 Okay, so I'm Melissa Siegel. It's great to be here, and I think it's really nice that Craig could already give you the introduction to this project that we've been working on now for quite some time. We have different components of it, so a large part of what we were looking at was really these labor market effects, and that's by far the area that we have dug into the most, and I think the paper that Craig presented now is the most developed. I'm going to present something that is much more raw, and just show you some kind of first results. I'm really happy to get a lot of feedback from you guys too on what makes sense in going forward. So while a lot of the research in the field has looked specifically at labor market outcomes, what we want to do in this paper or in this area is to look more at what's happening with regard to social services or access to infrastructure and things like that. So we know that within this project more generally we want to look at the impacts of refugees, so now we're going to look at social services. We've actually looked at quite a few different things, so we're still trying to decide on what's the right terminology here. Originally we wanted to look at access to infrastructure, now we're talking about social services, so we'll maybe see what makes the most sense in the end. And in theory the effect on the local population could be both positive or negative. So there's this kind of common assumption that refugees and locals compete over scarce resources like housing, land, employment and public services. So what we're going to look at much more here are these kind of public service things. So that's kind of the negative side of things, the competition side, but you could also see it from a positive angle in that you could argue that the arrival of refugees actually brings in new resources with it. There's an increased demand for these services and often international organizations and NGOs and others are kind of pumping more resources into these areas. And in quite a lot of the places now we also see that these resources are not only aimed at refugees, but they're also aimed at the local population or often UNHCR and others have a much more holistic approach to how they give services. So in that respect then it could be quite positive for locals to have refugees come in. And so here we want to focus mainly on kind of health and education indicators, but I'll come back to that in a moment because I think our indicators around what we're calling health are maybe not the right thing to talk about. What are the main contributions of this paper? I think it adds to the growing evidence on how refugees affect local populations and I think it really adds to this literature that's not just talking about labor market impacts. And besides that I think it also from a policy perspective shows how taking these integrated approaches whereby services are given holistically to not just the refugees but also the locals can lead to a lot better outcomes and also kind of reduce social tensions, which Veronica will talk about the social tensions later, but making sure that these other things are taken care of can help to reduce social tensions. So previous research in this field has also kind of found both positive and negative impacts. So Whitaker in 1999 focus on the refugee situation in western Tanzania and its effects on infrastructure and development resources. Basically what they found was that in the beginning when the refugees came in there was competition and it overburdened a lot of the infrastructure. But after time a lot more resources came in and then so there was kind of the short term effect and then the longer term effect. So the short term was negative, the longer term effect was more positive because a lot more resource investments were made and then locals got to have access to those things. Maistad and Verwimp also looked at this in the case of Tanzania so both the previous speakers talked about some of the other work of Maistad also. But in this case they were looking at access resources and they found also quite a lot of improvements in infrastructure around the areas where camps were in Tanzania. Then some other studies also have shown that there are also other cases where we had this additional refugee assistance played into really helping with regard to health services and giving access to health services. So if we think now just about what's going on in Rwanda with regard to health and sanitation more generally, having access to safe water in Rwanda is still an issue. There have been a lot of advances though in the last few years and the government is putting a lot of resources and a lot of effort towards increased water and sanitation, clean water and sanitation. But we know that it's still an issue right now. Public health expenditure has also increased over time but we do know that there are still improvements to be made there. Now with regard to education, it is part of Rwanda's kind of vision 2020 to increase education and a lot of resources have been put towards education and we've seen quite a lot of increases and a lot of gains. Particularly in primary education but also in secondary education. However you can see that it's still only about 33% of the Rwanda population that has gone on to secondary education. So it's still low and there are quite some wins that can be made there. So these are just some first descriptive statistics here showing you that so Craig already explained how we did the sampling and everything and we're again using this kind of setup of camps within 10 kilometers of locals within 10 kilometers of camps and locals within 20 kilometers of camps. And here you can see differences in access to services. So basically what we asked here was with regard to problems in the community, what were the main problems considered in those communities and you can see that it's a bit different. So those who are closer say access to services although it's not exactly clear what that means, unemployment was an issue, lack of financial resources and food security. But what you can see is that at least with access to services, lack of financial resources and food security, these are all less in villages that are closer than in villages that are further away. This is just to give a first indication. Now here if we look, so we're calling this health, we're calling this health for a couple of different reasons but maybe it's not the best thing to call it. We're looking at food security here because that is important that leads into nutritional outcomes and into health later. We're looking at safe water and improved sanitation. And we're also looking at cooking facilities particularly if the kitchen is, if there's a cooking facility outside of the home because with smoke inhalation and things like that it can be quite bad for health. So that's why we call this health but I know this is not necessarily the traditional health stuff. We also looked at vaccinations but the vaccination rate was extremely high and we didn't see many differences between groups. So what you can see here with regard to these variables also is that in general you can see that the basically food insecurity is less in the villages that are closer. Safe drinking water though is also less which is a bit interesting. But sanitation is better and cooking facilities are about the same and the only statistically significant ones are safe water and improved sanitation. So it's already interesting that you have worse water but better sanitation in the areas closer to the refugee camps. So we're not really sure how to explain that. So we also looked at focus groups. We talked to locals around the camps as to what was going on and how they felt about the situation. And what's interesting is that with regard to health as compared to with education, most of the locals thought that refugees being in the area played no role in their own access to health. Not good, not bad. So one person here said specifically their arrival has had no effect on health care services. If we say that it's had an effect, we would be liars. So I think it's very interesting that they often mentioned that there are problems with health care but they never attributed those to refugees being around. But just more improper access of health care because maybe the government hadn't set up the right services there. But one thing that was interesting is that someone also talked about these refugees also being trained as doctors and then working as doctors for the Rwandan population. So on one hand they saw this as positive in that they were getting more access to doctors because of the Rwandans. But at the same time they also talked about the quality of care of the Congolese doctors as being worse than the Rwandan doctors. So there was kind of positive and negative things there but in general not really, they didn't feel an effect of the refugees on health. Now as far as education is concerned, here this is looking at all the age cohorts that we looked at and then I'll break it down by different cohorts. So here this is, we're looking at ages three to twenty so this is from kind of preschool age so that children do often go to preschool to going into university. And we looked here at school attendance and then school financial assistance programs and school feeding programs and immunization. So you can already see what I said about immunization, there are no differences there. And this is more about assistance that locals and refugees both have access to. So you can see that school attendance is actually much higher and statistically significant in the areas closer to refugee camps. You can also see that those benefiting from these kind of school feeding programs and financial assistance is also much higher, closer to the refugee camps. And remember this is for everyone, not just for refugees. And then if we break it down by different age cohorts we do start to see some differences. But first if we just look at this preschool age, we see basically the same results. So you see much higher rates of attendance closer to the refugees than further away from the refugees. If we look at kind of normal school age population from seven to fifteen, you see again similar results. So you see more school attendance, it's not a great deal larger but still more school attendance. And again more access to these programs than in those that are further away. And then finally the last cohort that we looked at was this 16 to 20. And in the descriptive statistics we still see differences here. But it is important to mention that we did do logistic regression analysis. I just thought it would be easier to show you guys the descriptive. We did logistic regression analysis. All of the results still held with controlling for many other factors for all of the other age groups except for this oldest cohort. And it seemed that a lot of other things mattered more for this older cohort than if you were close or further away from refugee camps. Especially hours of help in the household were of particular importance for these groups here. And that makes sense because they are the ones that start to take on more and more of the responsibilities within the household. And another thing that played in in all of these cases was food security. Food security had a very high impact on whether or not children were going to school. And of course that makes a lot of sense. But just so that you know that these results do hold once we do some regression analysis. So for the education focus groups these were actually a bit mixed. They had quite mixed views on whether or not refugees were good or bad for education. There were some of the some of the positive things here. So talking about that the refugee kids inspired our children to study. They would look at the fact that they're studying hard despite their situation of being in a foreign country and decide to attend school. This is one of respondents had this kind of idea of a positive spillover effect of these refugee children. Another positive response is what I can say is that their arrival affected positively the economy of the community which also led to quality education. For instance most people opened up shops and they started earning a lot of money which improved their standards of living. From that they were able to take care of their children and they were able to focus on their studies as well. So kind of more here talking about spillover effects of the positive side of the refugees being there. But there were also negative things. So there were some things that were also kind of back and forth. So this one says the number of students per class was small but it increased because there were a lot of kids in the refugee camp. So this is possibly about overcrowding. So schools they've improved the government has found a way to support them the refugees and the local people in education. And it encourages each and every child to go to school and a lot of effort is being put in education which is making it better. And I think there's a clear indication here of all the effort that the government has made. And some talked about there being no impact of the refugees. So here we used to have few schools even the ones that are here were built after the arrival of the refugees. Their construction is not a result of the arrival of the refugees. They were built because there was a very serious need of schools. So OK whether or not there was a very serious need of schools also because the refugees arrived or not. Maybe that's a little bit unclear. But at least people themselves were not necessarily attributing these new schools to the refugees. So a lot of mixed responses on that. So you can see these are really first results. There are a lot of things that we still really do need to do. I think one main important issue here is that what we can understand is that providing really integrated and holistic benefits to communities can be very useful to the local populations and it can often also help to ease tensions. Or locals then won't even necessarily negatively attribute something to refugees. So it's important to have these integrated approaches and to not only give services to refugees. So next steps of what we'd like to do is refine the paper a lot more perhaps also focus more specifically just on the education components and do some cohort analysis with regard to children of different of different age cohorts. And luckily in our data we are able to see when a school came into the area or when a school started in an area and try to also correlate that to when refugees arrived also. So that's kind of what we're planning to do in the future but really happy to also hear your comments at the end of this on how we can what's you know what's the most interesting and how we can improve this and make it make it more useful because it's really the first step.