Consultation with Displaced and Host Communities in

Consultation with Displaced and Host Communities in Support of the UNSG High Level Panel on Internal Displacement UNHCR and IOM Philippines

Consultation targeted displaced communities in Basilan, Sulu, North Cotabato and Davao del Sur provinces based on profiling conducted by UNHCR and IOM.

Photo taken from UNHCR IDP Profiling Exercise supported by JIPS NGO (Photo credit: @IRDT NGO- UNHCR Project Partner)

IDP and Host Communities Consultations on behalf of the High-Level Panel on Internal Displacement

UNHCR and IOM Philippines 2 2

I. Background Information Internal displacement and subsequent protection concern in Philippines, particularly in Mindanao, arise mainly from armed conflict, clan feuds (rido), crime and violence, and natural disasters. Since the 1970s, successive phases of armed conflict have led to increased vulnerability of the affected populations and hampered economic and social development. Concurrently, an average of 25 typhoons hit the country yearly, resulting to casualties and significant property damage. The region is also prone to floods, landslides, earthquakes and other natural calamities. With its population of over 24 million, Mindanao has been home to two of the world’s longest-running armed conflicts. Characterized by cultural, ethnic, and geographic diversity as well as rich natural resources, it bears the impetus of forced displacement in the Philippines. Cyclical humanitarian crises give rise to protection risks and/or gaps, while systemic socio-political and economic challenges contribute to the dynamics of conflict. The existing legal framework and State mechanisms for humanitarian responses cover both conflict-related incidents and human-induced emergencies. As of 31 August 2020, there are a total of 60,655 displaced families (278,816 individuals) currently displaced in Mindanao. Out of the presented figures, 19,157 families (94,634 individuals) or 34% of the total displaced population in Mindanao is within the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

In the southwestern part of Mindanao, particularly in Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, the overall protection situation remains fragile due to security issues and continuous operation by the Armed



Forces of the Philippines (AFP) against the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and other armed groups. The ongoing conflict has resulted in repeated displacement, compounded by insecurity of civilians and severe protection risks. These displacement incidents often affect rural and remote barangays where humanitarian and government agencies have limited presence. A significant majority of IDPs are home-based (i.e. staying with relatives or friends), which pose challenges even to the duty-bearers in tracking movements, verifying the total number of IDPs, and monitoring their situation. In addition, the capacity of both the government and humanitarian actors to monitor the humanitarian situation on the ground in these provinces is limited not only by security risks, but also by unavailability of comprehensive and reliable data covering all areas affected by displacement. This is one of the reasons why UNHCR embarked on an IDP profiling exercise in these three provinces with the primary objective to better assess the protection needs of the displaced families and to seek recommendations to better prevent, respond, and find solutions for internal displacement. The protracted displacement in the Provinces of Cotabato (commonly known as North Cotabato) and Davao del Sur – caused by three earthquakes in the last quarter of 2019 – has been worsened by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Community quarantines were put in place to curb the spread of the virus. Restrictions have since eased to allow the return of economic activity and provide a more sustainable support for families who have lost their homes and jobs to the earthquakes and the pandemic quarantines. In light of this and following the nomination of UNHCR and IOM Philippines to participate in the consultation with internally displaced initiative in support to the upcoming UNSG High Level Panel on internal displacement for 2020, four locations were selected for this exercise – Basilan, Sulu, North Cotabato and Davao del Sur provinces. Forced displacement in the island provinces is recurrent and cyclical which perennially impact thousands of families each year. Many IDPs in these areas are repeatedly displaced over the years and many have ended up in situations of protracted displacement due to the shift of focus to new displacement situations.

II. Key Objectives

1. To obtain solid information on the conditions of the displaced families and their host communities which will contribute to an evidence-based analysis of available services, resources, and protection mechanisms in the target areas, including factors hindering access to durable solutions;

2. To convey the key recommendations from the IDP and host communities to the Government, humanitarian agencies, and other relevant stakeholders through the High-Level Panel; and

3. To obtain solid information of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) both inside the evacuation centers and living within their relatives or home-based that would help the government inform and decide on the most vulnerable population needing development and humanitarian assistance.



IV. Results of data gathering

BASILAN PROVINCE

Profile of the Respondents • Overall, sixty-three percent (63%) of the respondents are male, and thirty-seven percent (37%)

are female. A total of 65 respondents participated in the consultation, wherein 31 participants are IDPs, while 34 participants belong to the host families.

• Eighty-nine percent (89%) of the displaced population in Basilan province belongs to the Yakan tribe while eleven percent (11%) belongs to the Tausug tribe. These two tribes are part of a

III. Methodology

A. Data Collection Method The data collection process involved a diverse range of respondents in order to obtain differing sentiments

and assess their needs and their ability to respond to displacement challenges. The consultation considered

specific restrictions amid the COVID-19 pandemic, such as key interview with proper physical distancing,

use of protective equipment and new modalities to collect information required. The consultations with

affected communities are intended to inform the Panel’s work and build on their terms of reference (TOR)

and workstreams. Two sets of questionnaires were developed for the displaced families and host

community. The online 1Kobo Tool was used to record all responses throughout the exercise.

B. Review of Secondary Data Results of the recent consultation with the displaced families in island provinces (Basilan, Sulu & Tawi-Tawi)

and profiling and surveys, including reports prepared by UNHCR and IOM, were collectively utilized as

secondary data which cover the patterns, trends, protection issues and coping mechanisms of the displaced

population.

C. Target Population UNHCR and its project partners ensure that both the IDP and host communities are consulted in the

process. The purposive sampling method with replacement was employed in determining the respondents.

The Age, Gender and Diversity (AGD) approach was also incorporated to ensure that there is representation

of the different sectors of the community including women, men, youth, and elderly.

In view of the government's response to fight against the pandemic, the implementation of the Modified

General Community Quarantine (MGCQ) guidelines and protocols limits the movement of the staff. Thus,

125 respondents were targeted in the provinces of Basilan and Sulu.



wider Bangsamoro ethnic group in Mindanao, Philippines. The term Bangsamoro is derived from the Malay word bangsa, meaning “nation” or “people”, and the Spanish word Moro, from the older Spanish word for Moor, a term for “Arabs” or “Muslims”. Yakan tribe is the dominant ethnic group in Basilan and the traditional settlers of Basilan Island in the Southern Philippines situated on the west of Zamboanga in Mindanao. It is said that Yakans’ typical physical characteristics are strikingly different when compared to the other ethnic Filipino groups (relatively high-bridged noses and tall stature). The Yakans settled originally in Basilan island and in the early Seventies, some of them settled in the region of Zamboanga City due to political unrest which led to armed conflicts between the militant Muslims and government soldiers.

• All the 65 respondents are home-based IDPs staying with host families (relatives or friends) or paying for house rentals. Of the total number of respondents, fifty-two percent (52%) live with their relatives, while forty-seven percent (47%) live with their friends, and one percent (1%) are paying house rentals.

• Reasons for selecting home-based: Eighty-six percent (86%) stated they feel safer living with their relatives or friends since they perceived it is more secured to stay with family members or friends than to live elsewhere. Twelve percent (12%) of the respondents expressed that there are no other options available due to absence of shelters dedicated for IDPs, while two percent (2%) are reluctant to live in camp-like settings due to the stigma and apparent shame it will bring to their families.

• Frequency of Displacement: Sixty-five percent (65%) of the respondents were repeatedly displaced for the past three years. Eighteen percent (18%) revealed they were displaced more than five times but less than 10 times, fifteen percent (15%) said they have experienced displacement for more than 10 times, and two percent (2%) stated they were displaced for the first time.

• Causes of Displacement: The causes of displacement in the last three years include crime and violence and armed conflict. Seventy-six percent (76%) of the respondents said that their displacement was caused by conflict between warring factions affiliated with state/non-state armed groups due to politics or personal disputes, while the remaining twenty-four percent (24%) mentioned they were forcibly displaced due to armed conflict between the AFP and ASG.

Theme 1: Durable Solutions • Majority of the respondents (93%) expressed their intention to return to their places of habitual

residence in order to have access to their home and livelihood, and to better secure their safety & security. Six percent (6%) prefer to be locally integrated in their current location or to resettle elsewhere in the province given the uncertainties of security situation in their places of origin, as well as the economic opportunities which they are currently enjoying, and one percent (1%) of the respondents are unable to decide due to lack of information on durable solution options.

• Sixty-six percent (66%) of the respondents stated that if their current situations remain for the next five years, they should be provided support on their shelter and livelihood needs. Thirty percent (30%) stressed the importance of the government’s disaster preparedness and response plans which integrate resources accessibility and evacuation plan, highlighting the protection of vulnerable groups or People with Specific Needs (PWSNs), and updated barangay profiles reflecting the detailed demographic data to facilitate emergency program design and planning. Eight percent (8%) of the respondents expressed the need to improve social protection, ensuring the safety and security of women and children, and one percent (1%) said that there should be equal employment opportunities for IDP and host families. The other remaining one percent (1%) stated there should be grant projects that will benefit both displaced



families and their hosts in order to further utilize and maximize the available resources in their communities.

Theme 2: Prevention • Ninety-five percent (95%) declared that the mechanisms on the prevention of displacement are

limited on the re/activation of the Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (BDRRMC) and/or Barangay Police Action Team (BPAT) tasked to monitor and protect the safety of the displaced and host populations. The challenges on these mechanisms involve budget constraints and limited capacities of the barangay authorities. The remaining five percent (5%) said that they are not aware of any efforts from the government.

Theme 3: Participation and Accountability • Majority of the respondents (62%) stated that they have limited participation in dialogues and

community assemblies and they are dependent to the assistance provided by the government and humanitarian agencies, while thirty-eight percent (38%) said that their views and opinions are well-received and they are able to participate in dialogues, assembly meetings, and focus group discussions.

• All the respondents said that they should be part of the decision-making since they are directly affected by any type of disaster or conflict and the services provided by the government.

• Almost all the participants (98%) expressed they did not have the chance to raise their concerns

directly due to fear of retaliation, while two percent (2%) said that they were able to raise some complaints through their IDP leaders.

Theme 4: Protection • More than half of the respondents (57%) said that they felt safe in their current location. Twenty-

six percent (26%) expressed concerns on the lack of communication between government officials and community regarding safety and security, such as the establishment of an early warning systems and/or declaration of safe return to their places of origin. Ten percent (10%) shared their concern on the lack of adequate communication between family members and/or to emergency support services (i.e. ambulance, fire brigade). Three percent (3%) emphasized concerns related to the presence of armed groups. Two percent (2%) stressed concerns related to destruction of civilian properties without compensation, while the other two percent (2%) expressed fear of possible retaliation of the parties involved in the conflict.

• Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, majority of the respondents (57%) said that they can move freely, while forty-three percent (43%) said they are not safe due to the lingering armed encounters between the warring groups and the military operations against the ASG.

• After the break-out of the COVID-19, all the respondents said that they can no longer move freely because of the community quarantine guidelines and the threat of getting infected by the COVID-19.

• Eighty-six percent (86%) said that the IDPs have good relationships with the host communities and in fact, the host communities are extending support to the displaced families, while fourteen



percent (14%) said that there has been conflict over resources, especially on access to safe water, and discrimination.

Theme 5: Coordination

• Majority of the respondents (80%) recognized the coordination among humanitarian agencies both from the government and non-government organizations in responding to their needs, and the support lobbied by the local leaders. Among the responses by the protection actors are provision of food, advocacy programs to educate IDPs, and consultation meetings with IDPs to discuss their issues. On the other hand, twenty percent (20%) perceived that there is lack of coordination among the humanitarian agencies because their interventions are limited to food and non-food items without responding to the other pressing needs.

Theme 6: Humanitarian-Development and Peacebuilding Nexus

• Majority of the respondents (87%) observed disparity on the short and long-term assistance from the government and humanitarian agencies, while thirteen percent (13%) said that there is a proportionality on the short- and long-term assistance provided as exhibited by the provision of food and core relief items. However, Almost all of the respondents (96%) claimed that most of the assistance received are categorically responsive type of assistance in terms of food, core relief items, registration of IDPs, and referral of cases, while four percent (4%) claimed that these interventions are sufficient to address their needs.

• All the respondents expressed the need for reconciliation in their community. The prolonged

displacement brought negative impacts on their personal, interpersonal and cultural structure within the community. All the respondents affirmed that conflicts arise among the families due to the identification of beneficiaries under the Social Amelioration Program of the Ministry of Social Services and Development (MSSD), which led to disagreements and tainted relationships among the members of the communities.

Theme 7: COVID-19 Related • Awareness on the COVID 19 pandemic – All the respondents said that they are aware of the

coronavirus pandemic. Based on multiple answers from the respondents, ninety-eight percent (98%) stated they gathered information on COVID-19 and government’s responses through their friends and relatives. Eighty-one percent (81%) said that they were able to access information from media outlets such as television, radio and internet platforms, while sixty-eight percent (68%) mentioned that they also received information from the local authorities through information campaign and posting of campaign materials.

• Services received in relation to COVID-19 response – Based on multiple answers, sixty-three percent (63%) of the respondents mentioned that the service they receive is limited to community awareness through information campaign drive. Five percent (5%) said that they were able to enjoy WASH-related response. Three percent (3%) expressed that they received medical treatment, and three percent (3%) of the respondents declared that they benefited from the Social Amelioration Fund (SAP). Notably, a relatively small number of respondents (2%) said they have not received any assistance.

• Measures undertaken to ensure safety of their family against COVID-19 - Ninety-seven percent (97%) said that they are only wearing face masks, but they are not observing the one-meter physical distancing. Ninety-four percent (94%) disclosed that they are wearing face mask without face shield, but they are observing the one-meter social distancing, while nine percent



(9%) of the respondents said that there are wearing face mask and face shield. Interestingly, a small number of respondents (1%) said that they do not observe precautionary measures.

• Condition of the IDP and Host Communities during the COVID-19 pandemic

a) Food sector – Eighty percent (80%) revealed that there is inadequate food supply during the implementation of the lockdown and community quarantine which resulted to food shortage among the displaced population. IDPs and host community are aware that food is among the basic requirements in sustaining the lives and dignity of the displaced population. Key aspects of adequate food include availability of food sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, products which are free from adverse substances, foods which are acceptable within a given culture, and the accessibility of foods in ways that are sustainable and do not interfere with the enjoyment of other rights. Fifteen percent (15%) of the respondents raised the issue on the limited market access because of the community quarantine, lack of financial capacity, and high transportation costs. Other respondents (5%) said there was a dramatic increase of food and other food commodities in the local market.

b) Health Sector – Eighty-two percent (82%) revealed that they experienced poor health care services due to lack of medical facilities and absence of medical supplies and medicines. The respondents also mentioned about the limited number of quarantine facilities, lack of testing kits and testing centers. Nine percent (9%) of the respondents stressed that they intentionally avoid seeking medical treatment due to their fear that they might be isolated and discriminated if tested positive. Nine percent (9%) of the respondents revealed that they cannot afford to buy medicines and personal protective equipment due to financial incapacity.

c) WASH sector – Forty-five percent (45%) said that potable and clean water is not available in the displacement site. They relied heavily on available water pumps or deep well for drinking, cooking, bathing and cleaning of household chores. Some IDPs purchase water from the local water system. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the respondents stressed that there is lack of latrine in the displacement site and they only perform open defecation. Eighteen percent (18%) of the respondents raised also that there is limited provision of the hygiene kits which are essential especially for pregnant women and lactating mothers. Some respondents or (12%) said that improper sanitation and poor hygiene are evident not only to children but also among adults.

d) Livelihood sector – The respondents expressed that the COVID-19 pandemic made the

conditions of the displaced population and host family more difficult. Fifty-one percent (51%) said there was major disruption of the livelihood especially for the farmers and laborers. The respondents also stressed out the significant reduction in income amongst local businessmen. Other respondents (11%) raised concerns on limited job opportunities due to closure of some establishments and reduction of personnel.

e) Education sector – Eighty-three percent (83%) of the respondent raised concerns on the suspension of the classes with no clear alternative learning session for their children. With the increasing number of COVID-19 cases in the locale, suspension of classes will also be prolonged without certain timeframe. Other respondents (14%) expressed concerns on the quality of education provided because of the poor support by the community in the conduct online classes. Some respondents (3%), said that their children were forced to stop attending school (even online classes) due to financial incapacity to meet the requirements of the online class such as tablets and stable internet connection.

f) Access to core relief items (CRIs) – Almost all (97%) of the respondents affirmed that they have received core relief items from both the government and humanitarian



agencies. However, all the respondents revealed that it is only a one-time distribution and the relief items are limited to hygiene kits, plastic tarpaulins, mats, and solar lamps. Notably, three percent (3%) said that they have not received any of the above-mentioned items.

g) Majority of the respondents (88%) expressed the undersupply of pillows, malong, and mosquito nets. Eight percent (8%) expressed concerns on insufficient supply of dignitary kits, while four percent (4%) of the respondents raised the issue on the lack of kitchen utensils in the displacement site.

SULU PROVINCE Profile of the Respondents • Overall, sixty percent (60%) of the respondents are female, and forty percent (40%) are male.

A total of sixty (60) respondents participated in the consultation, 30 individuals are IDPs, and 30 are host families.

• Ninety-nine percent (99%) of the displaced population in Sulu province belongs to the Tausog tribe, while only one percent (1%) belongs to the Yakan tribe. These two tribes are part of a wider Bangsamoro ethnic group in Mindanao, Philippines. The term Bangsamoro is derived from the Malay word bangsa, meaning “nation” or “people”, and the Spanish word Moro, from the older Spanish word for Moor, a term for “Arabs” or “Muslims”.

• All the respondents are home-based IDPs. Out of the total respondents, eighty- nine percent (89%) are living with host family relatives, and eleven percent (11%) are also hosted for free by close friends.

• Frequency of Displacement: Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the respondents experienced displacement for the first time. Twenty-five percent (25%) revealed they were displaced more than five times but less than 10 times, twenty-one percent (21%) said they have experienced displacement for more than 10 times, and fifteen percent (15%) stated they were displaced two to four times for the past three years.

• Causes of Displacement: Over the past three years, ninety-three percent (93%) stated their displacement was caused by armed conflict between the AFP and the ASG, while seven percent (7%) said that they were displaced due to crime & violence caused by personal disputes or issues between conflicting parties.

• Reasons for selecting home-based: Eighty- six percent (86%) stated they feel safer living with their relatives or friends since they perceived it is more secured to stay with family members or friends than to live elsewhere. Twelve percent (12%) of the respondents expressed that there are no other options available due to absence of shelters dedicated for IDPs, while two percent (2%) are reluctant to live in camp-like settings due to the stigma and apparent shame it will bring to their families.

Theme 1: Durable Solutions



• The majority (90%) expressed their intention to return to their places of habitual residence in order to have access to their home and livelihood, improve safety & security, and obtain better access to humanitarian aid. Four percent (4%) of the respondents expressed that they prefer to be relocated in other barangays. Three percent (3%) said that they prefer to be locally integrated within their current location and two percent (2%) would like to resettle outside of the province. One percent (1%) of the respondents are unable to decide which of the durable solutions they prefer.

• Majority of the respondents (65%) stated that if their current situations remain for the next five years, they should be provided support on their shelter and livelihood needs. Twenty-three percent (23%) stressed the importance of an improved security to access farmlands in their places of origin. Eight percent (8%) emphasized importance of livelihood and income generating projects, and four percent (4%) of the respondents highlighted the importance of improving humanitarian response.

Theme 2: Prevention

• Sixty-five percent (65%) expressed that that the mechanisms on the prevention of displacement are limited only on the re/activation of the Barangay Disaster Risks Reduction and Management Council (BDRRMC), Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC) Desk, and Barangay Council for Protection of Children (BCPC). There is also limitation in terms of services provided to the IDP’s due to lack of available facilities to accommodate their concerns, insufficient volunteer manpower, inadequate resources and financial incapacities. Notably, thirty-five percent (35%) said that they are not aware of any government efforts.

Theme 3: Participation and Accountability • Eight- eight percent (88%) said that their views and opinions are well received during

consultation, barangay assemblies and dialogues among the service providers through the assistance of local civil society organization and some humanitarian agencies, while twelve percent (12%) said that their participation is very limited and are unaware of any government plans for IDPs.

• All the respondents said that they should be part of the decision making because they are the direct beneficiaries.

• Majority of the respondents (88%) said that they did not have the chance to raise a concern directly due to fear that assistance from the government might be stopped, but twelve percent (12%) said that they were able to raise some complaints through the barangay officials, local protection monitors and civil society organizations.

Theme 4: Protection

• Majority of the respondents (68%) said that they felt safe in their current location. However, thirty-two percent (32%) expressed concerns on their safety due to fear on the effect of violence resulting from terrorism, continued presence of armed groups, and clan feud.

• Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the respondents (88%) mentioned that they can move freely, while twelve percent (12%) said there is limitation of movement due to lack of proper documentation and persistent armed encounters between the AFP and the ASG.



• After the COVID 19-pandemic, all the respondents expressed they can no longer move freely because of community quarantine guidelines and the threat of getting infected by the COVID-19.

• All the respondents said that they have good relationships with the host communities.


• Majority of the respondents (88%) felt that responding agencies have an effective coordination in place because of the support shown by the local leaders in lobbying for provision of assistance to the MSSD, local Non-Government Organization, and some humanitarian agencies. Other than providing food assistance, the respondents revealed that communities and duty bearers worked hand and hand in monitoring and securing the protection rights of women and children. Proper communication, coordination and cooperation were the protection strategies applied by each concerned individual. However, twelve percent (12%) of the respondents felt that there is no coordination among responding agencies since interventions are limited to food and core relief items, and some interventions are focused on providing support to IDPs inside the evacuation centers.

Theme 6: Humanitarian-Development and Peacebuilding Nexus • Eighty-seven percent (87%) felt that there is disparity between the short and long-term

assistance both from the government and humanitarian response. Eleven percent (11%) said that there is a proportionality on the short and long- term assistance provided as exhibited by the provision of food and core relief items, awareness raising campaigns, trainings in VAWC, and mainstreaming protection training for duty bearers, while two percent (2%) refused to comment on the matter for purposes of maintaining fairness among the services providers.

• All the respondents said that that there is a need for reconciliation in their community. Majority of the respondents recognized the negative effects of the displacement in their daily lives, livelihood, education of their children, psychosocial well-being and cultural aspects.

Theme 7: COVID 19 Related

• Awareness on the COVID 19 pandemic – All the respondents said that they are aware of the pandemic. Based on multiple answers from the respondents, ninety-eight percent (98%) said they gathered information on COVID-19 and government’s responses through their friends and relatives. Eighty-one percent (81%) said that they were able to access information through media outlets such as television, radio and internet platforms. Other respondents (68%) said that they also received information from the local authorities through information campaign and posting of campaign materials.

• Services received in relation to COVID-19 response – Based on multiple answers, majority of the respondents (95%) stated they have received assistance through the Social Amelioration Fund (SAP). Some respondents (47%) said that they were able to enjoy WASH related responses, and other respondents (40%) mentioned that the government intensified the information campaign and raising awareness in COVID-19 issues. Only one percent (1%) said that they have received medical treatment



• Measures undertaken to ensure safety of their family against COVID-19 - Majority of the respondents (87%) said that they are wearing face masks but not observing one-meter physical distancing. Seventy-five percent (75%) said that they are wearing face masks without face shield but observing the one-meter social distancing. Seventy percent (70%) averred that there are wearing face mask and face shield. Notably, only one percent (1%) of the respondents said that they do not observe precautionary because they cannot afford to buy face mask or face shield.

• Condition of the IDP and Host Communities during the COVID-19 pandemic

a) Food sector – Majority of the respondents (85%) raised the issue on the limited access to market due to sudden decrease in their income and high transportation costs. Eight percent (8%) revealed that there is inadequate food supply during the implementation of the lockdown and community quarantine which resulted to food shortage among the displaced population. Other respondents (7%) stressed out that there was also sudden increase in the price of food commodities.

b) Health Sector – Forty percent (40%) revealed that they intentionally avoid seeking medical treatment due to fear that they will be isolated and discriminated if tested positive. Notably, twenty-three percent (23%) of the respondents have no major issues related to health. Other respondents (22%) expressed signs of distress and anxiety due to the pandemic, and small group of respondents (15%) revealed that they cannot afford to buy medicines and personal protective equipment due to financial incapacity.

c) WASH sector – Thirty-seven percent (37%) raised that there is insufficient supply of

water at displacement site. They relied on available water pumps or deep well for drinking, cooking, bathing ang cleaning of household chores. Some respondents (32%) raised concerns on the lack of potable water in the displacement site, while thirty-one percent (31%) of the respondents said that they do not have any issues on WASH facilities as they have access to main source of water and other water facilities.

d) Livelihood sector – Majority of the respondents (82%) expressed that the COVID-19 pandemic made the conditions of the displaced population and host family more difficult. Most of them stated there was a major loss of income, while eighteen percent (18%) of the respondents stressed out that there was significant disruption of livelihood due to the limited movement brought about by the community quarantine.

e) Education sector – Majority of the respondents (67%) raised that learning abilities of their children were greatly affected because of the suspension of the classes. Twenty percent (20%) expressed concern on the additional expenses and poor support provided to online classes. Thirteen percent (13%) expressed that their children were forced to stop schooling because of financial incapacity to meet the requirements of online classes such as tablets and stable internet connection.

f) Access to core relief items (CRIs) – More than half of the respondents (52%) affirmed that they have received core relief items both from the government and humanitarian agencies. However, all the respondents revealed that it is a one-time distribution and they are limited to hygiene kits, plastic tarpaulin, mats, and solar lamps. Notably, forty-eight percent (48%) said that they have not received any of the items.

g) Based on multiple answers, majority of the respondents (62%) expressed that there is undersupply of sleeping equipment, particularly pillows, malong, and mosquito nets. Some respondents (35%) expressed concerns on irregular and limited distribution of the dignitary kits, and three percent (3%) of the respondents raised the concern on the difficulty of claiming the items.



PROVINCES OF NORTH COTABATO AND DAVAO DEL SUR Profile of the respondents

• A total of 473 respondents were included in the consultation via remote informant interviews. Of the total respondents, 296 are females, 169 are males and 8 prefer not to say. Forty-three are camp managers and community leaders and 65 are local government representatives.

• Thirty-three percent of IDPs belong to at least one of the following indigenous groups: B'laan, Bagobo, Igorot, Ita, Kalagan, Kaulo, Mandaya, Manobo, Obo-Manobo, Tagabawa.

Theme 1: Durable Solutions

• According to respondents, 60% of IDPs want to return, while one-third of IDPs want to stay and integrate into their host community. A small number of IDPs are still uncertain (6%) or want to resettle elsewhere (1%). Those who want to return are however faced with the absence of proper and dignified shelter upon return. If they return, 37% of these IDPs will be returning to a house with partial damage, while 39% will either return to a totally destroyed house, a makeshift shelter or a makeshift shelter using shelter-grade tarps – all of which are not ideal nor dignified for IDPs who have been living in tight living spaces in evacuation centres for 11 months. This is the current situation of IDPs who returned to their homes when ECs were closed in previous months to decongest sites to limit viral transmission.

• Interviewed IDPs felt that the lack of livelihood or income-generating activities, lack of information on the current situation, lack of support for rehabilitation or reconstruction of their homes, and lack of food and NFI assistance are the key barriers to their return, besides from shelter damage.

Theme 2: Prevention

• Community leaders have been preparing for local transmission in the displacement sites (no local transmission has been reported as of writing). Especially for camp managers and IDP leaders, they have been attending special meetings that deal with COVID-19, preparing their camps, and conducting information dissemination and awareness raising campaigns.

• Emergency plans have also been discussed with IDPs, with capacity building activities being conducted by health experts (typically done by barangay and city health offices). Some camps have also been stockpiling supplies and advancing orders for medicine.

Theme 3: Participation and accountability

• Thirty-eight percent of IDPs say that they have been informed of government assistance regarding return and reintegration, while 36% of IDPs say that they don’t receive information and 27% say they don’t know about these services at all.



• In terms of displacement site management, IDPs participate in day-to-day tasks in committees, with 82% of IDPs interviewed from evacuation centres involved in decision-making and management of the site.

Theme 4: Protection

• Security is provided in the host communities, according to 89% of respondents. Ten percent of respondents said that it isn’t provided where they reside, while the rest don’t have an answer or do not know about the security situation. However, while a large percent of respondents said that security is provided, only 28% said that security incidents are reported; 70% said that these go unreported.


• Some IDPs have experienced multiple displacements. There have been reports of planned movements in Kidapawan City, where IDPs who have moved and will be moved out of ECs have already been or will be transferred to permanent relocation sites that are still made up of tents. There have also been temporary closures of some evacuation centres in Davao del Sur to prevent transmission of COVID-19 in camps, leaving IDPs with no choice but to set up makeshift shelters outside their damaged or destroyed houses.

• Sixty-two percent of IDPs interviewed say that they either do not receive information from the local government regarding their options on return and relocation, or they are unaware of such information drives. At least half of the IDPs interviewed say they do not know when or where they will be relocated, and a quarter of them say they know where but are still unsure when they will be moved there. Only 20% of IDPs – mostly families outside of ECs – say they have information regarding where they will be relocated and the timeframe the government has set for their movement.

• Although interviewed IDPs inside ECs are informed about their relocation, majority are still uncertain on when that will happen and where the relocation site will be. Overall, 51% of interviewed IDPs said that they have not been informed of their local government’s plans for their return or relocation.

Theme 6: Humanitarian-Development-Peacebuilding Nexus

• The level of assistance for IDPs has generally decreased due to ongoing mobility restrictions and depleted the resources of local government units (LGUs) and humanitarian actors to further support the needs of IDPs inside evacuation centres. Mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) activities have also decreased since some activities (such as recreational programmes) require people to gather. IDP families perceived a 64% decrease in the delivery of services particularly for IDPs inside ECs.

Theme 7: Specific needs and capacities

• Interviewed IDPs outside ECs saw a larger increase of services compared to those inside ECs, which may be attributed to better access to services since local governments (in the barangay,



municipal and city levels) went house-to-house to deliver food and other services while the community quarantines were still in effect.

• The priorities of IDPs interviewed have shifted toward the need for more durable solutions to their displacement, particularly in terms of financial assistance (37% of IDPs interviewed), shelter (37%) and livelihood (26%). Food remains the top need (64%) due to limited provision of essential commodities and a further cessation of livelihood options as a result of COVID-19 mobility restrictions.

Theme 8: COVID-19

• Camp managers have indicated that 63% of IDPs are very concerned since they are in high-risk areas, with 56% of camp managers saying that severe and lengthy economic loss due to COVID-19 will impact their areas.

• The largest concerns in these areas are the insufficiency of medical supplies and water, sanitation and hygiene facilities, as well as lack of space that do not promote physical distancing in evacuation centres.

• Health checkups are made available for 77% of interviewed IDPs inside ECs and 79% for interviewed IDPs outside ECs, but only 9% of those who require medicine for underlying conditions and 8% for acute conditions have been provided with medicine.

• Information sessions are also critical but have been provided to only 3% of IDPs interviewed. Community members get information on COVID-19 from the barangay health stations, TV, social media and radio.

Theme 9: Other issues

• Labourers — which compose a large percentage of the IDP workforce — are on a “no work, no pay” scheme, while farmers found it difficult to market their agricultural produce and inputs due to mobility restrictions and the reduced purchasing power of buyers. These factors contributed to the negative impact on livelihood for 95% of interviewed IDPs. While various programs have been provided, IDPs have expressed a continued need for livelihood support and financial assistance.

• Fifty-eight percent of IDPs interviewed prefer permanent shelter solutions over the assistance that they have been receiving since the beginning of the displacement, which have been mostly tarps, shelter repair materials and NFI materials, among others. Interviewed LGU representatives say 30% of IDPs outside ECs live in a house with partial damage, while 29% of them live in either a makeshift shelter or makeshift shelter using shelter-grade tarpaulins; 13% live in a totally destroyed house.

• The provision of WASH assistance (mostly hygiene products, disinfectant kits and personal protective equipment) in response to COVID-19 has stagnated due to movement restrictions, although this has once again ramped up as soon as restrictions have eased. In ECs, 96% of IDPs interviewed say they wash their hands significantly or somewhat more than they did before the COVID-19 pandemic. The increase in handwashing is attributed to the construction of additional handwashing facilities in some evacuation centres. However, only 5% of interviewed IDPs outside of ECs and 15% inside ECs said that they have sufficient access to communal handwashing facilities, while a further 32% do not have access to handwashing facilities in or nearby their shelters.



• Seventy-three percent of IDPs interviewed said they are stressed. While MHPSS-friendly spaces have been provided to most sites, IDPs are requesting for continued stress debriefing sessions, as stress levels have increased considerably during the imposition of COVID-19 mobility restrictions. Only 45% of IDPs interviewed received MHPSS assistance over the last two months, the numbers of which is decreasing after the initial wave of assistance. Many MHPSS activities that require people to gather have also been discouraged or disallowed.

• The IDPs have, however, been spending more time with family (44%), focusing on income-generating (32%) and recreational (22%) activities to cope. A small percentage of IDPs (2%) have resorted to negative coping mechanisms such as gambling, alcoholism and violence.

• Education will face a critical disruption in the coming months. The national government has declared a modified learning arrangement, as schools still prepare to run physical classes to minimize the risk of spreading COVID-19 among students in tight learning spaces. IDPs have been receiving information regarding the resumption of classes in August 2020, including the arrangements for physical classes, like halving class sizes to allow physical distancing in classrooms.

• The Department of Education encourages online or remote learning while a vaccine remains unavailable. However, 81% of children will not have access to online or remote education, prompting the need for proper internet connection, hardware (such as computers, radios and TVs), learning materials and school supplies.

Documents

Consultation with Displaced and Host Communities in