Muhammad Abdullah

 Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the valuable support of the team of MOJAZ FOUNDATION, Bannu who worked hard with great degree of commitment to make this study possible. Special thanks to our field surveyors who traveled extensively, under adverse circumstances, to the TDPs areas to collect the required information. Finally we want to extend our sincere regards to TDPs-communities of Union Council Havid Landidak of District Bannu who were extremely cooperative in providing this primary information. In last but not least we are also thankful to Miss. Sadia Iqbal from Mojaz Head Office for her valuable support and guidance for accomplishment of this study. 1. Contents Objective, Scope and Limitations of Study7 About the Study7 Methodology and Assessment Tools8 Samples9 Timeline9 Target Area Selection10 Target Area (UC) Profile10 TDPs Family Composition11 On-going Assistance (Government, UN and I/NGO’s)11 Sector Wise Synopsis11 Shelter and Settlements11 WASH13 Health14 Food Security and Livelihoods14 Findings of KII15 Recommendations17 List of Abbreviations & Acronyms MF Mojaz Foundation HHs Households UCs TDPs FGDs KII NFI NWA PDMA NDMA WFP FR FATA ADF CDP CSO OCHA BHU NADRA Union Councils Temporarily Dislocated Persons Focal Group Discussions Key Informant Information Non Food Items North Waziristan Agency Provincial disaster Management Authority National disaster Management Authority World Food Program Frontier Region Federally Administered Tribal Areas Alfalah Development Foundation Pak Community Development Programme Community Support Organization Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Basic Health Unit National Database Registration Authority Introduction The present report provides a snapshot of some of the most pressing needs as of January 2016 among the Temporarily Dislocated Persons1 (TDPs) from North Waziristan Agency (NWA) in union council (UC) Havid Landidak of District Bannu. This report is based on the second Bannu rapid needassessment conducted by Mojaz Foundation (MF) in late November 2014, which focused specifically on needs within winterization & Shelter & Settlements Key Limitations of Assessment Due to the emergency context and short time available for the assessment, data was collected through purposive sampling. Assessment fatigue was detected. A number of TDPs declined to participate in the data collection and/or expressed frustration that many assessments were being carried out but not followed up by humanitarian assistance. TDPs were closely intermingled with host communities, which occasionally made it difficult to single out TDPs when collecting data. Background (Conflict profile) The Pakistani military offensive in North Waziristan Agency that started on 15th of June 2014 has so far resulted in more than one million TDPs3. As of 19th of November 2014, FDMA reported that 102,047 registered families have fled to other parts of the country. Most of the TDPs have found shelter in Bannu, Dera Ismail Khan, Peshawar, Lakki Marwat and other districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The armed conflict across FATA has widely affected the living conditions of its inhabitants. The terrorist attacks and aircraft bombings in North Wazirstan have destroyed the houses in the area leaving the residents with no other choice than to migrate. As a result, in February 2014, a large number of people displaced in the nearby districts of Bannu, DI Khan, Tank, Lakki Marwat and Kohat. On 15 June 2014, the Pakistan government announced a full-fledged operation. On 18 June, 2014 people were allowed to leave North Waziristan (NWA) and as of 26 June, more than 0.4 million people had been displaced, 74 % of them were children and women. (Reference: NWA Rapid protection assessment by protection cluster, June 2014). In total 74% TDPs are registered families. Official Return started from March 2015 on slow pace. The return gradually picked more pace as Govt. is declaring areas safe for their return with complete clean sweep from the insurgents. Currently returns are ongoing to all five agencies of FATA. Six embarkation points have been established to facilitate return process. Assistance hubs are active within FATA for the distribution of Humanitarian assistance. Over 124,000 TDPs have returned. However, 198,222 families are still dislocated/displaced. Govt. is providing return package which includes PKR. 10,000 for transportation cost and 25,000 return grant. As per the OCHA weekly return reports, still there is huge gap in anticipated return against actual return. In other report of OCHA regarding priority needs in displacement and returns; Food and shelter are among top rated needs. While WFP/VAM also assessed needs of the returning families and they have ranked WASH, livelihood, infrastructure and education are among top rated needs after their return to their homelands. (Reference: OCHA weekly return reports (October 2-8, 2015) Host Communities in District Bannu According to district government sources, the estimated host population of District Bannu is 971,932 persons comprised of 502,197 males and 469,735 females. The area of Bannu is 1,227 km2 and the population density used to be 792 per km2 but the influx of TDPs has almost doubled the total population of District Bannu. A comparison between the host and TDP populations at UC level is given in Annex I. Annex I - Comparison of TDPs & host population in District Bannu # Union Council TDPs Host Population 1 Slam Sikandar Khel 4243 15203 2 Sani I 4642 - 3 Anzal 5803 - 4 Mandan 6314 18427 5 Fateh Khel Qusar 6805 15339 6 Hassani 7047 16822 7 Mama Khel 8280 17054 8 Sikander Khel Bala 8373 15692 9 Ghori Wala 8742 20596 10 Nizam Darma Khel 9119 16743 11 Kaki - 2 9144 14169 12 Amandi- 13 khawjamad- 14 Mandare- 15 Ismail Khel- 16 Jani Khel Mustaraka- 17 Khojari- 18 Norar- 19 Mamand Khel Wazir- 20 Fatima Khel- 21 Sparka Wazir 12826 - 22 Barat- 23 Khandar Khan Khel- 24 Jandi Khel- 25 Ziraki Pirba Khel- 26 Miti Khel- 27 Shabaz Azmat Khel- 28 Aral 2 17658 - 29 Arat- 30 Kot Kalandar- 31 Kala Khel Masti Khan- 32 Lalo Zai- 33 Kaki - 34 Mira Khel- 35 Koti Sadat- 36 Takhti Khel- 37 Nar Jafar- 38 Baka Khel- 39 Hindi Khel- 40 Mambati Barakzai- 41 Dawood Shah- 42 Shamshi Khel- 43 Mamash Khel- 44 Sokari Zabta Khan 34238 - 45 Havid Landidak- 46 Bazar Ahmad Khan- 47 Bizan Khel- Objective, Scope and Limitations of Study The objective of this study was to assess the current status of displaced families from North Waziristan Agency (NWA) living with the host community in different pockets of Bannu District. Noticing the situation, MOJAZ Foundation initiated the assessment from Bannu District, where majority of the displaced families are residing. Mojaz Foundation currently implementing the Transitional Shelter project in UC Takhtikhel of District Bannu and Mojaz have the sufficient information regarding TDPs as mentioned in the previous need assessments and proposal. To identify the current situation of UC Havid Landidak, Mojaz Foundation conducted this study which aims to identify the main needs, locations, and gaps in the current situation. Based on these findings, recommendations for further action, with a gender disaggregated analysis of specific needs aimed to inform assistance for the displaced families. The data was collected through household surveys, Key Informant interviews and focus group discussions in 7 villages of UC Havid Landidak having large number of affected families. Timeline was definitely strict to conduct the assessment process which will cover all aspects of lives of TDPs living in UC Havid Landidak. Men respondents were accessible to conduct interviews and they were cooperative to answer all questions but were difficult to include female respondents due to strict cultural barriers (Pardah). Since there has been no exact data on location of TDPs therefore random sampling technique was adopted This report provides an analysis and evaluation of the current status of the displaced families from North Waziristan Agency (NWA) About the Study In order to have a first-hand knowledge about the problems being faced by the TDPs communities, a comprehensive semi-structured questionnaire was developed specifically for the proposed region. The questionnaire covered following information: 1. Identification data of the respondent like name, address, gender, etc (optional). 2. Household profile i.e. the total members and their gender and age. 3. Status of Respondent. 4. Shelter and Settlement assessment. 5. Assessment of WASH conditions and practices. 6. Assessment of primary health situation. 7. Food Security and livelihoods assessment. 8. Prioritization of needs along with the level of importance. 9. Support received from donor agencies. Methodology and Assessment Tools Methodology used for the assessment included both qualitative and quantitative tools. Moreover, focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted using FGD checklist. In order to further refine the data collection and to ensure the authenticity of assessment, triangulation was done by conducting transect walk (for direct Observations) in villages followed by short key informant Interviews with social activists, BHU staff and local CSOs members. The information received was correlated with each other to derive meaningful conclusions. In total, 7 FGDs in 7 villages of UC Havid Landidak were conducted. These FGDs were executed subsequent to filling the household interviews of 97 TDP households. Since there has been no exact data on location of TDPs therefore random sampling technique was adopted. Those villages were selected with TDPs heavy presence indication of local activists and Govt. officials. Survey was completed including household formats, FGDs and KIIs on the indication of local community members regarding TDPs current point of stay. FGDs were found extremely useful as peer group of TDPs verifying and validating information at the same time of FDG. This makes information more reliable and quality in short time to complete exercise. In addition to the 7 KIIs and 7 FGDs, additional data was drawn from reports of OCHA & DRC, the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), and the government officials of Social Welfare and Development, visits to the offices of local organizations working in Bannu (IRP, Pak CDP & lead of Wash cluster), interviews with BHU staff, Vaccinators and the notables from the community. 1 Activity Number of Participants Number of Interviews Location Date FGDs 56 07 UC Havid Landi Dak January 11-14, 2016 KII 07 07 UC Havid Landi Dak January 11-14, 2016 Individual HH questionnaires 95 95 UC Havid Landi Dak January 11-14, 2016 For proper data collection, teams were mobilized to do the rapid need assessment for 1 UC of Bannu. In total 2 teams were formed having 2 male each from its local staff from the running project working on Shelter assistance to the most vulnerable TDPs of NWA. Each team was allocated 4 and 3 villages respectively of UC Havid Landidak for the assessment purposes using above mentioned tools. Samples Standard confidence level of 95 percent, co-efficient of variance as 40 percent, and margin for error is 5 percent was used to calculate the following sample size. MOJAZ team of enumerators visited 07 sites/villages in selected UC in District Bannu having large number of affected families. The list is mentioned in following table: Sr. Tehsil Union Council Village No. of FGD survey No. of FDG Participants HH Survey Participants Displaced families 1 Bannu Havid Landidak Faqir Abad Landi Dak 1 FGD 8 14 88 2 Bannu Havid Landidak Havaid Khas 1 FGD 8 14 90 3 Bannu Havid Landidak Kaskey Landi Dak 1 FGD 8 04 94 4 Bannu Havid Landidak Khan Suba Landi Dak 1 FGD - Bannu Havid Landidak Multani Landi Dak 1 FGD 8 14 95 6 Bannu Havid Landidak Sardi Khel Landi Dak 1 FGD 8 15 95 7 Bannu Havid Landidak Sheikhan Landi Dak 1 FGD 8 11 83 Total 7 FGDs 56 Participants 95 Participants 650 Timeline The Initial need assessment exercise was completed in eight days starting from January 09-27, 2015. The assessment is revalidated and finalized in light of latest situation prevailing on ground on January 29, 2016. Sr. No. Activity Timeline 1 Target Area selection January 09, 2016 2 Team selection January 09, 2016 3 Team orientation January 10, 2016 4 Pre-testing of tools by sample data collection and filling January 10, 2016 5 Data collection through field visits January 11-16, 2016 6 Report compilation January 20, 2016 7 Revalidation Visit January 26, 2016 8 Finalization of Initial need Assessment Report January 29, 2016 Target Area Selection Area selection is done in close coordination with PDMA office in Bannu, clusters and previously conducted Need Assessment for our shelter project. Furthermore, meetings were organized with both stakeholders as per need during the need assessment exercise by MOJAZ. MOJAZ selected UC Havid Landidak based on the following parameters: Having most number of TDPs as compared to other UCs due to its dwelling on FR border Having very low response by organizations No ongoing assistance by any partner PDMA endorsement Target Area (UC) Profile Selected US is the part of Bannu Tehsil and is a settled area notified by FDMA and Govt. Havid Landi Dak is a town and union council of Bannu District in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. UC Havid Landidak is located on border with district lakki and its neighboring UCs is Nurar, Mamakhel & Mandev. Sr# Information Detail 1 UC Name Havid Landi Dak 2 UC TDP Population 34,628 3 UC Host Population 25,969 4 Number of villages 12 villages 5 Average Population per village- Govt. Infrastructure includes: Roads, Government buildings, canals 7 Number of Girls and Boys schools Girls 8 Boys 13 8 Number of health facilities (like BHU, RHC etc.) Civil Dispensaries 4, BHU 1 9 Number of IDPs (individuals and HH) 28,547 individuals 2,737 HH 10 Number/Percentage of Registered IDPs 90% 11 Number/Percentage of Non-Registered IDPs 10% 12 Average Family Size of IDPs 10.43 13 Number of Minorities IDPs Nil 14 Number of Disable IDPs 135 persons 15 Number/Percentage of Women, Men and Children Women 29%, Men 26%, Children 45% 16 Does IDP bring some assets from their Homes? (Livestock, household utensils or clothes etc.) Livestock (somehow), Clothes, Cash & Jewelry 17 % of IDPs living with relatives/Tribes mate/friends 9.4% 18 % of IDPs living in open compounds/Tents 43.1% 19 % of IDPs living in Govt. Camps/ Any other sources 6.3% 20 % of IDPs living in Rented houses in target area 44.2% TDPs Family Composition The average household size was found to be 10.43; importantly, children and women constitute 74% of the household size, and 90% of households are male-headed. There were no religious minority families found in UC Havid Landidak during the assessment process. In total, there are 9% elderly population and 0.21% Disables. Based on the previous assessments conducted for ongoing project, it is estimated that 90% of the TDPs residing in this UC are registered and no authentic data is available on movement from or within Havid Landidak likewise other UCs. On-going Assistance (Government, UN and I/NGO’s) In UC Havid Landidak, only one humanitarian organization i.e. Islamic Help responded to the needs of TDPs. WFP, FDMA and NADRA also conducted TDPs verification and registration. Other assistance by WFP included Food and Govt. standard assistance i.e. cash allowances is available to this conflict affected TDPs. With respect to other cluster activities no response was launched by any organization. Govt. cash allowance is usually disbursed on quarterly basis or on events like EID etc. And the amount is clearly insufficient to cater needs of rent, food, Health etc. Sector Wise Synopsis Shelter and Settlements TDPs shared shelter types currently used with percentages depicted underneath: 40% of TDPs are living in camps/tents and open compounds 44% mentioned to have rented spaces for their families 11% shared host communities either free of cost due to relations and friendships and urgency of the shelter as security. And rest 5% respondents mentioned they are living by their own source After 2-3 months these families reported to start moving within UC by relocating themselves and looking for a proper space, as a last resort arranged very short temporary arrangement which did not meet basic needs at all. This again was a problem to find places on rent and as per their need. Those who have vacant or excess spaces opened it for TDPs. The current living pattern by facility type of TDPs is tabulated below: Shelter Facility Type Percentage Tents/Open Compounds 40% Rented houses 44% With relatives 4.2% Govt. camps/hospitals/schools 11.8% Those who are sharing or living in shared houses are not fully available houses; they have hired/using only a room to shelter their families with hosts. During assessment, TDP respondents shared that those who are living with relatives, 4-5 families are sharing same room spaces due to non-availability of other space or money to pay rent. Average family size was found 10.43 persons per family. All women and children sleep the rooms and men and boys stay in Hujras due to Pardah2 practice and women’s privacy needs. Families who have received tents from any other organization/government department in last year mentioned that many of them are ruptured due to sunlight and are no more usable. Those who have tents, are damaged (have holes) and do not meet family’s needs especially of women and children who need more protection from weather harshness, privacy and security. Since 4-5 families are sharing 1 shelter which does not meet the needs at all but provided the situation on ground, both hosts and TDPs are surviving with available limited space options. This situation along with sharing of one shelter by 4 to 5 families extremely worsens the living conditions for the host families. 99% of the respondents mentioned that current residential facilities do not meet their minimum needs. Majority of women shared that they spend whole day in the compounds under open sun and 95% boys and men tend to stay out of house due to space and Pardah limitations. It was also mentioned that due extra exposure to open sun and children often catch fever and diseases due to less resting times and sleep. 100% Females feel insecure due to shared spaces with other families at host spaces. Due to strong cultural practices and religious following, no one allows their female to come out and is forced by men to hide them in whatever space they currently have. In addition to this weather severity is another problem for them. Load shedding added more problems for the TDPs as well as hosts. Houses are small for the joint families and cannot meet the basic need of shelter for hosts and TDPs at the same time; it is too congested which make it more difficult for families in living. Women shared that they are more depressed as to handle their children with the host families in limited places; they cannot have easy mobility due to Pardah and privacy even within the host families. TDPs who either live on rent or with friends on voluntary basis, are sharing rooms with host/relatives but the occupied building are not full fledge houses. Due to limited spaces, on average 3-4 TDP families are forced to share single rooms with average family size of 10.43 members. This is overburdening the host houses on one side and with increased depreciation of the facility on other hand. Due to tight cultural and social restrictions, 100% women spend time within the boundary wall of rooms they are sharing. Very less number of families living in tents, which are damaged and not livable especially to cope with the upcoming challenging in winter season. Men, boys and older people are forced to stay outside the house in common places like in Hujras, Moreover the rent paid by Govt. is on monthly basis but not paid regularly and is not fully compensating the TDPs against actual rent they are paying. Adequate and culturally sensitive temporary shelter arrangements such as emergency shelters are among the key concerns of the TDPs. WASH Prime sources of water are Govt. supply pipes, tube wells and water channels running in agriculture fields. 19% respondent shared they are taking household consumption and drinking water from the tube wells near their areas, 75% respondent are getting water from the distance of- meters from tube wells, masjid tapes, 20% respondents are getting water from less than 500 meters and 5% respondents getting water from the distance of 1KM – 2KM . 68% shared that they have enough water for daily cooking and drinking while 32% shared insufficient drinking water. Upon examination water appeared to be clean (transparent) but the change in taste and odor at few villages can be observed easily by tasting it after a while. However TDPs had no other option but to use the available resource. TDPs are facing more problems regarding water collection as they have to rely on available resource after host usage and TDPs have to move out in quest of water for household’s chores. Due to limited resources currently no water treatment or cleaning method was observed. On average almost 70% are using water from unprotected sources such as water channels, tube wells and bore holes etc. Hygiene practices were observed to be very poor as no TDP approached have ever received hygiene session and not practice hand washing at all critical times. Soap availability is reported by only 15% of the TDPs and among host the ratio is bit high at 40%. Respondents mentioned no resources as a reason for not washing their hands and bathing. Washing hands at-least 3 out of 5 critical times is not followed by majority as many as 60% due to lack of water readily available and hygiene material like Soap etc. Hand Washing Practices Yes No At-least 3 to 5 critical times a day 40% 60% Availability of Soap in TDPs 15% 85% Availability of Soap in Host 40% 60% Access to Water from protected and clean sources 70% (unprotected) 30% (Protected) Moreover, in targeted areas, as per the assessment results, 5% of families have access to separate toilets for themselves inside the premises while 95% are practicing open defecation. In specific, in each house, there are only self-made pit single latrine is available which is used both for bathing as well as for defecation. In general, 35 to 40 people sharing/depending one toilet. This situation directly raising the hygiene issues especially for women and children. Due to increase in number of persons per latrine, pits are filled resultantly and increase smell and flies. During the need assessment, temporary latrines visited, were damaged and pits are full which is leading them again to defecate openly. During assessment, respondents shared that cleaning is difficult as more families are forced to use available limited resource and no one takes ownership. If 2-3 relatives can be provided latrine, than they can clean and maintain it with increased sense of ownership. Following table show the overall WASH situation among the assessed communities: please change it with the use of latrine or availability of latrine. Open defecation Yes (95%) No (5%) Individual latrine for one family 5% 95% Persons per existing latrine 35-40 Health There is only one functional BHU in the targeted UC and is available to all residents after covering an average distance of 5-8 KM. This facility is providing OPD services to the inhabitants (hosts and TDPs). 25% move towards district hospitals in the town, 36% use the BHU for first aid. Due to distance almost 39% respondents shared that they have not used the facilities when needed due to distance and no resources to reach there. Most common diseases shared by the respondents are diarrhea; skin diseases, cough and malaria are common. Besides this, 6% women were reported to be pregnant at the time of assessment and falls in different quarters of pregnancy. It was mentioned the deliveries were managed at their residence by traditional birth attendants available in adjacent areas. 3 elders mentioned that they heard of a medical mobile camp by PRCS in last year but it was a confined for a specific time. 67% of the respondents shared that they have the facility of private clinics but due to distance and resources to reach there, 19% expressed that they have the facility of BHU but they are providing only medical facilities, 6% of the respondents mentioned that they heard the facility of Civil dispensary and DHQ but couldn’t availed the service due to long distance. Almost half of that number, mostly children and women, face serious health hazards due to poor hygienic conditions, in addition to severe weather which has increased ARI (Acute Respiratory Infection), gastro infections, skin and other water borne diseases. Living in highly unhygienic conditions has multiplied their problems and the infection ratio is very high due to poor sanitation. Most people are suffering from diseases as they are living in highly congested environment with at least 20 to 25 people living in one room. Furthermore, he said the drinking water and toilet facilities at the host families houses and schools were really poor and could not cater to their needs. Food Security and Livelihoods As per the response recorded during interviews of the TDPs, following the breakdown of major occupations: Audience Agriculture/Livestock Livestock Daily Labor Commerce Govt. Job Foreign Remittances Others/FDMA assistance TDPs prior to displacement 40%, 20%, 18%, 7% 2% 13% 0% TDPs after displacement 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 3.5% 86.5% Other source of income suggests the relief package provided by FDMA through ATM cards which is temporary. At present, there are no such or very meager economic opportunities for TDPs. In pursuit of work in order to meet their minimum living expenses they are compelled to go out for daily wages, which is on irregular basis. Because of exigent monetary circumstances, older people and non-adults are strained to work as labor for track daily wage laboring, garbage collection and work in shops so that they can contribute to minimize their dependents suffering. To overcome the food timidity, majority of TDPs families are forced to sell their remaining possessions and assets. In addition, due to the less livelihood opportunities and consumption of food stocks, affected people are selling the livestock at low prices. The recent displacement, less livelihood opportunities and income directly affect the diet pattern of the displaced population prompted less intakes than usual especially for women and children. After displacement there is a huge disparity existing due to volatile situation. TDP’s income has dropped to zero and they are now resource less (no financial or social). Before displacement average monthly income was around 11-15k which dropped to 0k. Only those (i.e. 35-40 TDP families out of total) have foreign remittances to manage their expenses and trying to assist other relative families as maximum as possible. This is leading them to manage in whatever they have and compromising basic needs like no proper medical care, poor hygienic condition and lack of necessary household utensils and other NFIs. On inquiring the pattern of need based expenses following responses were recorded with percentages: Food 25% House rent 1% Shelter 8% Transportation 19% Medicines 5% Education 0% Clothing 4% Loan repayment 0% (currently not in a position to repay but once they are back to their home or have income resource they will start repaying) Others include nonfood items 18% Findings of KII MOJAZ Foundation triangulated the information provided by the TDPs and Host communities during the initial need assessment exercise as also summarized above in order to be sure that community mentioned correct information. In total 7 KIIs were conducted with BHU staff, community elders, cluster, PDMA and other local NGOs. The information collected through the primary sources was verified and found supporting the analyses with respect to the damages and the assistance providers mentioned above in each thematic areas. Community elders focused on the prime need of shelters and wash in order to live properly during the displacement period. They also added that most of the TDPs are farmer and have lot of expertise in agriculture and livestock raring. If any organization or agency help them in this regard would be so beneficial for them in context of food availability and livelihood up-to some extent. Prioritization was done by MOJAZ team observations and by asking all the respondents reached through survey. And they have ranked their needs which are tabulated which clearly confirm that shelter is their top need with WASH on second place: % Respondents 1st Priority 2nd Priority 3rd Priority 4th Priority 5th Priority Remarks 100% Shelter Wash Livelihood Health Non Food Items 100% respondents shared that Shelter & WASH are their urgent need. Recommendations Our recommendations are based upon the analysis of data collected from 95 respondents out of the total population and interventions proposed are based upon this data. The data may have some variations when a post-approval assessment would be carried out and further facts may reveal which may require few adjustments in the said activities. However, based on the findings of the initial survey, following recommendations are being made for an efficient implementation of Shelter & Settlement intervention Summarizing the assessment and its findings, MOJAZ carefully chosen Transitional Shelter as a response based on the strong justifications and genuine needs of TDPs who are living in misery. And it’s expected to reduce burden on existing resources, their protection & privacy issues will also reduce, will reunite TDP families and lessen the burden on the hosts. Ser. Conclusions Recommendations MOJAZ related experience 1 There is a huge demand of shelters and Wash intervention Adequate and culturally sensitive temporary shelter arrangements such as emergency shelters are among the key concerns of the TDPs. MOJAZ has technical expertise in both shelter and WASH sector. Experience gained by implementing 3 emergency and 4 transitional shelter projects in Sindh/KPK.