The extent and geographic distribution of chronic poverty
in Iraq’s Center/South Region
By : Tarek El-Guindi
Hazem Al Mahdy
John McHarris
United Nations World Food Programme
May 2003
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1
Background:.........................................................................................................................................3
What was being evaluated? .............................................................................................................3
Who were the key informants? ........................................................................................................3
How were the interviews conducted? ..............................................................................................3
Main Findings......................................................................................................................................4
The extent of chronic poverty..........................................................................................................4
The regional and geographic distribution of chronic poverty .........................................................5
How might baseline chronic poverty data support current Assessment and planning activities? ...8
Baseline chronic poverty data and targeting assistance during the post-war period .......................9
Strengths and weaknesses of the analysis, and possible next steps:..............................................11
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................13
Appendix-A: Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................................................15
Appendix-B: Governorate Chronic Poverty Maps ............................................................................17
Appendix-C: Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor.................................................30
Appendix-D: Governorate Tables......................................................................................................32
ii
Executive Summary
The paper describes an analysis of chronic poverty for the Center/South region of Iraq. The work
was undertaken by WFP Iraq, with support from WFP’s regional Vulnerability Analysis and
Mapping/VAM unit based in Cairo. The study had two basic objectives; 1) to better understand the
magnitude of chronic poverty within the region, and 2) to better understand the geographic and
spatial distribution of chronic poverty at a sub-national (district) scale. The data supporting the
analysis was based on key informant interviews; with WFP Iraqi national staff participating as keyinformants. The interviews were conducted during the months preceding the war, and were part of
WFP’s broader contingency planning and emergency preparedness activities.
Using structured interviews, key informants were asked to qualitatively evaluate the prevalence of
chronic poverty for districts within Iraq’s 15 “Center South” governorates1. Three key informants
were interviewed per governorate, and only districts belonging to the same governorate were
evaluated against one another2.
Steps were taken to ensure that all key informants had a firm and common understanding of
“chronic poverty”; prior to conducting the interviews. A chronic poverty definition was first
reviewed in training sessions, and later reviewed again during the actual interviews. Chronic
poverty was defined as:
A set of conditions whereby a household or individual is frequently over long periods of time unable
to meet basic needs. Basic needs include adequate food, water, clothing, shelter, health, and basic
education. “Chronic” poverty refers to deprivation that is long term by nature.
Also reviewed was the definition of “percent poor”; simply “the percent of the population poor3,
within a given administrative area”.
It is important to emphasize that the study occurred during a period when PDS food rations were
regularly ongoing. There is general consensus that many Iraqi households would be unable to
survive without food rations. A previous Save the Children report on livelihoods in North Iraq
concluded:
Most households are extremely vulnerable to external shocks, including
unplanned changes in the sanctions system. … They have little (if any) capacity to expand to
other coping strategies and economic activities.4
Ration dependency is very high, largely due to the fact that household incomes have fallen
dramatically during the sanctions era.
Despite the fact that rations represent a significant income transfer to most Iraqi households; the
findings of this study estimate that approximately 21% of Iraq’s Center/South population are
chronically poor; or unable to meet their basic needs over long periods of time. By design, this
1
Center South Governorates include all governorates except Erbil, Dahuk, and Sulaymaniyah. For an analysis of chronic poverty
for the three Northern governorates see The extent and geographic distribution of chronic poverty in Iraq’s Northern Governorates;
ElGuindi, Almahdy, and McHarris; May 2003”.
2
For three of the 15 Center/South governorates (Al Anbar, An Najaf, and Al Qadisiyah) , only one key informant was interviewed
due to time constraints. The results reported for these three governorates should be interpreted more cautiously.
3
Percent poor in this context actually refers to the percent of the district population chronically poor. The size of the larger “poor”
population (including both the chronically poor; and the transient poor) fluctuates over time; as households fall in or out of poverty
due to changing economic circumstances.
4
Understanding Kurdish livelihoods in Northern Iraq; Alastair Kirk and Gary Sawdon, January 2002.
study did not attempt to quantify the larger “poor” population. The more inclusive “poor” category
encompasses both the transient poor; i.e. those whose poverty status is not long term in nature, as
well as the “chronics”. The findings conclude that just over 1/5th of the region is chronically poor,
representing approximately 4.6 million of the Center/South’s total population of 22.3 million.
These estimates should be interpreted as approximate (i.e. not precise); due to the nature of
the approach and methodology used.
The main body of the report includes maps showing the geographic distribution of chronic poverty
throughout the Center/South region. Concentrations occur within a relatively small number of
districts. Twenty districts contain approximately 3.3 million chronically poor, or about 72% of the
4.6 million total. These same districts account for approximately 62% of Iraq’s total Center/South
population. While the general population distribution clearly influences the size and the
geographic distribution of the chronically poor population; a significant number of districts
have disproportionately large chronically poor populations, due to their high chronic poverty rates.
District level chronic poverty rates are shown in the Figure-3 map. The rates are given as
percentage figures, and portray the size of the chronically poor population relative to the size of the
total district population. The Center/South contains numerous areas with high chronic poverty rates.
Two clusters of such districts are located towards the East of the country and border Iran. The first
cluster lies east of Baghdad and includes areas within the governorates of Taamim, Salah al Din,
Diyala, and Wassit. A second cluster, located in the southeast corner of the country, includes all of
Basrah governorate, and most of southern Missan. Basrah governorate is particularly noteworthy in
that all of it’s districts are classified as having either high, or very high chronic poverty rates.
Chronic poverty rates for districts containing the administrative centers (governorate capital cities)
were significantly lower when compared with rates for other districts. The average chronic poverty
rate for districts containing governorate administrative centers was 17%, as compared to 27% for
all other districts in the Center/South region. Past developments related to uneven capital spending
and investment, or inequitable public sector resource allocation might have contributed to these
differences. Further study and research is needed for a better understanding of causal factors.
The report includes some forward thinking about the potential utility of chronic poverty data and
maps during the post-war stabilization period. The revitalized Public Distribution System (PDS)
will operate for an unknown, although “finite” period of time. The focus of assistance will
eventually shift towards longer term reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts, with a subsequent
need to implement more targeted and selective interventions. Recovery assistance should logically
be targeted to those districts of the country that contain larger numbers or higher densities of
chronically poor populations. While future socioeconomic surveys and analyses will undoubtedly
shed new light on where future assistance is most needed; time will unfold before such survey
results are widely available.
2
Background:
The main purpose of this report is to present recent findings on the extent and geographic
distribution of chronic poverty throughout Iraq’s Center/South region. The analysis occurred
within the broader context of WFP’s contingency planning and preparedness efforts. To the best of
the authors’ knowledge, no recent studies provide details on the extent of chronic poverty for Iraq’s
Center/South region, at district scale.
What was being evaluated?
Key informants were asked to consider the prevalence of “chronic poverty” within the districts of
their governorates. At the onset of each interview a standard working definition of chronic poverty
was reviewed:
A set of conditions whereby a household or individual is frequently over long periods of time unable to meet
their basic needs. Basic needs include adequate food, water, clothing, shelter, health, and basic education.
“Chronic” poverty refers to deprivation that is long term by nature.
Also reviewed was the definition of “percent poor”; simply “the percent of the population poor5,
within a given administrative area”.
Who were the key informants?
WFP has maintained a large staff presence inside Iraq, due to its’ lead agency role in administering
the food handling and food distribution components of the UN’s Oil-for-Food Programme. Within
the Center/South region6 approximately 159 Iraqi national staff are employed as Food Distribution
Observers. Approximately 40 observers were selected as key informants. Observers spend the large
majority of their time traveling in the field, and many have been working within their governorates
for a period of 5-6 years. During the pre-war period; observers collectively conducted
approximately 9,000 household interviews per month. The selection of key informants was done
primarily on the basis of:
1) the observer’s field experience, length of time on the job and familiarity with communities within the
governorate.
2) exposure to prior training and tools associated w/ the key informant process
3) understanding of the key concepts such as “chronic poverty”.
Interviewers were also WFP staff, and were selected on the basis of:
1) their communication skills and their ability to conduct interviews and record key informant responses in a
neutral and professional manner.
2) their understanding of the training and tools associated w/ the process.
How were the interviews conducted?
An interview consisted of one key informant and one interviewer. Three interviews were
conducted per governorate; for 12 of Iraq’s 15 Center/South governorates7. Key informants were
5
Percent poor in this context actually refers to the percent of the district population chronically poor. The size of the larger “poor”
population (including both the chronically poor; and the transient poor) fluctuates over time; as households fall in or out of poverty
due to changing economic circumstances
6
The Center/South region of Iraq contains 15 of Iraq’s 18 governorates.
7
For three governorates; Anbar, Najaf, and Qadissiya only one interview took place due to time constraints; accordingly, results for
these three governorates should be used more cautiously.
3
asked to evaluate the “percent poor” in district-1 as compared to district-2, or district-1 as
compared to district-3, … until all possible combination of district-pairs within a governorate were
evaluated. Respondents were given a list of “response options”, at the beginning of each interview:
Table 1: How does district-1 compare to district-2?
Key Informant
Response Options:
Much
Lower
Lower
Slightly
Lower
Same/
Similar
Slightly
Higher
Higher
Much
Higher
In this context, utilizing qualitative comparisons, as opposed to precise quantitative estimates had
significant advantages. In general, making comparisons on qualitative and relative grounds is
easier than making the same comparison quantitatively. Data collection and analysis procedures
are described in detail in Appendix-A/Data Collection and Analysis. The appendix includes
documentation describing how qualitative data was used to rank the districts within a governorate
according to chronic poverty prevalence. Key informants were subsequently asked to focus their
attention only on those districts ranking worst and best respectively; and to give “approximate”
quantitative estimates of the percent chronically poor for each focus district. Appendi-A also
includes a description of how these reference quantitative estimates were used, together with
“weights” derived from the qualitative data, to interpolate quantitative estimates for remaining
districts. Resulting estimates should be interpreted as approximate (i.e. not precise); due to
the nature of the approach and methodology used.
Main Findings
The extent of chronic poverty
Slightly over 1/5th (21%) of Iraq’s Center/South population was found to be “chronically poor”;
accounting for 4.6 of the region’s 22.3 million people. The results represent a segment of the
overall poor population; i.e. those amongst the poor whose deprivation is long- term or near
constant in nature. By design, this study did not attempt to quantify the larger “poor” population8,
nor did it attempt to quantify the even larger PDS dependant population.
It is important to emphasize that the study occurred during a period when PDS food rations were
regularly ongoing. Household dependency on the rations has been (and continues to be) very high
largely because household incomes have fallen so dramatically during the sanctions era. There is
general consensus that many Iraqi households would be unable to survive without food rations. A
previous Save the Children report on livelihoods in North Iraq concluded:
Most households are extremely vulnerable to external shocks, including
unplanned changes in the sanctions system. … They have little (if any) capacity to expand to
other coping strategies and economic activities.9
The findings herein conclude that just over one-in-five Center/South households were unable to
meet their basic needs even after taking into account assistance provided through the PDS.
During the war, income generating activities for many Iraqi households came to a halt, or near halt;
as more pressing concerns such as personal safety and survival took precedence. Many shops and
private sector businesses remain closed, numerous public sector employees have not been paid
during the past months, and in general economic activity remains stifled. Vulnerability to poverty,
8
The more inclusive “poor” category encompasses both the transient poor; i.e. those who fall in and out of poverty
over time; as well as the chronics.
9
Understanding Kurdish livelihoods in Northern Iraq; Alastair Kirk and Gary Sawdon, January 2002.
4
food insecurity, and malnutrition has undoubtedly risen, and as such the immediate resumption of
assistance through the PDS or other means ranks high as an urgent priority.
The regional and geographic distribution of chronic poverty
The data were mapped to depict the geographic distribution and spatial patterns of chronic poverty
throughout the region. The map below shows the chronically poor population per district:
Figure-1:
The findings suggest that a large number of chronically poor are highly concentrated in a relatively
small number of districts. Twenty districts (those shaded red above) contain approximately 3.3
million chronically poor, or about 72% of the 4.6 million total. These same districts account for
approximately 62% of Iraq’s total Center/South population. Approximately 77% of Iraq’s
population is urban10; and is mostly concentrated within large cities or in close proximity to the
historical fertile-crescent framed by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
10
http://www.sesrtcic.org/members/irq/irqhome.shtml
5
Figure-2
While the geographic distribution of chronically poor is clearly associated with the general
population distribution; the relationship is not always direct. Clear exceptions to the rule can
be found, with a significant number of large population districts having relatively small populations
of “chronically poor”. The converse situation described was also found; with a significant number
of districts having large chronically poor population sizes relative to their total population.
Estimates of “chronic poverty rates” were also mapped. The rates are given as percentage figures,
and portray the size of the chronically poor population, relative to the size of the total district
population. Food aid or other forms of humanitarian assistance distributed in districts with high
chronic rates of poverty has a greater chance of reaching needy households. The Figure-3 map, on
the following page, shows the geographic distribution of chronic poverty rates.
6
Figure-3
The Center/South contains numerous areas with high chronic poverty rates. Two clusters of such
districts are located towards the East of the country and border Iran. The first cluster lies east of
Baghdad and includes areas within the governorates of Taamim, Salah al Din, Diyala, and Wassit.
A second cluster, located in the southeast corner of the country, includes all of Basrah governorate
and most of southern Missan.
Basrah governorate is particularly noteworthy in that all of it’s districts are classified as having
either high, or very high chronic poverty rates, as shown in the Figure-3 map above. Districts with
the highest rates are located towards the east and include Al Madiana, Al Qurnah, Shatt Al Arab,
Abu Al Khasib, and Al Faw. Al Basrah district (containing the governorate capital Basrah city) was
reported as having the lowest chronic poverty rate within the governorate (34%); a figure still high
by national standards.
Chronic poverty rates for districts containing the administrative centers (governorate capital cities)
were significantly lower when compared with rates for other districts. The average chronic poverty
rate for districts containing governorate administrative centers was 17%, as compared to 27% for
all other districts in the Center/South region. Past developments related to uneven capital spending
7
and investment, or inequitable public sector resource allocation might have contributed to these
differences. Further study and research is necessary for a better understanding of causal factors.
A series of governorate level thematic maps were produced so that district level differences in
chronic poverty could more easily be visualized. Each map features the districts within a single
governorate and displays data showing both chronic poverty rates as well as quantitative
figures/estimates regarding the size of the chronically poor population. The maps are contained in
Appendix-B: Chronic Poverty Governorate Maps; and a sample map for Missan governorate
appears below in Figure 4.:
Figure 4
How might baseline chronic poverty data support current assessment and planning activities?
Current assessment activities are clearly focused on averting a large scale humanitarian crisis by
ensuring that basic needs; security, water, electricity, health, food, … are provided in a timely
manner. Within the food sector, assessment teams are identifying the support and assistance
needed to enable a reactivated and fully functioning PDS system. Food sector assessments are also
aimed at getting a better understanding of whether emergency food aid will be required prior to the
first round of post-war nation wide food distributions. Priority vulnerable groups and institutions
that might require more urgent assistance include:
• pregnant and lactating women,
• young children prone to malnutrition risk,
• IDPs unable to support themselves, and not receiving adequate support from others,
• the “poorest of the poor” who might have already sold off their food advance rations to
meet other basic needs,
• households and individuals directly and severely affected by the fighting,
8
•
hospitals, orphanages, or similar social institutions with inadequate access to food.
Re-establishing a fully functioning national PDS social safety net, with full rations, full geographic
coverage, regular and timely food distributions … is a major undertaking; due to the sheer size and
multiple components of the network. Several variables such as the security environment,
administrative arrangements for MOT staff payments, high fuel prices, the food resource and
pipeline situation, … are likely to contribute to operational constraints with regards to near-term
and full PDS re-vitalization.
For whatever reasons if near-term blanket PDS coverage is delayed, “pocket areas” of rising food
insecurity could develop. If this scenario were to play out; food insecure households would look
first to family members, friends, neighbors, and community institutions as potential sources of
assistance. The ability of communities to meet such needs will depend largely on their own local
economic resources. Better off communities, where chronic poverty is less prevalent, will be in a
stronger position to provide assistance and vice-versa. Districts and communities with relatively
high rates of chronic poverty should logically rank high as priority areas where full PDS
resumption is more pressing, or where pre-PDS assistance could be needed. Appendix-C contains a
table listing all of the Center/South districts, sorted/ranked according to their chronic poverty rates,
along with estimates of the number of chronically poor per district. Appendix-D contains the same
information, tabulated according to governorate.
Baseline chronic poverty data and targeting assistance during the post-war period
WFP’s current operations in Iraq are squarely focused on re-establishing the PDS in order to avert a
future and potentially near-term humanitarian crisis. As planners and decision makers look beyond
the short-term period, a policy dialogue on the future of the PDS is likely to develop. Future
decisions regarding the PDS, or any new social safety net; should be supported by a thorough and
comprehensive analysis which takes into account current and future PDS dependency. Proposed
scenarios will need to pay particular attention to the economic well being of low to middle income
households; i.e. those that are most dependant on current PDS assistance. Data and information is
needed to better understand the socioeconomic characteristics of these groups so that future actions,
and their ramifications, are well understood beforehand. A solid knowledge base covering poverty,
food security, social welfare, nutrition, and other related fields is needed to inform the emerging
policy dialogue. If assistance were to be targeted more selectively, what would be the impact of
scaling back, and how would the large population that is currently dependant on assistance cope
without it? What targeting criteria would be used? How would poverty, food security, and
malnutrition be monitored during a transition period so that coverage/assistance could expand and
contract as required? The feasibility of building up a nation wide monitoring capacity, utilizing
either the key informants based pairwise comparison approach or an alternative tool such as a
coping strategies index/CSI, is currently being considered. WFP will continue to dialogue with
concerned institutions on issues related to capacity building and future initiatives.
The data and information contained in this study allow for only a preliminary look at the size and
geographic distribution of “the poorest of the poor”. This group represents a small and limited
segment of the larger “PDS dependant population”. The comprehensive knowledge base alluded to
above will have to address and inform a much more demanding set of questions and issues. Future
efforts aimed at building up an adequate knowledge base will need to directly address the following
information needs:
• Who are the PDS dependants, in terms of their socioeconomic characteristics, their
demographics, their livelihoods, etc. …
9
•
•
•
•
•
Why is current PDS dependence high; and what are their current and likely future
constraints that prevent self-sufficiency? What are the main constraints on income,
access to food, and other basic needs?
What types of assistance (in-kind, price subsidies, cash, …) are likely to be most
effective ?
What sectors, and possibly sector specific activities, would be most appropriate as
channels of assistance?
Which government ministries and institutions are best suited for administering a future
social safety net programme?
Are there capacity short-falls regarding institutional abilities to administer and deliver
aid, and if so; what kind of support is most needed to build up administrative capacity?
A variety of approaches, methodologies, and tools are available for generating the analytical
outputs that can serve as the foundation for the new knowledge base. Creative adaptations of
already tested tools, such as the “pair-wise” tool used herein, should be considered for future
utilization. The tool could be adopted to generate new information designed to address current
qualitative information gaps. Rather than asking key informants to qualitatively compare the
prevalence of chronic poverty in various locations; key informants within a community could be
asked to produce a consensus list describing the “types” of households most dependant on external
assistance. A list for a hypothetical community is shown below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
households whose main income earner/head of household is female
households with more than 5 children per family
households whose main income earner is recently deceased, as a result of the fighting
(i.e. war widows)
households dependant on small scale agriculture; farming less than 2 ha. of land
households with one or more family members handicapped or disabled
house holds whose main livelihood is tied to animal husbandry, owning less than 20
sheep on average.
Key informants could then be asked to qualitatively compare either the food security status, poverty
status, or PDS dependency status, of various groups, against one-another. The qualitative data
could then be processed to generate a vulnerability or dependency ranking for each household type
described above. The pairwise comparison tool could also be used to generate new information on
the “why” of vulnerability and dependency. Key informants could be asked to generate a
consensus list describing the 5-7 most important constraints that contribute to either food
insecurity, or a lack of sufficient household income. A list for a hypothetical community is shown
below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
lack of employment opportunities
lack of nutritional awareness; contributing to high rates of micro-nutrient deficiency
shortage of marketable job-skills
high costs associated with accessing potable water
high costs for basic health services
high fuel costs, contributing to both higher transportation costs, and higher commodity
costs for those commodities not produced locally.
The qualitative data pertaining to community “constraints” could then be processed to derive ranks
and weights reflecting the relative importance of each constraint. Such information would have
10
obvious relevance as an input for prioritizing future types of assistance; and could be tailored for
planning sector specific assistance, or even for planning activities within sectors.
Improvements regarding the utilization of the pair-wise comparison tool could contribute to a much
more solid and credible understanding of those issues already examined in this paper; namely the
extent of poverty or food insecurity within the country, and it’s geographic distribution at
community scale. The geographic unit of analysis could be lowered to the sub-district level,
making the key informants task of evaluating poverty or food insecurity prevalence an easier one.
Secondly, using a minimum of five key informants per area evaluated would allow for a more
rigorous analysis of variance; or in other words for safer “convergence of evidence” findings.
Complimentary quantitative sample surveys could be carried out in a limited number of test case
areas. This would facilitate a comparison of key informant pair-wise comparison results with the
results of more traditional sample surveys. Conducting traditional household income and
expenditure sample surveys can be both time-consuming and expensive. Generating results with
statistical validity at community scale often requires employing large numbers of data enumerators,
interviewing a large number of households, with all the associated administrative and logistical
operating expenses. Capturing and quantifying household income, expenditures, and consumption
data often requires lengthy questionnaires with a long list of questions designed to capture every
possible household income, expenditure, and economic activity. While sample survey results often
inspire “higher confidence” amongst users, these more traditional quantitative approaches have
their own set of data quality and reliability issues. Respondents’ willingness to report income or
expenditures truthfully, accurately capturing informal income, and quantifying expenditures in
multiple locations where market prices vary represent only a few of the challenges associated with
sample survey implementation.
Results from comprehensive household income, expenditure, and consumption surveys, designed to
support national planning and resource allocation at community level, are unlikely to be available
during the near-term. Combining alternative sources of information (such as the data generated
from the currently circulating OCHA rapid assessment forms) with data collected from future key
informant initiatives, could yield fruitful results. Similarly, a greater and more systematic
extraction of map and satellite image based information (on physical infrastructure, access to public
utilities, social infrastructure, land quality, …) could contribute to more informed resource
allocation decisions in the future. Opportunities for integrating data collection and analysis
activities that are currently separate, put with the potential of being mutually supportive and
complimentary, should be actively explored by all concerned parties.
Future assistance, channeled either through social safety nets, or through recovery or development
modes should proportionately be targeted to communities containing larger numbers or higher
densities of chronically poor populations. The findings of this study provide for an initial “fist cut”
understanding of where future assistance is likely to be needed most. The experience and lessons
learned, specifically regarding the potential utility of the approach and tools used, should contribute
to more effective data collection and analysis initiatives in the future.
Strengths and weaknesses of the analysis, and possible next steps:
The analysis is based on key informants understanding and perceptions of chronic poverty
conditions throughout the country, just prior to the onset of war. Positive elements associated with
the undertaking are described below:
11
1) The results capture key informants understanding of relative differences across districts
and populations in terms of their chronic poverty status. The key informants who
participated in the exercise have spent long periods of time traveling and working
amongst the communities being evaluated.
2) The findings provide a recent snapshot of chronic poverty just prior to the war, and
therefore can be described as “timely”.
3) The data were collected and reported at district scale to facilitate the targeting of future
humanitarian assistance in a relatively precise manner.
4) A rigorous methodology was used to maintain and cross check data quality during the
data collection, and analysis stages.
Weaknesses or “opportunities for future improvements” are described below:
1) Key informants were asked to evaluate “percentage chronically poor” at district level.
Before conducting the exercise the question of “at what scale should the data be
collected” was discussed. Although there was general consensus amongst key
informants that making comparisons at sub-district level would have been easier; time
and operational constraints led to a decision to work at the more aggregated district
scale11.
3) All of the key informants were WFP employees and therefore the issue of a single
agency bias could be raised as a legitimate concern. Knowledge and awareness of
poverty conditions throughout the country resides within a multitude of agencies,
organizations, etc. . If the analysis were to be undertaken again, selecting either key
informants from various organizations and backgrounds, or perhaps more ideally,
selecting from actual community members with no particular organization affiliation,
could make for a significant improvement. Such an approach would yield the added
benefit of building ownership and consensus amongst participants.
11
For a few governorates the data was actually collected at sub-district scale; this data was subsequently aggregated for
the purpose of reporting the findings at one consistent “district” level across the country.
12
Conclusion
The previous sections describe WFP’s recent analysis of chronic poverty within the Center/South
region of Iraq. The work was undertaken within the broader context of contingency planning and
preparedness, during the weeks prior to the war. The data supporting the analysis was gathered
during late-February to early-March 2003, and thus provides for a timely snapshot of baseline
chronic poverty conditions.
A key informants based approach was used and approximately 40 WFP national staff participated
as interviewees. Participants were selected considering their “field experience”, their familiarity
with the areas/communities evaluated, and their understanding of chronic poverty. Most key
informants had received training in Amman approximately one month prior to data collection.
The training served to familiarize participants with key concepts and operational procedures
associated with data collection and analysis.
A working definition of “chronic poverty” was used to ensure that interviewees were clear about
“what” they were being asked to evaluate. Chronic poverty was defined as:
A set of conditions whereby a household or individual is frequently over long periods of time unable
to meet their basic needs. Basic needs include adequate food, water, clothing, shelter, health, and
basic education. “Chronic” poverty refers to deprivation that is long term by nature.
Key informants were asked to compare districts within a single governorate, in terms of the
prevalence of chronic poverty within the areas evaluated. Respondents chose from a pre-defined
list of qualitative response options, designed to highlight differences amongst districts. The
qualitative responses were then processed resulting in quantitative relative “weights” for each
district evaluated. The weights captured the importance of each district in terms of the percentage
of its’ population “chronically poor”. Participants were then asked to provide approximate
quantitative estimates (percent chronically poor) for only the two districts ranking “worst” and
“best” within a given governorate. These figures were then used together with the weights data to
generate a set of “percentage chronically poor” figures for each district. The statistical measure
“variance” was used to identify the two out of three key informants whose estimates were closest to
one another. These estimates were then averaged together to produce a final set of “percent
chronically poor” figures for each district. These quantitative percentage estimates, and by
extension the absolute estimates of the number of chronically poor, should be interpreted as
approximate and not precise; due to the nature of the approach and methodology used.
Approximately 21% Iraq’s Center/South population was described as chronically poor; i.e. those
“who are frequently, over long periods of time, unable to meet their basic needs”. By design, this
study did not attempt to quantify the larger “poor” population, which includes undoubtedly large
segments of the population, whose poverty is more “transient” in nature. The findings conclude
that just over 1/5th of the region is chronically poor, representing approximately 4.6 million of the
Center/South’s total population of 22.3 million.
The report includes maps highlighting the geographic distribution of chronic poverty throughout
the Center/South region. Concentrations of large chronically poor populations occur within a
relatively small number of districts. Approximately 72% of the focus population was located
within only twenty districts. These same districts account for approximately 62% of Iraq’s total
Center/South population.
13
District level chronic poverty rates are shown in the Figure-3 map, within the main body of the
report. Appendix-B contains a series of maps (one governorate per page), designed to facilitate an
easier viewing of the data. Numerous areas with high chronic poverty rates are dispersed across the
Center/South region. Despite such dispersion, the national map depicts clear and identifiable
clusters of “worse off” districts. One such cluster lies east of Baghdad and includes select districts
belonging to Taamim, Salah al Din, Diyala, and Wassit governorates. A second cluster, located in
the southeast corner of the country, includes all of Basrah governorate and a number of Missan’s
southern districts. Basrah is particularly noteworthy, in that all of its’ districts are classified as
having either high, or very high chronic poverty rates.
Districts containing administrative centers (governorate capitals) had an average chronic poverty
rate of 17%. The corresponding figure for those districts not containing governorate capitals was a
substantially higher 27%. Uneven capital spending and investment, or inequitable public sector
resource allocation in the past, might have contributed to these differences. Further study is needed
for a better understanding of causal factors contributing to regional disparities.
The relevance of chronic poverty data to WFP’s current PDS revitalization efforts and emergency
operations was examined. While blanket PDS coverage of the entire population is planned for the
near future, operational constraints related to a variety of issues (security, pipeline, counterpart
capacity…) are likely to present real challenges. If near-term blanket PDS coverage is delayed,
rising food insecurity in pocket or even larger areas could develop. Households facing food
insecurity would likely look first to family members, friends, neighbors, and community
institutions as potential sources of assistance. Worse off communities, where chronic poverty is
more prevalent, will be challenged to provide such assistance. Districts and communities with
relatively high rates of chronic poverty should logically rank high as priority areas where full PDS
resumption is more pressing, or where pre-PDS assistance could be needed.
Lastly, the report highlights the need to build up the existing knowledge base on issues related to
poverty, food security, nutrition, and other related themes. The need for an informed and active
policy dialogue on the future of the PDS provides ample justification for investing in data
collection and analysis activities designed to support such a dialogue. While baseline information is
needed as the foundation for a knowledgebase, monitoring data and information will also be needed
to track changes over time. The current de-facto policy of providing global PDS assistance to all is
unlikely to be extended indefinitely as a long-term policy. At some point in the future PDS, or
another social safety net in a modified form, is likely to adopt a strategy embracing more selective
targeting to those most in need. Under such a scenario, assistance will likely be phased out or
scaled back in a gradual manner, so that severe economic hardships and social disruptions can be
avoided. The monitoring capacity alluded to above would have a substantial role to play in such an
environment. Humanitarian agencies currently operating in Iraq have a strong incentive to ensure
the future effectiveness of a national monitoring capacity, so that assistance designed to address
poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition can be provided in a flexible and equitable manner.
14
Appendix-A: Data Collection and Analysis
Interviewers asked key informants to compare the prevalence of chronic poverty in one area vs.
another (i.e. “compare District-1 to District-2”). A matrix was used to record these pair-wise
comparison responses. An example of a partially filled matrix is shown below:
Table 1: Matrix for Recording Key Informant Responses
District-1
District-2
District-3
District-4
District-5
District-1
same
District-2
slightly higher
same
District-3
Much higher
District-4
much lower
District-5
same/similar
same
same
same
The qualitative response data was later coded using numeric fractions. The numeric fractions
represent the comparative standing, or relative position of each district within a district pair. For
example, if two areas were evaluated as having the “same” (or similar) food insecurity rates, the
data was coded with a value of 1/1; indicating relative “parity” with regards to each district’s food
insecurity rate. The codes covering the full range of response options are shown below:
Table 2: Codes for Qualitative Key Informant Responses
Key Informant’s
Response:
Code Assigned:
Much
Lower
¼
Lower
1/3
Slightly
Lower
½
Same/
Similar
1/1
Slightly
Higher
2/1
Higher
3/1
Much
Higher
4/1
The coded data made it easier to perform consistency checks (quality control), during the data
processing. An example of a consistency check is given below; to illustrate the process:
If district-1 was evaluated as lower than district-2, and district-2 was evaluated as lower
than district-3, then district-1 should logically be evaluated as much lower than district-312.
Numeric “weight” values were also generated, by processing the coded matrix data using the pairwise comparison technique13. A district’s weight value reflects its’ importance, in terms of it’s food
security rate. The weight values were then used to rank the districts within a governorate.
How were the quantitative estimates of “percent chronically poor” generated?
Key informants were subsequently asked to focus their attention only on those districts ranking
worst and best respectively; and to give “approximate” quantitative estimates regarding the
percent of these district populations chronically poor. Percentage estimates were interpolated for
the remaining districts utilizing the generated weights. Having the data in percentage units, allowed
for a comparison of results across governorates.
12
When unacceptable consistency scores were detected; key informants were either asked to re-consider those particular “pairs” that
contributed to the unacceptable consistency score. In a few cases, the entire interview (and responses) were discarded, and later
substituted w/ another key informant’s responses, with acceptable consistency scores.
13
The software program used was IDRISI32. Idrisi is a non-profit project within Clark Labs: a research center within Clark
University dedicated to furthering the development and understanding of computer-assisted geographic analysis. The procedure by
which the weights are produced follows the logic developed by T. Saaty under the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). For
information on the Analytical Hierarchy Process see Saaty, T.L., 1977. A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structure. J.
Math. Psychology, 15, 234-281.
15
This series of data processing steps resulted in district level “percent poor” estimates from each key
informant interviewed. The statistical measure “variance” was used to identify the two out of three
key informants, for each governorate, whose estimates were closest to one another. The closest
estimates were then averaged together to produce a final set of “percent chronically poor” estimates
for each district. These quantitative percentage estimates, and by extension the absolute
estimates of the number of chronically poor, should be interpreted as approximate and not
precise; due to the nature of the approach and methodology used.
16
Appendix-B: Governorate Chronic Poverty Maps
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Appendix-C: Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor
Note: Data/estimates should be interpreted as approximate and not precise; due to the nature of the
approach and methodology used.
Governorate
District
Basrah
Basrah
Basrah
Basrah
Diyala
Basrah
Qadissiya
Diyala
Baghdad
Salah Al Din
Basrah
Salah Al Din
Missan
Wassit
Misssan
Diyala
Basrah
Baghdad
Missan
Taamim
Taamim
Qadissiya
Salah Al Din
Diyala
Muthanna
Thi Qar
Taamim
Babil
Salah Al Din
Taamim
Baghdad
Baghdad
Baghdad
Diyala
Diyala
Missan
Missan
Salah Al Din
Wassit
Salah Al Din
Babil
Muthanna
Karbala
Shatt Al Arab
Al Madiana
Al Qurnah
Al Faw
Kifri
Abu al Khasib
Afak
Balad Ruz
Saadam
Touz Hourmato
Al Zubair
Al Shirkat
Al Mijar al Kabir
Badrah
Al Kahla
Khanaqin
Al Basrah
Al-Kadhimiya
Al Miamona
Dibis
Daquq
Ad Diwaniyah
Bayji
Al Khalis
Rumaitha
Chibayish
Kirkuk
Al Hashimiyah
Al Door
Haweeja
Al-Mahmudiya
Abu Ghraib
Al-Mada'in
Ba`qubah
Al Miqdadiyah
Qal`at Salih
Ali al Gharbi
Balad
Al Hayy
Tikrit
Al Mahawil
Al Khithir
Ain Al Tamur
Percent
Population
Total
Chronically
Chronically
Poor
Population
Poor
106,000
158,800
137,400
21,700
42,000
126,800
110,100
99,600
1,036,800
153,400
277,200
121,500
118,300
20,600
23,400
160,400
1,052,200
778,500
84,600
34,300
40,200
441,400
134,000
255,900
212,900
68,900
622,200
275,300
46,700
151,300
250,100
189,400
117,500
467,900
198,600
83,000
39,200
167,600
136,200
130,300
212,800
68,100
20,400
30
85%
73%
66%
61%
55%
54%
43%
41%
40%
40%
39%
39%
39%
38%
37%
36%
34%
34%
34%
34%
31%
30%
30%
29%
29%
29%
28%
28%
28%
27%
26%
26%
26%
25%
25%
25%
23%
22%
22%
22%
21%
21%
21%
90,100
115,600
91,000
13,200
23,100
68,400
47,700
41,100
414,700
61,400
107,100
47,300
45,600
7,700
8,600
57,800
352,500
265,700
28,400
11,700
12,600
132,500
40,500
73,400
61,500
20,000
171,600
75,700
13,100
41,300
64,300
48,700
30,200
117,000
49,800
20,600
9,100
37,300
30,000
29,100
45,400
14,000
4,300
Appendix-C (continued)
Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor
Governorate
District
Wassit
Anbar
Muthanna
Thi Qar
Anbar
Missan
Salah Al Din
Ninewa
Anbar
Ninewa
Anbar
Baghdad
Baghdad
Baghdad
Qadissiya
Thi Qar
Babil
Muthanna
Thi Qar
Wassit
Thi Qar
Babil
Karbala
Anbar
Ninewa
Wassit
Qadissiya
Anbar
Anbar
Ninewa
Najaf
Karbala
Najaf
Najaf
Wassit
Ninewa
Ninewa
Ninewa
Ninewa
Ninewa
Al Aziziya
Ar Rutbah
As Salman
Refai
Al Haditha
Al Amarah
Samarra
Sinjar
Al Qa'im
Al Shikhan
Anah
Al Karkh
Rusafa
Al-Adhamiya
Al Hamza
An Nasiriyah
Al Misiab
As Samawah
Suq ash Shuyukh
Al Noamania
Shatrah
Al Hillah
Al Jadwal al Gharbi
Hit
Makhmur
Al Kut
Shamiya
Ar Ramadi
Al Fallujah
Tilkef
Al Manathera
Karbala
An Najaf
Al Kufa
As Suwayrah
Hatra
Talafar
Al Hamdaniyah
Al Ba'aj
Mosul
Percent
Population
Total
Chronically
Chronically Poor
Population
Poor
112,900
24,800
6,400
279,800
75,800
454,700
188,700
166,500
116,100
58,100
37,200
1,541,500
1,302,000
808,500
149,700
578,600
279,900
250,300
229,800
107,600
315,000
617,800
161,700
105,800
76,000
374,500
185,300
444,600
425,700
167,600
132,600
541,800
522,000
275,400
161,600
37,700
300,900
125,700
88,400
1,432,200
31
20%
20%
20%
19%
19%
18%
18%
16%
16%
16%
16%
15%
15%
15%
15%
14%
14%
14%
14%
14%
13%
11%
11%
11%
11%
10%
10%
9%
8%
8%
8%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
6%
6%
6%
5%
22,700
5,000
1,300
51,800
14,500
79,600
33,000
26,400
19,200
9,400
6,100
231,200
195,300
121,300
21,900
78,500
38,600
35,000
31,400
14,700
39,400
68,000
17,000
12,100
8,200
36,800
18,900
41,200
34,100
13,000
10,400
39,000
35,700
18,500
10,500
2,500
17,300
7,900
5,700
76,700
Appendix-D: Governorate Tables
Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor
Note: Data/estimates should be interpreted as approximate and not precise; due to the nature of the
approach and methodology used.
Governorate
Anbar
Anbar
Anbar
Anbar
Anbar
Anbar
Anbar
Governorate
Basrah
Basrah
Basrah
Basrah
Basrah
Basrah
Basrah
Governorate
Qadissiya
Qadissiya
Qadissiya
Qadissiya
Governorate
Najaf
Najaf
Najaf
Table-1: Anbar Governorate
Percent
Population
Total
Chronically
Chronically Poor
District
Population
Poor
Ar Rutbah
Al Haditha
Al Qa'im
Anah
Hit
Ar Ramadi
Al Fallujah
24,800
75,800
116,100
37,200
105,800
444,600
425,700
20%
19%
16%
16%
11%
9%
8%
5,000
14,500
19,200
6,100
12,100
41,200
34,100
Table-2: Basrah Governorate
Percent
Population
Total
Chronically
Chronically
Poor
District
Population
Poor
Shatt Al Arab
Al Madiana
Al Qurnah
Al Faw
Abu al Khasib
Al Zubair
Basrah
106,000
158,800
137,400
21,700
126,800
277,200
1,052,200
85%
73%
66%
61%
54%
39%
34%
90,100
115,600
91,000
13,200
68,400
107,100
352,500
Table-3: Qadissiya Governorate
Percent
Population
Total
Chronically
Chronically Poor
District
Population
Poor
Afak
Ad Diwaniyah
Al Hamza
Shamiya
110,100
441,400
149,700
185,300
43%
30%
15%
10%
47,700
132,500
21,900
18,900
Table-4: Najaf Governorate
Percent
Population
Total
Chronically
Chronically Poor
Population
District
Poor
Al Manathera
Najaf
Al Kufa
132,600
522,000
275,400
32
8%
7%
7%
10,400
35,700
18,500
Appendix-D: Governorate Tables (continued)
Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor
Governorate
Taamim
Taamim
Taamim
Taamim
Table-5: Taamim Governorate
Percent
Population
Total
Chronically
Chronically Poor
District
Population
Poor
Dibis
Daquq
Kirkuk
Haweeja
34,300
40,200
622,200
151,300
34%
31%
28%
27%
11,700
12,600
171,600
41,300
Table-6: Babil Governorate
Governorate
District
Babil
Babil
Babil
Babil
Al Hashimiyah
Al Mahawil
Al Misiab
Al Hillah
Total
Population
275,300
212,800
279,900
617,800
Percent
Chronically Poor
28%
21%
14%
11%
Population
Chronically Poor
75,700
45,400
38,600
68,000
Table-7: Baghdad Governorate
Governorate
District
Baghdad
Baghdad
Baghdad
Baghdad
Baghdad
Baghdad
Baghdad
Baghdad
Saadam
Al-Kadhimiya
Al-Mahmudiya
Abu Ghraib
Al-Mada'in
Al Karkh
Rusafa
Al-Adhamiya
Total
Population
1,036,800
778,500
250,100
189,400
117,500
1,541,500
1,302,000
808,500
Percent
Chronically Poor
40%
34%
26%
26%
26%
15%
15%
15%
Population
Chronically Poor
414,700
265,700
64,300
48,700
30,200
231,200
195,300
121,300
Table-8: Diyala Governorate
Governorate
District
Diyala
Diyala
Diyala
Diyala
Diyala
Diyala
Kifri
Balad Ruz
Khanaqin
Al Khalis
Ba`qubah
Al Miqdadiyah
Total
Population
42,000
99,600
160,400
255,900
467,900
198,600
33
Percent
Chronically Poor
55%
41%
36%
29%
25%
25%
Population
Chronically Poor
23,100
41,100
57,800
73,400
117,000
49,800
Appendix-D: Governorate Tables (continued)
Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor
Table-9: Karbala Governorate
Total
Population
Percent
Chronically Poor
Population
Chronically Poor
Governorate
District
Karbala
Ain Al Tamur
20,400
21%
4,300
Karbala
Karbala
Al Jadwal al Gharbi
Karbala
161,700
541,800
11%
7%
17,000
39,000
Table-10: Missan Governorate
Total
Population
Governorate
District
Missan
Missan
Missan
Missan
Missan
Missan
Al Mijar al Kabir
Al Kahla
Al Miamona
Qal`at Salih
Ali al Gharbi
Al Amarah
118,300
23,400
84,600
83,000
39,200
454,700
Percent
Chronically Poor
39%
37%
34%
25%
23%
18%
Population
Chronically Poor
45,600
8,600
28,400
20,600
9,100
79,600
Table-11: Muthanna Governorate
Governorate
District
Muthanna
Muthanna
Muthanna
Muthanna
Rumaitha
Al Khithir
As Salman
As Samawah
Total
Population
212,900
68,100
6,400
250,300
Percent
Chronically Poor
29%
21%
20%
14%
Population
Chronically Poor
61,500
14,000
1,300
35,000
Table-12: Ninewa Governorate
Governorate
District
Ninewa
Ninewa
Ninewa
Ninewa
Ninewa
Ninewa
Ninewa
Ninewa
Ninewa
Sinjar
Al Shikhan
Makhmur
Tilkef
Hatra
Talafar
Al Hamdaniyah
Al Ba'aj
Mosul
Total
Population
166,500
58,100
76,000
167,600
37,700
300,900
125,700
88,400
1,432,200
34
Percent
Chronically Poor
16%
16%
11%
8%
7%
6%
6%
6%
5%
Population
Chronically Poor
26,400
9,400
8,200
13,000
2,500
17,300
7,900
5,700
76,700
Appendix-D: Governorate Tables (continued)
Districts Sorted/Ranked on Percent Chronically Poor
Table-13: Salah Al Din Governorate
Governorate
District
Salah Al Din
Salah Al Din
Salah Al Din
Salah Al Din
Salah Al Din
Salah Al Din
Salah Al Din
Touz Hourmato
Al Shirkat
Bayji
Al Door
Balad
Tikrit
Samarra
Total
Population
153,400
121,500
134,000
46,700
167,600
130,300
188,700
Percent
Chronically Poor
40%
39%
30%
28%
22%
22%
18%
Population
Chronically Poor
61,400
47,300
40,500
13,100
37,300
29,100
33,000
Table-14: Thi Qar Governorate
Governorate
District
Thi Qar
Thi Qar
Thi Qar
Thi Qar
Thi Qar
Chibayish
Refai
An Nasiriyah
Suq ash Shuyukh
Shatrah
Total
Population
68,900
279,800
578,600
229,800
315,000
Percent
Chronically Poor
29%
19%
14%
14%
13%
Population
Chronically Poor
20,000
51,800
78,500
31,400
39,400
Table-15: Wassit Governorate
Governorate
District
Wassit
Wassit
Wassit
Wassit
Wassit
Wassit
Badrah
Al Hayy
Al Aziziya
Al Noamania
Al Kut
As Suwayrah
Total
Population
20,600
136,200
112,900
107,600
374,500
161,600
35
Percent
Chronically Poor
38%
22%
20%
14%
10%
7%
Population
Chronically Poor
7,700
30,000
22,700
14,700
36,800
10,500