Afghanistan, South Waziristan

Agency, Kurrum Agency, and the Frontier Region (FR) of Bannu and FR Karak. Miranshah is the main

town and also the Agency headquarters. Other major towns include Mir Ali/Spinwam and Razmak.

NWA consists of three sub-divisions and ten tehsils. The total geographical area of NWA is 4,707 Sq

Km. Generally the population is extremely conservative and insular, both socially and religiously. Main

tribes include Uthamanzai, Wazir and Dawar.

Since 2001, NWA became the centre of different activities of armed non-state actors. Different groups

of non-state actors used to operate in or from NWA. The government has tried to restore order

through dialogue but the negotiations failed and the government then decided to establish its

authority through military operations. The Pakistan military forces conducted airstrikes much earlier

than the launch of the full-fledged military operation in June 2014.. The early surgical strikes in

February 2014 resulted in the displacement of people in the nearby districts of Bannu, D.I. Khan, Tank,

Lakki Marwat and Kohat but in between calm prevailed and most of the families returned back. On 15

June, the Pakistan government announced a full-fledged operation. On 18 June 2014, the curfew that

was in place was relaxed and people were allowed to leave North Waziristan (NWA).

As of 16 March 2015, a total of 102,424 families have been verified and registered as IDPs1. With the

exception of a number of families who are residing in Bakhakhel Camp, almost all displaced

population is living with host families.

During the Return task force meeting at FDMA office on 2nd march 2015, FATA Secretariat through

FDMA informed the humanitarian community that they will start return to 29 Villages of Mir Ali Tehsil

of North Waziristan agency from 31st march 2015 as the area had been de-notified and declared safe.

The authorities planned a phase wise return and for the first stage, 1188 IDPs pre-enlisted to return to

two villages namely: Mirali/Spinwam and Bobali Shashi Khel.

The protection cluster agreed to conduct a Return intention survey w i t h the I D Ps originating

from Mirali/Spinwam and Bobali Shashi Khel villages to know the intention of the displaced families to

return to their places of origin- in line with the Return SOPs endorsed by the Humanitarian

Country Team (HCT) in February 2012, but also in accordance with the “Return Policy

Framework for IDP from FATA” endorsed by the FATA authorities in 2010.

1 IDP factsheet as of 16 March 2015, UNHCR.

3

2. Methodology As the registration of NWA IDPs was conducted by the FDMA, UNHCR does not have village-wise

information of all the registered IDPs of NWA. Therefore, the data used for the RIS was provided by

the FDMA and consisted of 1188 families who pre-enlisted for return to Mirali/Spinwam and Bobali

Shashi Khel villages. A sample size of 5% (63 interviews) was used to gather the information needed

for the RIS.

The return intention survey (RIS) was conducted by the IVAP call center. The survey data collection

took place on 26 March 20015. In total, the teams reached 63 families. The return intention survey

was conducted by using the revised questionnaire (Annex A) that was developed by the protection

cluster for the Bara and South Waziristan Agency returns in December 2014 and March 2015

respectively.

The RIS was conducted by properly trained six enumerators who contacted displaced families from the IVAP call center using the contact information provided by the FDMA.

3. Profile of respondents and their return intention All but one of the 63 respondents was male. The age of the only female respondent was 25 while 29

male respondents were from the age group 30 – 59. One respondent was 16 years of age, four were

18 years old and 19 were from the age group 19 – 29. Ten respondents were from the age group 60

and above. Of the 63 respondents, 61 were registered.

Amongst the respondents, 47 families had one or more elderly persons in their families: 27 of the

families had one elderly, 19 of the families had two elderly persons while 1 family had three elderly

persons in the family.

4

Out of the total, 54 families had no person with disability (PWD) in the household whereas 9 families

had one PWD. Similarly, 15 families had one lactating/pregnant woman each and 48 families had no

lactating/pregnant women.

Most of the interviewed IDPs currently live in Bannu district (49 respondents), followed by Kohat (7

respondents) Karak (6 respondents) and D.I.Khan (1 respondent).

Table 1: Number of IDPs reached during the RIS originating from two villages- Mirali/Spinwam and Bobali Shashi Khel.

Place of origin Number

Mirali/Spinwam 56 Bobali Shashi Khel 7

Total 63

When asked if they wanted to return to their areas of origin, 53 respondents (84%) answered yes

while 10 replied no (16%). This might indicate that between the time of the pre-enlistment by the

FDMA and the Return Intention Survey, families might have changed their mind about returning to

their villages of origin.

Of the 84% who indicated that they would like to return, 44% responded that they do not have

another option as life in displacement is worse than in the place of origin, 25% indicated that they

were returning because everybody else is going while 16% of the respondents did not answer the

question. 10% noted that it is a good time to rebuild their homes.

In addition, out of the 53 respondents (84%) who would like to return, 21 replied that they would like

to return within one month, 17 within three months while 10 of them ‘were ready to go immediately’.

Four respondents indicated that they would need 6 months to return while one of them remarked to

need more than 6 months.

5

4. Main findings of the return intention survey

A. Displacement timing and trends 10 of the interviewed persons left their areas of origin between 12 and 18 months ago. The majority

of the respondents (41) departed 6 – 12 months ago while 12 of them left their places of origin 1 – 6

months ago.

B. Informed and voluntary nature of return

In order to assess the level of information IDPs have regarding their areas of origin, the call center

asked them specific questions.

59% of the respondents replied that they DO NOT have information about the situation in their areas

of origin whereas 41% claimed that they have information.

Out of the 41% that claimed to have information about the area of origin, 25% indicated to need more

information related to the safety/security in their area of origin while 13% need more information

about the situation of their houses. Similarly, 3% would like to have more information on available

water, health and education facilities and 59% did not respond to the question.

With regard to the sources of information on areas of origin, 59% of the respondents did not reply

while 13% got the information through the media. Similarly, 11% received information from people

who visited the area or who are form the area and 10% of respondents received information from

government officials. The families that visited their homes personally constitute 6% of the

respondents.

6

40 % of respondents replied affirmative about a go and see visit prior to the return. From those who

responded positively, 27 % would like that community leaders shall visit while 13% said that male

heads of households shall participate in the go and see visit, while 60 % did not respond.

Amongst the IDPs, 89% were NOT aware about any kind of information campaign on the return while

only 11% did know about the campaign. It is to note that at the time the interviews were conducted,

the information campaign on return hadn’t officially started yet.

In response to who decides on the return, 52% opined that it was the political administration. As for

community elders deciding on return, the response was 48%. Amongst the respondents, 67% felt that

they participated in decision making and 33% felt that they were not participating. 100% of the

respondents replied that they were NOT under pressure to return.

Challenges to return included destroyed/damaged houses for a percentage of 44% of the

respondents, for 24% there are safety/security concerns. 5% of respondents indicated their land is

destroyed/damaged and that there is a lack of health facilities. Regarding livelihood opportunities, 2%

cited more opportunities in the area of displacement and also 2% reported the lack of opportunities in

the areas of return. Similarly, 2% mentioned lack of education services and occupation of their houses.

16% did not respond to the question.

7

Concerning the question about housing conditions, 48 % of the IDPs responded that their houses have

been destroyed whereas 29% had their houses partially damaged. In addition, 24% didn’t know about

their house situation.

C. Return assistance package

When asked if the IDPs were aware about the return assistance package given by the government,

89% of the returnees were NOT aware of the package whereas only 11% were aware. Amongst those

who had information, they had received it through political administration (8%), community elders

(8%) and the remaining had received the information through other means including media (6%), and

humanitarian workers (3%). 75% of the respondents choose not to reply to the question.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

86% of IDPs interviewed expressed the intention to return and 100% indicated not to experience

any pressure to return. It is evident, however, that the challenges in return areas are significant: basic

8

services in the areas of origin need to be put in place and unimpeded humanitarian access for UN and

NGO staff to the return areas has not been granted.

Recommendations

Continuous consultations with families who have returned to their villages in NWA will be of

paramount importance. Authorities should continue to grant and enhance humanitarian

access in areas of return to allow for an unhindered process of return and protection

monitoring and consultations with the affected population.

To inform the decision-making process, concrete action plans for the return process should be

prepared and presented by the authorities. In the case of NWA, authorities should

systematically highlight how they intend to support the dignified and sustainable character of

the return.

Authorities’ plans should include an analytical report on the current situation in areas of

return (security situation, status of infrastructures, available services, etc.) as well as the

concrete reconstruction/rehabilitation plans of the Government for the return areas.

Authorities, supported by HComms and HRT, should continue to make available detailed

information to IDPs about the return assistance package before the return process, in

particular on the status of available services, on the reconstruction/ rehabilitation plans of the

authorities, and the housing compensation process.

When the conditions of voluntary and safe character of the return process are satisfactorily

assessed, the humanitarian community should continue to support the return process as the

most preferred durable solution, including with grievance desks, Mine Risk Education, return

monitoring and facilitation of PWSN.

Specific attention should be paid to those sectors highlighted as challenges by the returning

IDPs. These sectors include housing, security, livelihood, water, health and education services,

but also interventions to improve the situation of persons with specific needs (children and

women in psychological distress, persons with disabilities, the elderly).

Humanitarian/ early recovery actors should be granted unimpeded access to areas of return

by the civil and military authorities to carry out protection monitoring and direct project

implementation.

Protection Cluster

March 2015

9

Annex A

Return Intention Survey NWA

GI1. Interview Date

GI2. Interviewer Name

PI1. Name of the Respondent

PI2. Phone Number of the Respondent

PI3. Gender and Age of the Respondent

Male

Female

Age

PI4. Place of origin – village

Shamiri

Spinwam (Mirali)

Bobali Shashikhel

Other (Please specify)

PI5. District of Displacement/Host location? ………………………………………………….

PI6. Are you registered?

Yes

No

PI7. No of family members

# of Males --------

# of Females --------

PI8. How many in the family are pregnant/ lactating women

PI9. How many persons with disability in the family?

PI10. How many elderly persons in the family?

PI11. Are they with you?

Yes

No

PI12. If “NO” in PI10, where are they?

10

In the area of displacement

In the area of return

PI13. What support do they need?

Medical

Psycho-social

Assistive device

Specialized care

Displacement Information

"DI1. When did you leave your area of origin?"

1-6 months,

6 -12 Months,

12-18 Months,

More than 18 Months

INFORMED & VOLUNTARY NATURE OF RETURN

IV1. Do you have information about the situation in your area of origin?

Yes

No

IV2. Do you need more information on any of these issues: (if IV1 is YES)

A. Safety/ security in area of origin

B. Situation of your house

C. Water health and education facilities available

D. Status of crops/other livelihood sources

X. Other (please specify)

IV3. How do you receive information about your area of origin? (if IV1 is YES)

"A. I visited my home"

"B. From other people who are in my area of origin or visited"

"C. Family members (who did not yet visit the area)"

"D. Other members of the community (who did not yet visit the area)"

E. Media

F. Government officials

"H. Religious authorities"

I. Humanitarian workers

"X. Other"

"IV4. Would an organized visit to the areas be useful? (If NO skip to “IV6”)

Yes

No

"IV5. If “Yes” in IV4, who should go?"

11

1. Community leaders,

2. Male heads of households,

3. Women,

4. All of above

5. Other

IV6. Are you aware of the transportation and compensation grant/assistance given by the

Government? (If “NO” skip to IV9)

Yes

No

IV7. From whom do you have information about the assistance package to return?

Political authorities,

Community elders,

Family member,

Media,

Humanitarian workers

IV8. Are you aware of any information campaign conducted in your community on the return process

itself?

Yes

No

IV8a. If YES in IV8, was the information provided:

Very helpful

Somewhat helpful

Not helpful

IV9. Who is primarily responsible for making the decision to return?

Political authorities,

Community elders,

Family member,

Humanitarian workers

IV10. Do you participate in decision making process?

Yes

No

IV11. Are you under pressure to return? (If “NO” Skip to RR1)

Yes

No

IV12. If IV11=“Yes”, how are you under pressure?

1.I was told I must return by political authorities

2. I was told I must return by elders/community members

3. I was told I must return by humanitarian workers

4. The assistance I receive in displacement is inadequate

5. Assistance will stop

6. I feel unsafe here

12

7.Other (please specify)

RR READINESS TO RETURN PERMANENTLY

RR1. Do you want to return to your area of origin?

Yes

No

RR2. If “YES” in RR1, what is the timeframe?

I am ready to go

1 month

3 months

6 months

After 6 months

RR3. Are there any challenges to return? (select all that applies)

"A. House destroyed or damaged"

"B. Land destroyed or damaged"

"C. I Don’t have land"

"D. My house is occupied"

"E. Markets still closed back home"

"F. I/my family has more livelihood opportunities here"

"G. Lack of health services in areas or return "

"H. Lack of education services in areas of return"

"I. Lack of livelihood opportunities in areas of return"

"J. Lack of specialized services (children, PWDs) in areas of return"

"K. Not enough financial resources for the journey back home"

"L. Not physically fit to travel right now (myself or family member)"

"M. No knowledge about assistance in return areas"

N. Assistance is insufficient

"O. There are safety issues"

"P. I don’t know"

"Q. None, the situation is fine"

"X. Other" (please specify)

"RR4. If RR1 is “YES”, Why does you want to return?

"A. It is safe now"

"B. Good time to rebuild home"

"C. Good time to cultivate"

"D. School begins"

"E. We have no other option/life in displacement worse than in area of origin"

“F. Because everyone else is going”

"X. Other" (please specify)

"RR5. If RR1 is “Yes”, will you be taking all your family members with you?"

Yes, they are with me

No

Some will return later

Other

13

RR6. If “No” in RR5, How many girls and boys are you leaving behind?

Girls--------

Boys--------

RR7. Where will these children stay?

Relatives

Madrassa

Institution

Other (please specify)

RR8. Do you have separated and unaccompanied children accompanying you?

Yes

No

HN HUMANITERIAN NEEDS

"HN1. Are there any specific concerns about women and girls returning?"

Yes,

No

"HN2. If HN1=”Yes”, What are they? (Open)"

"HN3. What is the condition of your house in your area of origin?"

1. Destroyed

2. Partially damaged

3. Don’t know

4. Fine

5. Other (please specify)

HN4. Add any detail.

AR ALTERNATIVE TO RETURN

"AR1. Would you prefer to re-settle somewhere else instead of returning to origin area?"

Yes,

No

"AR2. FINAL COMMENT (open)"

Note: Separated Child: Separated children are those separated from both parents, or from their previous legal or customary primary care-giver, but not necessarily from other relatives. These may, therefore, include children accompanied by other adult family members.

14

Unaccompanied Child: Unaccompanied children are those who are separated from both parents and

are not being cared for by an adult who, by law or custom, is responsible to do so.