PROFILING OF INTERNAL

DISPLACEMENT
in the Island Provinces of the Bangsamoro
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM)
 protectioncluster
P H I L I P P I N E S

Profiling Coordinator: Rasul Kulat (UNHCR)

Report writing: Svend-Jonas Schelhorn (JIPS), Devora Levakova (JIPS), Dr. Marcilina Carpizo (independent
consultant); Meriam Faith Palma (UNHCR)

Report editing: Stephanie Matti (independent consultant)

Research Facilitation: Profiling Task force of UNHCR Philippines (Mohamed Abdelwahab, Racmah Abdula,
Bienvinido Dagpin Jr, Nasier Dizon, Maria Ermina V. Gallardo, Aeriel Anne Gonzales, Elson Monato,
Jonathan Porras, Bernie Seville, Dervin Villarosa), Integrated Resource Development for Tri-People Inc. (IRDT)
and JIPS.

JIPS’ technical support to the profiling of internal displacement in the island provinces of the BARMM was made
possible through the generous support of the American people through the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance
(BHA) of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Danish Development
Cooperation Agency (DANIDA). The contents are the responsibility of the profiling partners and do not
necessarily reflect the views of USAID or DANIDA.

Data collection: November-December 2019

Analysis, validation of results: January-August 2020
Report preparation: September-December 2020
Report finalisation and dissemination: January-March 2021

Suggested citation: BARMM authorities, UNHCR, JIPS (2021). Profiling of Internal Displacement in the Island
Provinces of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM).

© All rights reserved. The copyright for this material lies with profiling partners. It may be reproduced for
educational purposes (including training, research, and programme activities) and elements of this report may
be quoted in other publications, provided profiling partners are acknowledged as per the above-mentioned
suggested citation.

Cover photo: A damaged footbridge in Barangay Lantong, Siasi, Sulu

Photographs: © UNHCR, IRDT

Report design: Tomas Bakos (BakOS DESIGN)

PROFILING
OF INTERNAL
DISPLACEMENT
in the Island Provinces of the Bangsamoro
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM)

JANUARY 2021

This document outlines the key findings and recommendations of the profiling of
the situation of internal displacement in the island provinces of the Bangsamoro
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). The profiling exercise was
conducted with the technical support of JIPS.

The Profiling exercise was endorsed and supported by the BARMM Ministry of the
Interior and Local Goverment (MILG), the Ministry of Social Services and Development
(MSSD) the Local Government Units on Municipal and Barangay Level in the BaSulTa
provinces, the Provincial and Municipal and Social Service Offices and the Provincial
Disaster Risk Reduction Management Offices (PDRRMO)of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-
Tawi.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The profiling exercise is the result of a collaboration between key government

agencies from the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM),
civil society organisations and UN agencies. Our sincere gratitude goes to: The
BARMM Ministry of Social Services and Development; the BARMM Ministry of the
Interior and Local Government; the Provincial Local Government Units of Basilan,
Sulu and Tawi-Tawi; the Municipal Local Government Units of Ungkaya Pukan, Maluso
and Sumisip, Basilan, Jolo and Patikul, Sulu, and Bongao, Tawi-Tawi; the Civil Society
Organisations in Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi; the Armed Forces of the Philippines; and
the Mindanao Humanitarian Team.

We are grateful to JIPS for technical support and guidance throughout the process,
as well as leading the completion of the report. Warm thanks to the profiling working
group composed of UNHCR staff members, the JIPS team, UN agencies, NGOs,
civil society organisations, academia and UNHCR Project Partners who provided
support in review processes. Special thanks also go to Nasser G. Antao (Project
Officer), Jobelle G. Malcampo (Basilan Provincial Coordinator), Anihar C. Annuari (Sulu
Provincial Coordinator) and Lester A. Sakiron (Tawi-Tawi Provincial Coordinator). Lastly,
the profiling would not have been possible without the support of the Integrated
Resources for Development of Tri-People Inc. (IRDT) staff who facilitated field
activities.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Overall recommendations........................................................................................................................................................................................16

Acronyms.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................18

Definition of terms......................................................................................................................................................................................................19

1.
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................................................................21

1.1 Displacement context.................................................................................................................................................................................21

1.2 Why a profiling exercise in the Basulta provinces?...........................................................................................................................23

1.3 Profiling objectives and profiling process............................................................................................................................................24

2.
PROFILING METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................................................................. 27

2.1 Analytical approach.................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

2.2 Target populations and geographic scope..........................................................................................................................................29

2.3 Data collection methods...........................................................................................................................................................................29

2.4 Limitations of the profiling exercise....................................................................................................................................................... 33

3.
HOME-BASED IDPs IN BASILAN........................................................................................................................................................................... 37

3.1 Displacement context................................................................................................................................................................................ 37

3.2 Demographic profile..................................................................................................................................................................................40

3.3 Access to documentation..........................................................................................................................................................................41

3.4 Safety, security and freedom of movement..........................................................................................................................................41

3.5 Employment and livelihoods....................................................................................................................................................................42

3.6 Standard of living and access to services............................................................................................................................................46

3.7 Housing, land and property......................................................................................................................................................................51

3.8 Future intentions.........................................................................................................................................................................................52

3.9 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................................................52

4 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

4.

CHAPTER
HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHETLER IDPs IN SULU........................................................................................................................55

4.1 Displacement context................................................................................................................................................................................55

4.2 Demographic profile..................................................................................................................................................................................59

4.3 Access to documentation.........................................................................................................................................................................60

4.4 Safety, security and freedom of movement..........................................................................................................................................61

4.5 Employment and livelihoods....................................................................................................................................................................62

4.6 Standard of living and access to services............................................................................................................................................ 67

4.7 Housing, land and property..................................................................................................................................................................... 74

4.8 Future intentions......................................................................................................................................................................................... 76

4.9 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 78

5.
HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHELTER IDPs IN TAWI-TAWI...............................................................................................................81

5.1 Displacement context ................................................................................................................................................................................81

5.2 Demographic profile..................................................................................................................................................................................84

5.3 Access to documentation.........................................................................................................................................................................84

5.4 Safety, security and freedom of movement.........................................................................................................................................85

5.5 Employment and livelihoods ..................................................................................................................................................................85

5.6 Standard of living and access to services............................................................................................................................................88

5.7 Housing, land and property ....................................................................................................................................................................95

5.8 Future intentions.........................................................................................................................................................................................98

5.9 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................................................................98

6.
RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................................................................................................................99

7.
ANNEXES.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 104

Annex I: Profiling working group members............................................................................................................................................... 104

Annex II: Household questionnaire............................................................................................................................................................. 105

Annex III: Question library for validating findings with IDPs and members
of the PWG through focus group discussions and key informant interviews.................................................................................... 118

Annex IV: Food consumption score and coping strategy index.......................................................................................................... 120

5
 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

The geographic southern region of the Philippines,

Mindanao, has been suffering from decades of
internal armed conflict, political instability and
disasters such as typhoons and storm surges, which
has left thousands of people living in protracted
displacement.

Deeply rooted in the colonial and ethno-religious

history of the country, the armed conflict between
the Bangsamoro people in the face of the Moro
National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the government
of the Philippines broke out in the 1970s, with the
aim for independence from the rest of the country.
Tawi-Tawi
It was not until the 1990s that the Autonomous
Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was created
as a first attempt to acknowledge the muslim
majority in the southern part of the Philippines.
Nevertheless, military operations against militant
and terrorist groups such as the Abu Sayyaf Group
(ASG) continued until 2014 when the Comprehensive
Agreement on the Bangsamoro was signed after
seventeen years of negotiations between the
Government of the Philippines and the autonomist
groups. As a result, the Bangsamoro Autonomous
Region of Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) was created aligns with the effort at the national level to address
in January 2019 under the Republic Act 110541, also the vulnerabilities of the IDPs in the Philippines.
known as the Bangsamoro Organic Law. The current As of this writing, there are two versions of the
political transition period of the BARMM from 2019 IDP Protection bill filed at the Philippine Senate
to 2022 is accompanied by the development of (Upper House)4 and four versions at the House of
bills and resolutions that will provide the base for Representatives (Lower House).5
assisting internally displaced persons (IDPs) on a
political level. In 2019, two measures supporting the However, the protection situation in the island
IDPs and their protection have been filed, namely the provinces of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi (BaSulTa)
Parliament Bill No. 232 and Resolution No. 110.3 This of the BARMM remains fragile. On-going military

1
The full version of the act can be reviewed under https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2018/ra_11054_2018.html.
2
For a list of proposed bills at the Bangsamoro parliament, refer to https://parliament.bangsamoro.gov.ph/bills/. The draft of the bill can be
found at https://laisaalamia.com/2020/11/02/mp-ala.
3
Bangsamoro Transition Authority Parliament (2020). “A resolution calling for the creation of a bureau welfare and addressing the needs,
issues, and concerns of the orphans and widows who are victim Documents. For more information, refer to:
https://parliament.bangsamoro.gov.ph/resolutions/.
4
http://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lis/leg_sys.aspx?congress=18&type=bill&p=1.
5
https://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/?v=billsresults#18.

6 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Basilan

Sulu
Republic of
the Philippines

The profiling exercise was conducted in the island provinces

of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi of the BARMM, Philippines.

0 50 100 km

operations of the Armed Forces of the Philippines of displacement in the BaSulTa provinces, beside
(AFP) against armed groups, especially the Abu natural disasters such as typhoons and storm surges,
Sayyaf Group, are putting the lives of many families which drive displacement especially in the province
in jeopardy. Families in those parts of the provinces of Tawi-Tawi.
with military operations are either pre-emptively
evacuated, or are leaving their homes in order Furthermore, displacement often takes place in
to evade the conflict. Displacement patterns are remote areas where humanitarian and government
characterised by sometimes short periods of agencies have limited presence.7 Therefore, these
recurring movements from the places of habitual communities typically do not have regular access to
residence that are limited by the geography and basic social services, physical and legal protection
infrastructure of the islands. As a result, families even prior to the displacement, and in most cases
usually stay within their municipality, or even durable solutions have not been identified.
barangay6, when displaced. Crime and violence
such as clan or family feuds, are additional triggers

6
The barangay is the smallest administrative unit in the Philippines that most often resembles a neighbourhood. It is usually represented by
a barangay captain.
7
Protection Cluster (2019). Protection Cluster: Key issues and challenges. For your information, refer to:
https://www.unhcr.org/ph/protection-cluster.

7
 I Key informant interview during the profiling exercise in
WHY PROFILING IN THE Basilan province. The interview was held in November 2019.
BASULTA PROVINCES?
Due to security risks, the remoteness of the islands,
but also due to limited funding, the capacity and THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES
activities of both government and humanitarian WERE AGREED UPON:
actors to monitor and respond to the needs of IDPs
in the BaSulTa provinces are limited. This, combined Engage directly with displaced communities
1
with the lack of comprehensive and reliable data in the identification of priority needs
covering the displacement situation in the region, to ensure relevant humanitarian and
creates the need to identify the IDPs and their development responses;
needs and vulnerabilities in these provinces so that
the government and partner agencies can provide
2 Identify the causes of displacement and the
adequate and tailored assistance, basic services, and
future intentions of the IDPs;
welfare interventions.

Against the background of scarce data, in August 3 Provide a snapshot of the protection
2019 as part of the continuous efforts of UNHCR situation of the displaced population;
in the Philippines to support IDPs, a consultative
meeting was initiated by UNHCR with the Ministry of 4 Identify specific needs and vulnerabilities of
Social Services and Development (MSSD) and the the displaced population in terms of ensuring
Ministry of the Interior and Local Government (MILG) their livelihoods, adequate standard of living
of the BARMM, to initiate discussions on the need of and access to services e.g. food security,
a profiling exercise. Following this meeting, BARMM- water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH),
wide consultations were held with the participation education, health, housing, land and property
of stakeholders from the provincial, municipal and issues; and
barangay local government units, UN agencies, civil
society organisations, academia, security sectors and 5 Advocate with the government and
IDP leaders to establish their support, participation humanitarian partners to respond based on
and committed engagement for the profiling. the findings provided.

8 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To coordinate the exercise, a Profiling Working Given the lack of comprehensive and reliable
Group was established in October 2019 under baseline data in municipalities hosting IDPs, only
the leadership of UNHCR, the Ministry of Social the municipalities with existing official IDP lists that
Services and Development and the Ministry of could be verified by the barangay official on the day
the Interior and Local Government. The Profiling of the data collection, were included. Official IDP
Working Group was composed of representatives lists usually are provided by the Municipal Social
of these ministries, a profiling task force of UNHCR, Service Officer and the Municipal Disaster Risks
government representatives of each island province Reduction Management Officer. The strategy then
on barangay, municipality and provincial level, followed a full-count/snowballing approach, aiming
NGOs and civil society organisations and UN to reach as many IDPs as possible in the locations
agencies. JIPS supported the exercise throughout within each province, where lists were available and
the whole profiling process. The group convened where numbers could be verified. Therefore, not all
in a series of workshops in October 2019 to shape municipalities/barangays hosting IDPs were included
the methodological approach, the questionnaire in the survey.
and consulted again to support the interpretation
and contextualisation of the findings of the profiling As a result of this, and because of the discrepancy
exercise. The questionnaire was developed based on between the initial lists with population estimates
the Durable Solutions Indicator Library,8 composed provided by the government and the verified
of ten sections which cover basic demographics, numbers on the day of the data collection, the data
displacement history, safety, security and freedom cannot be considered representative at the provincial
of movement, employment and livelihoods, food level. Therefore, the findings are indicative and can
security, water, sanitation & hygiene (WASH), health, only serve for the analysis of the situation of the
education, housing, land and property and future surveyed IDPs per province and as an indication of
preferences and intentions. the living conditions of the IDPs living in the island
provinces.
The displacement profiling exercise covered two
target population groups: Internally Displaced The qualitative data collection consisted of focus
Persons living with hosts, e.g. relatives, friends or group discussions to validate the preliminary results
by renting a house or an apartment, and internally from the household survey with members of the
displaced persons living in temporary shelters displaced communities and representatives of the
(evacuation centers). In this report, the target Local Government Units in each of the provinces.
population groups will be referred to as ‘home based’ The community consultations, initially scheduled
and ‘displaced families living in temporary shelter, or for March and April 2020, could only be conducted
temporary shelter IDPs,’ respectively. in June and July 2020 due to the outbreak of the
Covid19 pandemic. The pandemic impacted the
The profiling used a mixed-methods approach overall timeline and modalities of the profiling
based on a household survey and qualitative data exercise and resulted in additional measures to
collection, including focus group discussions (FGDs) ensure the safe implementation of the FGDs. The
with IDPs and a validation survey with the Profiling planned joint analysis workshops were replaced with
Working Group to validate and contextualise consultations with PWG members to validate and
the survey findings. The household survey was contextualise the survey results were conducted in
conducted in each province in November and the form of an online survey.
December 2019, with a sample of the target
population per population group and per province. A
total of 1,987 families (7,879 individuals) were reached
of which the final sample included 1,653 families
(7,692 individuals).

8
For more information, refer to: https://inform-durablesolutions-idp.org/indicators-2/.

9
 Safety, Security and
Freedom of Movement

Although the majority of surveyed IDPs in Basilan did

not report security concerns, the profiling findings
still show that displaced families were concerned that
the safety and security situation was impeding their
returns. Hence, the security situation restricted the
freedom of movement of IDPs.

In addition, the most commonly reported security

concern for some IDPs was related to the lack of
communication from the government. In addition,
IDPs were concerned that they might be wrongly
suspected of being affiliated with an armed group.
KEY FINDINGS: Government plans for the protection of displaced

BASILAN
families were not widely disseminated or understood
among IDPs.

Employment and Livelihoods

Displacement Context
The labour force participation rate among the
Most IDPs surveyed in Basilan were displaced most surveyed IDPs in Basilan appears to be higher than
recently in 2017 or 2019 due to crime and violence, or the overall labour force participation rate in the
due to the armed conflict between the Armed Forces BARMM region. The findings suggest that youth (15-
of the Philippines and the Abu Sayyaf Group. All IDPs 24 years) might be experiencing additional barriers
were displaced within the same municipality as their in accessing employment. There was also a notable
place of habitual residence and in most cases even gender disparity with more men in the labour force
within the same barangay. Ongoing conflict was the than women and more women being engaged
main reason why people could not visit or return to predominantly in work activities without pay, mainly
their place of habitual residence. housework and care work, reflecting cultural norms
and the economic situation in the area.

Access to documentation Approximately 34% of the IDPs reported that they lost
their job due to their displacement, while 40% were
About a quarter of surveyed IDPs did not have a able to retain it. The main source of income prior to
birth certificate (23%). During the FGDs the IDP the displacement was the selling of own produced
participants recognised the importance of having goods through farming. As a result of displacement,
an official identification document (community tax and due to military restrictions to access their land,
certificate or cedula) for protection purposes, and some families lost their main livelihood and had to
for confirming that they are members of a given rely on irregular work.
community. Since birth certificates are required for
accessing government assistance programmes Nearly all IDPs surveyed reported that they did
and services and for school enrolment, the lack not have a Department of Social Welfare and
of documentation could exacerbate the IDPs’ Development Disaster Assistance Family Access
vulnerabilities. Card (95%), indicating that the majority lack access
to assistance programmes, as the card is used as
a basis for providing relief assistance and other
interventions to IDPs or victims of disasters in
Mindanao, or the Philippines in general.

10 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

Food Security Housing, Land and Property

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overall, the surveyed IDPs in Basilan faced Nearly all surveyed displaced families owned their
challenges in accessing sufficient food. Half of the family house in their place of habitual residence, and
displaced families surveyed had either borderline or half owned the land around the house. Approximately
poor food consumption. Families depended heavily a quarter of the families that owned the land did not
on negative coping strategies to feed their families, have a proof of ownership for their land. The lack of
such as relying on less preferred/expensive food, official ownership documents exposes these IDPs to
borrowing food and reducing portions or the number the potential violation of property rights upon their
of meals. It should be noted that food security among return. However, IDPs reported a very low rate of
the non-displaced population in Basilan is the lowest ownership disputes between people.
in the BARMM region.

Future Intentions
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)
The vast majority of the surveyed displaced families
Access to protected water sources represented a wanted to return to their place of habitual residence;
major challenge for the IDPs in Basilan. Some 46% mainly in order to access/restore their farming
of surveyed IDPs depended on springs, rivers or livelihoods. IDPs would require information about the
unprotected wells for drinking water, exposing them security situation as well as the provision of basic
to a risk of water-borne diseases. The vast majority services in order to return.
(79%) of surveyed families did not have access
to adequate toilet facilities, further increasing the
risk of water-borne and faecal-related illnesses.
Furthermore, there was poor hygiene linked with the
poor water supply in the area. Half of the displaced
families did not have access to hand washing
facilities (53%) while the remainder used mobile
objects such as buckets (46%).

Health
More than half of the surveyed displaced families
with children did not possess a vaccination card
for their children, exposing children to health risks.
However, displaced families could typically access
healthcare facilities, but barriers existed especially
the cost of public transport required to reach
healthcare facilities.

Education
Nearly half of the surveyed IDPs in Basilan either
had no education or had only completed elementary
school (49%). At least a quarter of elementary school-
aged displaced children were not attending school
at the time of the survey. Financial constraints and
helping families at home were the most commonly
cited reasons for children not attending school.

11
 Access to documentation
About one-third of the surveyed home-based
and temporary shelter IDPs did not have a birth
certificate. The most commonly cited reasons
included that family members were not registered or
had not yet claimed certificates with the authorities
(78% of home-based IDPs; 70% for IDPs in temporary
shelters). The lack of birth certificates could create
additional barriers especially in regards to accessing
government assistance and services or enrolling in
school.

Safety, Security and

Freedom of Movement
KEY FINDINGS:

SULU
Safety and security concerns and incidents reported
by both male and female respondents were
mainly related to the conflict. The majority of IDPs
experienced security incidents, of whom about half
did not report the incident to the formal or informal
authorities due to fear that the conflict would
Displacement Context escalate or they could be targeted by the opposing
side. Nevertheless, respondents reported feeling
The vast majority of surveyed IDPs in Patikul, Sulu relatively safe when walking in their neighbourhood.
were displaced most recently in 2017 or 2019 within Government plans for the protection of displaced
the same municipality due to the conflict between families were reported to not be widely disseminated
the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Abu or understood among IDPs.
Sayyaf Group (93% of home-based families; 90%
of temporary shelter families). Most IDPs had
experienced repeated displacements in the past Employment and Livelihoods
three years, with many displaced to neighbouring
barangays several times in the same year due The labour force participation rate among surveyed
to frequent military operations. About half of the IDPs in Patikul appeared to be lower than the
displaced families were not able to visit their place overall labour force participation rate in the BARMM
of habitual residence since their displacement, those region. The findings suggest that youth (15-24 years)
who did visit their habitual residence were only able might be experiencing more barriers in accessing
to do so rarely. The main reasons for visiting was employment. There was also a notable gender
to check on the house/land and to harvest fruits, disparity with more men in the labour force than
or otherwise tend to the farms. Following the data women and more women outside the labour force,
collection in the beginning of 2020, more than 400 engaged predominantly in work without pay, mainly
displaced families returned to their place of habitual housework and care work, reflecting cultural norms
residence. However, at least 1,078 families remained and the economic situation in the area.
displaced. The security risks and military restrictions
were the main obstacles faced by IDPs wishing to The displaced population in Patikul were
visit or return to their places of habitual residence. predominantly farmers who grow crops like fruits,
vegetables, and copra (dried coconut kernel), and
sell. Military restrictions cut off many families from
their land thus affecting their livelihoods. This is
especially true for those whose income come from
selling of their own agricultural produce. The profiling
shows that the income the assessed displaced

12 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

families decreased by about 20% for home-based evacuation sites. Most of the surveyed families used

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
and 26% for families in temporary shelters after the formal medical facilities when needed, however,
displacement. there is a widespread belief in the use of traditional
healthcare as well.

Food Security
Education
The surveyed IDPs in Patikul faced challenges
accessing sufficient food. The most common way About one third of school aged children were not
that displaced families from both groups accessed attending school. The most commonly cited reasons
food was purchasing from markets or stores. Home- for this were the associated costs or unwillingness
based families were more likely to depend on their to continue their studies due to the adverse effects
hosting relatives as a secondary source, while of displacement. This suggests a presence of
those in temporary shelters were more likely to psychosocial trauma among children stemming
rely on government assistance. Despite efforts by from the conflict and the displacement experience.
the government to provide food, displaced people There were notable gender differences in terms of
depended heavily on a range of negative coping secondary school attendance with higher attendance
mechanisms such as limiting portion size, restricting among girls. Overall, more than half of the surveyed
consumption by adults and reducing the number of IDPs in Patikul either had no education or had
meals. completed only elementary school.

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Housing, Land and Property

Access to water was a widely recognised challenge Most surveyed displaced families owned the land
among surveyed IDPs in Patikul. Some 30% of home- and house in their place of habitual residence but
based families and 26% in temporary shelters did not did not have proof of ownership for either of these.
have access to sufficient water to meet their needs in Ownership typically stemmed from inheritance of
the 30 days prior to the survey. The quality of water ancestral domain. The importance of house and
was also problematic as FGDs participants stated that land ownership documentation was not always
it could not be ensured that the water was potable. clear to the IDPs. The lack of official ownership
Nearly one-third of families in temporary shelters did documents exposes the IDPs to the potential
not have access to potable water, most were instead violation of property rights upon return to their place
dependent on unprotected sources such as springs, of habitual residence. The lack of official ownership
rivers and unprotected wells. The results of the documents exposes the IDPs to the potential
profiling also show that IDPs relied on poor sanitation violation of property rights upon return to their place
facilities with 39% of home-based families and 59% in of habitual residence. As of the time of the profiling,
temporary shelters using inadequate toilet facilities. no adverse claims against the properties left behind
Sanitation facilities in evacuation centres were by the displaced population were noted, and thus
particularly poor with 40% falling below SPHERE was not seen as an urgent protection issue by the
standards. respondents. The survey showed that even in cases
where the houses of displaced families have been
partially or totally destroyed, IDPs still wanted to
Health return in order to access their land and livelihoods.

More than half of the surveyed displaced families

with children did not possess a vaccination card Future Intentions
for their children. Displaced families could typically
access healthcare facilities, but barriers existed, All families surveyed expressed a desire to return to
especially the cost of public transport required to their place of habitual residence, mostly in order to
reach healthcare facilities. There was also a lack access their livelihoods and because they preferred
of health referral systems in temporary shelters/ to be in the place where they grew up.

13
 Safety, Security and
Freedom of Movement

The majority of the respondents from both population

groups did not have concerns about safety or
security (88% of home-based families; 93% of
temporary shelter families) given that there is no
armed conflict in Tawi-Tawi.

Employment and Livelihoods

Due to the typhoon and associated storm surge,
most surveyed IDPs temporarily lost access to their
marine-based livelihoods including fishing. As a
KEY FINDINGS: result, they typically pursued other low-paid jobs.

TAWI-TAWI
However, most IDPs in Tawi-Tawi had limited income
and were unable to pay for bills or unexpected
expenses.

Food Security
Displacement Context
Most surveyed IDPs in Tawi-Tawi faced challenges
Nearly all IDPs surveyed in Tawi-Tawi were displaced in accessing sufficient food. Approximately half of
most recently in 2019 due to Typhoon "Marilyn" and the surveyed displaced families had either poor or
the associated storm surge. All IDPs were displaced borderline food consumption, depending heavily on
to areas within the same municipality as their place negative coping strategies. Most IDPs depended on
of habitual residence. All houses in the place of access to the sea to sustain their livelihoods. When
habitual residence were totally destroyed, reflecting families were not able to access the sea due to
the typically weak housing structures and high weather conditions, this had a direct impact on their
vulnerability to weather events, given that most of the food consumption.
surveyed IDPs live in stilt houses. Lack of financial
resources represented the main barrier for IDPs to
return and rebuild their houses. However, it was Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
reported that all displaced families returned to their
places of habitual residence in the first half of 2020. While most surveyed displaced families reported
having access to protected water sources, potable
water was understood to be scarce in Tawi-Tawi.
Access to documentation Open defecation was common, while proper
handwashing was rarely practiced due to limited
About two-thirds of surveyed home-based and water resources, and the associated costs.
temporary shelter IDPs did not have a birth
certificate. The most commonly cited reasons
included that family members were not registered or Health
had not yet claimed certificates with the authorities
(89% of home-based IDPs; 97% for IDPs in temporary More than half of the surveyed displaced families
shelters). with children did not possess a vaccination card
for their children. Displaced families could typically
access healthcare facilities when needed, but
challenges existed including the associated costs
and lack of awareness on how to access the facilities.

14 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 I Bernie Seville, Information Management staff
from UNHCR, presents the data collection tools
for the profiling exercise during the provincial wide
Education consultation held in Municipal Hall of Bongao, Tawi
Tawi Province in October 2019.
More than three-quarters of surveyed IDPs in Tawi-
Tawi either had no education or had only completed
elementary school (73% of home-based IDPs; 89% The vast majority of displaced families intented
of IDPs in temporary shelters). More than half of to return to their place of habitual residence. A
the elementary school-aged IDP children were not key reason for this was to access the sea, which
attending school at the time of the survey. Financial represents their main source of food and livelihoods.
constraints, helping families at home, bullying, and On their return, IDPs would require improved
lack of required documentation were the most construction materials and designs for rebuilding
commonly cited reasons for children not attending their houses so that they can reduce the vulnerability
school. to future natural disasters.

Housing, Land and Property

The houses of all surveyed IDPs in their place of
habitual residence were either partially or totally
destroyed by the storm surge. Only about half of
the displaced families owned the land of their place
of habitual residence, with very few having proof of
ownership, given that Sama Bajaus traditionally live
on stilt houses in the sea.

15
 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS

With the findings of the profiling exercise the following main recommendations are put forward; a detailed
description is available in the Recommendations section of this report:

1 In 2012, the ARMM, together with humanitarian 3 Exempt IDPs and other impoverished families
partners developed the contingency Plan from fees for birth registration and documentation,
for Humanitarian Response to Conflict and while strengthening the government’s capacity
Natural Disasters in Basilan, Sulu and Tawi- to inform families about the importance of
Tawi.9 The access to basic services such as documentation in order to access basic services
health, education, food and clean water of and to ensure protection against arrest or
displacement affected families has not changed detention.
since then. It is strongly recommended that the
new BARMM government should revive and
update the contingency plan, since it would 4 The BARMM government, in partnership with
provide an instrument for the government and the International Monitoring Team (IMT) and with
humanitarian actors to conduct a full assessment full support of the Humanitarian Country Team
of the needs of the displaced community and (HCT), should continue to build the capacity of
projected needs for future displacement, for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the
which the new information/findings from the IDP Philippine National Police (PNP) on human rights,
profiling exercise could serve as a useful point international humanitarian law (IHL), humanitarian
of reference. The updated contingency plan assistance to civilians, and cultural sensitivity
would further provide a harmonized approach on at times of armed conflict and encourage the
emergency preparedness and response to avoid participation of IDPs in this process.
unnecessary duplication of efforts by agencies.

5 Improve the access to livelihoods and education

2 Displaced families in all provinces expressed in order to strengthen the resilience of displaced
being unclear of future government plans in terms families in areas affected by displacement,
of protection and returns. The local governments including supporting children whose school
in the provinces should provide clear and attendance was disrupted by the displacement,
accessible information to displacement affected children of deceased combatants/members in
communities about future strategies and plans armed groups, and addressing discrimination and
for improving the security situation and for bullying against Sama Bajau children.
enabling returns.
As many displaced families suffer from having
lost access to their farmlands, and hence, to their
main source of income, livelihood projects for
IDPs that are not able to access their farmland
should be implemented, or, where possible, IDPs
should be allowed to access their farmlands.
Alternatively, the government should expand
the assistance programmes targeting vulnerable
groups such as IDPs. For example, the Balik

9
For more information, refer to: https://bit.ly/3sAELap.

16 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 Barangay programme10 should be continued the government should consider immediate
and expanded in regards to the establishment intervention with regards to seed distribution,
of livelihood programmes, basic social services, livestock support and fishing tools to ensure
assistance programmes including relief continuation of access to livelihood and in some
assistance, the provision of seeds for farming and cases direct food assistance.
financial assistance.
The BARMM government, particularly the
To improve the access to tertiary education Ministries of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAFAR),
and income opportunities, vocational training, Science and Technology (MOST), and Trade,
targeting youth in particular, could be developed Investments and Tourism (MTIT) should expand
to counteract the barriers they are facing in their current programs to increase productivity
finding a job and facilitate their participation in the and consumption of families’ own produced food
labour force. (e.g. livestock, fishery products and agriculture).
This should also include a systematic review of
its capacity needs to determine the gaps and
6 The findings show that the access to basic possible solutions in implementing programs on
services and infrastructure is hampered by food security and nutrition in collaboration with
distance, availability of services and lack of non-government and humanitarian/development
financial resources. This has a significant impact organisations.
on the ability of the surveyed population to meet
their basic needs. Hence, the access has to be Shelter: Given the frequent displacements in the
improved to: BARMM Islands, in particular Basilan and Sulu, it
is strongly recommended that the government
Health: Based on the data collected, many invests in temporary evacuation centres to
displaced families do not possess vaccination accommodate displaced families according to
cards for their children. It is strongly Sphere standards.
recommended that the government in partnership
with key organisations mandated to ensure Water, sanitation and hygiene: The provincial
access to vaccinations such as UNICEF11 who Local Government Unit should lobby with the
conducts awareness raising campaigns about Provincial Health Office and other WASH actors to
vaccination, house to house vaccination activities expand water treatment in IDP hosting and return
and the issuance of vaccination cards. areas and establish communal latrines and hand
washing facilities in displacement locations. For
Moreover, in partnership with key organisations example, the Balik Barangay Programme could be
mandated to ensure access to healthcare, such used as an example to implement similar projects
as UNICEF, the government should explore to improve the accessibility of WASH services.
providing families with free transportation to
medical services, or set-up mobile health teams at The supply of safe water for drinking and cooking
evacuation centres. for IDPs in hosting areas, especially those in
temporary shelters, should be prioritised.
Food: Considering the challenges of displaced
families in accessing sufficient food, the BARMM Hand washing and hygiene programmes should
government should revive the food cluster be implemented. This is particularly important
in partnership with FAO, WFP and other key to slow down the spread of COVID-19. These
agencies. Immediate assessment of damaged programmes should take into account the limited
agriculture fields should be conducted and supply of water.

10
The Balik Barangay Programme (Return to Barangay Programme) is a local initiative which seeks to support/facilitate the safe return of
displaced families to their places of origin. It is led by the Provincial government of Sulu through the Municipal Task Force for Ending
Local Armed Conflict (MTF ELAC). MTF ELAC is composed of different line agencies including the AFP, Ministry of Social Services and
Development, Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Management Officer, National Commission on Muslim Filipinos, and others.
11
https://www.unicef.org/philippines/press-releases/vaccineswork-488000-vulnerable-children-basilan-sulu-and-tawi-tawi-receive.

17
 ACRONYMS

AFP Armed Forces of the Philippines MHT Mindanao Humanitarian Team

ARMM Autonomous Region of Muslim MILF Moro Islamic Liberation Front

Mindanao (now BARMM)
MILG Ministry of the Interior and Local
BARMM Bangsamoro Autonomous Region of Government
Muslim Mindanao
MSSD Ministry of Social Services and
BPAT Barangay Peacekeeping Action Teams Development

CCCH Joint Coordinating Committee on the MSSO Municipal Social Service Officer
Cessation of Hostilities
OCD Office of Civil Defence
CERF Central Emergency Response Fund
OCHA United Nations Office for the
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

FGDs Focus Group Discussion OPAPP Office of the Presidential Adviser on the
Peace Process
HCT Humanitarian Country Team
PNP Philippine National Police
IDP Internally Displaced Person
PSA Philippine Statistics Authority
IHP International Humanitarian Law
PWG Profiling Working Group
IMT International Monitoring Team
UN United Nations
IRDT Integrated Resources for Tri-People Inc.
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for
IRP Islamic Relief Philippines
Refugees
JIPS Joint IDP Profiling Service
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
JPST Joint Security Peace Team
WFP World Food Programme
MDRRMO Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction
Management Officer

18 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Armed conflict refers to all cases of declared war or their relatives, friends, and/or by renting a house
armed confrontation that arises between the State or apartment. They do not stay in government
forces and recognised armed groups. The situation established community-based centers or informal
must be within the territory of the State and assumes settlements.
a certain level of intensity; and there has to be a level
of organisation of the parties.12 IDPs living in temporary shelters refers to displaced
families or individuals who live in any shelter that is
Bangsamoro refers to the native or original not used for permanent housing or is provided by
inhabitants of Mindanao and Sulu archipelago and its the government. This includes IDPs living in shanties,
adjacent islands. schools, madrassas and abandoned buildings.

Barangay is a native Filipino term for a village, district Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) are persons or
or ward that refers to the smallest administrative groups of persons who have been forced or obliged
division in the Philippines that most often resembles to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual
a neighbourhood. It is usually represented by a residence, in particular as a result of or in order to
barangay captain. avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of
generalised violence, violations of human rights or
Crime and violence is a situation of generalised natural or human-made disasters, and who have not
violence that does not reach the threshold of armed crossed an internationally recognised State border.15
conflict. This includes internal disturbances and
tensions or other forms of collective violence.13 In the Persons outside the labour force comprise all
case of BARMM, incidences that fall under crime and persons of working age who, during the specified
violence include: incidents involving armed groups reference period, were not in the labour force (that is,
that are not parties to an armed conflict, clan feuds/ were not employed or unemployed).16
rido, incidents linked to development or resource-
based activities, private disputes, and criminal Unemployed persons are defined as all those of
activities. working age who were not in employment, carried
out activities to seek employment during a specified
Employed persons are defined as all persons of recent period and were currently available to take up
working age who, during a short reference period, employment given a job opportunity.17
were engaged in any activity to produce goods or
provide services for pay or profit.14 Working-age population is commonly defined as
persons aged 15 years and older, although the age
Home-based IDPs refers to displaced families limits can vary from country to country.18
or individuals who sought temporary shelter with

12
Geneva Convention 1949, Article 3. For more information, refer to: http://bit.ly/3nVZa6z.
13
International Committee of the Red Cross (2014). The ICRC’s role in situations of violence below the threshold of armed conflict. For more
information, refer to: https://bit.ly/2M2kIRG.
14
For more information, refer to the Resolution concerning statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization; online at:
https://bit.ly/3bODkzp.
15
For more information, refer to the UN Guiding Principle on Internal Displacement; at online at: http://bit.ly/2XRU6FK.
16
For more information, refer to: Resolution concerning statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization.
17
For more information, refer to: Resolution concerning statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization and the indicator
description.
18
For more information, refer to: Resolution concerning statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization.

19
 I A typical Sama Bajau stilt house built along a coastal area
in Mamanok Island, Pandami, Sulu.

20 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT

1. 1.1 DISPLACEMENT CONTEXT

The geographic southern region of the Philippines,

Mindanao, has been suffering from decades of

1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION internal armed conflict, political instability and
disasters such as typhoons and storm surges,
leaving thousands of people living in protracted
displacement.

The armed conflict in Mindanao is rooted in a long

history of resistance by the Bangsamoro people
against foreign rule19 and the Philippines government,
which has been ongoing since the American
colonisation of the Philippines (1898-1946). The
fight for an independent Moro homeland sparked in
the early 1970s under the Moro National Liberation
Front (MNLF). It was only in 1976 that a peace accord
was signed but it was not until the 1990s that the
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
was created. However, later on the conflict between
the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the
MNLF resumed in a series of military operations in
the Sulu Archipelago against the growing islamist
separatist group, the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)20, a
splinter group of the MNLF. Hundreds of thousands
of displacements have been recorded ever since
and many more families are forced to leave their
homes every year. In the period from January 2012
to May 2019 alone, 2,196,026 people were displaced
by the conflict, and a further 595,042 people were
displaced by crime and violence21 cumulatively in
Mindanao.

19
ACAPS (2020). Philippines. Overview. Mindanao Conflict. For
more information, refer to: http://bit.ly/35UkgvE.
20
Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation
(last modified 2018). Mapping Militant Organisations. “Abu
Sayyaf Group”. For more information, refer to: http://stanford.
io/3oY1ICa.
21
UNHCR (2019). Mindanao Displacement Dashboard. For more
information, refer to: https://bit.ly/3sANY2t.

21
 Maluso
Sumisip

Basilan

Patikul

Republic of
Sulu the Philippines

Tawi-Tawi M
 unicipalities in which
the profiling exercise
Bongao was conducted

0 25 50 100 Kilometers

Map 2: Map of the BaSulta provinces of the southern region of the Philippines, Mindanao

To improve the political stablity and to respond to years, have a significant impact on the lives of the
the demands for an autonomous region, in 2014 the people living in the island provinces. Families that
“Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro” live in areas with on-going military operations are
was signed after seventeen years of negotiations either preemptively evacuated, or are leaving their
between the Government of the Philippines and homes in order to escape the conflict. From January
autonomist groups, and as a result the Bangsamoro to December 2019, a total of 73 security incidents
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) were recorded, which resulted in the displacement of
was created in January 2019 under the Republic Act 701,974 individuals23 (143,336 families) in Mindanao.
11054, also known as the Bangsamoro Organic Law22. Of the total figure, 29% (202,274 individuals or
40,625 families) are displaced in the BARMM.
Currently, the BARMM is in a three-year transition Displacement often takes place in remote areas
period (2019 to 2022) with high hopes that the where humanitarian and government agencies
newly established government will foster positive have limited presence.24 As a result, communities in
change including sustainable peace and increased those areas typically do not have regular access to
development in the region. However, significant basic social services, physical and legal protection
challenges remain. The on-going operations of the even prior to the displacement, and in most cases
AFP against armed groups, such as the New People’s sustainable solutions have not been identified.
Army and affiliated groups, the Bangsamoro Islamic
Freedom Fighters and factions, and especially the
Abu Sayyaf Group that gained momentum in recent

22
The full version of the act can be viewed at: http://bit.ly/3nSWXIR.
23
A cumulative figure based on the number of reported displacements monitored by members of the Protection Cluster in the Philippines.
24
Protection Cluster (2019). Protection Cluster: Key issues and challenges. For more information, refer to: https://www.unhcr.org/ph/
protection-cluster.

22 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 1. INTRODUCTION
I A key informant interview in Basilan during the
profiling exercise in November 2019.

At the end of December 2019, the United Nations 1.2 WHY A PROFILING EXERCISE
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported IN THE BaSulTa PROVINCES?
that 6,159 people remained displaced in Basilan
(1,095 individuals, 240 families), Sulu (4,524 The transition period of the BARMM should equally
individuals, 1,004 families) and Tawi-Tawi (540 be seen as an opportunity to better address internal
individuals, 110 families)25. Most IDPs in BaSulTa are displacement in the region and to ensure sustained
home-based (i.e. staying with relatives or friends), intervention for the needs of some of Mindanao’s
which makes it difficult to track their movement, verify poorest and most vulnerable people. Despite the
the total number of IDPs, and monitor their situation. existence of national laws and policies stipulating
the protection and assistance to IDPs, the capacity of
Nevertheless, the protection concerns of IDPs in both the government and the humanitarian actors to
the region have been recognised and the Filipino monitor the situation on the ground is limited not only
Senate approved the Act Protecting the Rights of due to security risks, but also due to limited funding,
Internally Displaced Persons (Senate Bill no. 3317), a resources and challenges to collect and monitor the
bill aiming to address the vulnerabilities of the IDPs in number of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) at the
the Philippines. In addition, in 2019 the Bangsamoro barangay level.
Parliament reported 11 bills and 19 resolutions
focusing on supporting the IDPs and their protection
such as Parliament Bill No. 2326 and Resolution No.
11027.

25
UNHCR (2019). Mindanao Displacement Dashboard. 64. For more information, refer to: https://bit.ly/2LIkgYU.
26
The draft of the bill can be For your information, refer to https://laisaalamia.com/2020/11/02/mp-alamia-files-idp-bill/.
27
Bangsamoro Transition Authority Parliament (2020). “A resolution calling for the creation of a bureau that will focus on promoting the
welfare and addressing the needs, issues, and concerns of the orphans and widows who are victims of war and violence”, Legislative
Documents. For more information, refer to: https://parliament.bangsamoro.gov.ph/resolutions/.

23
Furthermore, displacements in the BaSulTa provinces 1.3 PROFILING OBJECTIVES
are frequent and mostly happen on time-scales AND PROFILING PROCESS
between a few days and a couple of weeks, which
makes monitoring of the displacement situation
difficult. Main Objective

Since a significant majority of the IDPs are home- The overall purpose of the profiling is to obtain
based (i.e. staying with relatives or friends), it makes reliable and comprehensive evidence on the
it difficult to track their movement. An additional situation of the IDPs in the BaSulTa provinces, so that
challenge in Basilan and Sulu are also accessibility the government and the humanitarian agencies can
constraints due to the security situation. In Tawi- use the findings to plan and implement evidence-
Tawi, there is a mixed population of IDPs and based responses tailored to the needs of the
persons at risk of statelessness but actors have displacement affected population. The findings of
limited access to data. Therefore, the needs of IDPs the profiling will also serve as a basis for advocacy
and their vulnerabilities in these provinces need to efforts to mitigate protection risks, raise awareness
be identified so that the government and partner of the impacts of displacement, and promote further
agencies can provide adequate and calibrated assistance.
assistance, basic services, and welfare interventions.

Against this background of lack of comprehensive Specific Objectives

and reliable data on IDPs in the BaSulTa provinces,
the profiling exercise aims to support the young a. Engage directly with displaced communities in the
BARMM government to frame their work in identification of priority needs to ensure relevant
addressing the displacement in the BaSulTa humanitarian and development responses;
provinces through collecting evidence on the
situation. b. Identify the causes of displacement and the future
intentions of the IDPs;

c. Provide a snapshot of the protection conditions of

the displaced population;

d. Identify specific needs and vulnerabilities of

the displaced population in terms of ensuring
their livelihoods, adequate standard of living
and access to services e.g. food security, water,
sanitation and hygiene (WASH), education, health,
housing, land and property issues.

PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

PROFILING PROCESS AND
PROFILING WORKING GROUP
To coordinate the exercise, a Profiling Working collaboratively to shape the structure of the profiling

1. INTRODUCTION
Group was established in October 2019 under exercise and to manage its practical implementation
the leadership of UNHCR, the Ministry of Social by providing feedback, advice, and sectoral
Services and Development and the Ministry of expertise at key steps of the process. The PWG was
the Interior and Local Government. The Profiling coordinated and chaired by UNHCR staff designated
Working Group is composed of representatives of to take charge of coordinating the group (see
these ministries, a profiling task force of UNHCR, Annex I). From the PWG, a smaller technical working
government representatives of each island province group was also formed to work together at specific
on barangay, municipality and provincial level, NGOs stages providing technical knowledge and practical
and civil society organisations and UN agencies (see experience in the finalisation of the methodology,
Annex I). The Joint IDP Profiling Service supported tools, and other technical aspects of the exercise
the exercise throughout. The group worked supported by JIPS.

Fig. 1: The profiling process of the BaSulTa profiling exercise

BILATERAL MEETINGS BARMM–WIDE CONSULTATIONS JIPS MISSION TO PHILIPPINES

With key BARMM With the different key stakeholders, including To formalise the collaborative process,
government agencies Provincial Governments, CSO Partners and validate the profiling objectives
to conceptualise the members of the Mindanao Humanitarian Team to with key partners, and finalise the
profiling. agree on the modality and scope of the profiling. methodology of the profiling.

DATA COLLECTION ESTABLISHING THE PWG AND TWG

Data collection in the BaSulTa Establishment of Profiling and Technical Working Group to shape the structure
provinces including a training of the profiling exercise as well as to manage its practical implementation by
workshop for enumerators. providing feedback, advice, and sectoral expertise in key steps in the process.

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND VALIDATION FINALISATION OF THE PROFILING REPORT AND

DISSEMINATION TO THE BARMM AUTHORITIES
Data cleaning and processing and a preliminary analysis based
on which findings were validated with members of the PWG and Secondment of consultant, designer and editor.
with local communities through FGDs and KIIs. A training on Joint Production of the final report. Handover of the final
Analysis was conducted for the TWG to support this process. report to BARMM authorities.

25
 I One of the sources of water in Bongao, Tawi-Tawi where Sama Bajau girls
fetch water used for drinking and household chores.

26 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT

2. 2.1 ANALYTICAL APPROACH

2. PROFILING METHODOLOGY
The analytical approach and methodology was
developed through joint sessions with the Profiling

PROFILING Working Group. The profiling aimed at analysing

the situation of IDPs in Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi

METHODOLOGY through a variety of topics:

DISPLACEMENT CONTEXT

Examining the history of displacement was important

to bring evidence to the dynamics and causes of
internal displacement in the provinces of BaSulTa. In
order to identify the effects of displacement on the
families’ needs and livelihoods, the following analysis
shows their place of origin, patterns of movement
and causes of displacement, as well as the purpose,
frequency and obstacles to visiting their places of
habitual residence. This information will serve as a
base for advocacy and programming on behalf of
IDPs so that NGOs, UN agencies and the BARMM
ministries can make informed decisions.

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

This section describes the basic demographics of the

IDPs in each island. Key characteristics of the target
population such as age, sex, ethnicity, marital status
and family structure are provided. A demographic
overview is useful in understanding the vulnerabilities
of IDPs. It may also serve as a baseline for further
data collection and/or for planning of humanitarian
responses to be implemented either by government
actors or humanitarian agencies.

ACCESS TO DOCUMENTATION

The loss of birth certificates or personal identification

can have a detrimental impact on the safety and
security of the IDPs and their access to services.
A birth certificate is the primary requirement for
accessing government programmes such as 4Ps
(Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Programme)28, for
enrolling and graduating from school, and for

28
The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Programme (English: Bridging
Programme for the Filipino Family), also known as 4Ps and
formerly Bangon Pamilyang Pilipino, is a conditional cash
transfer programme of the Philippine government under the
Department of Social Welfare and Development. It aims to
eradicate extreme poverty in the Philippines by investing
in health and education particularly in ages 0–14. For more
information about the 4Ps, refer to https://bit.ly/3pkO3VW.

27
 STANDARD OF LIVING AND ACCESS TO SERVICES
accessing other government services. Moreover,
re-gaining a birth certificate through local civil This section provides an overview of the living
registry offices implies costs that can be difficult to conditions of the IDPs in terms of availability,
be met by families, who are already struggling by accessibility and sufficiency of the basic services.
the adverse effects of displacement. In addition, the In particular, the section examines the access and
loss of a birth certificate poses an immediate risk of sufficiency/adequacy/availability of water, sanitation
statelessness, an especially serious concern for the and hygiene, health care, education and food. In
ethnic group of the Sama-Bajaus. Hence, the analysis addition, the analysis provides an indication as to
examines the access to documentation to evaluate how displaced families cope with their situation and
the risks for displaced families of not being able to what barriers they face in accessing services. For
access services or facing security risks or a risk of example, not sending their kids to school so that the
statelessness. kids could help with the family income or limiting food
portions showcase negative coping mechanisms of
a distressed family. Overall, the information provided
SAFETY, SECURITY AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
will contribute to drawing a more comprehensive
Incidents and perceptions of safety and security picture of the current conditions and vulnerabilities of
are key criteria to indicate protection concerns displaced families.
and to build evidence around security conditions
in the communities where displaced families live.
HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY
The analysis examines as to what degree the target
population faces such incidents or feels unsafe. It This section provides insight into land and house
also examines if there are differences in the extent ownership of displaced families at their place of
to which such incidents are being reported to the habitual residence, whether they are in possession
relevant authorities as an indication of access to of proof of ownership and if there are third party
protection mechanisms and trust in the authorities. claims, and if their houses are damaged. This
will serve as advocacy on behalf of IDPs for the
adequate restoration and compensation of destroyed
EMPLOYMENT AND LIVELIHOODS
or damaged structures, or land lost due to the
Access to employment and livelihoods is a key displacement.
criterion for displaced families to fulfil their basic
socio-economic needs and sustain a functional
FUTURE INTENTIONS
household. Since IDPs in the BaSulTa islands are
mostly displaced within a small radius (e.g. within An analysis of future preferences and plans is key to
Barangays), the outcome of the analysis related understanding the settlement preferences of IDPs
to employment gives a basic understanding of and the main obstacles for pursuing them. Since the
whether IDPs can access the labor market and find displacement in the BaSulTa islands is happening
a job despite their displacement. This section also on a small spatial scale, it is key to understand if
looks into the impact the displacement had on the families aim to go back to their nearby homes, or if
employment of IDPs as well as their livelihoods. other intentions exist that may not yet be known -
In addition, it also looks into the access of IDPs for example, to stay in the location where they are
to assistance programmes and examines if IDPs displaced or move somewhere else different from
are using limited coping mechanisms for daily their place of origin. In combination with findings
subsistence such as depleting their savings or taking about their needs, as well as access and barriers to
loans to cover basic needs. services, the future intentions of displaced families in
terms of preferred settlement will be crucial to inform
a response that will take into account these needs
and intentions.

28 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 2.2 TARGET POPULATIONS conflict or natural disasters, 2. hosting IDPs, and 3.
AND GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE municipalities with protracted cases of displacement.

2. PROFILING METHODOLOGY
Following the definition in the Guiding Principles on
Internal Displacement,29 Internally Displaced Persons 2.3 DATA COLLECTION METHODS
(IDPs) are understood to be “persons or groups of
persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or
to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, Quantitative data collection
in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the
effects of armed conflict, situations of generalised The quantitative data collection comprised a
violence, violations of human rights or natural or household level survey (see Annex II) with a sample
human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an of the target population per population group
internationally recognised State border”. and per province. A total of 1,987 families (7,879
individuals) were reached of which the final sample
included 1,653 families (7,692 individuals).
THE PROFILING EXERCISE COLLECTED
PRIMARY DATA FROM THE FOLLOWING The data collection was conducted by a team of 26
POPULATION GROUPS: enumerators using Kobo Toolbox30 from November
to December 2019 through face-to-face interviews
 Internally Displaced Persons living in temporary
with the head of the family, the spouse or the oldest
shelters (evacuation centers) - IDPs living in any
dependent, depending who was present at the time
shelter that is not used for permanent housing
of the interview to be able to respond on behalft of
such as shanties, school, madrasah, or other old
the household. The questionnaire used as a base
buildings or any shelter that is provided by the
the Interagency Durable Solutions indicator library31
government.
and was developed jointly with the PWG and in
Internally Displaced Persons living with hosts, consultations with experts in order to identify locally

so-called ‘home-based’ - IDPs living either with relevant questions. It is composed of ten sections
relatives, friends or by renting a house or an which cover basic demographics, displacement
apartment. history, safety, security and freedom of movement,
employment and livelihoods, food security, water,
sanitation & hygiene (WASH), health, education,
Official IDP lists from the Municipal Social Service housing, land and property and future preferences
Officer and Municipal Disaster Risks Reduction and intentions.
Management Officer were used to identify the
target geographical areas. In addition, the following 30
A kobo tool is a free open-source tool for mobile data
criteria of selection of target municipalities and collection, available to all. It allows one to collect data in the
barangays were applied: 1. affected by the armed field using mobile devices such as mobile phones or tablets, as
well as with paper or computers. For more information, refer to:
https://kf.kobotoolbox.org/.
31
For more information, refer to: https://inform-durablesolutions-
29
For more information, refer to: https://bit.ly/35RsR2k. idp.org/indicators-2/.

The following
BASILAN PROVINCE SULU TAWI –TAWI
municipalities and
barangays were MALUSO MUNICIPALITY PATIKUL MUNICIPALITY BONGAO MUNICIPALITY
included in the - Muslim Area - Anuling - Lamion
profiling exercise: - Bangkal - Simandagit
SUMISIP MUNICIPALITY - Kan-Ague - Tubig Tanah
- Baiwas - Latih
- Benembengan

29
 Maluso
Sumisip

Basilan
Patikul 381 displaced home-based families
1,996 home-based IDPs
Tawi-Tawi
103 displaced home-based families
626 home-based IDPs
29 displaced families in temporary shelters
Sulu
168 IDPs in temporary shelters
710 displaced home-based families
3,047 home-based IDPs
430 displaced families in temporary shelters
1,855 IDPs in temporary shelters
Bongao

0 25 50 100 Kilometers

Map 2: Number of IDPs and displaced families included in the data collection per province and municipality

Since no reliable baseline data were available, Map 2 above shows the total number of interviewed
IDP lists per province provided by the Municipal households and the total number of surveyed IDPs
Social Service Officer (MSSO) and the Municipal per province and by IDP population group.
Disaster Risks Reduction Management Officer
(MDRRMO) were utilised. Based on the lists, first the
municipalities hosting IDPs were identified and the Home-based IDPs in Basilan
initially provided numbers of IDPs based on these
lists were probed by the Profiling Working Group Given that the total number of displaced families
during a workshop in October 2019. As challenges in some of the municipalities is not available, the
exist to update and maintain a functional database total number of IDPs in the province is unknown.
of the IDPs which can be used as a basis for profiling In addition, discrepancies exist between the initial
or other data collection activities, a verified list could population estimates provided by the government
only be obtained for a small number of targeted and the verified numbers on the day of the data
municipalities and barangays. The actual number collection. Hence, the data cannot be considered
of IDPs in each of these targeted barangays could representative on a provincial level. Therefore,
only be verified on the day of the data collection with the findings cannot be extrapolated to the overall
the barangay officials. The strategy then followed situation of IDPs in the province of Basilan and
a full-count/snowballing approach, aiming to reach can only serve for analysis of the situation of the
as many IDPs as possible in the locations in each surveyed IDPs. Table 1 provides figures of the initial
province where lists were available and could be population estimates,the actual verified numbers of
verified. As a consequence, not all municipalities/ IDPs and the actual number of interviewed families
barangays hosting IDPs were included in the survey. per barangay.

30 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

Table 1: No. of profiled displaced population in Basilan province

Initial estimate of Displaced families Number of

2. PROFILING METHODOLOGY
City/ displaced families based estimates verified during Total target interviewed families
municipality Barangay on government lists the data collection sample Non-response (sample size)
Maluso Calang Canas N/A 68 5 63
Maluso Muslim Area 99 22 7 15
Sumisip Baiwas 139 137 42 95
300
Sumisip Benembengan Lower 299 1 - 1
Sumisip Benembengan Upper N/A 221 18 203
Sumisip Cabengbeng Upper N/A 4 - 4
Total 300 537 453 72 381

Home-based and Temporary through the snowballing approach as opposed to the

Shelter IDPs in Patikul, Sulu initial number provided in the official government list
(see table 2). Given the use of convenience sampling,
Given security constraints in Sulu, data collection the probability of selection of the respondents is not
could only be conducted in the municipality of known, therefore it is not guaranteed that they are
Patikul. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalised representative of the total IDPs in Patikul and the
for the whole province of Sulu. In addition, a higher results could only be used for analysing the situation
number of displaced families were interviewed of the surveyed IDPs.

Table 2: No. of profiled population in Sulu province

Number of Number of
Initial estimate of Displaced families Total interviewed interviewed (sample
City/ displaced families based estimates verified during target Non- (sample size): size): Temporary
municipality Barangay on government lists the data collection sample response Home-based shelters
Patikul Anuling 185 113 10 59 44
Patikul Bangkal 523 522 1 363 159
Patikul Buhanginan N/A 24 8 6 10
Patikul Bungkaung N/A 30 3 22 5
Patikul Danag N/A 17 6 5 6
Patikul Kabbon Takas N/A 7 6 0 1
Kadday
Patikul 1000 N/A 1 0 0 1
Mampallam
Patikul Kan Ague 248 241 63 56 122
Patikul Kaunayan N/A 4 0 1 3
Patikul Latih 430 260 3 181 76
Patikul Maligay N/A 19 6 11 2
Patikul Patikul Higad N/A 1 0 1 0
Patikul Tugas N/A 6 0 5 1
Total 1000 1386 190 710 430

31
 Table 3: No. of profiled population in Tawi-Tawi province

City/ Initial estimate of Displaced families Total Number of Number of interviewed

Non-
munici- Barangay displaced families based estimates verified during target interviewed (sample (sample size):
response
pality on government lists the data collection sample size): Home-based Temporary shelters
Bongao Lamion 63 63 16 42 5
Bongao Simandagit 300 28 28 1 24 3
Bongao Tubig Tanah 68 68 10 37 21
Total 300 159 159 29 103 29

Home-based and Temporary

Shelter IDPs in Tawi-Tawi
Given travel costs and restrictions, the data collection The validation exercises were conducted in the
was limited to the municipality of Bongao. As a result, municipality of Patikul in Sulu province, Sumisip in
the findings of the profiling cannot be generalised Basilan province, and Bongao in Tawi-Tawi province
for all IDPs in the island province of Tawi-Tawi. In with a total of 41 participants - 10-15 participants in
addition, given the discrepancy between the initial each province, with women, men, youth, and people
population estimate based on the official government with special needs (see table 4). With the increasing
list and the verified numbers of displaced families threat of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number
during the data collection, the probability of selection of participants were reduced to comply with the
of the respondents is not known (see table 3). guidelines and protocols under the modified general
Therefore, it is not guaranteed that the findings are community quarantine.32 Community quarantine
representative of the total IDPs in Bongao and can guidelines and protocols were observed during the
only serve for the analysis of the situation of the activity such as wearing of face masks, one-meter
surveyed IDPs. distancing, hand sanitising and other precautionary
measures. A basic orientation on the Guiding
Principles of Internal Displacement was also provided
Qualitative data collection to the participants to create an understanding of the
The qualitative data collection consisted of focus rights of IDPs. A contextualised presentation was also
group discussions to validate the preliminary results conducted in order to set the tone of the discussion.
from the household survey with members of the
displaced communities in each of the provinces (see
Table 4: No. of participants Participants in the FGDs and the
Annex III). Representatives of the Local Government
survey of the PWG per province
Units as members of the PWG were also invited
to those meetings in order to receive their input
as well on critical issues found in the household FGDs (IDPs and Local
Province PWG survey
Government Unit members)
survey results. Bringing together members of the
displaced community with representatives of the Sulu 11 4
local government was also meant to provide a forum Basilan 15 7
for dialogue between both groups. The FGDs were
Tawi-Tawi 15 7
conducted through IRDT as the local implementing
partner organisation. Total 71 27

32
For more information about the resolutions concerning the
Covid19 restrictions, please refer to: https://bit.ly/3szpaIh.

32 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 2. PROFILING METHODOLOGY
I Ms. Jobelle Malcampo, Provincial Coordinator from IRDT, presents the preliminary findings of the profiling exercise on
internal displacement on 21 July 2020 held in Basilan province. The session was attended by 19 individuals from different
sectors (Barangay Local Government Unit, Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office and Provincial
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office) and men, women, persons with specific needs and youth sectors.

In Sulu, a workshop composed of two groups of

2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE
participants was conducted where the participants
pointed out challenges and expressed concerns
PROFILING EXERCISE
related to displacement based on their experiences
General limitations
and/or what they have witnessed. Each group’s
outputs were presented and consensus on the
In the context of an on-going conflict in Basilan
challenges and the findings was reached. For
and Sulu, as well as the remoteness of the island
Basilan and Tawi-Tawi, the preliminary findings from
provinces, the team had to overcome several
the household survey were presented and guiding
challenges in terms of security risks and logistics. The
questions were asked to the participants based on
main concern was to not expose the enumerators
these findings. Follow-up questions were also raised
to any security risks while still trying to survey
to clarify the inputs from the participants.
a sufficient number of IDPs in order to have a
The results of the household survey were also meaningful analysis of their situation. The household
complemented by a semi-qualitative survey with survey data collection was done with mobile devices
members of the PWG to receive feedback on the using KOBO, except for the island province of
findings and to develop recommendations (see Sulu, where, due to security risks, a paper-based
Annex III). questionnaire was used and was later digitised into
KoBo Toolbox, from which the final dataset was
derived.

33
 Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic The analysis was done separately for each province
given the differences in circumstances and causes of
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the displacement (i.e. conflict-related displacement in
February 2020 made the logistics for conducting Basilan and Sulu while displacement in Tawi-Tawi was
the qualitative element of the profiling exercise due to natural disasters) in the provinces. In addition,
challenging. Workshops and capacity building the sample selection was specific for each province
activities had to be adapted to an online version, the which does not allow for a comparative analysis
FGDs had to be postponed and certain measures across the provinces (for more details see the
accounted for to respect the imposed COVID-19 subsection on quantitative data collection). Hence,
related regulations. Additionally a joint analysis no inference or generalisation about the overall
workshop had to be cancelled, and was substituted displaced population on BaSulTa level is possible.
by a survey asking for the feedback and input form
the PWG. These circumstances ultimately led to a
delay in the overall profiling process. Families with multiple family heads

During the data collection, enumerators encountered

Limitations to the data collection
households with multiple family heads33 who were
Limitations of the sampling approach interviewed. Since this particular population group
was not targeted in the design of the profiling
The profiling only covered IDPs in certain exercise, they were not accounted for properly in
municipalities with population estimates that were the sample selection. Therefore the results from the
validated by the Municipal Social Service Officer survey are not representative for this group among
(MSSO) and Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction the overall number of respondents surveyed and
Management Officer (MDRRMO). During the initial could not be meaningfully analysed, thus they were
consultations with the MSSO and the MDRRMO at excluded from the analysis.
provincial level, it was clarified that the enumerators
would only verify these initial estimates and would
not be doing a full enumeration of IDPs in each Answer options “Non-response,” “Don’t
province. Therefore the profiling did not cover the know,” “Other” and “Refused to answer”
total number of IDPs per island.
In cases wherein any of the above-mentioned four
Given time and resource constraints, it was not answer options consisted of a small proportion of
possible to collect data on the non-displaced the total number of respondents (mostly below five
population, thus a comparison between IDPs and the percent) and did not impact the analysis, said answer
host population to distinguish displacement-related option was excluded from the visualisation and the
and common vulnerabilities is not possible. analysis.

In addition, no overall population estimates or lists However, in several thematic areas the answer option
could be obtained for the home-based displaced “other” was of significant proportion. Nevertheless,
families, while population estimates for the displaced as it could not be elaborated what “other” entails
families living in temporary shelters could only be exactly, no inference was possible. In such cases, the
obtained in some areas. As a result, the probability of respective proportion is described in a footnote, but
selection of the respondents is not known. Therefore, is excluded from the interpretation of the results.
the findings can not be considered representative.
Hence, extrapolating the findings to all IDPs in each
of the three island provinces is impossible and the
findings can only serve as an indication of the living
conditions of all IDPs in the island provinces.

33
In the Philippines, especially in the BARMM, it is a common phenomenon that one household is composed of multiple families with
different sources of livelihood.

34 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 2. PROFILING METHODOLOGY
I An interview with a key informant in the province of Sulu.

Translation The majority of the IDPs in Patikul, Sulu who returned

had been living in evacuation centres in the Barangay
The survey was designed in English and enumerators Latih. The main reason why IDPs returned was an
translated the questions on the spot during the improvement in the security conditions in their
household survey and the Focus Group Discussions places of habitual residence established through
into the languages spoken in the region. Although a safety assessment of the areas by the Barangay
enumerators were trained on the meaning of the Local Government Unit, Municipal Local Government
terms and language used in the survey, challenges Unit and security sectors. However, an assessment
were encountered in the conduct of the survey. As conducted by the municipal local government units
a result, a few variables contained erroneous data of Patikul found that as of 17 July 2020, at least 1,078
or could not be interpreted and thus were excluded families still remained displaced, most of whom are
from the analysis. home-based IDPs.

Considerations for the report

IDPs who have returned

In the first months of 2020 some surveyed displaced

families in Sulu and all surveyed displaced families
in Tawi-Tawi returned to their place of habitual
residence.

35
 I M
 otorized boats serve as means of transportation from Pandami to Siasi
in Sulu. These also serve as livelihood for some men in the community.

36 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT

3. 3.1 DISPLACEMENT CONTEXT

Most IDPs surveyed in Basilan were displaced most

3. HOME-BASED IDPs IN BASILAN

recently in 2017 or 2019 due to crime and violence,

HOME-BASED or armed conflict between the Armed Forces of the

Philippines and the Abu Sayyaf Group (63%). All IDPs

IDPs IN BASILAN were displaced to areas within the same municipality

as their place of habitual residence and in most
cases even within the same barangay. Ongoing
conflict was the main reason why people cannot visit
Basilan is made up of the main island of or return to their place of habitual residence.
Basilan, as well as nearby offshore islands and
several small island groups. The province is the
northernmost of the major islands in the Sulu Causes and patterns of
archipelago and comprises 11 municipalities recent displacements
organised into 210 barangays.
The majority of IDPs surveyed were displaced most
There are three major ethno-linguistic groups recently in 2013 (15%), 2017 (17%) or 2019 (46%) (see
in Basilan: Tausug, Yakan, and Zamboangueño Fig. 2). AFP operations against the Abu Sayyaf Group
Chavacano. Tausugs and Yakans are account for the majority of displacements in Basilan
predominantly Muslim while Zamboangueño between 2017 and 2019 (54% or 23,000 IDPs)35.
Chavacanos are primarily Christian.

Fig. 2: Year of most recent displacement

The population in Basilan is mainly living in rural
areas with a predominantly agricultural economy 50%
(33% urban; 67% rural) including crops, livestock 46%
and fishing/aquaculture. There are more than 40%

25,000 farms in the province, the majority of

30%
which are planted with permanent crops.34
Though the situation in Basilan is relatively calm
20%
and under control, military operations against 15% 17%
10% 8%
the Abu Sayyaf Group and other armed groups 10%
continue. 1% 2% 1%

2001 2002 2008 2009 2013 2016 2017 2019

Following the initial displacement, families were

allowed to visit their homes briefly to gather
some belongings but had to go back to their host
communities immediately afterwards. Ongoing
operations have prevented most IDPs from visiting
their homes later on, and led to prolonged periods
of displacement. Despite government efforts to
declare some barangays safe for return, FGDs
participants noted that IDPs prefer to wait until the
conflict officially ends before returning.

34
For more information, refer to: https://psa.gov.ph/content/ 35
Based on information provided by the Protection Cluster in
basilan-quickstat-january-2018. November 2020.

37
 Maluso
Sumisip

0 10 20 Kilometers

Map 3: Surveyed municipalities in Maluso and Sumisip in Basilan province

All of the displaced families surveyed in Basilan Family and clan feuds represent another reason
stated they were displaced by crime and violence36 for displacement in Basilan, resulting in casualties,
(76%) or armed conflict37 (24%). Continuous insecurity property damage and some displacement. There
was the main reason why people cannot return. were also risks of kidnapping and potential bombing
by armed groups in the province.38
It was further noted that in March and December
2017, flooding in Lamitan City triggered the All 381 families surveyed in Basilan were displaced
displacement of approximately 15,300 people. within the same municipality as their place of
The scale of the flooding in March prompted city habitual residence. As can be seen in Fig. 3, most of
authorities to declare a state of calamity. FGDs the 303 displaced families in Sumisip were displaced
participants confirmed that military operations and within the same barangay (Benembengan Upper and
flooding have been the main causes of displacement Baiwas). Of the 76 families displaced from the Muslim
since 2017. Area in Maluso municipality (Fig. 4), some stayed in
Muslim Area, however, most moved to the nearby
barangay of Calang Canas.

36
In the case of BARMM, incidences that fall under crime and violence are: incidents involving armed groups that are not parties to an
armed conflict, clan feuds/rido, incidents linked to development or resource-based activities, private disputes or criminal activities.
37
In Mindanao, incidences that fall under the armed conflict definition include:
1. AFP versus the Moro National Liberation Front
2. AFP versus New People’s Army (NPA)
3. AFP vs. armed militia units (NPA-affiliated “mass base”)
4. Paramilitary groups vs. NPA
5. Paramilitary groups vs. armed militia
6. AFP vs. BIFF and its factions (e.g. JMWA)
7. Incidents involving the Abu Sayyaf Group.
38
Based on the result of the UNHCR Security and Coordination Assessment in Basilan, October 2020.

38 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

Visits to place of habitual residence Of the 321 families who have not visited their place
of habitual residence, the main reasons for this
Most families (84%) have not visited their place of reflect the initial causes of displacement including

3. HOME-BASED IDPs IN BASILAN

habitual residence since their displacement. There restrictions on access imposed by the military
were no frequent visits, e.g. more than once a month. (60%) and security risks (40%). During the FGDs,
IDPs mentioned that roads to their places of habitual
Of the 60 families who have visited their place of residence still remained blocked by checkpoints
habitual residence since the displacement, the main and martial law was still in place in the areas of
reason for visiting was to check on their property displacement. Although these restrictions represent
(65%), to farm their land (33%), or to see family or a major barrier to access their farmlands, IDPs
friends (2%). mentioned that they follow the military regulations.

Fig.3: Number of surveyed families in Barangays pre- and post displacement. The visual indicates that most famlies stayed
within their Barangay after they have been displaced

208 Benembengan Upper Benembengan Upper 203

1 Benembengan Lower Cabengbeng Upper 4

1 Cabengbeng Upper Benembengan Lower 1

93 Baiwas Baiwas 95

Fig.4: Number of surveyed families in Barangays pre- and post displacement. The visual indicates that most famlies stayed
within their Barangay after they have been displaced

76 Muslim Area Calang Canas 63

Muslim Area 15
1 Calang Canas
1 Port Holland Zone V

39
 Fig. 5: Frequency of visits to place of habitual residence Figure 6: Age and gender distribution of profiled
among home-based displaced families home-based displaced population in Basilan province

Never 84% Women (50%) Men (50%)

Less than once a month 7% 2% 65+ 3%

Once a month 8% 2% 60-64 3%

3% 55-59 2%
Once a week 1%
3% 50-54 3%
4% 45-49 4%
4% 40-44 4%
FGDs participants expressed their concerns that if 5% 35-39 5%
they ignored the military restrictions and visited their 6% 30-34 7%
place of habitual residence without authorisation, 9% 25-29 8%
their barangay officials would be reprimanded, or 9% 20-24 10%
they would risk being shot or caught in a firefight. 12% 15-19 12%
14% 10-14 13%
14% 5-9 15%
3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 13% 0-4 12%

Marital status and family size

Gender, age and ethnicity
Most of the surveyed IDPs aged 18 years40 and older
All of the 381 home-based displaced families were married (65%), while a bit more than one-
surveyed (1,996 individuals), were based in the quarter were single (27%). The majority of families
municipalities of Sumisip (303 families) and Maluso surveyed were male-headed (80%) reflecting the
(78 families). The demographic profile shows prevailing male-dominant social structures in
an equal gender distribution (see Fig. 6), which Basilan especially in Muslim communities.
resembles the demographic profile of the general
population in Basilan (50% women and 50% men).39 The heads of displaced families were predominantly
married (74%), while 25% of families were single-
The majority of the surveyed population was under headed, mostly widowed (18%) and a few unmarried
20 years of age (53% of women and 52% of men). (4%) or separated (3%). The low-proportion of
The average age was 23 years for both female and unmarried heads of families reflects the prevailing
male IDPs, and the largest age bracket was children social norms in Basilan in which people typically
aged 5 to 9 years old. The age distribution for male marry before having children. The majority of single-
IDPs was similar to that of female IDPs with the headed families were female-headed (56%).
exception of people over 60 years old with a higher
proportion of male IDPs. The family size ranged from one person to 13
members. The average family size was 5.2 persons,
The majority of surveyed home-based displaced which is slightly lower than the overall family size of
families in Basilan belonged to the Yakan 5.8 members for Basilan.41
ethnolinguistic group (89%); the remaining 11% were
Tausug. Yakans represent the largest ethnic group
among the wider population in Basilan. Most Yakans
are Muslim, and they are considered one of the 13
Moro groups of Mindanao.

40
18 years is the youngest age at which someone can get
married with the permission of their parents, 21 years old is
the official legal age. For more information, refer to https://
www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1987/07/06/executive-order-no-
39
Refer to: https://psa.gov.ph/content/basilan-quickstat- 209-s-1987/.
january-2018. 41
Refer to: http://bit.ly/38T9eZG.

40 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

Fig. 7: Marital status of family heads
already has enacted the Muslim Mindanao Act
Currently Total 75% 293, which established free birth registration in
Women 7%
married Men 93% BARMM.43 The law stipulates that the fees for birth

3. HOME-BASED IDPs IN BASILAN

registration should be covered by the municipal local
Total 18%
Widowed Women 68%
government units. Several municipalities implement
Men 32% Act 293 and have agreed to waive the fees, however,
Single for most municipalities issuing birth certificates is an
Total 4%
(never Women 20% important source of revenue.
married) Men 80%

Total 3%
Separated Women 38% 3.4 SAFETY, SECURITY AND
Men 62%
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
Total Women Men
The majority of IDPs in Basilan reported that they did
not have any security concerns. The most commonly
Relationship with host families reported security concern respondents experienced
and housing arrangements was related to a lack of communication from
government entities. A common concern among IDPs
The majority of displaced families were hosted was that they would wrongly be suspected of being
for free by their relatives or friends (99%). Only affiliated with an armed group. Government plans for
a very small proportion of the surveyed displaced the protection of displaced families were not widely
families in Basilan paid rent (0.26%). During the FGDs, disseminated or understood among IDPs.
respondents explained that living with relatives
was preferable to staying in cramped transition or More than half of the respondents (58%), stated
evacuation sites, where facilities were often lacking. that they did not have any security concerns
Displaced families also mentioned feeling at home where they were hosted. (Fig. 8) Approximately a
when staying with relatives, unlike evacuation quarter (24%) of respondents mentioned that their
centres that are mostly set up in open fields or primary concern was the lack of communication
schools. between government officials and the communities
on issues of safety and security. This includes
information on when areas are assessed safe for
3.3 ACCESS TO DOCUMENTATION people to return, as well as early warning systems
for natural hazards and conflicts. A further 10% of
About a quarter of surveyed IDPs did not have a respondents expressed concerns about the lack
birth certificate (23%). However, FGDs participants of adequate communication between IDPs and
recognised the importance of having an official emergency support services such as paramedics and
identification document (such as a barangay firefighters. The remaining 8% indicated various other
community tax certificate or cedula) for protection security concerns, including the presence of armed
purposes, and to confirm that they are members of groups, destruction of civilian properties without
a given community. In addition, a birth certificate is compensation, and fear of possible retaliation by
the primary requirement for accessing government conflicting parties.
programmes such as 4Ps (Pantawid Pamilyang
Pilipino Programme),42 for enrolling and graduating More than half of the displaced families (54%) have
from school, and for accessing other government not experienced any serious security incidents
services. As a result, the lack of a birth certificate since their displacement. (Fig. 9) About one fifth
for some IDPs is a barrier for accessing these (19%) of families reported the armed conflict as the
services. Obtaining a birth certificate, though, gravest security incident experienced, followed by
involves a fee which could pose an additional 16% who were affected by the murder of a person
barrier for some families. The BARMM government among their acquaintances.

42
For more information about the 4Ps, refer to https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/programs/conditional-cash-transfer/.
43
For more information, refer to: https://lawphil.net/administ/mmaa/7a/pdf/mmaa_293_7a.pdf.

41
 Figure 8: Primary security concerns of home-based families Figure. 9: Gravest security incident experienced
by home-based families

No security concerns 58% No security incident 54%

Lack of communication Armed conflict 19%
with security officials 24%
Lack of communication between family Murder 16%
members and/ or emergency services 10%
Presence of state and/ or Petty crime 3%
3%
non-state actors
Refused to answer 3%
Destruction of civilian properties 2%
Other 2%
Killing, torture and maiming of civilians 1%
Don’t know 2%
Bombardment 1%
Drug-related crime 1%
Clan feud 1% Land disputes 1%
Other 1% Sexual abuse/ harassment 1%

Of those who had experienced a security incident, 63% of displaced families reported feeling very safe
84% reported it to the authorities. Only six or fairly safe walking around their neighbourhoods
respondents (3%) did not report an incident they had during daytime. The remaining 36% reported feeling
experienced. In all cases, the authority they reported ‘a bit unsafe’ or ‘very unsafe’. FGDs participants
it to was the Barangay Peacekeeping Action Team mentioned that a primary reason for feeling unsafe
(BPAT).44 During the FGDs, IDPs explained that they was the concern that the military would wrongly
feel it more comfortable reporting incidents to the suspect them of being members of the Abu Sayyaf
Barangay Peacekeeping Action Team, since they Group.
are composed of known community members.
Participants were concerned about reporting
incidents to government or security authorities as 3.5 EMPLOYMENT AND
they fear they would wrongly be suspected of being LIVELIHOODS
associated with the Abu Sayyaf Group.
The labour force participation rate among IDPs
Furthermore, FGDs participants noted that in Basilan appeared to be higher than the overall
government plans for the protection of displaced labour force participation rate in the BARMM. The
families were not widely disseminated or findings suggest that youth (15-24 years) face
understood. Displaced families have not been given additional barriers to participate in the labour force
information about military operations, or predictions as opposed to adult IDPs. There was also a notable
of how long they will have to stay in displacement. gender disparity, with more men in the labour force
This is in-line with the findings on future intentions, than women, reflecting cultural norms in the area.
which indicate that families were lacking information
about government plans.

Figure 10: Perception of safety by walking in the

neighbourhood during daytime

23% 40% 34% 2%

Very safe Fairly safe Bit unsafe Very unsafe

44
Pursuant to the authority of the National Peace and Order Council and the Philippine National Police, the Barangay Peacekeeping Action
Team was created as the primary operators to conduct a community-oriented policing and public safety system.

42 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

EMPLOYMENT45 There was a notable gender imbalance in labour
force participation. The labour force participation rate
Labour force participation of men (56%) was 12% higher than that of women

3. HOME-BASED IDPs IN BASILAN

(44%). An even more pronounced gendered labour
Of the 1,996 IDPs surveyed in Basilan, 60% were pattern was present for the general population
of working age (15 years or older).46 Among of BARMM, with 73% of men in the labour force
those of working age, 52% were in the labour compared with 27% of women in 2018.50 According
force47 of whom 51% were employed and 1% were to cultural norms in Basilan, men typically adopt
unemployed,48 while 26% were outside the labour the breadwinner role in the family while women
force. The labour force participation rate among IDPs are more likely to conduct work without pay, mainly
in Basilan corresponds to the overall labour force housework, thus being outside the labour force.
participation rate of 53% in BARMM (15 years and These findings suggest that the main challenges
over).49 women face may stem more from the prevailing
culture and economic situation rather than the
The youth (15-24 years old) labour force participation displacement.
rate was 40%, which is lower than the overall labour
force participation rate of 52%, indicating that
displaced youth might face additional barriers to
becoming economically active.

Fig. 11: Labour force status of IDPs by gender

Outside the labour force Employed

Working age population 15+ years*

62% 26% 38% 44% 51% 56%

50% 60% 50% In the labour force Unemployed

44% 52% 56% 1%

Women * 17 % of respondents chose 'other',

Men which is not included in this chart.

45
A significant proportion of respondents (17%) responded “other” when asked about their current work status. As no further clarification is
available, “other”could mean a type of work for pay or profit that was not directly corresponding to the provided answer options, which
would classify the respondents as employed thus impacting the employment rate. However, it could equally mean a type of work that is
not paid or any other type of activity that falls outside of employment and would thus classify these respondents as outside the labour
force, impacting the proportion of IDPs belonging to that group. As further information is not available, these respondents have been
excluded from the labour force analysis.
46
Based on the age limits defined by the 19th ICLS resolution on Statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization:
https://bit.ly/3ioml88.
47
The total labor force consists of all employed and unemployed people.
48
Due to a small number of observations (7 out of 1,996 people surveyed) the results do not allow for further analysis and disaggregation of
unemployment data. In addition, the labour force participation rate could be expected to be higher if a sufficient number of unemployed
respondents were sampled/captured and the result was representative of the surveyed IDPs.
49
Please refer to: http://rssoarmm.psa.gov.ph/release/content/special/55398.
50
It is not possible to directly compare the situation faced by IDPs with that of the general population, as the data were collected a year
apart. However, similar trends in the results can give a rough indication that several of the challenges faced by IDPs in gaining access to
the labour market stem from cultural norms and the economic structure prevalent in Basilan rather than from their displacement situation.

43
 Status in employment Some 29% of IDPs with a secondary education and a
further 26% with tertiary education remained outside
The majority of employed IDPs were unpaid the labour force, with more as twice as many women
family workers (78%) or self-employed (22%) most with secondary education and higher education
probably being own-account workers farming than men. In the predominantly agricultural labour
their land, corresponding to the situation in BARMM market the dearth of skilled jobs may also act as a
overall with mostly self-employed own account barrier for IDPs with higher education to find suitable
workers and unpaid family workers engaged in employment. Further data collection and more in-
agriculture. Employed youth were also predominantly depth analysis are required to understand these
unpaid family workers (85%) while the rest were self- barriers, and the correlation between education and
employed (15%). labour force participation.

There was no significant gender difference among

IDPs who were self-employed (49% were men and IMPACT OF DISPLACEMENT
51% were women). However, 16% more men than ON EMPLOYMENT
women reported to be unpaid family workers.
Approximately 34% of IDPs reported that they lost
their job due to their displacement, while 40% were
Outside the Labour Force able to retain their jobs. The remaining 26% chose
not to answer this question.
Nearly a third of IDPs over 15 years old considered
themselves too young to work, while 27% were not FGD participants noted that some IDPs who worked
looking for a job, and 23% were homemakers (see as farmers, rubber tappers, other types of laborers51,
Fig. 12). PWG members confirmed that most of the or government workers prior to displacement, were
IDPs outside the labour force were deemed to be able to continue their work after being displaced.
either too young or too old to work. However, when people were displaced from their
homes and land, this effectively cut off access to
Fig. 12: IDPs outside the labour force their farms where they grew crops. FGD participants
further explained that they have experienced
Considered too young to work 28%
difficulties accessing their land and as a result their
Not looking for a job 27% livelihoods due to road blocks, military restrictions,
Home maker 23% and the ongoing conflict. Nevertheless, some of
these farmers have been able to find work on other
Retired/ too old 11%
farms or as part of farming cooperatives, or other
Full-time student 9% low income jobs. Some IDPs decided to stay close
Disability/ illness 2% to their areas of habitual residence to have better
access to their agricultural land for farming when
military restrictions allow.
Examining the sex disaggregation of IDPs outside the
labour force revealed some notable differences. As
highlighted earlier, there were more female IDPs
than male IDPs outside the labour force, most of
whom were engaged in housework, 94% of the
homemakers were women.

51
In Basilan, labourers include farmers, fishermen, traders, merchants, and stevedores.

44 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

FAMILY WELFARE Access to nearest market

Comparing the income sources of families before The majority of families in both population groups

3. HOME-BASED IDPs IN BASILAN

and after their displacement, a drop of nearly 20% reported that accessing the nearest market was a
would be observed in the main source of income challenge (60%) (Fig. 14). The main reason for this
(selling own produced goods), reflecting the loss of was distance (57%) and travel expenses (41%). FGDs
access for many families to their land. The income participants confirmed that the difficulty in accessing
from irregular and seasonal work increased by nearly markets was due to the distance, and the related cost
15%, on the other hand, showcasing the need for of transport. In addition, some roads to markets have
these families to substitute their main livelihood while been restricted due to the conflict. FGDs participants
in displacement (Fig. 13). noted that they only went to the market when it was
necessary due to the high cost of transportation.
Since arriving at their current location, at least
62% of displaced families have not been able to
cover the costs of rent and/or utility bills. Despite Access to government assistance programmes
this, most families were able to meet unexpected
expenses (55%) while 31% were not. There was a Nearly all surveyed IDPs (95%) reported that they
relatively high rate of people surveyed who chose do not have a Disaster Assistance Family Access
not to respond to questions on their ability to cover Card (DAFAC) from the Department of Social
expenses. Welfare and Development (DSWD) office.52 Of
those families, 36% reported that this was due to
During the FGDs, some IDPs shared how their work lack of awareness, 33% pointed to discrimination or
had been affected by displacement. Barangay health rejection by the government, and 20% responded
workers, for example, found it difficult to conduct that they had no access to this government service.
health activities as displaced children were spread During the FGDs, almost all IDPs mentioned that they
throughout Barangay Calang Canas and Muslim Area were unfamiliar with the DAFAC as this had not been
boundaries. Poor mobile network signal made it more communicated, but that they received help from the
challenging to reach IDPs including to arrange for the DSWD.
scheduled weighing of children.

Fig. 13: Main source of income of home-based families before and after their displacement

58%
Selling own produced goods
41%
37%
Income from irregular/ seasonal work
51%
1%
Income from business earnings
1%
1%
Income from wages/ salaries
1%
1%
Using loans
2%
0%
Support from family members abroad
1%

Money or in-kind assistance 0%

1%
0%
Pensions
1% Pre-displacement
1% Post-displacement
Other
1%

52
The card is issued to victims of disasters and internally displaced persons (IDPs). It indicates general information about the family and the
assistance provided to the family. It is widely used as a basis in providing relief assistance and other interventions in Mindanao, or the
Philippines in general.

45
 Discussions conducted with Local Government Fig. 15: Main sources of food of home-based displaced families53
Units to validate the survey results revealed that
Market 89%
information about DAFAC was only communicated
Own produced (within household) 73%
in areas with 500 IDPs or more.
Relatives 42%
Government 3%
Fig. 14: Accessibility of nearest market for home-based
families Host family 1%
Other 1%

2% 30% 28% 32% 8%

Food Consumption Score

Not possible Very difficult Somewhat difficult Moderately easy Very easy
In total, 50% of displaced families had either
borderline (28%) or poor (21%) food consumption
Only 34% of families reported that they were based on the Food Consumption Score (FCS) (see
beneficiaries of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Annex IV). This means that they did not consume
Programme (4Ps).53 The majority of respondents diverse food types in sufficient quality or quantity.
either did not answer this question, reported that The results of the “Comprehensive Food Security
they did not know, or mentioned that they received and Vulnerability Analysis” of the Autonomous
assistance from another source. Other government Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) conducted in
assistance programmes included assistance for 2018 by WFP54 indicated that among the general
senior citizens and for people with disabilities. population in Basilan 76% of people had acceptable
food consumption, 21% had borderline and 3% had
poor food consumption. While food consumption
3.6 STANDARD OF LIVING among the general population in Basilan is the
AND ACCESS TO SERVICES poorest within the BARMM region, the profiling
indicates that food consumption among IDPs was
even worse.
FOOD SECURITY
Fig. 16: Distribution of home-based displaced families by
Surveyed IDPs in Basilan faced challenges food consumption classification based on the FCS
accessing sufficient food. Half of the displaced
families surveyed had either borderline or poor 21% 28% 50%
food consumption. Families depended heavily on
negative coping strategies to feed their families. Poor Borderline Acceptable
It should be noted that food security among the Note: 1% missing values due to decimals rounding
general population in Basilan is the lowest in the
BARMM region.
Household coping strategies

Main sources of food Almost a quarter of the displaced families (23%

or 87 families) reported that they did not have
Displaced families in Basilan mainly obtained their sufficient food or money to buy food in the seven
food from markets (89%), however some families days prior to the survey. The table below shows
also produced their own food (73%). IDPs had limited how families handled shortfalls in food consumption,
sources of food due to restrictions on accessing their based on categories used for the Coping Strategy
farms and the challenges in accessing markets, which Index (see Annex IV). Families used five different
is reflected in the food consumption score. (Fig. 16) types of food consumption-related coping strategies

53
See footnote no. 23 for more information about 4Ps.
54
WFP & ARMM (2018), Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

46 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

in the seven days prior to the survey. The most WATER, SANITATION & HYGIENE (WASH)
commonly used negative coping strategies were
relying on less preferred and less expensive Access to water represented a major challenge

3. HOME-BASED IDPs IN BASILAN

food. This aligns with WFP findings that in general for IDPs in Basilan. Some 46% of surveyed IDPs
households in Basilan applied each of the coping depended on springs, rivers or unprotected wells
strategies for at least two days in a week (ibid.), and for drinking water, exposing them to water-borne
relied on less preferred food for an average of five diseases. The vast majority (79%) of surveyed
days per week. families did not have access to adequate toilet
facilities, increasing the risk of water-borne and
When asked about the type of assistance they find faecal-related diseases.
most helpful, some FGDs participants noted that cash
assistance was particularly important, as it would
allow them to buy food and save a small amount for Access to protected water sources
other needs. Others mentioned that a combination
of cash assistance and training on food production About half (46%) of the surveyed displaced families
to enable them to earn more income would be did not have access to protected water sources.
most helpful. The Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Instead they used water from springs, rivers or unpro-
and Management Officer mentioned that both tected wells, exposing them to health risks. Similarly,
mechanisms are effective and should be provided to about half of the surveyed families (49%) were de-
the IDPs. pending on water from springs, rivers, or unprotected
wells for cooking and domestic use. (Fig. 17)
Table 5: Average number of days household coping
mechanisms were employed by surveyed population group
FGD participants shared that some of the wells
for a 7 day recall period
that they depended on for water previously had
been destroyed during the conflict. They further
Average no. of days coping
Coping strategy explained that access to a protected water source
strategy was applied
would not ensure that the water is clean and safe
Rely on less preferred and less
4 unless it is treated regularly. Participants were
expensive food
aware of the risks of using water from unprotected
Borrow food or rely on help from a
2 sources due to the possibility of water-borne
relative
diseases.
Limit portion size of meals at meal
2
times
Some 87% of displaced families had access to
Restrict consumption by adults in order
2 enough water to meet their needs in the 30 days
for children to eat
prior to the survey. Most of the 51 families who
Reduce number of meals eaten in a day 2 reported that they did not have sufficient access
attributed this to a lack of water containers (51%) or a
damaged water source (29%).

Figure 17: Types of sources of water for drinking available among the profiled home-based displaced population

Protected deep/ shallow well 33%

Piped connection 15%
Water vendors 2%
Protected sources
Fetched water from neighbour with piped connection 2%
Common faucet (Level 2) 1%
Pump 1%
Spring/ River/ Pond/ Stream 37%
Unportected sources
Unprotected deep/ shallow well 8%

47
 Fig. 18: Access to sanitation facilities among surveyed displaced population

Closed pit 20%

Adequate facilities
Water-sealed, sewer/ septic tank 1%
No toilet 57%
Inadequate facilities
Open pit 22%

The FGDs revealed that modes of water collection The high incidence of displaced families without
differed from family to family. Families with vehicles access to toilet facilities suggests widespread
or other means of transportation typically reported open defecation. This may result in higher rates
easy access to the water points. By contrast, fetching of excreta-related diseases and infections. The
water was often a concern for families without means combination of open defecation and unprotected
of transportation. Displaced families, especially water sources further increases this risk. Advocating
women, are exposed to additional risks as they for proper hygiene practices may not be suitable in
travel by foot to fetch water. An FGD participant a place where water is scarce and toilet facilities are
also mentiond that girls and women risk sexual inadequate. Safe excreta management is essential,
abuse when fetching water from distant water and contributes to a safer water supply. According to
sources. SPHERE standards, people should have “access to
and use of toilets” during displacement. These toilets
should be adequate, appropriate, and acceptable as
Access to adequate toilet facilities well as being safe and secure. Many IDPs in Basilan
live in conditions that do not meet these standards.
The vast majority (79%) of surveyed families did not
have access to adequate toilet facilities, instead
they used open pits or practiced open defecation. Access to handwashing facilities
The main indicated reason for this was the high cost
of constructing a toilet. In addition, FGD participants Access to handwashing facilities was poor among
shared that sourcing water was a challenge even displaced families in Basilan. Half of the displaced
for drinking, so many families would avoid the families surveyed did not have access to hand
additional burden of gathering water for toilet washing facilities (53%) and the remainder used
facilities. The lack of access to adequate sanitation mobile objects such as buckets (46%). This finding
facilities increases the vulnerability of IDPs to was linked to the issues of poor water supply in
diseases, with a potential impact on their health and the area. Of those families that did not have access
wellbeing. to hand washing facilities, 49% reported that they
could not afford it and 19% were not aware of how
Of those families with access to a toilet facility, most to access such a facility. The rest were unaware of
of them used a public toilet (51%), or a toilet shared the reason for having a handwashing facility. During
with other families in the same building (10%). Only the FGDs, IDPs shared that poor hand washing
38% of families with access to a toilet had access to practices would stem from the lack of accessible
a private toilet. A quarter of the displaced families safe water sources.
used a toilet facility within their house or on their
plot, while 55% had a toilet facility within 50 metres
of their plot. The remaining 20% used a toilet facility
that was more than 50 meters away. This means that
80% of households fall within the SPHERE standard
of having a toilet less than 50 metres away from their
dwelling.55

55
For more information, refer to: https://handbook.spherestandards.org/en/sphere/#ch006_003.

48 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

HEALTH Health problems and access
to healthcare facilities
More than half of the displaced families surveyed

3. HOME-BASED IDPs IN BASILAN

with children did not possess a vaccination card Most IDPs reported common health problems such
for their children. Displaced families would access as fever, headaches, cough and colds. Few families
healthcare facilities, but barriers existed especially reported problems that could be related to the
the cost of public transport required to reach poor WASH standards, such as diarrhea, typhoid
healthcare facilities. or cholera (25 cases in total). This was in line
with the findings from the Municipality Protection
Profiling report.57 Community discussions as part
Access to vaccination documentation of a quick impact project for the construction of
water systems58 suggest that the lack of widespread
More than half of the displaced families that have waterborne diseases despite poor WASH standards
children did not possess a vaccination card for may be attributed to resilience that individuals have
their children (55%). This might be related to the developed over time.
skepticism about vaccinations especially among
the Yakan ethnic group. In fact, many people in Some 45% of surveyed displaced families reported
the Philippines have become more skeptical of that at least one member of their family needed to
vaccinations after a nationwide Dengue fever visit a doctor or healthcare facility in the six months
vaccination programme that was reportedly linked to prior to the survey. Of these, about 81% managed to
the deaths of several hundred children.56 see a healthcare practitioner or a traditional healer.
Of those who sought medical assistance, 88%
Having a vaccination card is important as it assists visited a formal healthcare facility (including 55%
health workers and parents to determine what government hospitals, 22% barangay health centres,
vaccinations a child has received, and if any have and 11% rural health units). The remaining 12% visited
been missed. Without this record, children may miss informal or traditional healers and care facilities.
vaccinations, leaving them at risk of contracting During the FGDs, participants mentioned that
serious diseases. Proof that children have been government medical facilities are more accessible
vaccinated is also a requirement for families to to IDPs as the services would be provided free
access the 4P programme. FGD participants noted of charge. During consultations, a PWG member
the need for improved awareness about vaccinations mentioned that there was a high degree of trust
and healthcare practices. among IDPs in government-run healthcare facilities.

The remaining 19% of families had a member who

experienced a health problem but did not visit a
healthcare facility. The most common reasons given
for not visiting a healthcare facility were the distance
to the facility, the cost of transportation and other
associated costs. During the FGDs, IDPs explained
that they typically only visit healthcare facilities when
their health concerns were already serious.

56
For more information about the incident, refer to: 1. https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/dangvaxia-philippines/;
2. https://www.rappler.com/nation/doh-upholds-permanent-ban-dengvaxia ; 3. https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/12/09/The-
Dengvaxia-controversy.html.
57
The Municipality Protection Profiling (MPP) is a survey which seeks to provide an overview of the living conditions of the IDPs and the
general protection environment at the municipal level. It is an unpublished report, available upon request from UNHCR Philippines.
58
Based on unpublished documentation of the inclusive and consultative community building, available upon request from UNHCR
Philippines.

49
 Table 6: School attendance of displaced children of school age

Primary/ elementary education Secondaty education/ junior and senior high school
(Age 5-11 years) (Age 12-18 years)
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Yes 56% 55% 55% 49% 52% 51%
Home-based

No 26% 23% 24% 31% 26% 29%

Refused to answer 17% 22% 19% 20% 22% 21%

EDUCATION The main reasons for children not attending school

can be related to lack of financial resources or
Nearly half of the surveyed IDPs in Basilan either because the children were busy helping their
had no education or had only completed elementary family (especially for high school-aged children
school (49%). At least a quarter of elementary school- and older). FGD participants confirmed that both of
aged IDP children were not attending school at the these reasons commonly prevented children from
time of the survey. Financial constraints and helping attending school.
families at home were the most commonly cited
reasons for children not attending school.
Highest level of education completed

School attendance59 Most surveyed IDPs in Basilan aged 15 and older

have either not attended school (16%) or have not
Of the 1,996 IDPs in Basilan, 39% were school-aged completed more than elementary school (41%).
5-18 years old (38% of the male population; 39% Only 31% have completed high school or tertiary
of the female population). A quarter of the 408 education. Less working age men have completed
elementary school-aged displaced children (5-11 post-elementary education (29%) than women (34%)
years old) and about a third of the high school- (Fig. 19).
aged (12-18 years old) displaced children were
not attending school. No big gender disparity was In terms of tertiary education, FGD participants
evident with school attendance for both primary and reported that there were only a limited number of
secondary school (Table 6). colleges offering degrees in Basilan including one
state university in Isabela City, and several operated
The vast majority of children who attended school by private companies. The other main government-
went to government-run facilities. The main reasons run university is based in Zamboanga City, which
for this were that education is free, and schools are necessitates additional costs for dormitories and
available in almost all barangays even in remote food. These limited options make it more difficult for
areas. IDPs and the general population to continue their
education at tertiary level.

59
The school system in the Philippines is divided into elementary (kindergarten and grades 1 to 6; ages 5 to 11 years old), junior high school
(grades 7 to 10; ages 12 to 15 years old), and senior high school (grades 11 and 12; ages 16 and 18 years). Form more information, refer to:
https://www.deped.gov.ph/k-to-12/about/k-to-12-basic-education-curriculum/.

50 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

Fig. 19: Highest level of education of IDPs (15+) completed by gender

Total 73%
No education Men 72%

3. HOME-BASED IDPs IN BASILAN

Women 74%

Total 16%
First level (elementary school) Men 16%
Women 17%

Total 8%
Second level (high-school) Men 10%
Women 6%

Total 2%
Tertiary level (College/University) Men 1%
Women 2%

Total 1%
Don't know Men 1%
Women 1%

Total 0% Total
Other Men 1% Women
Women 0% Men

3.7 HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY During the FGDs, participants revealed that land-
ownership was commonly acknowledged through
Nearly all surveyed displaced families owned their inheritance and verbal communication. Where proof
family house in their place of habitual residence, of ownership existed, it was typically in the form
and half owned the land. Approximately a quarter of a land title, or a tax declaration of property, or
of families that reported to own land reported to stewardship. Some IDPs were beneficiaries of the
not have proof of ownership. The lack of official Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme,60
ownership documents exposes these IDPs to the which involves the redistribution of land to enable
potential violation of property rights upon their beneficiaries to survive as small independent
return. However, IDPs reported a very low rate of farmers. FGD participants confirmed that land
ownership disputes between people. disputes are rare as the community typically respects
land boundaries and verbal inheritance.

Land ownership
Fig. 20: Land ownership and proof of land ownership of
home-based displaced families
Of the 381 home-based displaced families in Basilan,
47% reported that they own the land of their place of
habitual residence, of whom approximately 27% did Title 66%
not have any proof of ownership, while 66% said they No proof 27%
have a land title. Of displaced home-based families
53% No 47% Yes Tax declaration 1%
who own the land, almost all reported that there were
no ownership claims by a third party (96%). Other 4%

Note: 2% missing value of Don’t know

60
The programme was implemented under the Republic Act No. 6657 (10 June 1988): An act instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform
programme to promote social justice and industrialization, providing the mechanism for its implementation, and for other purposes. For
more information, refer to: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1988/06/10/republic-act-no-6657/.

51
 House ownership of property. Many FGD participants noted that even
though their houses were destroyed, they wanted to
In contrast to land ownership, almost all home- return in order to access their agricultural land which
based displaced families (98%) reported to own represents their main source of livelihood.
their house in their place of habitual residence.
FGD participants reported that most houses were Approximately 91% of respondents reported that
passed down through inheritance. As with land they had not received any information about the
ownership, IDPs were typically unaware that their government’s plans for the future settlement of
house ownership should be legally registered. displaced families.

Damages to houses at place 3.9 CONCLUSION

of habitual residence
The IDP Profiling in Basilan focused on 381 displaced
Among the IDPs that are house owners, 85% families in the municipalities of Sumisip and Maluso.
stated that their house in their place of habitual While this was not a representative sample of all
residence was totally destroyed. Most damages IDPs in Basilan, it provides an indication of their living
occurred during confrontations between the AFP and conditions, as well as their vulnerabilities and the
Abu Sayyaf Group. Furthermore, some houses have challenges they face in displacement.
been damaged from lack of maintenance due to the
prolonged displacement and inability of people to The preferred future intention of the vast majority
visit their houses. of surveyed displaced families was to return to their
place of habitual residence. At the time of the data
collection they reported they were not being able
3.8 FUTURE INTENTIONS to return due to the ongoing conflict, the presence
of armed groups, crime and violence, military
The vast majority of families surveyed wanted to restrictions and the destruction of their homes. In
return to their place of habitual residence. People addition, information about government plans for the
expressed their desire to return to their homes IDPs was not communicated to affected communities.
and land, which were often linked to their farming Respondents mentioned this poor communication by
livelihoods. People would require information about government officials as a security concern.
security as well as the provision of basic services in
order to return. At the time of writing this report at the end of
2020, Basilan was still a militarised zone with on-
going operations of the military against members
Preferred settlement location/option of the Abu Sayyaf Group. Given the prolonged
displacement experienced by most IDPs, special
The vast majority of families (93%) wanted to return efforts from the government including humanitarian
to their place of habitual residence in order to have actors should be made to ensure the appropriate
better access to their homes and livelihoods (60%) durable solutions strategy for the IDPs.
and in case the security situation would improve
(39%). As FGD participants pointed out, livelihoods Although most families were displaced within their
and financial security play an important part in own barangays, they had limited or no access to
people’s choice of where to live. their land due to the imposed military restrictions and
security risks. This has had a negative impact on their
Two-thirds of families believed they would be able ability to meet their needs, given that selling their
to pursue their preferred option, while 33% did not own production of goods was the main livelihood and
believe they would be able to. The main reasons source of income for most IDPs. As a result, more
given for people not being able to return to their than half of the displaced families were not able to
place of habitual residence were all linked to the pay rent or utilities and one third were unable to
ongoing conflict, including the presence of armed pay for unexpected expenses; other IDPs resorted
groups, the feeling of insecurity, and the destruction to different coping mechanisms, including depleting

52 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

their savings, borrowing money from relatives and In terms of health, the profiling results indicated that
friends, or reducing their food intake. most families have access to healthcare services
when needed. However, there were other barriers to

3. HOME-BASED IDPs IN BASILAN

Many displaced families did not have sufficient food accessing healthcare including the associated costs
or money to buy food. As a result, half of home- for treatment and transport. Consequently, families
based displaced families surveyed in Basilan had tend to only visit healthcare facilities in cases of
either borderline or poor food consumption. Despite severe illness. Furthermore, more than half of the
existing mechanisms to tackle food insecurity families with children did not possess a vaccination
identified during the FGDs (including cash assistance card which could have negative repercussions on the
and food production training), there was clearly health of their children.
a gap when it came to accessing sufficient food.
Furthermore, most families usually got their food from Although the analysis shows that disputes over
markets but some faced barriers accessing markets land ownership were rare, the fact that some
while being in displacement. For these reasons, lack displaced families did not have proof ownership
of food security represents a clear vulnerability for for their land contributes to their vulnerability in
IDPs. displacement. Legally, a lack of proof of ownership
means that IDPs may struggle to access some
The poor economic situation of households was forms of support such as compensation for housing
reflected in the access to education, as most damage. A general trend indicating a lack of official
families either could not afford to send their children documentation among IDPs was also observed in
to school or their children did not attend school other areas including 96% of families not having
because they needed to help their family with a Disaster Assistance Family Access Card and a
income generation. As a result, there was generally quarter of IDPs not having a birth certificate. The
low school attendance among IDPs. Findings on the results of the FGDs showed that the importance of
impact of displacement on the economic situation of possessing a government identification document
the families and their protection concerns including was well recognised, however, the lack of birth
the negative impact on food security was also certificate inhibits people from obtaining one.
reflected in the prioritisation of needs by the IDPs, In addition, as displaced families were already
namely livelihoods, protection and food/nutrition. facing financial difficulties, having to pay for birth
certificates/documentation might also be prohibitive.
In addition to facing barriers in accessing education, Based on the Act 29361, enacted by the former
IDPs faced several other challenges in securing an ARMM government, municipalities can waive the
adequate standard of living and accessing services. fees for issuing birth certificates. However, most
Barriers could be identified for water sources, municipalities cannot afford to waive the fees as
sanitation and hygiene facilities. While most families the majority of them consider these fees as sources
could access some type of water source for drinking of revenue. There are efforts in the new BARMM
water, roughly half of the population only had government to pursue free birth registration however,
access to unprotected water sources. Some wells due to competing interests brought about by the
were destroyed during the conflict, other barriers ongoing transition, this has not been given priority.
to accessing water included distance and queuing
times. The survey revealed concerning results on
access to toilet facilities with only about one quarter
of the population having access to an adequate toilet
facility. This was mainly due to the lack of financial
resources to install proper toilet facilities. However,
FGD participants also revealed that the scarce water
supply was also a reason for not using/installing toilet
facilities. This was also a main reason why over half
the population was not washing their hands regularly.

61
For more information about Act 293, refer to: https://lawphil.net/administ/mmaa/7a/pdf/mmaa_293_7a.pdf.

53
 I O
 ne of the makeshifts used by the IDPs
as temporary shelters.

54 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT

 4. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHETLER IDP S IN SULU
4. 4.1 DISPLACEMENT CONTEXT

The vast majority of the surveyed IDPs in Patikul

were displaced most recently in 2017 or 2019 due

HOME-BASED to the conflict between the Armed Forces of the

Philippines and the Abu Sayyaf Group (93% of home-

AND TEMPORARY based families; 90% of temporary shelter families).

A small proportion were displaced due to crime and

SHELTER violence (5% and 10% respectively). Most IDPs have

experienced repeated displacements in the past
IDPS IN SULU three years, with many displaced to neighbouring
barangays several times in the same year due
to intensified conflict. About half of the displaced
families have not been able to visit their place of
Sulu has over 157 islands situated between habitual residence since their displacement, while
the neighbouring provinces of Basilan to the those who have visited have only been able to do
northeast, and Tawi-Tawi to the southwest (see so rarely. The main reasons for visiting their place of
map 4). The province comprises 19 municipalities habitual residence was to check on their house/land,
organised into two legislative districts that are and to harvest fruit or otherwise tend to their farms.
further subdivided into 410 barangays. In 2020, more than 400 displaced families returned
to their place of habitual residence. However, at
Sulu is the third most populous province in least 1,078 families remained displaced. The security
BARMM with a population of 824,731 people in situation and government restrictions were the main
2015 of which 125,564 are living in the capital obstacles for the IDPs wishing to visit or return to
Jolo.62 The majority belong to the Tausug ethnic their places of habitual residence.
group (85%), other ethnicities include Sama (8%),
and Bajau Sama Dilaut (2%).63
Causes and patterns of
The population in Sulu is predominantly rural recent displacements
with an agricultural economy (28% urban; 72%
rural). There are more than 49,000 farms in the Patterns of displacement in Sulu are dynamic. Some
province, the majority of which are planted with areas of Sulu such as Barangay Latih (municipality
permanent crops. The top five agricultural crops of Patikul) have seen displacement multiple times
grown in Sulu are coconut (including copra), but have also hosted displaced people from
bananas, mango, corn and palay. Livestock, neighbouring barangays affected by the conflict.
fishing and aquaculture are also widespread and The majority of IDPs surveyed were displaced most
form important components of the provincial recently in 2017 (39% of home-based disaplaced
economy.64 families; 54% of displaced families in temporary
shelters) or 2019 (38% and 35% respectively) (see Fig.
21) due to intensified conflict in Sulu.

62
For more information, refer to: https://bit.ly/35WsTGh.
63
For more information, refer to: https://bit.ly/3iptkhn.
64
For more information, refer to: https://bit.ly/2KrYiIX.

55
 Patikul

Map 4: Surveyed municipality of Patikul in Sulu province

Fig. 21: Year of most recent displacement of home-based 0 10 20 Kilometers

forcibly evacuated following reports of an attack
and temporary shelter families
by the Abu Sayyaf Group. In January 2019, 3,000
60% civilians were displaced in Patikul municipality due
Home-based 54% to intensified military operations against the Abu
50%
Temporary shelter Sayyaf Group. This accounts for more than half of
39% 38% the displaced population in 2019.66 The conflict
40%
intensified following the Jolo Cathedral bombing in
35%
30% January 2019 and subsequent declaration of “all out
war” on “terrorist groups” including the Abu Sayyaf
20% Group by the Duterte Administration.67 According to
8%
UN OCHA, fighting between the AFP and the Abu
10% 6%
2% 6% Sayyaf Group had displaced 5,160 persons in Sulu
3% 2% province by 25 February 2019, including many who
1999 - 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 had returned to their place of habitual residence
shortly beforehand.68 The AFP operations continued
intermittently from March till November 2019.
This finding corresponds to the security incidents
reported by the Protection Cluster in the Philippines The causes and patterns of the displacement were
since 2013.65 From 2017 to 2019, around 35,000 similar for both surveyed IDP population groups. All
persons were displaced primarily due to armed of the 710 home-based families and 430 families
conflict between the AFP and the Abu Sayyaf living in temporary shelters were displaced either due
Group. In July 2017, more than 10,000 civilians to armed conflict (93% of home-based families; 90%
from 15 barangays in Patikul municipality were of temporary shelter families), or crime and violence

65
According to the information of the displacement database, provided by the Protection Cluster Philippines (2020).
66
According to the information of the displacement database, provided by the Protection Cluster Philippines (2020).
67
For more information about the conflict in Sulu and the bombing incident, refer to: http://bit.ly/3oZ3TWi.
68
For your information, refer to: https://bit.ly/3p3ai2I.

56 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 4. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHETLER IDP S IN SULU
Fig. 22: Number of surveyed families in Barangays pre- and post displacement. The visual indicates that many famlies stayed
within their Barangay after they have been displaced, but also shows that barangay Bangkal hosted many IDPs from other
barangays after their displacement

3 Anuling
80 Bungkaung Anuling 59

133 Buhanginan Buhanginan 6

Kaunayan 1

132 Tugas

1 Gandasuli Bangkal 363

1 Kaunayan
19 Bangkal

115 Maligay Bungkaung 22

Danag 5
2 Danag Tugas 5
1 Kadday Mampallam Patikul Higad 1
2 Kan Ague Maligay 11
54 Kabbon Takas Kan Ague 56
1 Gimba Lagasan

166 Latih Latih 181

Fig. 23: Number of surveyed families in Barangays pre- and post displacement. The visual indicates that many famlies stayed
within their Barangay after they have been displaced, but also shows that barangay Bangkal hosted many IDPs from other
barangays after their displacement

2 Anuling Anuling 44

54 Bungkaung Bungkaung 5

92 Buhanginan Bangkal 159

38 Tugas
Danag 6
3 Danag Kaunayan 3
11 Bangkal Buhanginan 10
Tugas 1
38 Maligay Maligay 2
Kadday Mampallam 1

117 Kabbon Takas

Kan Ague 122

7 Kan Ague
Kabbon Takas 1
67 Latih
Latih 76
1 Langhub

(5% and 10% respectively). All families surveyed were 22), meanwhile, Bangkal predominantly hosted IDPs
displaced within the municipality of Patikul, with from Buhanginan, Tugas and Maligay barangays (Fig.
the exception of one family displaced from Gimba 22). Most families displaced from Kabbon Takas were
Lagasan to Kan Ague in Parang municipality. Almost hosted in Kan Ague, which stands out as having a
all families displaced from Barangay Latih were higher proportion of families in temporary shelters
displaced to areas within the same barangay (Fig. (Fig. 23).

57
 Fig. 24: Frequency of visits to place of habitual residence of home-based and temporary shelter families

Home-based Temporary shelter

Never 50% 51%
Less than once a month 12% 14%
Once a month 24% 19%
More than once a month 11% 14%
Once a week 2% 1%
More than once a week 1% 1%

During the FGDs and the consultation with the PWG, of the military presence and the Abu Sayyaf Group
some respondents voiced their concerns that Patikul during these visits.
would always be an area of armed conflict between
the AFP and the Abu Sayyaf Group. Participants IDPs noted that the main obstacles for visiting or
expressed their fears of the ongoing armed conflict returning to their place of habitual residence were
and of being forced to flee again. access restrictions imposed by the government (62%
of both population groups), as well as security risks
(31% of home-based IDPs; 34% of temporary shelter
Visits to place of habitual residence IDPs). FGD participants also shared that if IDPs
ignored the military restrictions on visiting their place
In both population groups, half of the families (50% of habitual residence, they would risk being shot or
of home-based families; 51% of temporary shelter caught in a firefight.
families) stated that they had not visited their place
of habitual residence since being displaced (Fig.
24). The main reason given for not visiting was their IDPs who have returned
fear of the ongoing conflict. The frequency of visits
for those who had visited their place of habitual When the survey was conducted in November 2019,
residence was typically irregular and ranged from no displaced families had returned to their place of
less than once a month (12% and 14% respectively) to habitual residence. However, some IDPs returned
more than once a month (11% and 14% respectively). in the first months of 2020. The majority of the
IDPs who returned had been living in evacuation
Of the 352 home-based and 210 temporary shelter centres in Barangay Latih. The main reason why
families who visited their place of habitual residence, IDPs decided to return voluntarily was due to an
the main reason for the visits was to farm their land improvement in security conditions. However,
(94% and 98% respectively), the remaining was to an assessment conducted by the municipal local
look after their property. FGD participants similarly government units of Patikul found that as of 17 July
mentioned that IDPs returned to check on their 2020, at least 1,078 families still remain displaced,
house/land, and to harvest fruits. However, they most of whom are home-based IDPs.
reported being afraid for their security, both because

Fig. 25: Obstacles for visiting the place of habitual residence of home-based and temporary shelter families

Home-based Temporary shelter

Military/government restricted access 62% 62%
Security risks 31% 34%
Distance 3% 1%
No time due to other commitments 1% 0%
Too costly 0% 1%
Other 2% 1% Note: 1% missing values of Don’t know

58 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 4. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHETLER IDP S IN SULU
4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE Marital status and family size

Gender, age and ethnicity Most of the IDPs aged 18 years71 and older in
both population groups were married (60%) and a
The 710 home-based displaced families (3,047 third were single. The majority of families in both
individuals) and 430 families living in temporary population groups were headed by men (72% of
shelters (1,855 individuals) surveyed, were based in home-based families; 71% of temporary shelter
the municipality of Patikul with the exception of one families). This can be attributed to the patriarchal
family in the municipality of Parang. The demographic culture in the Philippines, which is understood to be
profile shows a somewhat equal gender distribution more pronounced among the Muslim population.
(see Fig. 26), which resembles that of the overall
population in BARMM (50% men and 50% women in The heads of families in both population groups
ARMM, 2015).69 were predominantly married, yet about a quarter of
displaced families were single-headed (including
The majority of the surveyed population was under widowed, separated and never married) (27% of
25 years of age (56% of home-based women; 59% of home-based families; 25% of temporary shelter
home-based men; 44% of temporary shelter women; families). Most single heads of families were widowed
60% of temporary shelter men). The largest age (18% and 19% respectively), however some were
bracket for both groups was that of children aged 5 either single or separated. The majority of single-
to 9 years. The average age for home-based IDPs headed families were female-headed (78% of home
was 22 years for women and 19 years for men, and based families; 95% of temporary shelter families).
among IDPs in temporary shelters it was 23 years for
women and 18 years for men. Family size ranged from one person to 11 members
for home-based families, and up to 13 members for
The majority of the surveyed home-based displaced families in temporary shelters. The average family
families and families in temporary shelters in Patikul size was 4.2 persons in home-based families and 4.3
belonged to the Tausug ethnolinguistic group (99%), persons for families in temporary shelters.
the remaining 1% were Tagalog.70

Fig. 26: Age and gender distribution of profiled home- Fig. 27: Age and gender distribution of profiled displaced
based displaced population in Sulu province population in temporary shelters in Sulu province

Women (54%) Men (46%) Women (53%) Men (47%)

3% 65+ 3% 5% 65+ 2%
3% 60-64 2% 2% 60-64 2%
3% 55-59 3% 3% 55-59 3%
4% 50-54 4% 4% 50-54 3%
6% 45-49 4% 5% 45-49 4%
4% 40-44 4% 4% 40-44 3%
6% 35-39 4% 5% 35-39 5%
7% 30-34 7% 8% 30-34 6%
8% 25-29 9% 9% 25-29 9%
10% 20-24 9% 9% 20-24 8%
11% 15-19 11% 10% 15-19 12%
10% 10-14 13% 11% 10-14 14%
14% 5-9 15% 13% 5-9 15%
11% 0-4 11% 11% 0-4 11%

69
For your information, refer to: http://rssoarmm.psa.gov.ph/statistics/ARMMpopulation.
70
The Tausug tribe are the largest ethnic group in Sulu. Most Tausug have converted to Islam; adherents to Islam in the region are
commonly known as the Moro group. The Tausug tribe is the third largest ethnic group in Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. Traditionally the
Tausug were sailors, pearl divers and traders. Their ancestral homelands in the Sulu Archipelago have strong tidal currents that flow from
the Sulu and China Seas to the Celebes Sea.
71
18 years is the youngest age at which someone can get married with the permission of their parents, 21 years old is the official legal age.
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1987/07/06/executive-order-no-209-s-1987/.

59
 Fig. 28: Marital status of home-based displaced family heads by gender

Total 72%
Currently married Women 8%
Men 92%

Total 18%
Widowed Women 82%
Men 18%

Total 6%
Single (never married) Women 72%
Men 28% Total
Total 3% Women
Separated Women 71% Men
Men 29%

Total 1%
Unmarried, living together Women 100%
Men 0%

Housing arrangements among 4.3 ACCESS TO DOCUMENTATION

home-based displaced families
About one-third of surveyed IDPs from both
The majority of home-based displaced families were population groups did not have a birth certificate. The
living with extended family (87%) including their most commonly cited reasons included that family
parents (18%), siblings (9%) or other relatives (54%). members were not registered or had not yet claimed
The remaining home-based families were either certificates with the authorities (78% of home-
hosted for free by non-relatives, or lived in occupied/ based IDPs; 70% for IDPs in temporary shelters). A
squatted shelters. In Tausug society, kinship solidarity birth certificate is the primary requirement for IDPs
is emphasized with married children often living to access government programmes such as 4Ps
near or in the same household as the parents of (Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Programme)72, to enroll
the husband. This explains the high proportion of and graduate from school, and to access other
displaced families staying with relatives. government services.

A fee is required to obtain a birth certificate, which

poses a barrier to some families. The ARMM
government enacted the Muslim Mindanao Act

Fig. 29: Marital status of family heads in temporary shelters by gender

Total 74%
Currently married Women 6%
Men 94%

Total 19%
Widowed Women 95%
Men 5%

Total 3%
Separated Women 100%
Men 0%

Total 3%
Single (never married) Women 92%
Men 8%
Total
Total 1%
Annulled Women 25% Women
Men 75% Men

72
See footnote no. 23 on more information on the 4Ps.

60 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 4. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHETLER IDP S IN SULU
293, which established free birth registration in The majority of both home-based (56%) and
BARMM73. The law stipulates that the fees for birth temporary shelter (59%) displaced families
registration should be covered by the municipal local reported that the gravest security incident they had
government units. Several municipalities implement experienced since displacement involved armed
Act 293 and have agreed to waive fees, however, conflict. Only 12% and 8% respectively of displaced
for most municipalities, issuing birth certificates is an families had not experienced a security incident since
important source of revenue. their displacement. This suggests that families remain
within the locus of insecurity even after they have
4.4 SAFETY, SECURITY AND been displaced. This was unsurprising, given that
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT many families in Sulu were displaced within the same
barangay, where the threat by the presence of the
Safety and security concerns and incidents reported Abu Sayyaf Group persisted and were causing the
by both male and female respondents were mainly prolonged instability in the province.
related to conflict. A common concern among
IDPs was that they would wrongly be suspected Of those who had experienced a security threat or
of being affiliated with an armed group. Despite incident, 57% of home-based and 60% of displaced
this, respondents reported feeling relatively safe families in temporary shelters reported these to
when walking in their neighbourhood. This can be either formal or informal authorities. In both groups,
attributed to low rates of petty crime. Government the majority reported incidents to barangay officials
plans for the protection of displaced families were and Barangay Peacekeeping Action Teams (BPAT)
not being widely disseminated or understood among (82% and 79% respectively), the remainder reported
IDPs. incidents to traditional or informal justice systems
(15% and 18% respectively). The main reason given
The most important security concern for both for not reporting incidents was that IDPs believed
home-based and temporary shelter IDPs was the that this would create more problems (43% and
presence of state and/or non-state actors (68% of 55 % respectively). During the FGDs, some IDPs
home-based IDPs; 59% of temporary shelter IDPs). expressed their fear that the conflict would escalate,
The remainder of home-based displaced families or they would be targeted by the opposing side if
reported either ‘other’ security concerns (16%), or they reported an incident. Several participants also
bombardment as part of the conflict (12%). Most of mentioned that the government was already aware of
the remaining families in temporary shelters reported their situation and concerns, and that they preferred
that bombardment was an important security concern to wait for action from the government.
(24%). (Fig. 30)

Fig. 30: Primary security concerns of home-based and temporary shelter families

Home-based Temporary shelter

Presence of state and/ or non-state actors 68% 59%
Bombardment 12% 24%
No security concerns 1% 2%
Clan feud 1% 1%
Lack of communication between family members and/ or emergency services,
Looting of civilian properties, Forced return or relocation to any area 1% 1%
Don’t know 1% 1%
Other 16% 13%

73
The BARMM government enacted the Muslim Mindanao Act 293, which established free birth registration in BARMM. The law stipulates
that the fees for birth registration should be covered by the municipal local government units. Several municipalities implement Act 293
and have agreed to waive fees, however, for most municipalities, issuing birth certificates is an important source of revenue. For your
information, refer to: https://lawphil.net/administ/mmaa/7a/pdf/mmaa_293_7a.pdf.

61
 FGD participants further noted that government plans participants were of the opinion that communication
for the protection of displaced families were not between IDPs and the government about safety
widely disseminated and understood among IDPs. needed to be improved, in particular given that they
Nevertheless, help desks available in host barangays had not received information about any plans for how
represent a mechanism through which IDPs could they would be protected. Displaced families were not
lobby to the government for support of vulnerable given information about military operations including
groups, including women, children and people predictions of how long they will be displaced.
with special needs. The presence of Barangay
Peacekeeping Action Teams has helped secure the
current location where IDPs are residing while 24- 4.5 EMPLOYMENT AND
hour monitoring of the local security situation was LIVELIHOODS
viewed positively.
The labour force participation rate among IDPs
Fig. 31: Gravest security incident experienced by
in Patikul appeared to be lower than the overall
home-based and temporary shelter families
labour force participation rate in BARMM. The
Home-based Temporary shelter findings suggest that youth (15-24 years) were facing
additional barriers to participating in the labour
Armed conflict 56% 59%
force. There was also a notable gender disparity,
No security incident 12% 8% with more men in the labour force than women,
Refused to answer 3% 2% reflecting cultural norms in the area. The displaced
population in Patikul were predominantly Tausug
Don’t know 3% 1%
farmers growing crops like fruits, vegetables, and
Petty crime 2% 5% copra (dried coconut kernel), and selling their
Murder 1% 0% produce. Displacement and the ensuing military
Other 23% 25% restrictions have effectively cut off many families
from their land and, in turn, their livelihoods.
Despite major security concerns stemming from
the conflict, 96% of home-based and 80% of
displaced families in temporary shelters still reported
EMPLOYMENT74
feeling very safe or fairly safe walking around their Labour force participation
neighbourhoods during daytime (Fig. 32). Those
who reported feeling “unsafe” often explained that 63% of both IDP population groups were of working
this was due to the absence of relatives or friends in age, 15 years or older.75 Among working age home-
the area. Another reason for feeling unsafe was the based IDPs, 37% were in the labour force76, of whom
presence of armed groups in the area. Some FGD 32% were employed and 5% were unemployed, while

Fig. 32: Perception of safety when walking in the neighbourhood in daytime of surveyed home-based and temporary shelter IDPs

Home-based 34% 62% 3% 1%

Temporary shelter 24% 56% 9% 10%

Very safe Fairly safe Bit unsafe Very unsafe Note: 1% missing values of “Other” and “I never walk alone”

74
A significant proportion of respondents from both groups (28% and 30% respectively) responded “other” when asked about their current
work status. As no further clarification is available, “other”could mean a type of work for pay or profit that was not directly corresponding
to the given answer options which would classify them as employed thus impacting the employment rate. However, it could equally
mean a type of work that is not paid or any other type of activity that falls outside of employment and will thus classify these respondents
as outside the labour force, impacting the proportion of IDPs belonging to that group. As further information is not available, these
respondents have been excluded from the labour force analysis. This represents an important limitation to the findings.
75
Based on the age limits defined by the 19th ICLS resolution on Statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization:
https://bit.ly/3ioml88.
76
The total labor force consists of all employed and unemployed people.

62 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

35% were outside the labour force (Fig. 33). Similarly, The youth (15-24 years old) labour force
for working age IDPs living in temporary shelters, participation rate for home-based IDPs was 20%
35% were in the labour force (29% employed and 6% and 17% for those in temporary shelters, which was
unemployed), and 35% were outside the labour force significantly lower than the overall labour force
(Fig. 34). The labour force participation rate among participation rate for both IDP groups (37% and 35%

CHAPTER
surveyed IDPs in Patikul appears to be much lower respectively), suggesting that displaced youth may
than the overall labour force participation rate of 53% face additional barriers to employment.
in BARMM in July 2019 (15 years and over).77

Fig. 33: Labour force status of home-based IDPs by gender

Outside the labour force Employed
Working age population 15+ years*
26%

74% 35% 35% 32% 65%

56% 63% 44%

In the labour force Unemployed

35% 37% 65% 40% 5% 60%

Women * 28% of respondents chose 'other',

Men which is not included in this chart.

Fig. 34: Labour force status of IDPs in temporary shelters by gender

Outside the labour force Employed

Working age population 15+ years*
29%

71% 35% 34% 29% 66%

55% 63% 45%

In the labour force Unemployed

36% 35% 64% 46% 6% 54%

Women * 30 % of respondents chose 'other',

Men which is not included in this chart.

77
For your information, refer to: http://rssoarmm.psa.gov.ph/release/content/special/55398.

63
 There was a notable gender imbalance in the labour Status in employment
force participation. The labour force participation
rate of men was 30% higher than that of women The majority of employed IDPs were self-employed
across both population groups. A similarly gendered (71% of home-based IDPs; 78% of temporary shelter
labour participation pattern was present in the IDPs), while most of the remainder were unpaid
general population of BARMM, with 73% of men in family workers (21% of home-based IDPs; 18% of
the labour force compared with 27% of women in temporary shelter IDPs), except a small number
2018.78 In addition, there were almost twice as many of employers (4% of home-based IDPs and 4%
women than men for both groups outside the labour of temporary shelter IDPs)) and paid employees
force and these women were mostly engaged in among the home-based (3%). These patterns in the
housework both for home-based and temporary employment status of IDPs reflect the situation
shelter IDPs (86% and 87% respectively). Just over a across BARMM, in which most employed people are
quarter of the working age IDPs outside the labour self-employed. The displaced population in Patikul
force in both groups were full-time students, mostly are predominantly Tausug farmers who grow and
women (64% of home-based IDPs and 57% of sell crops like fruits, vegetables, and copra (dried
temporary shelter IDPs). coconut kernel). Many were self-employed, more
specifically own account workers, namely working on
As indicated by FGD participants, men are typically their own farms and selling their produce also prior
breadwinners in the family according to cultural to their displacement. During the FGDs and the PWG
norms in Sulu and particularly among Tausug, while consultations it was further confirmed that farming
women are more likely to conduct work without pay, and, to a lesser extent, fishery were the main sources
thus being outside the labour force. More displaced of livelihoods among IDPs in Patikul.
women have completed high school or college/
university than men and in the predominantly Employed youth were also predominantly self-
agricultural labour market the dearth of skilled jobs employed (51% of home-based employed youth
may also act as a barrier for them to find suitable IDPs; 60% of temporary shelter employed youth
employment. These findings suggest that the main IDPs). However, a higher proportion of youth were
challenges women face may stem more from the unpaid family workers (31% of home-based IDP youth;
prevailing cultural norms and the economic situation 37% of temporary shelter IDP youth) linking to the
rather than the displacement. fact that younger members of the family might be
more engaged in helping the family with income
generating activities such as helping their parents
with the farming or selling of the farm products.

Fig. 35: Home-based IDPs outside the labour force Fig. 36: IDPs in temporary shelters outside the labour

Home maker 50% Home maker 50%

Full-time student 27% Full-time student 26%
Not looking for a job 11% Not looking for a job 10%
Considered too young to work 5% Considered too young to work 7%
Retired/ too old 4% Retired/ too old 4%
Disability/ illness 2%
Disability/ illness 3%

78
It is not possible to directly compare the situation faced by IDPs with that of the general population as the data was collected several
years apart. However, similar trends in the results give a rough indication that several of the challenges faced by IDPs in gaining access to
the labour market stem from cultural norms and the economic structure prevalent in Sulu. The results of the profiling reflect the traditional
culture in which men are positioned as the main breadwinner of the family and women as homemakers. For more information, refer to
http://rssoarmm.psa.gov.ph/release/content/special/55302.

64 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 4. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHETLER IDP S IN SULU
Self-employed IDPs were predominantly male for IMPACT OF DISPLACEMENT
both home-based (77%) and temporary shelter (75%) ON EMPLOYMENT
IDPs, while women were more likely to be unpaid
family workers in both groups, most likely due to Approximately 29% of home-based and 34% of
the fact that the majority of jobs available to IDPs temporary shelter IDPs reported that they had lost
are in farming, which remains a male-dominated their job due to displacement, while the remaining
sector. However, FGD participants mentioned that 71% and 66% respectively were able to retain their
several IDPs worked in customer service at local jobs.
pharmacies or coffee shops, some women had also
been provided with sewing machines as part of a FGD participants mentioned that displacement
livelihoods project. had affected their employment, with many being
unable to access their farms (representing their
Table 7: Employment status of profiled IDPs by gender
main pre-displacement source of livelihood) or to
find alternate employment since their displacement.
Men Women
They expressed their hope that the government
Self-employed 77% 23% would assist them by generating livelihood
Home-based
Unpaid family worker 26% 74% opportunities. In addition to those who lost their
job due to the displacement, some chose to stop
Self-employed 75% 25%
Temporary shelter working in order to help their families with day-to-
Unpaid family worker 32% 68% day activities while in displacement.

The outlined findings can be explained by the conflict FAMILY WELFARE

and the ensuing access restrictions that had a direct
impact on displaced families’ ability to generate Prior to displacement, the main source of income
income, as IDPs were predominantly self-employed for both the home-based and temporary shelter
and depended on working on their farms. This is also IDPs was the selling of their own produced goods,
reflected in the lower labour force participation rate followed by irregular/seasonal work (Fig. 37 and Fig.
among IDPs in Patikul compared to the overall rate 38). However, the displacement and the ensuing
for BARMM. access restrictions had a significant impact on the
livelihoods of IDPs, as the main source of income
Unemployment (selling of own produced goods) decreased by
about 20% for home-based and 26% for families in
Overall, the unemployment rate79 for both home-
temporary shelters, while irregular/ seasonal work
based and temporary shelter IDPs was high (14% and
increased by 7% and 9% respectively.
17% respectively). This was significantly higher than
the overall unemployment rate of 6.58% for BARMM
Despite the significant decrease, the selling of
in July 201980, suggesting that IDPs in Patikul faced
own produced goods remained the main source of
barriers accessing employment. Further research is
income for both groups of displaced families after the
required to better understand these dynamics. The
displacement (40% of home-based families; 41% of
unemployment rate among youth IDPs was much
families in temporary shelters), followed by irregular/
higher than the overall one for the IDPs, at 24% for
seasonal work (23% for both).
home-based and 41% for temporary shelter. This
suggests that youth IDPs face even more difficulties
in finding employment. In terms of gender disparity,
the unemployment rate for female home-based IDPs
was slightly higher (3%) than for male IDPs while the
difference was bigger (7%) for temporary shelter
IDPs.

79
The unemployment rate expresses the number of unemployed persons as a percentage of the total number of persons in the labour force
(i.e., the employed plus the unemployed).
80
For more information, refer to https://bit.ly/3iDDknn.

65
 Fig. 37: Main source of income of home-based families before and after their displacement

60%
Selling own produced goods 40%
Income from irregular/ seasonal work 14%
23%
Income from wages/ salaries 3%
5%
2%
Income from business earnings 11%
2%
Support from family members abroad 5%
Money or in-kind assistance 1%
3%
Using savings 1%
0%
Assistance (in cash) from Gov/UN/NGO 0%
1%
Using loans 0%
1%
Pre-displacement
Other 16%
9% Post-displacement

The results of the FGDs confirm the observation that Since arriving at their current location, 46% of home-
displacement had a heavy impact on farming which based and 55% of displaced families in temporary
represents the main source of livelihood among IDPs. shelters had not been able to cover the costs of rent
The importance of accessing their land for farming and/or utility bills. Similar results can be observed in
was a factor in the decision of many displaced families’ inability to cover unexpected expenses (50%
families to stay as close as possible to their place of of home-based families; 51% of temporary shelter
habitual residence, which, nevertheless, was cut off families). Potential alternative income sources like
due to military restrictions. selling off assets, cash assistance by the government
or loans were only used marginally.

Fig. 38: Main source of income of families in temporary shelters before and after their displacement

Selling own produced goods 67%

40%
Income from irregular/ seasonal work 13%
23%
Using loans 2%
2%
Income from wages/ salaries 1%
5%
Income from business earnings 1%
6%
Money or in-kind assistance 1%
6%
Selling off own assets 1%
2%
Support from family members abroad 0%
2%
Assistance (in cash) from Gov/UN/NGO 0%
2%
Pre-displacement
Other 14%
13% Post-displacement

66 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 4. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHETLER IDP S IN SULU
Fig. 39: Accessibility of nearest market for home-based and temporary shelter families

Home-based 3% 39% 14% 18% 26%

Temporary shelter 5% 39% 15% 18% 23%

Not possible Very difficult Somewhat difficult Moderately easy Very easy

Access to the nearest market However, the results show that only 29% of home-
based families and 32% of families in temporary
The majority of families in both population groups shelters were registered with the 4Ps programme.
reported that accessing the nearest market81 Only very few families indicated that they were
was a challenge (Fig. 39). The main challenges beneficiaries of other programmes like modified
people experienced in accessing the market was conditional cash transfer (0.6% of home-based
distance (64% of home-based families; 59% of families and 0.7% of families in temporary shelters).
temporary shelter families) and travel expenses The majority (more than 60% in both target groups)
(32% and 36% respectively), especially valid among indicated other government programmes that
displaced families living far from Jolo. People across were not specified. This suggests certain access
Sulu typically purchase all required household barriers or lack of awareness of existing government
commodities in Jolo. Participants mentioned that as a programmes among IDPs.
result of travel expenses/distance they would rather
buy from more expensive but closer community
stores than the large public market, however this also 4.6 STANDARD OF LIVING
increases their spending. AND ACCESS TO SERVICES

FOOD SECURITY
Access to government assistance programmes
IDPs in Patikul faced challenges in accessing
Nearly all IDPs surveyed reported that they had sufficient food. The most common way that families
a Disaster Assistance Family Access Card issued from both groups accessed food was to purchase
by the DSWD (97% of home-based families; 96% food from markets or stores. Home-based families
of temporary shelter families). Most of those who were more likely to depend on their family as a
did not have access to the card stated that they secondary source, while those in temporary shelters
were not registered for that type of assistance. No were more likely to rely on government assistance.
participants mentioned discrimination or rejection by Despite efforts by the government to provide food,
the government in explaining the reasons why they displaced people depended heavily on a range of
did not have access to the Disaster Assistance Family negative coping mechanisms.
Access Card. The results of the FGDs indicated that
some IDPs were not aware of the Disaster Assistance Main sources of food
Family Access Card. Furthermore, PWG members
noted that some IDPs had confused the “IDP relief Most home-based displaced families mainly
cards” distributed by Municipal Local Government obtained their food from markets (94%), however
Units with the Disaster Assistance Family Access some families also still farmed food or received
Card as it served a similar purpose. food from their relatives or host family. Only a few
home-based families obtained food through external
During the FGDs, many IDPs stated that they were assistance like government and programmes from
beneficiaries of government assistance programmes non-government organizations (see Fig. 40). For
such as 4Ps and senior citizen programmes. displaced families in temporary shelters, markets
were also the main source of food (95%). The next
most commonly reported source was government
81
“Market” in the Sulu context was understood to refer to the Jolo
assistance, reported by 12% of the displaced families.
central market.

67
 Fig. 40: Main sources of food of home-based and temporary shelter families

Home-based Temporary shelter

Market 94% 95%
Relatives 16% 11%
Own produced (within household) 15% 12%
Government 13% 12%
Non-government (UN, Private entity, NGO, INGO) 9% 8%

Host family 9% 4%
Other 1% 0%

Food Consumption Score (FCS) Household coping strategies

In total, 85% of home-based displaced families and Nearly all home-based displaced families (85% or 603
80% of displaced families in temporary shelters had families) reported that they did not have sufficient
acceptable food consumption based on the Food food or money to buy food in the 7 days prior to
Consumption Score. Nearly 12% of home-based and the survey. There was a similar rate among families
18% of families in temporary shelters had borderline living in temporary shelters (84% or 361 families). The
food consumption. A smaller proportion had poor table below shows how families handled shortfalls in
food consumption (see Fig. 41). food consumption, based on categories used for the
Coping Strategy Index (see Annex IV).
The results of the profiling reflect the Food
Consumption Score results for Sulu from the There was no dominant coping strategy, rather
“Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability displaced families in Sulu implemented a variety of
Analysis” conducted in the Autonomous Region strategies including applying each strategy for at
in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) in 2018.82 The results least two days in the week. This aligned with the
indicated that 92% of people in Sulu had acceptable WFP findings that households in Sulu applied each
food consumption, 6% had borderline and 2% had coping strategy for at least 2 days (ibid.). Barriers to
poor food consumption. The results from the IDP access food from markets, namely the long distance
profiling showed a larger proportion of people in the to the market and prohibitive cost of transportation,
“borderline” bracket. may help explain why displaced families depend
on negative coping strategies. The results of the
FGD and PWG survey confirmed these findings on
family food coping strategies. All FGD participants
reported that they depended on negative coping
strategies including limiting meals to one or two
meals a day, or letting children eat first then
sharing the remaining food with other adult

Fig. 41: Distribution of home-based and temporary shelter displaced families by food consumption classification based on the FCS

Home-based 4% 12% 85%

Temporary shelter 2% 18% 80%

Poor Borderline Acceptable Note: 1% missing values due to decimals rounding

82
WFP & ARMM (2018). Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

68 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 4. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHETLER IDP S IN SULU
Table 8: Average number of days household coping mechanisms were employed by surveyed displaced population group for
a 7 day recall period

Average no. of days coping strategy was Average no. of days coping strategy was applied
applied (home-based displaced families) (displaced families in temporary shelters)
Rely on less preferred and less expensive food 2 2
Borrow food or rely on help from a relative 2 2
Limit portion size of meals at meal times 3 3
Restrict consumption by adults in order for children to eat 3 2
Reduce number of meals eaten in a day 3 3

members of the family. In many cases, participants shelters using inadequate facilities. Sanitation
had to borrow money and ask help from their facilities in evacuation centres were particularly poor
relatives. Some even borrowed money or asked help with 40% falling below the SPHERE standards.
from other displaced families.

PWG members confirmed that displaced families Access to protected water sources
experienced problems obtaining sufficient food.
In response to this issue, food packages were 79% of the home-based displaced families and
distributed among displaced families and hot meals 66% of displaced families in temporary shelters had
were provided to IDPs in temporary shelters by the access to protected water sources for drinking.83
Art Relief Mobile Kitchen. IDPs also reported that The majority of displaced families (76% home-
they received food and non-food assistance from based and 65% temporary shelter) had access
the Ministry of Social Services and Development, to protected water sources also for cooking and
UNHCR, Provincial Local Government Units, domestic purposes. The most common source for
Municipal Local Government Unit, Care Philippines, water in both groups was from vendors (52% and
and WFP. 44% respectively). Nearly all families in temporary
shelters who did not have access to protected water
sources depended on water from springs, rivers
WATER, SANITATION AND or unprotected wells (26% of temporary shelter
HYGIENE (WASH) families). IDPs who participated in the FGDs agreed
that access to good quality water was a problem,
Access to water was a widely recognised challenge they also reported a number of diarrhea cases.
among IDPs in Patikul. Some 30% of displaced
home-based families and 26% in temporary shelters 30% of home-based displaced families and 26% of
did not have access to enough water to meet their IDPs in temporary shelters did not have access to
needs 30 days prior to the survey. The quality of sufficient water to meet their needs in the 30 days
water was also problematic with FGD participants prior to the survey. Most who reported not having
stating that they could not ensure that water was sufficient access attributed this to lack of water
potable. Nearly one-third of temporary shelter containers (50% both groups); other reasons include
displaced families did not have access to potable the unavailability of water from sources (14% and 22%
water, most were instead dependent on unprotected respectively), the unaffordability of water (16% and
sources such as springs, rivers and unprotected 11% respectively), and water sources being too far
wells. The results of the profiling also show that IDPs away (11% and 5% respectively).
relied on poor sanitation facilities with 39% of home-
based displaced families and 59% in temporary

83
These water sources are common faucets (Level 2), fetched water from neighbors with piped connection, piped connection, protected
deep or shallow well, pump, water vendors (e.g., bottled water, container, peddlers, water refilling stations).

69
 Fig. 42: Main sources of water for drinking for home-based and temporary shelter families by protected and unprotected water
sources
Home-based Temporary shelter
Water vendors 52% 44%
Piped connection 12% 9%
Fetched water from neighbour 6% 5%
Protected sources with piped connection
Protected deep/ shallow well 4% 7%

Common faucet (Level 2) 3% 1%

Pump 2% 1%
Unprotected deep/ shallow well 11% 20%
Unportected sources Spring/ River/ Pond/ Stream 6% 10%
Connected to a neighbour 4% 3%

Consultations with PWG members revealed that Access to adequate toilet facilities
access to water has indeed been a problem across
the Sulu Province for both the displaced families More than a third of home-based displaced families
and the host community. The majority of relocation depended on inadequate toilet facilities such as
sites and hosting communities are not equipped with open pits, bedpans or a “wrap and throw” approach;
WASH facilities including potable water sources. In 61% used a closed pit or water-sealed facility. The
response, the Provincial Local Government Units proportion of IDPs without access to improved toilet
have been coordinating with the Bureau of Fire facilities and instead depending either on open pits
Protection to provide water to IDP communities or open defecation among IDPs in temporary shelters
using fire trucks. The Barangay Local Government was much higher at 60% (Fig. 43).
Units and some civil society organisations have been
working on the construction of water supply and More than half of the IDPs that used open pits
WASH facilities for the affected areas. reported that the facility was more than 50 metres
away from their dwelling (56% for home-based; 66%
for temporary shelter). Based on distance alone,
22% of home-based displaced families and 42% of
families in temporary shelters failed to meet the
SPHERE standard of having a toilet less than 50
metres away from their dwelling.84 During the FGDs,
IDPs from Barangay Bangkal reported that two deep
wells and two toilet facilities had been constructed by

Fig. 43: Access to toilet facilities among family heads of home-based and temporary shelter IDPs

Home-based Temporary shelter

Closed pit 32% 21%
Adequate facilities
Water-sealed, sewer/ septic tank 27% 16%

Water-sealed, other depository 2% 4%

Open pit 34% 55%

Inadequate facilities
No toilet 5% 4%

84
For more information, refer to https://handbook.spherestandards.org/en/sphere/#ch006_003.

70 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 4. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHETLER IDP S IN SULU
the Barangay Local Government Unit and Provincial Access to vaccination cards
Local Government Unit respectively. These facilities
were accessible to all IDPs in the Barangay. More than half of the surveyed displaced families
with children did not possess a vaccination card for
their children (56% of home-based families; 57%
Access to handwashing facilities of temporary shelter families). During the FGDs,
participants noted that this may be due to social
Access to handwashing facilities was also poor norms, whereby people prefer to visit traditional or
among suveyed displaced families in Patikul. Over faith healers. As a result, people were either unaware
two thirds of families from both groups either did of vaccinations or did not think they were required.
not use hand washing facilities (65% of home-based Furthermore, many people in the Philippines have
families; 64% of temporary shelter families), or used become more skeptical of vaccinations after a nation-
mobile buckets (9% and 13% respectively). About wide Dengue fever vaccination programme that was
one fifth of home-based (21%) and temporary shelter linked to the deaths of several children.85
(23%) displaced families used other types of facilities
that were not further specified. The main reason Having a vaccination card assists health workers
given for not having access to hand washing facilities and parents determine what vaccinations a child has
was financial, with families unable to afford washing received, and if any have been missed. Without this
facilities or materials. record, children may miss vaccinations, leaving them
at risk of contracting serious diseases. Proof that
Consultations with the PWG indicated that the children have been vaccinated is also a requirement
disruption of livelihoods and decreased income for for families to access the 4Ps programme. FGD
many displaced families has had a direct impact on participants noted the need for improved awareness
people’s ability to access safe and improved water, about vaccinations and healthcare practices.
sanitation and hygiene. As a result, IDPs have been
forced to access public facilities, which tend to be
overcrowded especially in evacuation centres. Health problems and access
to healthcare facilities

HEALTH Most IDPs reported that the most common health

problems included fever, headaches, cough, colds,
More than half of the surveyed displaced families asthma and body pain. Few families reported
with children did not possess a vaccination card problems that could be related to the poor WASH
for their children. Displaced families could typically standards, such as diarrhea, typhoid or cholera (42
access healthcare facilities, but barriers exist cases in total in Patikul). This was in line with the
especially the cost of public transport required to findings from the Municipality Protection Profiling
reach healthcare facilities. There was also a lack report.86 Community discussions as part of the
of health referral systems in evacuation sites. Most quick impact project for the rehabilitation of water
surveyed families used formal medical facilities, system Level 287 suggest that the lack of widespread
however, there was also a widespread belief in and waterborne diseases despite poor WASH standards
use of traditional healing methods. may be attributed to resilience developed over time
given that the same water sources are used for
generations.

85
For more information about the incident, refer to https://bit.ly/3oTQoXT; and https://bit.ly/3qMy9Ev.
86
The Municipality Protection Profiling (MPP) is a survey which seeks to provide an overview of the living conditions of the IDPs and the
general protection environment at the municipal level. It is an unpublished report, available upon request from UNHCR Philippines.
87
Based on unpublished documentation of the inclusive and consultative community building, available upon request from UNHCR
Philippines.

71
 I A Sama Bajau woman washes clothes outside her house in Bongao, Tawi-Tawi.
Women in this community usually take charge of the household chores.

Approximately half of both home-based and instruct IDPs verbally as to where they should go for
temporary shelter displaced families reported that treatment especially those that can’t be treated easily
at least one member of their family needed to visit at the health centre. PWG members clarified that
a doctor or health facility in the six months prior to there are no specific health-related interventions
the survey. Of those, about 90% managed to see for IDPs and that barriers remain in access to
a healthcare practitioner or a traditional healer. healthcare facilities. During the FGDs, participants
Of those who sought medical assistance, 73% noted that larger healthcare facilities were not
of home-based and 66% of temporary shelter accessible to all IDPs due to physical distance and
displaced families visited a formal healthcare that several barangays do not have any health
facility (Barangay health centre, government centres.
hospital or rural health unit). There were still
26% of home-based and 33% of temporary
shelter displaced families that visited informal or EDUCATION
traditional healers and care facilities.
More than half of the surveyed IDPs in Patikul
Some 43% of displaced families in temporary shelters either had no education or had only completed
stated that no formal health service was available at elementary school. A small proportion of IDPs in
their site. Several FGD participants mentioned that Patikul had completed tertiary education. About one
health centres were present at their relocation site, third of school aged children were not attending
but noted they were often unaware of the health school. There were notable gender differences in
services available. Furthermore, 73% of families terms of secondary school attendance with higher
in temporary shelters reported that there was no attendance among girls. The most commonly cited
referral system in place for health problems that reasons why children were not attending school
could not be treated at their evacuation site. FGD were the associated costs or that they were not
participants mentioned that health workers usually willing to continue their studies due to the adverse

72 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

effects of displacement. This suggests presence of such as Barangay Latih, temporary learning centres
psychosocial trauma among children stemming from have been established by the government with
the conflict and/or experience of displacement. the support of partner agencies to ensure access
to education. However, PWG members reported
that in some barangays there were no education

CHAPTER
School attendance88 programmes for IDPs in place.

Of the surveyed 3,047 home-based IDPs and 1,855 FGD participants mentioned that displacement has
IDPs in temporary shelters in Patikul, 35% of both had a significant effect on the education of displaced
groups were of school age, 5-18 years old (37% of children. The main reasons IDPs gave for school-
the home-based male population; 33% of the home- aged children not attending school were a lack of
based female population; and 39% of the temporary financial resources, for example, to purchase school
shelter male population; 32% of the temporary supplies. Financial constraints were more commonly
shelter female population). reported as a barrier to accessing higher levels of
education. Another issue highlighted in the PWG
Among the home-based elementary school-aged consultations was that relocation sites for IDPs
IDPs (5-11 years old), more than two-thirds were were often located far from the available schools.
attending school (70%), while 14% reported to not be This was more pronounced for high schools and
attending school. There was no disparity in school tertiary education. There were no tertiary education
attendance for this age group between girls and institutions in Patikul, instead people had to travel to
boys. School attendance for elementary school-aged Jolo or Zamboanga City. PWG members noted that
IDP children living in temporary shelters was similar Balik Barangay Programme89 recipients, who were
(71% attending, 14% not attending) with 6 % more girls often least able to afford education, were prioritised
attending school than boys (Table 10). for educational programmes. Some FGD participants
were not aware if there were government projects to
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of home-based IDPs aged support access to education for their children, other
12-18 years old, were attending high school, while participants were aware of such projects but noted
20% reported to not be attending school. In total, that there were a lot of requirements including grade
17% more girls attended high school than boys. The scores, which seemed difficult for displaced children
rate of children displaced in temporary shelters not to meet due to the disruption in their studies because
attending high school was higher at 27%, however, of the displacement.
the proportion of those attending was similar at
60%. The gender gap for high school attendance FGD participants shared that most displaced parents
was smaller among displaced children in temporary had tried to continue sending their children to school,
shelters with just 6% more girls than boys. This could however, some children were not willing to return to
be explained by the fact that it’s mainly boys who school since their displacement. The unwillingness of
are engaged in assisting their parents with income children to return to school should be understood in
generating activities rather than girls. the context of the upheaval they have experienced,
and may indicate a high prevalence of psycho-social
The vast majority of children who went to school trauma.
attended government-run schools (97% of home-
based children attending school; 96% of temporary
shelter children attending school). In some host areas

88
The school system in the Philippines is divided into elementary (kindergarten and grades 1 to 6; ages 5 to 11 years old), junior high school
(grades 7 to 10; ages 12 to 15 years old), and senior high school (grades 11 and 12; ages 16 to 18 years). For your information, refer to:
https://www.deped.gov.ph/k-to-12/about/k-to-12-basic-education-curriculum/.
89
The Balik Barangay Programme (Return to Barangay Programme) is a local initiative which seeks to support/facilitate the safe return of
displaced families to their places of origin. It is led by the Provincial government of Sulu through the Municipal Task Force for Ending
Local Armed Conflict (MTF ELAC). MTF ELAC is composed of different line agencies including the AFP, Ministry of Social Services and
Development, Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Management Officer, National Commission on Muslim Filipinos, and others. This initiative
is not published. However, the concept is similar to the Balik Probinsya (back to province) program of the national government. For more
information, refer to: https://balikprobinsya.ph/ and https://bit.ly/3sGHsYj.

73
 Table 9: School attendance of home-based and temporary shelter displaced children of school age

Primary/ elementary education Secondary education/ junior and senior high school
(Age 5-11 years) (Age 12-18 years)
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Yes 70% 70% 70% 54% 71% 63%
Home-based

No 15% 13% 14% 26% 14% 20%

Other 15% 17% 16% 19% 14% 17%
Yes 68% 74% 71% 57% 63% 60%
Temporary

No 16% 12% 14% 31% 22% 27%

Other 16% 14% 15% 12% 15% 13%

Highest level of education completed 4.7 HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY

Most home-based IDPs and IDPs in temporary Most displaced families did not have proof of
shelters aged 15 and older had either not attended ownership for their house and land in the place of
school (29% and 32% respectively), or had only habitual residence. Instead, claims of ownership
completed elementary school (25% and 24% typically stemmed from family members or ancestral
respectively). Given the traditional gender roles in the domain. The importance of house and land
society, it was interesting to note that more displaced ownership documentation was not always clear
women had completed high school or college/ to displaced families, and some were not aware
university than men in both groups (34% of home- that it is required. The lack of official ownership
based women vs 26% of home-based men; 26% of documents exposes these IDPs to the potential
women in temporary shelter vs 20% of men) (see Fig. violation of property rights on return. However, IDPs
44). One reason for this might be pressure on young expressed that with or without documents or land
men to take up breadwinner roles within the family title, ownership had not been an issue. The survey
early on. showed that even in cases where the houses of
displaced families have been partially or totally
destroyed, IDPs still wanted to return to access their
land and livelihoods.

Figure 44: Highest level of education completed of home-based and temporary shelter IDPs (15+) by gender

Home-based Temporary shelter

Women 31% 33%
No education
Men 28% 30%

Women 22% 22%

First level (elementary school) Men 29% 26%

Women 22% 19%

Second level (high-school) Men 18% 15%

Women 12% 7%
Tertiary level (College/University) Men 8% 5%

Women 14% 19%

Other Men 17% 24%

74 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 4. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHETLER IDP S IN SULU
Land ownership of ownership, they were now considering obtaining
such documents to avoid potential future disputes
Of the 710 home-based displaced families in Patikul, when they return to their land. Members of the
71% reported that they own the land in their place PWG shared that Tausugs generally do not typically
of habitual residence; of the 430 displaced families register their land as they understand it to be theirs
in temporary shelters, 72% reported to own the even without proper documentation. Information
land. Approximately 77% of home-based displaced on how to acquire documentation was not often
families who own their land did not have any proof communicated in remote areas such as where many
of ownership, while 17% said they owned a land title displaced families are from.
and 6% did not specify or did not know. Roughly 70%
of displaced families in temporary shelters who own
their land did not have proof of ownership, while 15% House ownership
said they owned a land title and 14% did not specify
their situation. Similarly to land ownership, the majority of home-
based displaced families (84%) and those in
Of those home-based displaced families who own temporary shelters (83%) reported to own the house
their land, 20% reported that there were ownership in their place of habitual residence. FGD participants
claims by a third party on the land, while 73% of reported that houses were either given to them as a
families reported that there were not. For land- gift in inheritance or built by them when they started
owning displaced families in temporary shelters, to have their own families. Since the majority of
15% reported third party claims, while 81% said IDPs grew up in the same land where they built their
there were no other ownership claims. The majority houses, this was often used as the basis for their
of displaced families in both groups that reported ownership claim.
third party claims on their land cited family members
claiming entitlement or ancestral domain as the main Damages to houses in place
reason. Lack of awareness about the importance of of habitual residence
acquiring proof of land ownership was seen as the
main reason for not acquiring such documentation. For the home-based displaced family house
owners, over 99% stated that their house in their
When the FGD participants were asked why they place of habitual residence was either totally
did not have documents as proof of ownership for destroyed (86%) or partially destroyed (13%). Of the
their lands, they claimed that their predecessors families in temporary shelters who own houses,
who passed on the land as inheritance had not over 99% stated their homes were either totally
acquired the necessary documents of ownership. destroyed (86%) or partially destroyed (14%).
Others said that their parents and grandparents
were not aware that there was a need to get proof During the FGDs, the majority of participants
of ownership. However, they expressed that with mentioned that most of the houses in their places
or without documents or land title, ownership had of habitual residence had been damaged during
not been an issue. Several IDPs reported after confrontations between the AFP and Abu Sayyaf
receiving information about the importance of proof Group. Furthermore, some houses had been

Figure 45: Land ownership and proof of land ownership of Figure 46: Land ownership and proof of land ownership of
home-based displaced families displaced families in temporary shelter

No No
No proof 77% No proof 70%
28% 27%
Title 17% 72% Yes Title 15%
71% Yes
Other 4% Deed of sale 1%
Don’t know 2%
Other 14%

75
 I A survey respondent answers the inquiry of the enumerator during the data collection of the profiling exercise in the
province of Basilan in November 2019.

damaged from lack of maintenance due to the Preferred settlement location/option

prolonged displacement and inability of people to
visit their houses. In several periods without active 86% of the home-based IDPs and 80% of the displaced
conflict, the AFP allowed some IDPs to visit their families in temporary shelters wanted to leave their
farms. During these visits, some displaced families current location (Fig. 47). Of those, the majority (90%)
were able to conduct repairs and in some cases of both population groups wanted to return to their
start the process of rebuilding their homes. Families place of habitual residence if the security situation
displaced to areas nearby their place of habitual would improve (66% of home-based families; 74%
residence were often better positioned to visit their of temporary shelter families) and in order to have
homes than those living elsewhere in the province. better access to their homes and livelihoods (23% of
During the FGDs, heads of the displaced families home-based; 17% of temporary shelter families).
shared that even though many already knew their
houses and other properties were destroyed, they FGD participants shared that their main reasons for
still preferred to return to access their farms. wanting to return to their places of habitual residence
were to access their main sources of income and
livelihood, and their property. They also explained
4.8 FUTURE INTENTIONS that being in their own home would also help them
feel safe, even with the risk of future insecurity and
The displacement pattern showed that families potential displacement. PWG members also noted
were forced to leave their homes, but stayed within that for many IDPs, comfort zones are synonymous
their municipality at the place of origin. Movements with their place of habitual residence, and many can
only happened across barangays. Hence, all only conduct their livelihood activities from there. For
families surveyed expressed a desire to stay in their many IDPs, the idea of starting a new life somewhere
municipality and the majority of families wanted else seemed too much of a burden. However, several
to return to their place of habitual residence, FGD participants believed that staying in their area of
meaning they desired to only remove to their houses habitual residence would increase their exposure to
within the same municipality. Respondents also ongoing security concerns. Livelihoods and financial
reported feeling more safe in their place of habitual security appeared to play a dominant role in people’s
residence even in cases where their houses had choice of where to live with people rationalising that if
been destroyed with the risk of future insecurity and they could return and access their source of income,
potential displacement. they would find the means to reconstruct their houses.

76 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 4. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHETLER IDP S IN SULU
Fig. 47: Future intentions for settlement location of displaced families in home-based and temporary shelter settings

Home-based Temporary shelter

Return to place of habitual residence/ place of origin 90% 90%
Move to different place in same city/ area 4% 2%
Move to different place within same neighbourhood 3% 2%
Move elsewhere in the country (not place of origin) 1% 2%
Note: 1% missing value
Move abroad 1% 2% of Don’t know in
Other 1% 1% temporary shelter

Barriers to preferred settlement option

Roughly 86% of home-based IDPs and 89% of PWG members mentioned that they would monitor
displaced families in temporary shelters believed the situation of IDPs to ensure they were protected
they would have the possibility to pursue their and their concerns were properly addressed.
preferred future intention. The main reasons for According to some PWG members, the Balik-
not being able to pursue their preferred settlement Barangay Programme90 was conducted together with
option for both population groups were the partners in the government as well as NGOs. The
ongoing conflict, the presence of armed groups, Balik-Barangay Programme or the Back to Barangay
the lack of feeling of security, and the destruction Programme aims to provide better opportunities to
of their property including houses and farmlands. displaced families to restart their lives when they
Approximately 61% home-based and 65% of go back to their place of habitual residence. This
temporary shelter IDP respondents said they had includes the provision of construction materials for
received information about the government’s houses, livelihood assistance, psychosocial support
plans for displaced families, while 32% and 29% and access to other social services.
respectively said they were not aware of such
plans. According to the FGD participants, the
information that families would require in order
to plan for return included information about the
security situation and the availability of basic services
(education, food, health, shelter, water etc.).

Figure 48: Reasons for preferred settlement location among displaced families in home-based and temporary shelter settings
Home-based Temporary shelter
Better security 65% 74%
Better access to home/area of housing
and area of livelihood/livestock 23% 17%
Better access to livelihood/employment
opportunities 8% 4%
To continue living with family or
community members/ family reasons 1% 2%

Better access to basic infrastructure.. 1% 2%

Other reasons 1% 1%

Don’t know 1% 1%

Better access to education and healt.. 1% 0%

Access to humanitarian aid 1% 0%

Refused 0% 0%

90
Refer to footnote 89.

77
 4.9 CONCLUSION financial strain on many displaced families. As a
result, at least half of the surveyed displaced families
The profiling of internal displacement in Sulu covered were not able to pay rent, utility bills or meet other
710 home-based displaced families (3,047 individuals) expenses. The negative impact on the livelihoods
and 430 displaced families living in temporary of the IDPs has meant that many had to resort to
shelters (1,855 individuals). All of these families were negative coping mechanisms, including not sending
based in the municipality of Patikul with the exception their children to school, rationing their food intake,
of one family in the municipality of Parang. While this or not prioritising acquiring sanitary equipment
was not a representative sample of IDPs in Patikul due to lack of financial resources. The challenges
or in Sulu, it provides an indication of their living in accessing markets due to the distance and
conditions, as well as their vulnerabilities, and the associated costs of transport further exacerbated the
challenges they face in displacement. income situation of the families, as they faced greater
difficulties selling their produce and purchasing
Both surveyed displaced population groups were cheaper food. Additionally, the findings suggest
displaced due to conflict between the government low awareness of existing government assistance
forces and armed groups. Even though displacement programmes that could help families cope with the
took place on a local scale, with all displaced lack of financial resources. The fact that a third of
population within the same municipality, most families IDPs in both population groups did not possess
have been displaced either since 2017, or 2019. The a birth certificate represents a further barrier to
majority of home-based displaced families were accessing government support programmes. As
hosted by their relatives which can be regarded as a displaced families already struggled with financial
positive coping strategy. difficulties, having to pay for documentation might
not be feasible.
Almost all surveyed IDPs (90%) from both population
groups wanted to return to their place of habitual The labour force participation rate among IDPs
residence. However, the ongoing conflict and military in Patikul was lower than the overall labour force
restrictions limited their access to their houses and participation rate in BARMM. Displacement has
land. For many, their houses had been partially or increased the challenges that IDPs faced to
fully destroyed. These factors hindered the ability of participate in the labour force including their
the IDPs to pursue their preferred future settlement inability to access their land for farming, and having
option. The armed conflict was the primary safety and difficulties finding new paid work indicated by the
security concern among IDPs in their current location. high unemployment rates. The results also indicate
Furthermore, IDPs feared reporting security incidents the presence of additional barriers for youth to find
as they were concerned that they may be wrongly employment as well as large gender disparity with
suspected of being affiliated with an armed group. most women being outside the labour force and
A further hindrance for returning was that displaced mainly engaged in housework. In addition, there was
families were not informed about the government’s a high unemployment rate among IDPs in both home-
plans on military operations and when returns could based and temporary shelter settings compared to
be facilitated. the overall unemployment rate for BARMM which
suggests that there might be barriers specific for IDPs
Furthermore, the restricted access to their land, due to find a job but it also reflects the loss of farming
to the continuous conflict and military restrictions, livelihoods. Further data collection and analysis are
has had a negative impact on the livelihoods of the required to better understand these barriers.
displaced families given that production and selling
of goods from farming was their main source of
income. This was supported by the prioritisation of
needs related to food, nutrition and livelihoods by
both displaced population groups. The proportion of
displaced families who reported “selling their own
production goods” as their main source of income
had dropped by more than 20% for both target
groups after the displacement. This placed significant

78 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 4. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHETLER IDP S IN SULU
I Sama Bajau IDPs gathered in an open area in Barangay Tubig Tanah, Bongao, Tawi Tawi during a protection monitoring
following a storm surge brought by Typhoon Marilyn in 2019.

Displacement has also affected the ability of families was an additional evidence of the worrying economic
to access services. IDPs seemed to generally have situation faced by displaced families, as they were
good access to healthcare services, but IDPs in required to prioritise among critical needs. Concerns
evacuation centers would benefit from the expanded were raised about access to potable water especially
availability of healthcare at evacuation centers, as in relation to water quality. However, access to
well as improved awareness about referral systems potable water and improved sanitation facilities were
and vaccinations. Low school attendance, especially understood to be common problems faced among
for high school and tertiary education, was largely the general population in Sulu.
attributed to lack of financial resources. In addition,
many children reportedly dropped out of school due It is important to note that some of the challenges
to their experience of displacement. This warrants IDPs face may not be specifically related or caused
further investigation into the impact of displacement by their displacement but may be a general
on psychosocial wellbeing of children. challenge faced by the whole population on the
island province of Sulu. However, the non-inclusion of
Access to adequate water, sanitation and hygiene the non-displaced population in the profiling means
was a key vulnerability highlighted through the that no comparative conclusions can be drawn.
profiling. A considerable number of displaced families
practiced open defecation, and many families could
not afford to purchase handwashing materials. This

79
 I A
 Sama Bajau mother and her daughter are on their way to the
market in Pandami, Sulu. Small boats serve as transportation
for Sama Bajaus who live far from the community center.

80 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 5. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHELTER IDPs IN TAWI-TAWI
5. 5.1 DISPLACEMENT CONTEXT

Nearly all IDPs surveyed in Tawi-Tawi were displaced

most recently in 2019 due to Typhoon Marilyn and

HOME-BASED the associated storm surge. All IDPs were displaced

to areas within the same municipality as their place

AND TEMPORARY of habitual residence. All houses in the place of

habitual residence were totally destroyed reflecting

SHELTER IDPs IN the typically weak housing structures. Financial

resources represent the main barrier for IDPs to
TAWI-TAWI return and rebuild their houses.

Causes and patterns of

The province of Tawi-Tawi has 107 islands recent displacements
situated between Sulu to the northeast, Sabah,
Malaysia to the west and Kalimantan, Indonesia The Tawi-Tawi island group has been less affected
to the south-west. The province comprises 11 by armed conflict as compared to Sulu, Basilan and
municipalities organised into 203 barangays. Central Mindanao. Given the geographical location of
the province, displacement has been mostly caused
Tawi-Tawi is the fourth most populous province by natural disasters like storm surges, typhoons,
in BARMM, with a population of 390,715 people and earthquakes. Consequently, all of the 132
in 2015, of whom 100,527 people are living in the surveyed displaced families reported that they had
capital Bongao.91 The majority of the inhabitants been displaced by natural disasters. People were
of Sulu identify as Muslim and classify themselves displaced from Tubig Tanah in 2019 due to Typhoon
as belonging to the Samal (also called Sama) Marilyn and the associated storm surge on 13
including Jama Mapun and Bajau (also called September 2019. PWG members noted that in Tawi-
Sama Dilaut), and Tausug ethnolinguistic groups, Tawi there were also some isolated cases of people
followed by Tagalog.92 The culture and lifestyle being displaced due to family or clan feuds. However,
of the Samal ethnic group is closely linked to these displaced families were not included in the
the sea. Traditional Samal houses are built on present profiling exercise.
stilts over shallow seas while their food is heavily
based on marine resources and cassava. The Nearly all IDPs surveyed were displaced most
Bajau culture is also associated with the sea, with recently in 2019 (100% of home-based IDPs; 95%
many traditionally living on boat houses called of IDPs in temporary shelters). Of the remaining five
lepa. families in temporary shelter, three were displaced in
2018 and two in 2017.
The population in Tawi-Tawi is predominantly
rural with an agricultural economy (22% urban; All of the home-based IDPs and all of the IDPs
78% rural). There are more than 13,000 farms in staying in temporary shelters included in the survey
the province, the majority of which are planted were displaced within Bongao (see Fig. 49 and
with permanent crops. Livestock, fishing and Fig. 50), with the exception of one family that was
aquaculture (including seaweed farming) are also displaced from Siasi to Bongao.
widespread and form important components of
the provincial economy.93 Some displaced families were able to rebuild their
houses following the typhoon and returned shortly
after. At the time of the writing of this report in
late 2020, all IDPs from Tubig Tanah returned to
reconstruct their houses in their place of habitual
91
For more information, refer to: https://bit.ly/3iBCB5R.
residence. Returned IDPs received livelihood training
92
For more information, refer to: https://www.psa.gov.ph/
sites/default/files/tawi-tawi.pdf. and awareness raising on IDP rights. PWG members
93
For more information, refer to: https://bit.ly/391C6Pf. mentioned that there were plans for disaster risk

81
 Bongao

0 10 20 Kilometers

Map 5: Surveyed municipality of Bongao in Tawi-Tawi province

reduction activities including reinforcing housing Visits to place of habitual residence

structures to better withstand extreme weather
conditions. There were also plans to relocate For both population groups, about half of the families
particularly vulnerable coastal communities under the had visited their place of habitual residence since
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Tawi-Tawi.94 their displacement. Approximately 50% of home-
based and 62% of the temporary shelter displaced
families surveyed reported that they visit their
homes every day or at least once a week (see Fig.
51).

Fig. 51: Frequency of visits to place of habitual residence of IDPs in home-based and temporary shelter settings

Home-based IDPs Temporary shelter IDPs

Never 27% 21%
Less than once a month 9% 0%
Once a month 11% 14%
More than once a month 2% 0%
Once a week 24% 45%
More than once a week 0% 3%
Everyday 26% 17%

94
Local Government Units (LGUs) have to prepare land use plans that serve as a base for future use of land resources in the area (see
https://bit.ly/38ZpkB0 for more information). However, Bongao did not yet submit or publish a land use plan.

82 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 5. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHELTER IDPs IN TAWI-TAWI
Fig. 49: Movement of home-based displaced families from place of habitual residence to current residence by number of
families per Barangay

42 Lamion Lamion 42

23 Simandagit Simandagit 24

1 Sumangat
1 Kong-Kong Laminusa

36 Tubig Tanah Tubig Tanah 37

Fig. 50: Movement of displaced families in temporary shelters from place of habitual residence to current residence by number
of families per Barangay

10 Lamion Lamion 10

6 Simandagit Simandagit 6

42 Tubig Tanah Tubig Tanah 42

For the 74 home-based displaced families and 23 claim to their land, and fend off encroachment by
displaced families in temporary shelter who had other people. IDPs encountered no obstacles to
been visiting their place of habitual residence prior to visiting their place of habitual residence.
returning, the main reason for visiting was to check on
their property (72% and 57% respectively), or to visit The 28 home-based and 6 displaced families in
friends and family (6% and 14% respectively). Notably, temporary shelters who had not been visiting their
almost a quarter of respondents answered “other”. place of habitual residence mentioned that they did
FGD participants also mentioned that they visited not own their property, that they had lost their source
their places of habitual residence immediately of livelihood, and because of the trauma associated
following the storm surge in order to maintain the with the disaster.

83
 5.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE The family size ranged from two to 15 members for
home-based displaced families, and from three to
nine members for displaced families in temporary
Gender, age and ethnicity shelters. The average family size was 6 persons
in home-based displaced families and 5.7 persons
All of the 103 home-based displaced families (626 for displaced families in temporary shelters, which
individuals) and 29 families living in temporary resembled the average family size among the
shelters (168 individuals) surveyed were based in general population in Tawi-Tawi.96
Bongao. The demographic profile showed an almost
equal gender distribution (48% men and 52% women
among the home-based; 51% men and 49% women Housing arrangements among
in temporary shelters), which resembles that of the home-based displaced families
overall population in BARMM (50% men and 50%
women in ARMM, 2015).95 The majority of home-based displaced families
were living with relatives (91%) including their
The majority of the surveyed population was under parents (28%), siblings (18%) or other relatives
20 years of age (55% of home-based men; 58% of (45%). The remaining home-based displaced families
home-based women; 62% of temporary shelter men; were living in temporary shelters. FGD participants
64% of temporary shelter women). The largest age noted that most IDPs chose to live with their relatives
bracket for both groups was that of children aged 5 as they would feel safer and more comfortable with
to 9 years. The average age for home-based IDPs their families.
was 21 years for women and 20 years for men, and
younger among IDPs in temporary shelters at 19
years for women and 18 years for men. 5.3 ACCESS TO DOCUMENTATION
The majority of the surveyed home-based displaced About two-thirds of surveyed IDPs from both
families and families in temporary shelters in Tawi- population groups did not have a birth certificate.
Tawi belonged to the Sama-Bajau ethnolinguistic The most commonly cited reasons included that
group (85% and 86% respectively). In addition, family members were not registered or had not
among home-based displaced families 10% were yet claimed certificates with the authorities (89%
Tausug and 3% of families in temporary shelters were of home-based IDPs; 97% for IDPs in temporary
Tagalog. shelters). The rest had lost their birth certificates
(9% and 3% respectively). A birth certificate is the
primary requirement for IDPs to access government
Marital status and family size programmes such as 4Ps (Pantawid Pamilyang
Pilipino Programme),97 to enroll and graduate from
The majority of heads of home-based displaced school, and to access other government services. As
families (84%) and almost all family heads of a result the lack of birth certificate for these IDPs is a
displaced families in temporary shelters (97%) were barrier for accessing such services. Obtaining a birth
married. All married family heads of displaced certificate, though, involves a fee98 which could pose
families in temporary shelters were men. Notably, 11% an additional barrier for some families.
of the family heads were widowed women.

95
For more information, refer to: http://rssoarmm.psa.gov.ph/statistics/ARMMpopulation.
96
For more information, refer to: http://rssoarmm.psa.gov.ph/statistics/population.
97
For more information about the 4Ps, refer to footnote no. 23.
98
The BARMM government enacted the Muslim Mindanao Act 293, which established free birth registration in BARMM. The law stipulates
that the fees for birth registration should be covered by the municipal local government units. Several municipalities implement Act 293
and have agreed to waive fees, however, for most municipalities, issuing birth certificates is an important source of revenue. For more
information, refer to: https://lawphil.net/administ/mmaa/7a/pdf/mmaa_293_7a.pdf.

84 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 5. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHELTER IDPs IN TAWI-TAWI
5.4 SAFETY, SECURITY AND while 18% were outside the labour force. Similarly,
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT for working age IDPs living in temporary shelters,
57% were in the labour force (51% employed and
The majority of the respondents from both 6% unemployed103), and 40% were outside the
population groups did not have concerns about labour force (Fig. 52 and Fig. 53). The labour force
safety or security (88% of home-based families; participation rate among IDPs in Tawi-Tawi appears to
93% of temporary shelter families). FGD participants be higher than the overall labour force participation
were not aware of any security or communication rate of 53% in BARMM in July 2019.104
issues. They noted that they did not have any
problems moving from one place to another and that The youth (15-24 years old) labour force
they could move freely. participation rate for home-based IDPs was 55%,
which is significantly lower than the overall labour
force participation rate (68%) suggesting that
5.5 EMPLOYMENT AND displaced youth may face additional barriers to
LIVELIHOODS employment.

Due to the typhoon and associated storm surge, There was a notable gender imbalance in the
most IDPs temporarily lost access to their marine- labour force participation. The labour force
based livelihoods. As a result, they typically pursued participation rate of male home-based IDPs was
other low-paid jobs. However, most surveyed IDPs 16% higher than that of female home-based IDPs.
have limited income, with most being unable to pay A similarly gendered labour participation pattern
for bills or unexpected expenses. was present in the general population of BARMM
with 73% of men in the labour force compared to
27% of women in 2018.105 In addition, there were
EMPLOYMENT99 more than twice as many home-based women than
home-based men outside the labour force (71% and
Labour force participation 29% respectively), who were mostly engaged in
housework. According to cultural norms in Tawi-Tawi
Only 56% of home-based IDPs and 46% of IDPs and across the BARMM, men typically take on the
in temporary shelters were of working age, 15 role of the breadwinner in the family while women
years or older.100 Among working age home-based are more likely to conduct work without pay including
IDPs, 68% were in the labour force101 of whom housework.
63% were employed and 5% were unemployed,102

99
A significant proportion of respondents among the home-based IDPs (14%) responded “other” when asked about their current work status.
As no further clarification is available, “other”could mean a type of work for pay or profit that was not directly corresponding to the given
answer options which would classify them as employed thus impacting the employment rate. However, it could equally mean a type of
work that is not paid or any other type of activity that falls outside of employment and will thus classify these respondents as outside the
labour force, impacting the proportion of IDPs belonging to that group. As further information is not available, these respondents have
been excluded from the labour force analysis. This represents an important limitation to the findings.
100
Based on the age limits defined by the 19th ICLS resolution on Statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization:
https://bit.ly/3ioml88.
101
The total labor force consists of all employed and unemployed people.
102
Due to a small number of observations, only 18 observations out of 626 interviewed, the household survey does not provide reliable
statistics on unemployment and further disaggregation is also not possible. In addition, the labour force participation rate could be
expected to be higher if a sufficient number of unemployed were sampled/reached and the results are representative of the surveyed IDPs.
103
There are only 5 respondents that can be classified as unemployed therefore the household survey does not provide reliable statistics
on unemployment and further disaggregation is also not possible. In addition, the labour force participation rate could be expected to be
higher if a sufficient number of unemployed were sampled/reached and the results are representative of the surveyed IDPs.
104
For your information, refer to http://rssoarmm.psa.gov.ph/release/content/special/55398.
105
It is not possible to directly compare the situation faced by IDPs with that of the general population as the data was collected several
years apart. However, similar trends in the results gives a rough indication that several of the challenges faced by IDPs in gaining access
to the labour market stem from cultural norms and the economic structure prevalent in Sulu. The results of the profiling reflect the
traditional culture in which men are positioned as the main breadwinner of the family and women as homemakers. For more information
refer to http://rssoarmm.psa.gov.ph/release/content/special/55302.

85
 Fig. 52: Labour force status of home-based IDPs by gender
Outside the labour force Employed
Working age population 15+ years*
29%

71% 18% 38% 63% 62%

49% 56% 51%

In the labour force Unemployed

42% 68% 58% 5%

Women * 14% of respondents chose 'other',

Men which is not included in this chart.

Fig. 53: Labour force status of IDPs in temporary shelters

Outside the labour force

Working age population 15+ years*

40%

51% 56% 49%

In the labour force
10%

57% 90%

Women Unemployed
Men Employed

Status in employment
Of the self-employed home-based IDPs, 76% were
The majority of employed IDPs were self-employed men and predominantly engaged in fishing. FGD
(57% of employed home-based IDPs), while most participants were typically not aware of government-
of the remainder were paid employees (37%) and endorsed opportunities targeting IDPs and youth.
just 6% were unpaid family workers. The youth had They outlined that, instead, most Sama Bajau boys
similar distribution in terms of status in employment and young men would join their fathers fishing at sea,
- 54% self-employed, 40% paid employees and 6% while girls and young women would sell fish within
unpaid family workers. There were no employers the community. Girls and young women would also
among the employed home-based IDPs in Tawi- commonly work as domestic workers.
Tawi. Sama Bajaus are understood to experience
discrimination in the Tawi-Tawi society, which
represents a barrier to setting up and conducting
their own businesses.

86 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 I Ms. Catherine Cabrera, Protection staff from IRDT, is leading the validation exercise in Jolo, Sulu on 17 July 2020. The 11
participants comprised of Barangay officials, PWDs, senior citizens, women and youth sectors.

IMPACT OF DISPLACEMENT in temporary shelters (35%). This indicates that

ON EMPLOYMENT the displacement did not significantly impact the
livelihoods of the IDPs.
Approximately 16% of home-based and 34% of
temporary shelter IDPs of working age (15 years Fig. 54: Main source of income of home-based families
and older) reported that they had lost their job before and after their displacement
because of their displacement. FGD participants
Income from irregular/ 54%
mentioned that displacement had affected their seasonal work 52%
employment with many being unable to return to
Selling own 24%
their sea-based livelihoods due to the storm surge. produced goods 24%
Income from 8%
wages/ salaries 9%
FAMILY WELFARE
Income from 1%
business earnings 2%
Prior to the displacement, the main source of
Using loans 0%
income for both the home-based and temporary 1%
shelter IDPs was irregular/seasonal work (54% and Pre-displacement
Other 13%
52% respectively), followed by the selling of own
12% Post-displacement
production goods for the home-based displaced
families (24%) and other sources of income for Fig. 55: Main source of income of families in temporary
displaced families in temporary shelters (31%) shelters before and after their displacement
(Fig. 54 and Fig. 55).
Income from irregular 52%
/seasonal work 52%
After the displacement, the most common main
sources of income for both displaced groups Selling own 17%
produced goods 14%
remained the same with irregular/seasonal work (52%
for both), followed by the selling of own produced 31%
Other
34%
goods for the home-based displaced families (24%)
and other sources of income for displaced families Pre-displacement Post-displacement

87
 Fig. 56: Accessibility of nearest market for IDPs in home-based and temporary shelter settings

1% 2%

Home-based 5% 33% 59%

Temporary shelter 11% 18% 71%

Not possible Very difficult Somewhat difficult Moderately easy Very easy

PWG members explained that discrimination in terms Access to government assistance programmes
of employment against Sama Bajau within Tawi-Tawi
society would mean that they often would depend on During consultations, a PWG member disclosed
low-paid irregular/seasonal work as stevedores and that the Disaster Assistance Family Access Card
jobs as pedicab drivers. The main source of income, (DAFAC) from the Department of Social Welfare and
fishing and other sea-based activities, would also be Development (DSWD) was not implemented in Tawi-
highly seasonal and depend on good weather. Tawi following the latest displacement. As a result,
it is unsurprising that the majority of IDPs surveyed
Since arriving at their current location, 61% of home- did not have access to DAFAC. Of those who did not
based and 90% of displaced families in temporary have access, 77% of home-based displaced families
shelters were not able to cover the costs of rent and 97% of displaced families in temporary shelters
and/or utility bills. According to FGD participants, were not registered for that type of assistance. PWG
the loss of access to the sea undermined the ability members further mentioned that most IDPs were
of displaced families to access their main source not able to acquire a card due to misinformation or
of income. Instead, they relied on government and lack of awareness about the card. FGD participants
private assistance to cover bills. Similar results can mentioned that the Provincial Local Government
be observed in families’ inability to cover unexpected provided IDPs with cash compensation worth
expenses, with 67% of home-based displaced families ₧3,000 for a totally damaged house and ₧1,500 for
and 79% of displaced families in temporary shelter a partially damaged house. Meanwhile, the Municipal
unable to cover such expenses. During displacement, Local Government Unit and DSWD provided food
IDPs relied heavily on government assistance. assistance, water, and non-food items including
clothing, blankets, kitchen utensils.

Access to nearest market

5.6 STANDARD OF LIVING
The majority of displaced families in both population AND ACCESS TO SERVICES
groups reported that accessing the nearest market
was either “moderately easy” or “very easy” (92%
FOOD SECURITY
of home-based families; 86% for temporary shelter
families) (Fig. 56). Sama Bajaus typically depend Surveyed IDPs in Tawi-Tawi faced challenges
heavily on market access to sell their daily catch. IDPs accessing sufficient food. Approximately half of
had good access to the markets as most were hosted the displaced families surveyed had either poor or
in the provincial capital, where the main market is borderline food consumption. Families depended
based. heavily on negative coping strategies to feed their
families. Most IDPs depended on access to the sea
for livelihoods and as their main source of food.
When families were not able to access the sea due
to weather and storm surge conditions, this had a
direct impact on their food consumption.

88 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 5. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHELTER IDPs IN TAWI-TAWI
Fig. 57: Main sources of food of displaced families in home-based and temporary shelter settings

Home-based Temporary shelter

Market 70% 28%

Own produced (within household) 30% 72%

Relatives 8% 7%

Host family 3% 0%

Other 4% 0%

Main sources of food consumption, while 13% and 31% respectively had
borderline, or poor (34% and 21% respectively) food
Home-based displaced families mainly obtained their consumption (Fig. 58).
food from markets (70%), however, some families
also still depended on food produced within their The results of the profiling differ substantially from
household (30%). For 72% of displaced families in the food consumption score results for the general
temporary shelters, their most important source of population in Tawi-Tawi from the “Comprehensive
food was their own production (Fig. 57). Fish and Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis” conducted
marine products caught by fishermen represented in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
a primary source of livelihoods, but also a primary (ARMM) in 2018.106 The results of this analysis indicate
source of food for displaced families. that 91% of people in Tawi-Tawi had acceptable food
consumption, 8% had borderline and 1% had poor
Food Consumption Score (FCS) food consumption. The results from the IDP profiling
show a significantly larger proportion of IDPs having
In total, 48% of surveyed home-based displaced poor or borderline food consumption.
families and 53% of surveyed displaced families
in temporary shelters had acceptable food

106
WFP & ARMM (2018). Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

Table 10: Average number of days household coping mechanisms were employed by surveyed population group for a 7 day
recall period

Average no. of days coping strategy Average no. of days coping strategy was
Coping strategy
was applied (home-based families) applied (families in temporary shelters)
Rely on less preferred and less expensive food 3 2
Borrow food or rely on help from a relative 2 2
Limit portion size of meals at meal times 3 2
Restrict consumption by adults in order for children to eat 2 2
Reduce number of meals eaten in a day 2 2

Fig. 58: Distribution of home-based and temporary shelter displaced families by food consumption classification based on the FCS

Home-based 34% 13% 53%

Temporary shelter 21% 31% 48%

Poor Borderline Acceptable

89
 Household coping strategies WATER, SANITATION AND
HYGIENE (WASH)
Nearly all surveyed home-based displaced families
(80% or 83 families) reported that they did not While most displaced families reported having
have sufficient food or money to buy food in the access to protected water sources, potable water
7 days prior to the survey. There was a similar rate was understood to be scarce in Tawi-Tawi. Open
among displaced families living in temporary shelters defecation was common, while proper handwashing
(90% or 26 families). PWG members confirmed that was rarely practiced due to limited water resources,
most IDPs in Tawi-Tawi did not have sufficient food and the associated costs.
or money to buy food, instead depended heavily
on government assistance provided through the
4Ps and other programmes. The table below shows Access to protected water sources
how families handled shortfalls in food consumption,
based on categories used for the Coping Strategy 89% of home-based displaced families and all
Index (see Annex IV). displaced families in temporary shelters reported
that they had access to protected water sources
Families reported using five different types of food for drinking (Fig. 59).107 The majority of home-based
consumption-related coping strategies in the 7 displaced families obtained water from vendors
days prior to the survey. There was no dominant (69%) or protected wells (14%). For domestic uses,
coping strategy, rather displaced families in Tawi- most displaced families accessed water from
Tawi implemented a variety of strategies including vendors (44%) and protected wells (22%). Only a
applying each strategy for at least two days in the small proportion of families relied on unprotected
week. This finding is in alignment with the WFP sources such as unprotected wells (8% for drinking;
findings that households in Tawi-Tawi applied each 11% for domestic purposes). The primary source for
coping strategy for at least two days (ibid.). FGD both uses among families in temporary shelters were
participants noted that they experienced food water vendors (62% for drinking; 41% for domestic
shortages immediately following displacement due uses), followed by piped water connections (24% and
to the limited access to fishing areas, because of 34% respectively).
the storm surge and poor weather. Being highly
dependent on access to the sea for food and
livelihoods dramatically increases the vulnerability
of Sama Bajaus of becoming food insecure in the
aftermath of hydrometeorological disasters.

Fig. 59: Main sources of water for drinking for home-based and temporary shelter displaced families by protected and
unprotected water sources
Home-based Temporary shelter
Water vendors 69% 62%
Protected deep/ shallow well 14% 0%

Protected sources Common faucet (Level 2) 5% 14%

Pump 1% 0%

Piped connection 0% 24%

Unprotected deep/ shallow well 8% 0%
Unportected sources
Rainwater 3% 0%

107
These water sources are common faucets (Level 2), fetched water from neighbors with piped connection, piped connection, protected
deep or shallow well, pump, water vendors (e.g., bottled water, container, peddlers, water refilling stations).

90 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 5. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHELTER IDPs IN TAWI-TAWI
Fig. 60: Access to sanitation facilities
Home-based Temporary shelter
Water-sealed, sewer/ septic tank 2% 0%
Adequate
Closed pit 1% 7%

Open pit 59% 59%

Inadequate No toilet 19% 31%

Other 19% 3%

The majority of both home-based (86%) and Access to adequate toilet facilities
temporary shelter (79%) displaced families stated
that they had sufficient access to water in the 30 The majority of the surveyed home-based and
days prior to the survey. For those without access (14 temporary shelter displaced families depended
home-based and 5 displaced families in temporary on inadequate toilet facilities (78% and 90%
shelters), the cost of water was the main reason for respectively). The main approach used was an open
not being able to access sufficient water. pit (59% of displaced families in both groups). A
third of home-based displaced families and almost
FGD participants noted that access to water was a quarter of displaced families in temporary shelters
poor in the community prior to displacement and mentioned that they could not afford a toilet facility.
has become worse since. The results from the FGDs Most commonly IDPs had access to a facility in
indicate that IDPs only used protected water for their house (29% of home-based families: 13% of
drinking and food preparation. IDPs typically relied temporary shelter families) or on their plot (20% and
on sea water to clean themselves, for laundry and 2% respectively). As a result, most displaced families
other domestic purposes. The FGD participants were with access to improved toilet facilities had private
not aware of any WASH-related government projects access.
implemented in Tawi-Tawi. A PWG member pointed
out that water shortages represent a problem for the FGD participants noted that open pit facilities were
whole community in Tawi-Tawi, not only IDPs. being used by Sama Bajaus, Tausugs and other
ethnic groups in Tawi-Tawi, this was particularly
In the barangays where the respondents habitually pronounced in coastal areas. The main reasons
resided there is no source of water because families for depending on open pits were financial costs,
live on the shoreline (on stilt houses). Hence, in the lack of easily available water and the ease to
general, families have to buy water from individuals construct them.
selling water through a tap stand connected to
Bongao Water District, or depend on a water delivery
truck that goes to their barangay on a weekly basis. Access to handwashing facilities
The water that is bought is only used for drinking
and cooking. For the household chores or bathing, In terms of hygiene, home-based displaced families
families usually use sea water.108 used either mobile objects (86%), other means
(6%), or did not have access to a hand washing
facility (8%). All displaced families in temporary
shelters used mobile objects for hand washing. Of
those home-based displaced families without access
to a hand washing facility, the reason provided was
not being able to afford it. A PWG member noted
that sea water was often used for bathing and
other hygiene practices in the absence of adequate
water supply.

108
Based on observations of the UNHCR field monitoring team.

91
 I A young respondent shares his protection needs during a key informant interview in the province of Sulu.

HEALTH nationwide Dengue fever vaccination programme

that was linked to the deaths of several hundred
More than half of the displaced families surveyed children.109 However, having a vaccination card
with children did not possess a vaccination card assists health workers and parents in determining
for their children. Displaced families could typically what vaccinations a child has received, and if any
access healthcare facilities, but challenges existed have been missed. Without this record, children may
including the associated costs, poor understanding miss vaccinations, leaving them at risk of contracting
of how to access healthcare facilities, and language serious diseases. Proof that children have been
barriers. vaccinated is also a requirement for families to
access the 4Ps programme.

Access to vaccination documentation

Health problems and access
More than half of displaced families with children to healthcare facilities
did not possess a vaccination card for their children
(57% of home-based families; 52% of temporary Most IDPs reported that the most common health
shelter families). Some FGD participants mentioned problems included coughs, colds, bronchitis, asthma
that people had lost the vaccination cards when and headaches. FGD participants also mentioned
the storm surge destroyed their houses. However, that diarrhea was common due to the scarce
the primary reason mentioned by FGD participants supply of drinking water in Tawi-Tawi even before
was that many people in the Philippines have displacement.
become more skeptical of vaccinations after a

109
For more information about the incident, refer to https://bit.ly/3oTQoXT; and https://bit.ly/3qMy9Ev.

92 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

About half of the surveyed displaced families EDUCATION
reported that at least one member of their family
needed to visit a doctor or healthcare facility in More than three-quarters of surveyed IDPs in Tawi-
the six months prior to the survey (54% of home- Tawi either had no education or had only completed
based families; 55% or 16 families of temporary elementary school (73% of home-based IDPs; 89%

CHAPTER
shelter families). Of those, all home-based and of IDPs in temporary shelters). More than half of
nine temporary shelter families managed to visit a elementary school-aged displaced children were not
formal healthcare facility (Barangay health center, attending school at the time of the survey. Financial
government hospital or rural health unit). The constraints, helping families at home, bullying, and
remaining families in temporary shelters accessed lack of required documentation were the most
private or traditional healthcare facilities, or did not commonly cited reasons why children were not
seek care. attending school.

The main reasons mentioned for not visiting formal School attendance110
healthcare facilities were the costs involved, and
traditional beliefs among Sama Bajaus. Eight of the Of the 626 home-based surveyed IDPs in Bongao,
displaced families in temporary shelters reported 39% were of school-age, 5-18 years old (36% boys;
that there was no health service available at their 42% girls). Of the 168 IDPs surveyed in temporary
site. PWG members mentioned that IDPs who are shelters, 42% were of school-age, 5-18 years old (47%
beneficiaries of government assistance programmes boys; 39% girls).
such as 4Ps and senior citizen programmes are
automatically entered into the state-run health Among the home-based elementary school-aged
insurance programme through which they can IDPs (5-11 years old), only one-third were attending
access free medical services. PWG members further school (32%), while most children (57%) reported to
noted that there were no specific health services not be attending school. There was a slight disparity
established for IDPs, rather they continue to have (5%) in school attendance for this age group between
access to the regular healthcare services. For most girls and boys. School attendance for elementary
IDPs, health services are available close to the place school-aged displaced children living in temporary
where they are hosted in the provincial capital. shelters was even lower with only a quarter attending
school and 69% not attending with 11% more girls
Where there is no health facility, the Barangay health than boys attending school (Table 12).
workers could assist people and refer them to the
nearest facility. PWG members mentioned language School attendance at the high school level was
acted as a barrier for some seeking healthcare, similarly low. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of home-based
especially Sama Bajaus. Most of the families from displaced children aged 12-18 years old were not
temporary shelters who had health problems that attending high school. The rate of temporary shelter
were not treatable on-site mentioned that a referral children that were not attending high school was
system was not in place (62% or 18 families). One higher at 81%, with only 14% attending school.
FGD participant noted that those who were referred
often to only received brief verbal instructions from FGD participants mentioned that displacement has
the health provider, and were not provided with any had a significant effect on the education of displaced
further details of where to seek further assistance. children. The main reasons IDPs gave for school-
The Philippine Red Cross, Barangay Health Units and aged children not attending school were lack of
Municipal Rural Health Units also provide medical financial resources, not being able to attend classes
consultation services including blood pressure while at evacuation sites, and children not wanting to
checks. continue their education. In displacement, children
often look after younger siblings at home rather than
attending school, while some boys accompany their

110
The school system in the Philippines is divided into elementary (kindergarten and grades 1 to 6; ages 5 to 11 years old), junior high school
(grades 7 to 10; ages 12 to 15 years old), and senior high school (grades 11 and 12; ages 16 to 18 years). For your information, refer to:
https://bit.ly/2M4PBVv.

93
 Table 11: School attendance of home-based and temporary shelter displaced children of school age

Primary/ elementary education (Age 5-11 years) Secondaty education/ junior and senior high school (Age 12-18 years)
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Yes 35% 30% 32% 28% 34% 33%
Home-based

No 62% 54% 57% 66% 63% 60%

Other 3% 16% 11% 6% 4% 8%
Yes 20% 31% 25% 13% 14% 22%
Temporary

No 76% 62% 69% 87% 81% 72%

Other 4% 8% 6% – 5% 6%

fathers fishing. There were also reports of children school or had not completed more than elementary
being bullied at school because of their ethnical school (73% of home-based IDPs; 89% of IDPs in
background - being Sama Bajau. temporary shelters) (see figure 60). There was no
big difference between men and women in terms
The vast majority of children who were going to of their highest level of education completed. PWG
school attended government-run schools. The main members mentioned that lack of birth certificates and
reason for this is that government schools are free of other identification documentation represents a key
charge. barrier for Sama Bajaus to attend post elementary
education. Discrimination within society also
Highest level of education completed represents a barrier for Sama Bajaus to both obtain
identification documents and follow education.
Most home-based IDPs and IDPs in temporary
shelters aged 15 and older had either not attended

Figure 61: Highest level of education completed of home-based and temporary shelter IDPs (15+) by gender

Home-based Temporary shelter

Total 73% 89%
No education Women 74% 87%
Men 72% 91%
Total 16% 7%
First level (elementary school) Women 17% 8%
Men 16% 6%
Total 8% 6%
Second level (high-school) Women 6% 5%
Men 10% 3%
Total 2%
Tertiary level (College/University) Women 2%
Men 1%
Total 1%
Don’t know Women 1%
Men 1%
Total
Total 0%
Women Women
Other Men
Men 1%

94 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 5. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHELTER IDPs IN TAWI-TAWI
5.7 HOUSING, LAND AND PROPERTY House ownership

All houses of the surveyed displaced population in 93% of home-based displaced families and all
their place of habitual residence were either partially families in temporary shelters reported that they
or totally destroyed. Only about half of the displaced owned their house in their place of habitual
families owned the land of their place of habitual residence. FGD participants noted that they have
residence, with very few having proof of ownership. the skills and knowledge to build their own houses.
This should be understood in the context of Sama However, participants also mentioned that they
Bajau traditions related to land and property. would prefer to live in sturdier houses built by NGOs
or the government if they were built in accordance
with their culture and traditions.
Land ownership

Of the 103 home-based displaced families surveyed Damages to houses at place

in Tawi-Tawi, 73% reported to not own the land in of habitual residence
their place of habitual residence; of the 29 displaced
families in temporary shelters, 97% reported to For the home-based displaced family house
not own the land, except one family. None of the owners, all stated that their house in their place
displaced families who owned the land had proof of habitual residence was either totally destroyed
of ownership, however, none reported that other (80%) or partially destroyed (20%). Of the families in
people had made any claims on their land. temporary shelters owning their houses, all reported
that their houses were totally destroyed. Despite
PWG members mentioned that most IDPs would this, most IDPs still wished to return to their place of
obtain the land in their place of habitual residence habitual residence. The main reasons for this were
through verbal agreement. Furthermore, coastal better access to their sea-based livelihood activities,
areas would typically be owned by the government, proximity to relatives, and because it is in-line with
so people would assume that registration would not their culture of living near the sea.
be required. Sama Bajau people who were displaced
from Barangay Tubig Tanah mentioned that they lived
on land managed by a Bajau religious leader, who
offered the land to be used by Sama Bajau. However,
lack of awareness of land ownership documents
was also a key barrier for people to obtain these
documents.

Fig. 62: Land ownership and proof of land ownership of Fig. 63: Land ownership and proof of land ownership of
home-based displaced families displaced families in temporary shelter

Yes Temporary shelter

Home-based 3%
No
No proof 100%
27% Yes No proof 96%

Other 4%
73%
97% No

95
 Figure 64: Future intentions for settlement location of displaced families in home-based and temporary shelter settings

Home-based Temporary shelter

Return to place of habitual residence/ place of origin 82% 100%

Move to different place in same city/ area 8% 0%

Move to different place within same neighbourhood 6% 0%

Other 4% 0%

5.8 FUTURE INTENTIONS their future plans include the provision of government
livelihood and employment programmes and the
The vast majority of displaced families reported availability of education opportunities. They also
that they intended to return to their place of habitual mentioned the importance of establishing stronger
residence in the future. A key reason for this was to communication channels through community leaders
access the sea, which represents their main source to disseminate information, including early-warning
of food and livelihoods. On their return, IDPs would systems for natural disasters.
require improved construction materials and designs
to reduce the risk of future disasters. About half of the home-based displaced families
and 86% of displaced families in temporary shelters
mentioned that they had not received information
Preferred settlement location/option about the government’s plans for displaced families.
However, in mid-2020, all the IDPs in Tubig Tanah
At the time of the survey, the majority of surveyed returned to their places of habitual residence. The
displaced families wanted to leave the current government was in the process of formulating
location (63% of home-based families; 83% of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which would
temporary shelter families), with nearly all families likely cover the relocation of communities that are
having the intention to return to their place of particularly vulnerable to storm surges.
habitual residence.

The main reasons they gave were to have better 5.9 CONCLUSION
access to their homes and marine-based livelihoods
(45% of home-based families; 29% of temporary Tawi-Tawi, is a province prone to natural hazards
shelter families), and to live closer to their relatives such as storms, typhoons and floods. Communities
(23% and 25% respectively). PWG members noted such as the Sama Bajaus, who live along the
that Sama Bajau would not believe that other coastlines and depend on marine-based livelihood
relocation sites would allow them easy access to the activities are particularly vulnerable to typhoons
sea and their main source of livelihoods. and storm surges. The results of the profiling shed
light on the situation faced by people displaced by
Typhoon Marilyn and the associated storm surge in
Barriers to preferred settlement option 2019. Given the recurrence of natural disasters and
displacements in the Philippines and Tawi-Tawi, the
Roughly 58% of home-based and 71% of displaced results can also help inform future responses.
families in temporary shelters believed they would
have the possibility to pursue their preferred future Almost all surveyed displaced families lost their
settlement option, while the remainder reported that houses. Many found refuge with other family
they couldn’t, or they did not know. FGD participants members living in the provincial capital Bongao,
noted that they would prefer construction materials which for many was located in the same barangay as
over food assistance and that some families had their place of habitual residence. Temporary shelter
already received cash assistance, which they largely was provided for those who were unable to stay with
spent on construction materials. FGD participants relatives.
further mentioned that the main factors that influence

96 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 5. HOME-BASED AND TEMPORARY SHELTER IDPs IN TAWI-TAWI
The local scale of the displacement reflects land The low income and precarious financial situation
tenure and ownership practices among the displaced faced by IDPs in Tawi-Tawi also affects education
Sama Bajaus. In some cases, specific land has been opportunities for IDP children. Some displaced
allocated for Sama Bajau settlements according to families could not afford to send their children to
their customs. The land is close to the sea where school, while other children stayed at home to
they can easily access marine-based livelihoods. look after siblings rather than attending school.
Traditionally, ownership of land is provided through The effects of this were seen in the very low
verbal assurances, as a result few IDPs had school attendance rates and generally low level of
documents to prove their ownership of land and education completed. Discrimination and bullying
property. Most IDPs expressed that they intended to present particuloar barriers for Sama Bajau children
return to their place of habitual residence in order to to attend school, as does the high rate of IDPs
have better access to the sea and their main source without birth certificates or other official identification
of livelihoods. However, the profiling also indicates documents that are required to enrol in high school
that many would prefer to live in sturdier houses and tertiary education.
if they are in-line with their traditional practices.
Government plans for the future of IDPs should take Finally, access to easily available water and improved
these specifications into account. sanitation was a key concern both among IDPs.
However, it is also a general concern for the whole
The results of the profiling show that existing population in Tawi-Tawi. The profiling indicates high
protection concerns—including lack of rates of open defecation and poor hygiene practices,
documentation, limited access to social services, which increases the risk of health problems. Lack
and discrimination—have been exacerbated by of financial resources also restricted the ability of
displacement. The displaced families had particularly families to access improved sanitation and hygiene.
low food security and poor/borderline food
consumption, and depended heavily on regular
marine-activities, both for their livelihoods and as
their main source of food. Typhoons, which cause
displacement, are often followed by severe storm
surges and unpredictable weather. During such
periods the IDPs had limited access to their main
source of food and income. However, the ability of
IDPs to diversify their livelihood activities with other
low-income jobs increases their resilience. Overall,
livelihood support represents a priority intervention
for IDPs in Tawi-Tawi.

97
 I S
 ama Bajau men fix their houses on stilts which
are mostly made of bamboo and coco lumber.

98 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT

6. 1 The BARMM government to revive the
contingency Plan for Humanitarian Response to
Conflict and Natural Disasters in Basilan, Sulu
and Tawi-Tawi (previously developed by ARMM

RECOMMENDATIONS in November 2012).111

The conditions that displaced families face have

not changed since 2012 with regards to access
Based on the results of the profiling of internal to basic services such as health, education, food
displacement in Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, six and clean water. The contingency plan paved
key recommendations are brought forward in the way for the government and humanitarian
this chapter to address pressing issues of the actors to conduct a full assessment of the needs

6. RECOMMENDATIONS
displaced population in the island provinces. of the displaced community and projected needs
for future displacements, which is still relevant
and could be further developed with the new
information/findings from the profiling exercise.

The BARMM government should consider

reviving the contingency plan for Humanitarian
Response to Conflict and Natural disasters,
which has been led by the previous autonomous
government (ARMM) in 2012 with full support of
the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) including
Mindanao Level, NGOs and the Office of Civil
Defense (OCD).

It is strongly recommended that the BARMM

government and local units, supported by the
Mindanao Humanitarian Team (MHT), should
agree on a timeframe to update the contingency
plan. The updated contingency plan would ensure
that the government has a strong emergency
preparedness structure at time of emergencies
that would support displaced families in accessing
assistance in a timely manner.

UNHCR through its Regional Centre for

Emergency Preparedness and Response
(eCentre)112 and other UN agencies and MHT
members have been working closely with the
BARMM government to build their capacity and
tools on emergency preparedness and response.
However, there has been no harmonized
approach from MHT to develop a unified
capacity building plan for the government, which
should ensure consistency and sustainability.
The updated contingency plan would provide
a harmonized approach on emergency

111
For more information, refer to: https://bit.ly/3sAELap.
112
For more information, refer to: http://bit.ly/2NjEmZP.

99
 preparedness and response to avoid unnecessary • Consider setting up a mobile booth with
duplication of efforts by agencies. It is strongly representation of government entities in order
recommended to assign a focal agency to lead to issue birth certificates in remote areas
capacity building activities for the BARMM across the BaSulTa provinces and to inform
government with the support of the HCT. The them about important documents, such as
contingency plan should also be communicated the DSWD card. UNHCR has implemented a
to communities that might get impacted by similar project in 2018 funded by CERF and
emergencies through regular consultations. could organise a workshop and mentoring to
share the technical experience and know-how
with the government if needed.114
2 Exempt IDPs and other impoverished
families from fees for birth registration and • The government should introduce an
documentation, while strengthening the information campaign through community
government’s capacity to inform families about and religious leaders on radio, news
the importance of documentation in order to channels and social media on the importance
access basic services and to ensure protection of documentation. The Darul Ifta (House
against arrest or detention. of Opinion) of BARMM, together with
the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)
Access to documentation is an essential tool for and Islamic Relief Philippines (IRP) had
displaced families to ensure their access to basic a very successful initiative to encourage
services and to provide them with necessary Bangsamoro people to obtain birth
protection against arrest or movement restrictions certificates for their children which could be
in conflict areas where armed groups are active. replicated.115
Nevertheless, displaced families are not able
to easily attain such documentation due to
the related cost and lack of awareness on the 3 The BARMM government, in partnership with
importance of birth certificates and personal the International Monitoring Team (IMT) and
documentation. with full support of the Humanitarian Country
Team (HCT) should continue to build the
In order to make documentation both accessible capacity of the AFP and the PNP on human
and affordable, the BARMM government and rights, international humanitarian law (IHL) and
humanitarian actors should consider: humanitarian assistance to civilians at times
of armed conflict and cultural sensitivity and
• Exemption of fees (birth certificates, Barangay encourage the participation of IDPs in this
identification cards, etc.) for families who process.
cannot afford to pay for documentation. In
particular, the government should support the A common concern among IDPs was that they
implementation of the Muslim Mindanao Act were suspected of being members of armed
293113, which stipulates free birth registration groups due to their ethnicity or religion. The
in the BARMM. The Act was approved in BARMM government must put in place regular
2013 by the ARMM Government, but its coordination with the security sector (AFP, PNP,
implementing rules and regulations have yet International Monitoring Team (IMT) and the Joint
to be drafted. Coordinating Committee on the Cessation of
Hostilities (CCCH) to ensure that civilians are not
a target for any arrests or attacks due to their
ethnicity, background or religion.

113
For more information about the act refer to https://bit.
114
For more information, refer to: http://bit.ly/3sMUSSn.
ly/3o48cyb. 115
For more information, refer to: https://bit.ly/3o37y49.

100 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 The HCT, under the leadership of the Resident 4 Improve the access to livelihoods and education
Coordinator, could revive the #notatarget116 in order to strengthen the resilience of displaced
campaigns launched by humanitarian actors to families in areas affected by displacement.
support families affected by conflict in order to
reaffirm that civilians caught in conflict should not The Ministry of Education in partnership with
be a target. UNICEF and NGOs working on education should
prioritise the support for children whose school
In addition, the HCT and IMT should convene attendance was disrupted by the displacement.
regular training to AFP and PNP operating in This could be done in several ways:
Basilan and Sulu on International Humanitarian
Law (IHL) and Human Rights Law and protection • Establish financial support programmes for
of civilians at times of conflict. UNHCR and displaced children in school age such as

6. RECOMMENDATIONS
UN Agencies could contribute to the above support for study materials or waving of fees
mentioned training with sessions on diversity and if any.
cultural sensitivities especially in relation to the
Islamic faith, which could be conducted together • Temporary mobile schools could be set up
with certified Imams.117 and the Ministry of education could simplify
the requirements for the enrollment of
The HCT and IMT should conduct a peace children in schools.
symposium, in partnership with the Joint
Security Peace Team (JPST) of the Office of • The Ministry of Basic, Higher and Technical
the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Education (MBHTE) should monitor the
(OPAPP) to ensure that the JPST field units implementation and compliance of DepEd
are updated and informed of the assessments Order No. 19, Series of 2008118. The policy
and development of the government’s peace provides free public education for elementary
programs. This shall also include community and secondary levels to meet the targets in
briefings on security and plans for how civilians education for all.
will be protected, including informal awareness
raising meetings with community leaders The children of deceased combatants/members
covering the safety and security concerns of IDPs in armed groups should be given a top priority
(especially vulnerable persons), and disaster risk to access education as a way to combat
reduction. radicalization and minimize recruitment of children
in these groups.

In the context of Tawi-Tawi in particular,

discrimination and bullying against Sama Bajau
children in schools was reported, therefore, anti-
bullying programmes should be implemented
there.

Furthermore, livelihood projects for IDPs that are

not able to access their farmland and traditional
livelihood activities should be implemented
or, where possible, allow IDPs to access their
farmlands. Alternatively, the government should
expand the assistance programmes targeting
vulnerable groups such as IDPs. For example, the
Balik Barangay programme119 should be continued

116
For more information, refer to: http://bit.ly/3nZIET3. 118
For more information, refer to: https://bit.ly/3ivQnXP.
117
For more information, refer to: https://bit.ly/3bXUgU1 119
Please refer to footnote 89

101
 and expanded in regards to the establishment The BARMM government, particularly the
of livelihood programmes, basic social services, Ministries of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAFAR),
assistance programmes including relief Science and Technology (MOST), and Trade,
assistance, the provision of seeds for farming and Investments and Tourism (MTIT) should expand
financial assistance. their current programs to increase productivity
and consumption of families’ own produced food
Vocational training targeting youth, in particular, (e.g. livestock, fishery products and agriculture).
could be developed to counteract the barriers This should also include a systematic review of
they are facing in finding a job and facilitate their its capacity needs to determine the gaps and
participation in the labour force. possible solutions in implementing programs
on food security and nutrition in collaboration
with non-government, and humanitarian and
5 Improve access to health, WASH and food development organisations.
services for displacement affected communities.
Social protection programs should be
Health: Survey results indicate that many strengthened by expanding the coverage and
displaced families did not possess vaccination efficient identification of poor families with priority
cards for their children. It is strongly given to children, women, single parents, elderly
recommended that the government in partnership persons, disabled persons and their families.
with key organisations mandated to ensure
access to vaccinations such as UNICEF120 Shelter: Given the frequent displacements in the
conducts awareness raising campaigns about BARMM Islands, in particular Basilan and Sulu, it
vaccination, house to house vaccination activities is strongly recommended that the government
and the issuance of vaccination cards. invests in temporary evacuation centres to
accommodate displaced families according to
Moreover, in partnership with key organisations Sphere standards.
mandated to ensure access to healthcare, such
as UNICEF, the government should explore Water, sanitation and hygiene: The provincial
providing families with free transportation to Local Government Unit should lobby with the
medical services, or set-up mobile health teams at Provincial Health Office and other WASH actors
evacuation centres. to expand water treatment in IDP hosting and
return areas and establish communal latrines and
Food: Considering the challenges of displaced hand washing facilities in displacement locations.
families in accessing sufficient food, the BARMM For example, the Balik Barangay Programme
government should revive the food cluster could be used as an example to implement similar
in partnership with FAO, WFP and other key projects to improve the accessibility of WASH
agencies. Given the frequent displacements services.
especially in Basilan and Sulu, immediate
assessment of damaged agricultural fields The supply of safe water for drinking and cooking
should be conducted and the government for IDPs in hosting areas, especially those in
should consider immediate intervention with temporary shelters, should be prioritised.
regards to seed distribution, livestock support
and fishing tools to ensure continuation of the Hand washing and hygiene programmes should
main livelihoods and in some cases direct food be implemented. This is particularly important
assistance. to slow down the spread of COVID-19. These
programmes should take into account the limited
supply of water.

120
For more information, refer to: http://uni.cf/3c1W66m.

102 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

 6 Improve the access to documentation related to
housing, land and property (HLP)

Access to decent housing and lack of

documentation as proof of ownership of the
property remain a problem in BaSulTa. Based on
the findings from the profiling, below actions are
suggested:

• The BARMM government should consider

supporting the reconstruction of private
houses and businesses affected by natural
disasters or armed conflict, based on clear
land titles similar to the Balik Barangay
Programme which includes provision of
materials for house repairs.

• The BARMM government should exempt

impoverished families from any fees on
documentation for their property.

• The BARMM government should support

families with access to free legal aid
regarding HLP issues.

103 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT 103

 7.
ANNEXES

Annex I:
Profiling Working Group members
Partner Agency / PWG member
Barangay Local Goverment Unit (BLGU)-Bawas, Sumisip
Barangay Local Goverment Unit (BLGU)-U.Benembengan, Sumisip
Barangay Local Goverment Unit (BLGU)-Maluso
Municipal level
Local Goverment Unit (LGU)
Municipal Social Service Offices (MSSO)
Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Management Offices (MDRRMO)
Provincial level
Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction Management Offices (PDRRMO)
of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi
Provincial Administrations of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi
BARMM wide level
Municipal Social & Services Department
Regional Human Rights Commission (RHRC)
Ministry of Social Services and Development (MSSD)
Ministry of the Interior and Local Goverment (MILG)
NGOs / Civil SOciety Organizations
Alliance of Civil Sociaty Organization of (TACOS) in Tawi-Tawi
Civil Society Organization (CSO) Akbar
Matawkasi, Inc.
Tiyakap Kalilintad Inc. (Care for Peace)
Protect Wild Life Inc.
United Youth of the Philippines (UNYPHIL)
Integrated Resource Development for Tri-People Inc. (IRDT)
UN agencies / INGOs
International Organization for Migration (IOM)
Nonviolent Peaceforce Philippines (NP)
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA)
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
World Food Programme (WFP)
United Nation High Comissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
International Labour Organization (ILO)
Community and Family Services International (CFSI)

104 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

Annex II:
ype here]
Household questionnaire

PROFILING on INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON

A1. Enumerator’s ID: |__|__|__| A2. Form ID: |__|__|__|__|
A. METADATA: NOTE: This form is intended for IDP profiling in the island provinces of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-tawi. Administer this form legibly
and do not skip question unless stated in the form. Please put check (✓) mark on box provided, and text in space provided. The "Household
Informant" should be the person in the household who is most knowledgeable about the health, employment, protection condition, expenditures,
health & nutrition of members of the household. USE ALL CAPS.

A3. Date of visit: |__|__|__|__|-|__|__|-|__|__|YYYY-MM-DD

A4. Enumerator: / /
Lastname Firstname Middlename

B. METADATA: LOCATION OF INTERVIEW

B1. Province (Probinsya): 1-Basilan 2-Sulu 3-Tawi-tawi

B2. City/municipality: | |Type here

7. ANNEXES
B3. Barangay (Barangay): | |Type here

B4. IDP location type 1-Temporary shelter 2-Home-based➔B7

B5. [IF B4=1]: Temporary shelter type:

1-Barangay hall 2-Makeshift shelter
3-Community center 4-Empty/vacant lot
5-Gymnasium 6-Covered court
7-School site 99-Other

B6. [IF B4=1]: Site managed by:

(Select all that apply)
1-Government 2-International NGO
3-Local NGO 4-Religious entity
5-Individual/private 6-Don’t know
7-Home-based 99-Other

B7. [IF B4=2]: Home-based type:

1-Living with host family
2-Living in rented house/apartment

B8. Status of your visit to your target IDP family/household?

1-IDP Family is located/still displaced➔
➔C. METADATA 2-No one available upon visit
3- IDP Family is cannot be located 4-Work abroad (OFW)
5-In medical condition-not available for interview 6-IDP Family returned to habitual residence
7-Family resettled 8-Family locally integrated
9-Migrated to other place(s) 99-Other (specify )

B9. [IF B8=2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,99]: Remarks or comments related to status of your visit to your target IDP family:

B10. [IF B8=2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,99]: Name of target IDP family/household?

Name: / / ➔END SURVEY

Lastname Firstname Middlename

Page 1 of 13 idpprofiling2019v03

105
 ype here]

PROFILING on INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON

A1. Enumerator’s ID: |__|__|__| A2. Form ID: |__|__|__|__|
C. METADATA: CONSENT (Please read carefully and make sure the respondent understood all the text contains herein.)
Assalamualaikum! I am (n name of enumerator). I work for (Integrated Resource Development for Tri-People Inc. (IRDT)) (sshow work
ID). Our organization has been commissioned by the United Nation High Commissioner for Refugee (UNHCR) to help them undertake
a profiling activity in selected barangays in the provinces of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-tawi as part of a broader understanding on
internally displaced persons (IDP).
Assalamualaikum! Ako po si (ppangalan ng enumerator). Ako’y nagtatrabaho sa Integrated Resource Development for Tri-People Inc. (IRDT) (iipakita
ang ID). Ang aming organisasyon ay naatasang ng United Nation High Commissioner for Refugee (UNHCR) na tumulong magsagawa ng profiling
activity sa mga piling barangay sa probinsya ng Basilan, Sulu at Tawi-Tawi bahagi ng pag-unawa sa mga internally displaced persons (IDP).
This profiling aims to determine and understand the living conditions of IDP families in temporary shelters and those who are living
within their relatives or “home-based IDP”. All of your responses will be held in confidence. No identifiable information will be
shared with non-research staff. Your responses will be securely stored and encrypted on a password-protected computer and all
identifying information will be removed.
Ang survey na ito ay naglalayong malaman at maintindihan ang kalagayan ng mga pamilyang IDP na nasa temporaryong tahanan at mga nakatira
sa ibang sambahayan o home-based. Ang iyong mga kasagutan ay protekdado. Walang impormasyon ang maaring ibahagi sa mga non-researeach
staff. Ang inyong mga sagot ay nakatago at protecktado nga password sa aming computer at lahat ng iyong personal na impormasyon ay
tatangalin.

Your participation in profiling activity is completely voluntary. You are free to decline or end participation at any time, for any reason.
The profiling interview involves completing this survey as well as a follow-up survey in the future. We anticipate each interviews will
take around 1-hour to complete. Should you have any questions about this interview, you may contact Nassier Antao at mobile
number 0906-699-9213 or email us at shan.antao@gmail.com.
Ang iyong partisipasyon ay boluntaryo. Ikaw ay malayang umatras o itigil ang interbyu sa kahit anong oras o sa kahit anong kadahilanan. Bahagi
nito ang pakumpleto sa survey at sa iba nga survey sa hinaharap. Asahan na ang interbyu ay aabot humigit kumulang 1-oras lamang. Kung may
katanungan ka, maari mong kontakin o tawagan ang IRDT staff na si Nasser Antao sa telepono 0906-699-9213 o mag-email sa
shan.antao@gmail.com.
By agreeing to participate, you agree that all information which you voluntarily share may be used purely for profiling purposes by
UNHCR. All data will be made confidential and none of the information you provide will be used in connection with any identifiable
information.
Ang iyong pagpahintulot, ikaw ay sumasangayon na ang lahat ng impormasyon na buluntaryo mong ibinahagi ay purong gagamitin lamang sa
profiling activity ng UNHCR. Lahat ng impormasyon ay konpidensyal at walang personal na impormasyon ang gagamitin sa profiling na ito.

C1. Certificate of Consent

I have read the information, or it has been read to me. I have had the opportunity to ask questions about it and my questions have
been answered to my satisfaction. I consent voluntarily to have my information stored in the manner and for the purpose indicated
above.
Nabasa ko o binasa sa akin ang mga impormasyon. Mayroon akong pagkakataon na magtanong at nasiyahan ako sa mga natangap na sagot sa aking mga
katanunga n. Ako ay kusang-loob na nagpapahintulot sa akong mga impormasyon na maimbak/maitago sa paraan at layuinin na nakasaad sa itaas.

1-Yes, I agree to participate➔ C3 2-No, I will not participate➔ C2

C2. [IF C1=2] Reason: SURVEY END!

C3. [IF C1=1] Respondent: / /

Last name First name Middle name

C4. [IF C1=1] Are you the household head? 1-Yes➔A6 2-No

C5. [IF C4=2] Relationship to Household head: | | see code below

C6. What is the ethnicity of the household?

1-Sama Bajau 2-Subanen 3-Tausug 4-Zamboangueño
5-Yakan 6-Sinama 99-Other 98-Don’t know

Page 2 of 13 idpprofiling2019v03

106 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

ype here]

PROFILING on INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON

A1. Enumerator’s ID: |__|__|__| A2. Form ID: |__|__|__|__|
D. DISPLACEMENT HISTORY: HABITUAL RESIDENCE (PLACE OF ORIGIN):
🔊🔊 Note: First, I would like to ask some questions about your arrival here and your displacement.

D1. When did the most recent displacement occur for you and your household?
Year |__|__|__|__|yyyy Month |__|__|mm

D2. What is the cause of displacement you and your household experienced recently?
1-Natural Disaster 2-Development Projects 3-Armed Conflict 4-Clan feud/Pagbanta
5-Crime & Violence 99-Other 98-Don’t know 98-Refused to answer

🔊🔊 Note: What is your place of habitual residence/ where did you live before you have been displaced?

D3. Region: 1-BARMM 99-Other

D4. Province: 1-Basilan 2-Sulu 3-Tawi-Tawi 99-Other
D5. City/municipality: |_________________________| Type name

7. ANNEXES
D6. Barangay (Barangay): |_________________________| Type name

D6a. [IF B4=1] Home-based type:

1-Living with host family 2-Living in rented house/apartment 3-Housing provided as part of work
4-Hosted with rent 5-Hosted for free 6-Provided dwelling for free
7-Occupied/squatted 99-Other 99-Don’t know

D7. [IF B7=1] What is your relationship to the head of the host family?
1-Parents 2-Siblings (Brother/Sister) 3-Relative 4-Friends (No relation)
5-No relation 99-Other 98-Don’t know 97-Refuse to answer

D07a. After your most recent displacement, did you come directly to this dwelling where you live now?
1-Yes➔D9 2-No 98-Don’t know 97-Refuse to answer

D8. How many host families did you live? Numeric |__|__| total

D9. How often do you or other household member visit your habitual place of residence?
1-Never➔D11 2-Once a month 3-Once a week
4-Everyday 98-Don’t know➔D12

D10. [IF D9=2, 3, 4] What is the purpose of the most recent visit? (Select all that apply)
1-To look after property 2-For business 3-To farm/get food from the farm
4-To access services 5-To see friends or family 99-Other
98-Don’t know 97-Refuse to answer

D11. [IF D9=1]: What are the obstacles to visit your habitual place? (Select all that apply)
1-Security risk 2-Military/gov’t restricted access 3-No time due to other commitments
4-Distance 5-Too costly 6-It’s not important / I don’t care
99-Other 98-Don’t know 97-Refused to answer

D12. Was your household displaced more often than the most recent displacement?
1-Yes 2-No 97-Refuse to answer 98-Don’t know
D13. When your household was displaced the first time? (YEAR in 4-digit numeric) Numeric |__|__|__|__|yyyy
D14. How many times have you been displaced since your initial displacement?
Note: Refer to the year in question E13 Numeric|__|__|total
Page 3 of 13 idpprofiling2019v03

107
ype here]
PROFILING on INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON
A1. Enumerator’s ID: |__|__|__| A2. Form ID: |__|__|__|__|
E. DEMOGRAPHY: HOUSEHOLD ROSTER
E1. How many household members do you live with in this household including yourself? |__|__|total
🔊🔊 Note: In order to make the next questions easier to follow, I will ask you for the names of your family members. The names will not be used for any other purposes.
Would you please give me the names of your household members?" Indicate the Household head at the beginning, followed by the wife/wives then the rest are the names of all members of the family
from eldest to youngest. Don’t forget to include yourself. ALL CAP & SEE CODE BELOW.
E2. [Name]: E3. [Name]: E4.[Name]: E5. [Name]: E6. [Name]: E7. [Name]: E8. [Name]: E9. [Name]: E10. [Name]: E11. [Name]:
Last/First/Middle Sex Year of Birth Age Marital Relationship Birth Cert. Reason (NO Valid Government Completed

PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

1-Male (98-DK, 97-Refused) [IF E4=98] Status to HH head 1-Yes➔E10 Birth Cert) Issued ID Education
2-Female 4-digit numeric 2 or 3-digit Code: 002 Code: 003 2-No Code: 004 Code: 005 Code: 006
numeric
1. HH Head / |__| |__| |__|,|__|,|__| |__|__|
|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__| Family Head |__|,|__|,|__|
2. |__| |__|,|__|,|__| |__|__|
|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__| Spouse |__| |__|,|__|,|__|
3. |__| |__|,|__|,|__| |__|__|
|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|,|__|,|__|
4. |__| |__|,|__|,|__| |__|__|
|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|,|__|,|__|
5. |__| |__|,|__|,|__| |__|__|
|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|,|__|,|__|
6. |__| |__|,|__|,|__| |__|__|
|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|,|__|,|__|
7. |__| |__|,|__|,|__| |__|__|
|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|,|__|,|__|
8. |__| |__|,|__|,|__| |__|__|
|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|,|__|,|__|
9. |__|,|__|,|__|
Page 4 of 13 idpprofiling2019v03

108
 7. ANNEXES

109
ype here]
PROFILING on INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON
A1. Enumerator’s ID: |__|__|__| A2. Form ID: |__|__|__|__|
E. DEMOGRAPHY: HOUSEHOLD ROSTER…continuation
E2. Name: E12. Is E13. [NAME] E14. [Accept if E15. Did [NAME] E16. What is [Name's] E17. [Accept if E16=8, 9] E18. [Accept if E16=1,2,3,5]
Last/First/Middle [NAME] [Accept if E12=1,2] Type had to give up current work? What do you think is How many hours did (name) spend
currently E12=2,3] of education his/her former Code: 010 [Name's]/ your biggest in TOTAL working at his/her main
attending Reasons for not facility does job due to the Skipped if age is 4 years or obstacle to finding a job? job (the one he/she spent most
attending school under
school? [NAME] go to? displacement? Code: 011 time at) over the last 2 weeks?
regularly? [Accept if age is 5 years old
Code: 007 Code: 008 Code: 009 1-Yes, 2-No and above]
Skipped if age is
4 years or under
1. Household head |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| Hrs.in 2weeks
2. Spouse |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| Hrs.in 2weeks
3. Refer to member 3 |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| Hrs.in 2weeks
4. Refer to member 4 |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| Hrs.in 2weeks
5. Refer to member 5 |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| Hrs.in 2weeks
6. Refer to member 6 |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| Hrs.in 2weeks
7. Refer to member 7 |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| Hrs.in 2weeks
8. Refer to member 8 |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| Hrs.in 2weeks
9. Refer to member 9 |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| Hrs.in 2weeks
Page 5 of 13 idpprofiling2019v03
 ype here]

PROFILING on INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON

A1. Enumerator’s ID: |__|__|__| A2. Form ID: |__|__|__|__|
F. LIVELIHOOD:
🔊🔊 Note: “I now have some questions about the general economic situation of your family.”

F1. What the is primary source of income that your household had in the past 30 days?
1-Income from wages/salaries 2-Income from business earnings (inch very small and household enterprises)
3-Support from family members’ abroad (remittances) 4-Pensions
5-Assistance (in cash) from government/UN/NGO 6-Income from renting out
7-Selling off own assets 8-Using loans (formal and from family/ friends
9-Money or in-kind assistance from relatives in the country 10-Using savings
11-Laborer 12-Selling own production goods (e.g. from farming)
10. Other 13-Don’t know

F2. What is the secondary source of income that your household had in the past 30 days?
1-Income from wages/salaries 2-Income from business earnings (incl very small and household enterprises)
3-Support from family members’ abroad (remittances) 4-Pensions
5-Assistance (in cash) from government/UN/NGO 6-Income from renting out
7-Selling off own assets 8-Using loans (formal and from family/ friends
9-Money or in-kind assistance from relatives in the country 10-Using savings
11-Laborer 11-Selling own production goods (e.g. from farming)
99-Other 98-Don’t know

F3. What was the primary source of income for your family prior to the displacement?
NOTE: Explanation laborer: person who for example rents a tricycle or works on farm seasonally or on day to day basis.
1-Income from wages/salaries 2-Income from business earnings (incl very small and household enterprises)
3-Support from family members abroad (remittances) 4-Pensions
5-Assistance (in cash) from government/UN/NGO 6-Income from renting out
7-Selling off own assets 8-Using loans (formal and from family/ friends
9-Money or in-kind assistance from relatives in the country 9. Using savings
Labourer Selling own production goods (e.g. from farming)
10. Other 98-Don’t know

F4. Since your arrival here, was your household able to pay any of the following: 1-Yes 2-No 98-Don’t Know
F4.1. to pay rent or utility bills ➔F6 ➔F6
F4.2. to face unexpected expenses ➔F6 ➔F6

F5. [IF ANY IN THE F4=2] How did you or your household cope with this expense/these expenses?
Select all that apply
1-Spend savings 2-Reduce other expenses 3-Given money from family/friends
4-Loan from family/friends 5-Loan from bank 6-Took extra work
7-Begging 8-Nothing 99-Other"

F6. How easily can you access the nearest market where you can buy and sell things?
1. Not possible to access any market➔F7 2. Very difficult to access the market➔F7
3. Somewhat difficult to access the market➔F7 4. Moderately easy to access the market➔Next section
5. Very easy to access the market➔Next section 98-Don’t know

F7. [IF F6=1, 2 or 3] What is the main challenge in reaching the market?
1. Do not need to go there 2. Too far 3. Too expensive to travel
4. Do not have the time to go there 5. It is not safe to go there 6. Products there are not of good quality
7. Other 98-Don’t know

Page 6 of 13 idpprofiling2019v03

110 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

ype here]

PROFILING on INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON

A1. Enumerator’s ID: |__|__|__| A2. Form ID: |__|__|__|__|
F8. Do you or any family member have DSWD’s Assistance Family Access Card?
1-Yes➔F10 2-No
97-Refuse to answer➔ F10 98-Dont know➔ F10

F9. [IF F9=2] If No, Reason | | Type here

F10. Are you a beneficiary of the following?

(Select all that apply)
1-Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) 2-Social pensioner
3-Modified Conditional Cash Transfer (MCCT) 4-Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP)
5-MFAR/DA 6- Unconditional Cash Transfer (UCT)
99-Other 98-Don’t know

G. SAFETY, SECURITY AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

🔊🔊 Note: “We know that in some cases families have raised concerns about their safety and security situation. I would like

7. ANNEXES
to ask you some questions to see if this is the case here too”.

G1. What is your primary and secondary concern about safety and security in your barangay? Indicate 1 as primary and 2 as
secondary in the space provided.
Select 2 only
1-Presence of state and/or non-state actor(s)
2-Bombardment
3-Pagbanta/Clan feud
4-Presence of UXO/IEDs/landmines
5-Destruction of civilian properties, including homes and livelihood inputs
6-Attacks on schools and hospitals
7-Looting of civilian properties
8-Arbitrary arrest/detention; Extra-judicial/Summary executions/Unlawful killing
9-Kidnapping/abduction, including of women & children
10-Killing, torture and maiming of civilians during armed conflict (if there are children killed or maimed, please
specify)
11-GBV (rape, trafficking, sexual abuse, intimate partner violence, other violence against girls/women
12-Recruitment and use of children by armed actors
13-Forced recruitment and use of adults by armed actors
14-Forced return or relocation to any area (safe or unsafe)
15-Lack of adequate communication between family members and/or to emergency support services (i.e.
ambulance, fire brigade)
16-Lack of communication (between officials and community about safety and security (including early
warning systems and/or declaration of safety for return)
17-Extortion/illegal taxation
18-Forcible separation of family members
19-No security concerns
98-Don’t know
99-Other

G2. How safe do you feel walking alone in your area/neighborhood during daytime?
Note: (SHOULD BE ASKED TO RESPONDENT AND NOT TO WHOLE HOUSEHOLD)
1. Very safe 2. Fairly safe 3. Bit unsafe
4. Very unsafe 5. I never walk alone after dark 6. Don’t know.

Page 7 of 13 idpprofiling2019v03

111
 ype here]

PROFILING on INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON

A1. Enumerator’s ID: |__|__|__| A2. Form ID: |__|__|__|__|
G3. What was the gravest security incident that has been experienced by any member of your family since you arrived here?
1-Petty crime 2-Drug-related crime 4-Sexual abuse/harassment
5-Murder 7-Land disputes 8-Forced marriage
10-Armed conflict 12Trafficking in persons 13-No security incident ➔H SECTION
99-Other 98-Don’t know

G4. Did you report the incident to any formal or informal authorities?
1-Yes 2-No➔G6
97-Refuse to answer➔G6 98-Dont know➔G6

G5. Where did you report the incident?

1-Police 2-BPAT/ Barangay officials 3-Traditional or informal justice system
99-Other 98-Don’t know 97-Refuse to answer

G6. Why did you choose not to report the incident? [Posed to a random member of the household or the household as unit]"
1-Too expensive 2-Unreliable / do not trust police
3-Creates more problems 4-Unreliable / do not trust the barangay officials
5-They do not help 6-No police station nearby
99-Other 98-Don’t know
97-Refuse to answer

H. HOUSING, LAND & PROPERTY

H1. Do you own the land where your habitual residence or structure was located?
1-Yes 2-No➔ H5 97-Refuse to answer➔ H5 98-Don’t know➔ H5

H2. [IF H1=1] What type of proof ownership do you have (before displacement) prompt the choices?
Read aloud
1-Title 2-Tax Declaration 3-Deed of Sale 4-No proof
99-Other 98-Don’t know 97-Refused to answer

H3. [IF H1=1] Are there others who claim ownership of your land?
1-Yes 2-No➔H5 97-Refuse to answer➔H5 98-Don’t know No➔H5

H4. [IIF H3=1]: On what basis?

1-Family members who believe they have entitlement to the land 2-Government claims this is public land
3-Ancestral domain claim 4-Claim that they were given the land as dowry
5-Claim that the land was pawned for a loan 6-Boundary conflict
7-Informal settler(s) on your land 99-Other
98-Don’t know

H5. Do you own (or commonly own) the house that was your habitual residence?
1-Yes➔ H7 2-No 98-Don’t know➔ H7 97-Refuse to answer➔ H7

H6. [IF H5=]: What kind of arrangement did you have to live in this dwelling unit?
1-Rented the house 2-Stayed as a tenant without paying rent
3-Stayed as a caretaker without paying 4-Stayed as an informal settler
99-Other 98-Don’t know
97-Refuse to answer➔ H7

Page 8 of 13 idpprofiling2019v03

112 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

ype here]

PROFILING on INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON

A1. Enumerator’s ID: |__|__|__| A2. Form ID: |__|__|__|__|
H7. Current Status of your house/structure in the place of habitual residence (i.e, after you were displaced)
1-No damage 2-Partially-damaged 3-Totally damaged
99-Other 98-Don’t know 97-Refuse to answer

I. Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)

I1. What are your main sources of your safe water for drinking?
1-Piped connection 2-Common faucet (Level 2)
3-Pump 4-Protected deep or shallow well
5-Deep/shallow well (Unprotected) 6-Spring/River/pond/Stream
7-Rainwater 8-Water vendors (e.g., bottled water, container, peddlers, and water refilling stations)
9-Government provision 10-Connected to a neighbor
11-Fetched water from neighbor with piped connection 99-Other
98-Don’t know 97-Refuse to answer

7. ANNEXES
I2. What are your main sources of your safe water for cooking and other domestic uses?
1-Piped connection 2-Common faucet (Level 2)
3-Pump 4-Protected deep or shallow well
5-Deep/shallow well (Unprotected) 6-Spring/River/pond/Stream
7-Rainwater 8-Water vendors (e.g., bottled water, container, peddlers, and water refilling stations)
9-Government provision 10-Connected to a neighbor
11-Fetched water from neighbor with piped connection 99-Other
98-Don’t know 97-Refuse to answer

I3. Was your household able to get sufficient water within the last 30 days?
1-Yes➔I4 2-No 97-Refuse to answer➔I4 98-Don’t know➔I4

I4. [IIF I3=1]: What was the main reason for the household’s inability to get water in sufficient quantities and access the water source
when needed?
1-Water not available from source 2-Water too expensive
3-Not enough containers to fetch/store water 4-Damaged/ malfunction
5-Source not accessible (too far away) 6-Was not safe to go and fetch water
7-Could not fetch water due to discrimination 8-Water shortages
9-No adequate facility for disabled HH members 99-Other
98-Don’t know 97-Refuse to answer

I5. What type of toilet facility do you use?

1-Water-sealed (flush or pour/flush), sewer/septic tank 2-Closed pit
3-Water sealed, other depository 4-Open pit
5-No toilet (wrap and throw, bedpan, bush, lake, creek, river)➔I8 99-Other
98-Don’t know 97-Refuse to answer

I6. What is the proximity distance of the toilets?

1-Within plot 2-Within house
3-Less than 50 meters outside plot 4-More than 50 meters
98-Don’t know 97-Refuse to answer

I7. How do you classify your toilet facility?

1-Private, for family use only 2-Shared by multiple families in this structure
3-Public/communal in this community 99-Other
98-Don’t know 97-Refuse to answer

Page 9 of 13 idpprofiling2019v03

113
 ype here]

PROFILING on INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON

A1. Enumerator’s ID: |__|__|__| A2. Form ID: |__|__|__|__|
I8. [IF N5=5]: Why do you not have a toilet facility?
1-Current arrangement works fine 2-Cannot afford to get such facility (to buy materials)
3-Do not know how to get such facility 99-Other

I9. Where do you or other members of your household most often wash hands?
1-Fixed facility (sink, tap) ➔J section 2-Mobile object (bucket, jag, kettle) ➔J section
3-No hand washing facility 99-Other➔J section

I10. [IF I9=3] If "n

no hand washing facility": Why don’t you have a handwashing facility?
Current arrangement works fine Cannot afford to get such facility (to buy materials)
Do not know how to get such facility 99-Other

J.FOOD:

J1. What are your sources of food?

Select multiple
Market Own produced (within household) Relatives outside household
Government Non-government (UN, Private entity, NGO, INGO) Host-family
Don’t know Other

J2. Who provided for you and your household food needs?
Select multiple
Family members Government Non-government (UN, Private entity, NGO, INGO)
Host-family Other
🔊🔊NOTE: Could you please tell me how many days in the past week (7days) your household has eaten the No. of days
following food items, prepared and/or consumed at home?

Food type consumed in the past seven days.

J3. Rice, bread, noodles, biscuits, cookies or any rice and cereal products like biko, suman (malagkit), puto, |__|
noodles/pasta, porridge (arrozcaldo/champorado) and others Cassava, potatoes and sweet potatoes, other
tubers and plantains
J4. Beans, peas, lentils, nuts, seeds or foods made from these like and beans, guisantes de lata and others |__|
J5. Vegetables |__|
J6. Seaweeds |__|
J7. Fruits |__|
J8. Beef, goat, poultry, eggs, fish, and shellfish |__|
J9. Milk, yogurt and other dairy |__|
J10. Sugar and sugar products, honey |__|
J11. Oils, fats, and butter |__|
J12. Spices, tea, coffee, salt, fish powder/coconut, small amounts of milk for tea |__|
J13. Condiments |__|

J14. In the past 7 days, were there times when you did not have enough food or money to buy food?
1-Yes 2-No➔K Section 97-Refuse to answer➔ K Section 98-Don’t know➔ K Section

J15. [IF J14=1]: How often did your HHs have to: Rely on less preferred and less expensive food? |___| day(s)
J16. [IF J14=1]: How often did your HHs have to: Borrow food or rely on help from a relative or friend? |___| day(s)
J17. [IF J14=1]: How often did your HHs have to: Limit portion size of meals at meal times? |___| day(s)
J18. [IF J14=1]: How often did your HHs have to: Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat? |___| day(s)
J19. [IF J14=1]: How often did your HHs have to: Reduce number of meals eaten in a day? |___| day(s)

Page 10 of 13 idpprofiling2019v03

114 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

ype here]

PROFILING on INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON

A1. Enumerator’s ID: |__|__|__| A2. Form ID: |__|__|__|__|
K. HEALTH NUTRITION

K1. Does anyone in the household have a card/document where the child [Name]’s vaccinations/immunization are written?
1-Yes 2-No 97-Refuse to answer 98-Don’t know

K2. What are the most common health problems in your family?
1-Cough/colds/ Bronchitis/Asthma 2-Children are thin, family is weak 3-Fever
4-Physical injuries including wounds 5-Skin diseases/Rashes/ 6-Eye infections
7-Convulsions/seizures 8-Diarrhea/Typhoid/Cholera 9-Head ache
10-Tooth ache => mouth problems 11-Body pain, e.g. Back/Neck pain, Knee/Joint pain 12-Chest pain
13-Heart diseases/BP problems 14-Cancer 15-Diabetes
16-Gynecological problems (not pregnant women, not having their period) +obstetrics (pregnancy-related)
17-TB 0-None 98-Don’t know
99-Other 97-Refuse to answer

7. ANNEXES
K3. Was anyone in your household in need of visiting a doctor/health facility in the past 6 months?
1-Yes 2-No 97-Refuse to answer 98-Don’t know

K4. [IF K3=1]: Did you or the other family member that needed to see a doctor, manage to visit a health care facility/doctor?
1-Yes 2-No 97-Refuse to answer 98-Don’t know

K4a. [IF K3=1]: What kind of health care facility di you or your other household member access?
Probe: (If the HH members went several times, then ask respondent to indicate where they went most of the time).
1-Yes, formal medical care facility 2-Yes, informal/traditional medical care facility [if relevant to context]
3-No 97-Dont know"

K5. [IF K3=1]: Where did you or your household go to seek help for treatment you needed it in the past 6 months?
Probe: (If the HH members went several times, then ask respondent to indicate where they went most of the time).
1-Barangay health center 2-Rural Health Unit (city/municipal LGU)
3-Private clinic 4-Private hospital
5-Government hospital 6-Traditional healer
7-Medical mission 8-did not seek any care
99- Other 98- Don’t know
97- Refused to answer

K6. [IF K3=2]: If you were not able to visit a doctor/healthcare facility in the past 6 months even when it is needed, what is the
reason?
(Select all that apply)
1-Would not be able to cover the costs 2-Transportation too expensive
3-Too far away 4-No/bad transportation options
5-It is not safe to go there 6-Expect low quality service
10-Didn't know where to go 11-No insurance - if relevant to context
12-Refused service by health care providers (due to lack of required documents)
13-Refused service by health care providers for other reason
99- Other 98- Don’t know 97- Refused to answer

K07. [IF B4=1] Is there a health service available in this site?

1-Yes 2-No 97-Refuse to answer 98-Don’t know

K08. [IF B4=1] Is there a referral system in place if your health problem cannot be treated there?
1-Yes 2-No➔ 97-Refuse to answer 98-Don’t know

Page 11 of 13 idpprofiling2019v03

115
 ype here]

PROFILING on INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON

A1. Enumerator’s ID: |__|__|__| A2. Form ID: |__|__|__|__|
K09. IF given a chance to prioritized humanitarian needs for your family, please rank the following below? 1-highest
1-Food/Nutrition
2-Education
3-Water
4-Sanitation and Hygiene
5-Healthcare
6-Protection
7-Livelihoods
8-Psychosocial support
99-Other
98-Don’t know
97-Refused to answer

L. ACCESS TO DURABLE SOLUTIONS:

🔊🔊NOTE: My last questions to you relate to your future plans.

L1. Does your household want to leave this location at some point in time?
1-Yes 2-No➔L6 97-Refuse to answer 98-Don’t know
L2. Where would your household prefer to live in the future?
1-Return to place of habitual residence/place of origin
2-Move to different place within same neighborhood
3-Move to different place in same city/area (not within same neighborhood)
4-Move elsewhere in the country (not place of origin)
5-Move abroad
99-Other
98-Don’t know
97-Refuse to answer

L3. Thinking about the place you would prefer to move to, what are the main 2 reasons for preferring to live there?
Note: Indicate 1 as primary and 2 as secondary in the space provided.
Select 2 only
1. Better security
2. Better access to home/area of housing and area of livelihood/livestock
3. Better access to education and health services
4. Better access to livelihood/employment opportunities
5. Better access to basic infrastructure and public services
6. To continue living with family or community members/ family reasons
7. Access to humanitarian aid
8. Decision by the community leader (if relevant to context)
9. Other
10. Don't know
11. Refused to answer

L4. Do you have the possibility to pursue your preferred option at this point in time?
1-Yes➔L7 2-No
97-Refuse to answer 98-Don’t know

Page 12 of 13 idpprofiling2019v03

116 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

ype here]

PROFILING on INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSON

A1. Enumerator’s ID: |__|__|__| A2. Form ID: |__|__|__|__|
L5. [IF L4=2]: What are the main two (2) reasons for you/ your household not being able to settle where you prefer?"
Select at least 2
1. Conflict is ongoing/ no ceasefire / no peace
2. Armed groups are still present/ lack of security
3. Mines have not been cleared
4. Destruction of/lack of access to original housing, land and/or other property
5. Lack of/difficulty in finding housing
6. Lack of access to a farm plot and/or grazing land/ fishing/ sea weed farming
7-Basic infrastructure (roads, electricity, water pipes) damaged/ destroyed
9-Lack of agricultural tools/seeds/livestock
9-Lack of funds / productive assets for re-establishing business
10-Lack of access to markets
11-Lack of skills to find work/ lack of access to employment
12-Lack of access to basic service (e.g. education and health)
13-Will lose access to aid by moving away

7. ANNEXES
14-Do not have transportation arrangement/ lack of financial means to facilitate move
15-Family has been separated to different places/difficulties in family re-unification
16-No acceptance by host community/discrimination in identified location
99-Other
98-Don’t know
97-Refused to answer
L6. What type of information would you need in order to easier decide about future moves? Please probe
Select all that apply
1-Information about security situation 2-Information about availability of basic services (food, water, shelter, education, health, etc.)
3-Information about quality of basic services 4-Information about availability of work and livelihood opportunities
5-Information about access to area of housing/ property/ housing 6-Information about government’s plans for IDP families
99-Other 98-Don’t know
13. Refused to answer

L7. Are you aware of any information about government’s plans for IDP families?
1-Yes 2-No 97-Refuse to answer 98-Don’t know

M. INTERVIEW FEEDBACK

M1. (Optional) GPS Coordinates: Please put each number in the box provided, “N/A” if not applicable.
M1a. Latitude: |__|__|__|.|__|__|__|__|__|__|
M1b. Longitude: |__|__|__|.|__|__|__|__|__|__|

M2. Describe the problems that you have encountered.

END. THANK YOU!

Page 13 of 13 idpprofiling2019v03

117
 Annex III:
Question library for validating findings with IDPs and members of the
PWG through Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews
Topic Questions for PWG members Questions for IDPs
Displacement Have you witnessed any displacements in the province for the past Have you experienced displacement for the past 3 years? If
History 3 years? yes, are you /they usually relocated within the barangay or
municipality /province? Can you tell more on this?
Where do you usually relocate the IDP after displacement?
Many of the causes of displacements are related to crime,
violence or armed conflict. Do you also see the same reasons for
displacement in your area? If no, can you tell us further about this
Support and What government assistance is being provided to displaced families What types of assistance did you receive? From what agency?
assistance to help them with their everyday expenses and to help them
Have you received any government assistance? (e.g. 4Ps
programs for IDPs sustain their primary source of income? (e.g. 4Ps, presence of camp
assistance, DAFAC) If no, can you tell us more about this?
managers).
Do you also consider lack of awareness, discrimination and
rejection by the government among the reasons why you did not
receive DAFAC and other assistance?
FUTURE Are you aware that the majority of the families want to leave their Do you still intend to visit your habitual residence anytime soon?
INTENTIONS current location and go back to their habitual place of residence and What are the reasons? What are the obstacles?
do not have information about the government’s plans for the IDPs?
What assistance programs do you have to realize their future
intentions?
Why do you think that the majority of the IDPs interviewed are
outside the labour force?
Are there any programs/projects by P/M/BLGU related to employment
for the internally displaced persons? What are these?
EDUCATION What are the reasons behind that considerable number of school How does displacement affect the schooling of your children?
aged populations are not in school?
Do you know any government projects related to education? Have
What are the available mechanisms to ensure issues on education you availed any of those? Can you tell us more about this?
are addressed?
How can different sectors avail of such projects?
HOUSEHOLD What government assistance is being provided to displaced families How was your job affected by this displacement?
ECONOMY to help them with their everyday expenses and to help them
Are you aware of any employment opportunities for IDP/Youth/
sustain their primary source of income? (e.g. 4Ps, presence of camp
PSWN/Elderly? What are these?
managers).
In your area, are there more women or men unemployed? Can
What are the mechanisms available to ensure displaced families are
you elaborate on this further?
included in the assistance?
What are the challenges faced by the family on maintaining
sources of family income?
Why do you think the majority are considered outside the labour
force? What are they working on then?
SAFETY, SECURITY Have you responded to any safety, security and movement concerns Why do you think communication issues with the government and
AND FREEDOM OF of IDPs? communities on safety and security issues are considered primary
MOVEMENT concerns for some IDP?
Do you find it surprising that a considerable number of families
interviewed reported lack of communication with the government as What are the effective mechanisms available in addressing safety
a concern? Can you elaborate on this further? and security concerns especially for men/women/youth/PWSN/
Elderly
What are the government mechanisms that are currently in place
which addresses the safety, security, and freedom of movement of
IDPs?

118 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM

Topic Questions for PWG members Questions for IDPs
STANDARD OF What are the responses provided by the local government to address Do you consider WASH a problem to you as an IDP? Can you tell
LIVING AND these issues on access to safe water and sanitation? us why?
ACCESS TO
Does the government have health services for specific IDP sectors? Are there any programs/projects/facilities related to WASH which
SERVICES
you know of? If yes, are these facilities provided by accessible?
Are the health facilities and services accessible and affordable?
What are the coping mechanisms available to address your issues
Some of the displaced families interviewed revealed that they
related to WASH?
are food insecure, do you think this reflects reality? What are the
manifestations that these families do not have sufficient food to What is the reason why the majority do not have health cards and
take? document with vaccinations recorded? Could this be related to
their displacement, education, etc?
What are the government programs/projects to ensure that IDPs are
food secure/have sufficient food? Do the health facilities in your area provide health services also
for women/men/youth/PSWN/elderly?
Are there any special projects/programs for families that have
returned to their habitual place of residence? What are the challenges you have encountered in accessing
health services?
Why do you think the majority of those who owned their land do not
have documents as proof of ownership? What are the most common diseases you experienced and is this
worrying?
How do you think this finding can influence your policies on land
management? Did you experience food shortage during your during and after

7. ANNEXES
displacement? Can you please tell us more about this?
Are there any mechanisms in the local government to address
grievances related to HLP? Can you elaborate further on this? But do you have any other ways that can effectively contribute to
food security?
Do you have programs for those IDPs whose houses in their habitual
place of residence were damaged? Can you explain this further? Do you have regular access to markets? What are the obstacles?
Why do you think those who claimed ownership of land where
their houses were built have no document to claim ownership?
What challenges did you encounter in not owning the land where
your houses are built?
What are the mechanisms available in the community to report/
address issues related to HLP?
Reasons why IDP still go back to their place of habitual residence
even their houses were already destroyed
IDENTIFIED Regarding the prioritized humanitarian needs of the IDP, which of Among the prioritized needs identified, which do you think is your
HUMANITARIAN the prioritized needs identified your government has the existing severe or most important need?
NEEDS FOR IDPS capacities and resources to realize these?
How can they avail these?

119
 Annex IV: <= 28: Poor; > 28 <= 42: Borderline; > Acceptable
Food Consumption Score and
Coping Strategy Index The Coping Strategy Index (CSI) measures peoples’
coping behaviour when they can’t access sufficient
The Food Consumption Score (FCS) is a standard food. It can be used for example “as indicator of
measure to calculate the frequency of consumption impending food crisis, and as a tool for assessing
of different food groups consumed by a household both food aid needs and whether food aid has been
during the 7 days before the survey. The score targeted to the most food insecure households”.122
“represents households’ dietary diversity and nutrient
intake”121, and hence allows for an evaluation if The score is calculated through the weighted
households consume food types in sufficient quantity aggregation of five measures: 1) Whether the family
and quality. had to rely on less preferred or less expensive food
(weight 1), 2) whether the family had to borrow food
The FCS was calculated using the following food or had to rely on help of friends or family (weight
items and weights as indicated in the table below: 2), 3) whether the family had to limit the portion of
meals (weight 1), 4) whether the family had to restrict
The following thresholds were used to calculate the the consumption of food in favor of feeding children
FCS based on the multiplication of number of days (weight 3) and 5) whether the family had to reduce
the Food Items were consumed with its weights: the number of meals eaten per day (weight 1).

Food items Food groups (definitive) Weight

Maize, maize porridge, rice, sorghum, millet pasta, bread and other cereals
Main staples 2
Cassava, potatoes and sweet potatoes, other tubers,
Beans, peas, groundnuts and cashew nuts Pulses 3
Vegetables, leaves Vegetables 1
Fruits Fruits 1
Beef, goat, poultry, pork, eggs and fish Meat and Fish 4
Milk yogurt, and other dairy Milk 4
Sugar and sugar products, honey Sugar 0.5
Oil, fats and butter Oil 0.5
Spices, tea, coffee, salt, fish powder,
Condiments 0
small amounts of milk for tea

121
For your information, refer to: https://bit.ly/3p42VYJ.
122
For your information, refer to: https://bit.ly/2Y2NTXk.

120 PROFILING OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT | BaSulTa Provinces | BARMM