DTM ROUND 27 DTM MAY 2019 Nigeria › sites › default › files › dtm › ... · by DTM Round, can be seen in Figure 1. Round 25 identified 2,026,602 IDPs which was in-keeping

DTM NIGERIA DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

DTMNigeria

DTM ROUND 27MAY 2019

CONTENTS

Executive Summary 3

Background 3

Overview: DTM Round 27 Assessments 4

1.BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT 6

1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTHEAST NIGERIA 6

1B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 8

1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT 8

1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT 8

1E: MOBILITY 8

1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS 9

1G: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF THE DISPLACED POPULATIONS 10

1H: UMET NEEDS IN IDP SETTLEMENTS 10

2. SITE ASSESSMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS 11

2A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPs 11

2B: SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATION 12

2C: SECTOR ANALYSIS 13

3. RETURNEES 23

3A: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT FOR RETURNEES 24

3B: SHELTER CONDITIONS FOR RETURNEES 24

3C: HEALTH FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 24

3D: EDUCATION FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 24

3E: MARKET FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 24

3F: PROFILE OF ASSISTANCE FOR RETURNEES 24

3G: WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 25

3H: LIVELIHOOD FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 25

4. METHODOLOGY 26

TOOLS FOR IDPs 26

TOOLS FOR RETURNEES 26

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report of the Round 27 Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) assessment by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) aims to improve the understanding about the scope of internal displacements, returns and the needs of affected populations in conflict-affected states of north-eastern Nigeria. The report covers the period of 25 March to 29 May 2019 and reflects trends from the 6 most affected north-eastern states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe.

Over the Round 27 reporting period, heightened hostilities and increased insecurities continued to restrict coverage of DTM assessments – in-line with the previous round of assessments that were conducted in January 2019. In all, 1,980,036 individuals were recorded as being displaced in the affected states in Round 27, a nominal increase of less than 2 per cent or 31,687 individuals over the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) recorded in the last round of assessment.

The figure is, however, lower than the number of displaced persons recorded in Round 25, which was carried out before the onset of the current escalation of violence in October 2018, when a significantly higher number of Local Government Areas (LGAs) and wards were accessible. In DTM Round 25 assessments, 2,026,602 people were recorded as IDPs.

To gain insights into the profiles of IDPs, interviews were conducted with 4 per cent of the identified IDP population — that is, 87,524 displaced persons — during this round of assessments. The information collated and analysed in this report includes the reasons for displacement, places of origin and dwelling types, mobility patterns, and unfulfilled needs of the displaced populations.

Additionally, site assessments were carried out in 2,383 sites – marginally less than the 2,415 sites that were accessed in the last round of assessment for gaining a better understanding the needs of the affected population. These sites included 281 (less than 298 in last round) camps and camp-like settings and 2,102 locations where IDPs were residing with host communities. Site assessments included an analysis of sector-wide needs, including shelter and non-food items, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), food and nutrition, health, education, livelihood, security, communication and protection.

Given that the State of Borno is the most affected by conflict-related displacements, this report places a specific focus on data and analyses pertaining to it. Lastly, this report includes analyses on the increasing number of returnees, profile of their initial displacement, shelter conditions of returnees, health, education, livelihood, market, assistance and WASH facilities available to the returnees.

BACKGROUND

The escalation of violence between all parties in north-eastern Nigeria in 2014 resulted in mass displacement and deprivation. To better understand the scope of displacement and assess the needs of affected populations, IOM began implementing its DTM programme in September 2014, in collaboration with the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs).

The main objective of initiating the DTM programme was and remains to support the Government and humanitarian partners by establishing a comprehensive system to collect, analyse and disseminate data on IDPs and returnees in order to provide effective assistance to the affected population. In each round of assessment, staff from IOM, NEMA, SEMAs and the Nigerian Red Cross Society collate data in the field, including baseline information at Local Government Area and ward-levels, by carrying out detailed assessments in displacement sites, such as camps and collective centers, as well as in sites were communities were hosting IDPs at the time of the assessment.

IOM’s DTM programme is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Office (ECHO), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and the Government of Germany. NEMA also contributes financially.

4

DTM REPORT ROUND 27 - MAY 2019

DTM Round 27 assessments were carried out from 25 March to 29 May 2019 in 107 LGAs including 795 wards in the conflict-affected north-eastern Nigerian states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. As per the assessment, 1,980,036 individuals were recorded as being displaced in the affected states, a nominal increase of less than two per cent, or 31,687 individuals, from the number of IDPs recorded in the previous round of assessment conducted in January 2019.

The number, however, is lower than the 2,026,602 IDPs recorded in Round 25, which was carried out before the onset of the current escalation of violence in October 2018. The number of areas accessible to humanitarian actors has been steadily decreasing on account of the exponential increase in attacks and kidnappings by Non-State Armed Groups (NSAG), counter offensives by the Nigerian security forces and the overall deterioration in the security situation.

In fact, the reduction in numbers of IDPs and locations accessed in the last 2 rounds of assessment is a marked deviation from

the trends since December 2017 and should be understood not as an actual drop in numbers, but as a result of the restricted coverage of assessments. To illustrate, 1.7 million IDPs were recorded in February 2018. This number increased to 2 million by October 2018. Similarly, 110 LGAs with 807 wards were accessible during Round 25 and only 2 LGAs were inaccessible, namely: Abadam and Marte. But in Round 26, 13 wards were inaccessible and populous LGAs like Guzamala, Kukawa and Kala/Balge in the most-affected State of Borno were no longer accessible. Likewise, in Round 27, only 107 LGAs were accessible.LGAs like Guzamala, Kukawa and Kala/ Balge remained inaccessible. Access was gained in 1 ward since Round 26 was conducted in January 2019.

Lastly, the number of sites assessed by DTM enumerators also decreased in DTM Round 27 assessments. Only 2,383 locations could be assessed during Round 27, which represents a 3 per cent reduction over the 2,457 locations that were assessed in Round 26.

Bali

Toro

Fune

Ibi

Biu

Gashaka

Ningi

Bama

Alkaleri

Gassol

Song

Toungo

Fufore

Kurmi

Damboa

Konduga

Tarmua

Gujba

Dukku

Mafa

Ganjuwa

Jada

Wukari

Kirfi

Fika

Bauchi

Bursari

Kaga

Geidam

AkkoHong

Sardauna

Yusufari

MagumeriZaki

Donga

Karim-LamidoLau

Gubio

GwozaDarazo

Yunusari

Jakusko

Mobbar

Gamawa

Gulani

Ganye

Gombi

Hawul

Dikwa

Ussa

Nganzai

Shira

Ngala

Girei

Kwami

Damaturu

Zing

Chibok

Shani

Warji

Bogoro

Takum

Askira/Uba

Yorro

Nafada

Demsa

Ardo-Kola

MaihaBalanga

Jere

Monguno

Bayo

Funakaye

Mayo-Belwa

Tafawa-Balewa

Misau

Itas/Gadau

Machina

Katagum

Billiri

Yamaltu/Deba

ShellengDass

Karasuwa

Giade

Nguru

Damban

Kaltungo

Nangere

LamurdeNuman

Guyuk

Bade

Michika

Madagali

Yola South

Shomgom

Mubi North

Bade

Potiskum

Kwaya Kusar

Mubi South

Jama'are

Jalingo

Maiduguri

Guzamala

Abadam

Kukawa

Marte

Kala/BalgeBornoYobe

Taraba

Bauchi

Adamawa

Plateau

Jigawa

Benue

Kano

Gombe

Nasarawa

Cross River

Katsina

Cameroon

Niger±

±

0 80 16040 Km

DTM AccesibilityAccessibleInaccessibleInaccessible LGA

Lake Chad

Map1: ACCESS MAP

OVERVIEW: DTM ROUND 27 ASSESSMENTS

5


From ADAMAWA: 133,926 ADAMAWA: 192,534

BAUCHI: 64,387

GOMBE: 36,872

TARABA: 85,332

BORNO: 1,467,908

From BAUCHI: 3,477

From BORNO: 1,648,624

YOBE: 133,003

From other states: 16,252

From TARABA: 74,080

From YOBE: 103,677

From ADAMAWA: 461,780

ADAMAWA: 802,225

BORNO: 658,869

From BAUCHI: 31,405


From BORNO: 433,128

YOBE: 161,814

From abroad: 125,499

From GOMBE: 157,072

From YOBE: 91,496

Kala-Balge

Abadam

Guzamala

Marte

Kukawa

53% 47%

Borno

Adamawa6%

10%

90%

Yobe

Gombe

100%

36,872

1,467,908

Taraba16%

85,332

192,534

Bauchi3%

64,387

133,003

84%

Lake Chad

±

94%

Less than 85,50085,501 - 134,000134,001 - 193,000Above 193,000

IDPs in Camps &Camp-like settings

CommunitiesIDPs in Host

Inaccessible LGA

IDP Population by State

97%

Borno

Yobe

Adamawa

Abadam

Guzamala

Marte

Kala/Balge

Inaccessible LGA

Lake ChadKukawa

Returnees from Abroad

Returnee IDPs

Returnees Total by State

161,814

658,869

802,225

Chad2% from

Niger2% from

Cameroon4% from

Lake Chad

10%

94%

92%

6%

8%

±

161,814 658,869

802,225

90%

55%Female

Displaced Individuals Returned Individuals

45%Male

23%Childrenunder 6 Y

80%Women and Children

53%Female

47%Male

30%Childrenunder 6 Y

79%Women and Children

72%Returned within

the States

20%Returned from

other States

4%increase in return population from DTM R26

8%Fled to

neighbouring countries before

return

2%increase in

displaced population from

DTM R26

89%Displaced within the States

IDP and Returnee population trend

11%Displaced from different States

1,980,036 1,622,908

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Dec-

14

Feb-

15

Apr-

15

Jun-

15

Aug-

15

Oct-1

5

Dec-

15

Feb-

16

Apr-

16

Jun-

16

Aug-

16

Oct-1

6

Dec-

16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jun-

17

Aug-

17

Oct-1

7

Dec-

17

Feb-

18

Apr-

18

Jun-

18

Aug-

18

Oct-1

8

Jan-

19

May

-19

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27

IDPs Returnees

Mill

ions

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

6


A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTHEAST NIGERIA

As of 29 May 2019, the estimated number of IDPs in conflict affected north-eastern states Nigerian states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe States was 1,980,036 or 392,019 households. The figure represents a nominal increase of 31,687 (less than 2%) compared to the previous round of assessment that was conducted in January 2019. Both assessment rounds have been conducted where entire LGAs are inaccessible due to a sharp escalation in clashes between NSAG and Nigerian security forces. Prior to the latest clashes, the number of wards that DTM was assessing had

been steadily increasing in 2018. From 797 wards assessed in June 2018 to 807 assessed in the 25th round of assessment that was published in November 2018.

The trends in total number of the IDP population, measured by DTM Round, can be seen in Figure 1. Round 25 identified 2,026,602 IDPs which was in-keeping with the steady increase in number of IDPs observed over the last few months. In August 2018 (Round 24), the number of IDPs identified was 1,926,748. Prior to this, a two per cent increase was recorded in the 23rd Round of assessment compared to Round 22 (published in April 2018). The number of returns has also been on the increase as can be noted from Section 3 on Returnees.

The most-affected state is Borno state, which continues to host the highest number of IDPs, with 1,467,908 IDPs residing in the state as per Round 27 DTM assessments. The total number of IDPs observed in Round 27 is a 2 per cent increase (32,091 IDPs) from the 1,435,817 IDPs that were recorded in Borno during Round 26 assessment. With this increase the total number of IDPs in Borno is now nearly the same as the

number recorded in Round 25, published in November 2018. The number of people who have been displaced has increased between Round 26 and Round 27, this could be linked to the increased insecurity in this area. Additionally, this figure is not complete as it is missing those LGAs which remain inaccessible due to the security situation.

Within Borno, populous LGAs like Kala/Balge, Kukawa and Guzamala could once again not be assessed by DTM due to insecurity. In Round 25 assessment, which was published before the recent decrease in accessibility, Kala/Balge had recorded 76,389 IDPs while 13,521 displaced persons were recorded in Kukawa and 1,845 in Guzamala.

Maiduguri Metropolitan Council (MMC) in Borno, the capital city which hosts the highest number of IDPs among all LGAs in north-eastern Nigerian, saw a reduction in number of IDPs. This is a rare occurrence given that it is the favored location for displaced persons due to the high concentration of humanitarian actors and humanitarian aid. Round 27 recorded a reduction of 10,838 IDPs in MMC, bringing the total number to 252,217 compared to 263,055 recorded in Round 26. The total number of displaced persons recorded in MMC during Round 25, published in November 2018, was 234,045.

Some of the key reasons for this reduction included: people who returned to their place of origin in order to be able to vote during the recent elections but have stayed back and not returned yet, some displaced persons have moved to other locations due to the closure of sites or poor living conditions and some others have made their way to other states like Bauchi and Kebbi.

The other LGA in Borno that saw a marked reduction in IDP numbers was Nganzai. As per the latest assessment, the LGA had 35,922 IDPs, which is 1,051 less than the 36,973 IDPs counted in the previous round of assessment. The main reason given to explain the decrease was the relocation of IDPs to Monguno and other locations due to poor living conditions and frequent fires.

On the other hand, LGAs like Damboa recorded a substantial increase in the number of IDPs due to new arrivals as a result of the escalation of violence. The number of displaced persons went up by 11,628 from the 96,747 IDPs recorded in the previous assessment in Damboa. Similarly, Monguno LGA witnessed an increase of 8,211 IDPs, taking the total number of displaced persons in the LGA to 157,199 due to influx of

1.BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT

Table 1: Change in internally displaced population by State

State Count of LGAs Round 26 (January 2018)

Round 27 (May 2019)

Difference

ADAMAWA 21 194,603 192,534 -2,069

BAUCHI 20 66,716 64,387 -2,329

BORNO 22 1435817 1467908 32,091

GOMBE 11 36,882 36,872 -10

TARABA 16 86,474 85,332 -1,142

YOBE 17 127,857 133,003 5,146

TOTAL 107 1,948,349 1,980,036 31,687

Figure 1: IDP population by round of DTM assessment

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Dec-

14

Feb-

15

Apr

-15

Jun-

15

Aug-

15

Oct

-15

Dec-

15

Feb-

16

Apr-1

6

Jun-

16

Aug-

16

Oct

-16

Dec-

16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jun-

17

Aug-

17

Oct

-17

Dec-

17

Feb-

18

Apr-1

8

Jun-

18

Aug-

18

Oct

-18

Jan-

19

May

-19

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27

Mill

ions

7


newly displaced persons from Kukawa LGA due to increased violence in that area.

Gwoza LGA witnessed an increase of 7,912, bringing its total IDP population to 133,358 individuals. This increase is in part due to the return of displaced persons from neighboring Cameroon. These returns were triggered reportedly due to poor living conditions. Konduga LGA also saw an increase of 6,525 IDPs due to the influx of displaced persons from Kala/Balge LGA, taking its IDP population to 136,591.

Meanwhile, Guzamala, Kala/Balge and Kukawa LGAs remained inaccessible to all humanitarian actors including DTM enumerators in addition to Abadam and Marte that have been

inaccessible for years. Hence no IDPs were recorded in these LGAs which effected the total number of IDPs in Borno and helps explain the difference in total IDP population between Round 25 which was conducted in November 2018, before the recent increase in insecurity.

Yobe witnessed an increase in IDP numbers recording 133,003 IDPs. This is a nominal -increase of 5,146 IDPs compared to Round 26. Other states including Adamawa, Bauchi, Gombe and Taraba registered minor reductions in the number of IDPs observed in Round 27.

Map 2: DTM Access

Bali

Toro

Fune

Ibi

Gashaka

Ningi

Biu

Alkaleri

Kaga

Gassol

Song

Fufore

Fika

Toungo

Mafa

Kurmi

Bama

Ganjuwa

Wukari

Dukku

Jada

Geidam

Gwoza

Akko

Tarmua

Damboa

Yusufari

Konduga

Gujba

GubioBursari

Kirfi

Sardauna

Hong

Donga

Bauchi

Karim Lamido

Jakusko

Lau

Magumeri

Yunusari

Darazo

Takum

Ngala

Gulani

Nganzai

Hawul

Mobbar

Ganye

Ussa

Gombi

Kwami

Demsa

BayoShani

Dikwa

Shira

Girei

ZingArdo-Kola

Damaturu

Chibok

Misau

Dass

Bogoro

Zaki

Monguno

Gamawa

Askira-Uba

Yorro

Balanga Maiha

Bade

Nafada

Shelleng

NangereKatagum

Tafawa-Balewa

Itas/Gadau

Funakaye

Machina

Billiri

Mayo-Belwa

Karasuwa

Giade

Jere

Damban

Yamaltu/ Deba

Michika

NumanLarmurde

Guyuk

Warji

Nguru

Madagali

KaltungoShomgom

Mubi North

Yola South

Kwaya Kusar

Mubi South

PotiskumJama'Are

Jalingo

Yola North

Maiduguri

Abadam

Guzamala

Kukawa

Marte

Kala-BalgeBornoYobe

Taraba

Bauchi

Plateau

Benue

Kano

Adamawa

Gombe

Nasarawa

Cameroon

Niger

Jigawa

Inaccessible LGA

Less than 11,018

11,019 - 39,000

39,001 - 97,000

97,001 - 149,000

More than 149,0000 80 16040 Km

IDP Population by LGA

Lake Chad

±

Map 2: IDP distribution by LGA

8


1B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

A detailed and representative overview of age and sex was obtained by interviewing a sample of 87,524 persons, representing 4 per cent of the recorded IDP population in the 6 most affected states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. The results are depicted in Figures 2 and 3 below. The average household had 5 occupants.

1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT

Reasons for displacement remained unchanged compared to Round 26. The ongoing conflict in north-eastern Nigeria continued to be the main reason for displacement (93% - up from 92%), followed by communal clashes, which led to the displacement of 7 per cent of the interviewed individuals. Map 3 provides an overview of the reasons for displacement by state. The state of Taraba showed the highest number of displacements due to communal clashes during Round 27.

65% 89%

11%35%

Insurgency

Communal clashes

Natural disaster

% of IDP by state

1%21%

2%

100%

100%

74%

xx%

10%

4%

3% 2%

7%

73%

26%

1%

78%

Borno

Yobe

Taraba

Bauchi

Adamawa

Gombe

±

Map 3: Cause of displacement and percentage of IDp population by State

1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT

Four per cent of all displacements took place in 2019. With the highest percentage of displacements have taken place in 2016 and 2015 (24% each). Sixteen per cent of IDPs were displaced in 2017 and 11 per cent in 2018 (Figure 4).

1E: MOBILITY

CAMPS AND CAMP-LIKE SETTINGS:

Forty per cent of residents of camps and camp-like settings have previously been displaced, this is the same as was found in Round 26. In Adamawa and Yobe states, 54 per cent of the interviewed individuals had been previously displaced. In Borno, 37 per cent of IDPs said they have been displaced previously, this is a four per cent reduction compared to Round 26.

Four per cent of displaced persons in Adamawa said they have been displaced 4 times. Thirty-three per cent of IDPs have been displaced 2 times, with Taraba having the highest percentage of people displaced 2 times at 45 per cent.

In line with the previous round of assessments, the majority of IDPs in displacement sites said they intended to return to their places of origin given favorable circumstances. This figure was highest in Borno (91% but down from 93% in Round 26) and lowest in Bauchi (57% reduced from 73%).

Forty-nine per cent, increasing from 46 per cent in Round 26, of IDPs residing in displacement sites stated that improved

Figure 2: IDPs by age group and sex

4%

11%

16%

20%

3%

4%

8%

13%

18%

4%

< 1y

1-5 y

6-17 y

18-59 y

60+y

Female 54% Male 46%

Figure 3: Proportion of IDP population by age groups

Children(0 - 17 years)

Adults(18 - 59 years)

Elderly(60+ years)

56%

37%

7%

Figure 4: Percentage of IDPs by reason of displacement

92.6%7.3% 0.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Community clashes

Insurgency

Natural disasters

Figure 5: Displacement trend by State

Before2015

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

ADAMAWA 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 0%

BAUCHI 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

GOMBE 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

TARABA 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0%

YOBE 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

BORNO 13% 18% 20% 13% 7% 3%

Total 21% 24% 24% 16% 11% 4%

21%24% 24%

16%11%

4%

Figure 6: Frequency of displacement of IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

46%

86%

63%

55%

46%

31%

14%

34%

45%

31%

19%

3%

23%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

One time Two times Three times Four times

9


security was the main pull factor for their intention to return, followed by access to better services (22%) and access to land (10%).

HOST COMMUNITIES:

Twenty-four per cent (increased from 22% in Round 26) of IDPs living in host communities reported having been displaced 2 times with some LGA reporting higher incidence of this, Borno (38%) and Taraba (35%). Similar to Round 26, 3 per cent of the assessed population in all evaluated states have been displaced 3 times.

In comparison to those living in displacement sites, only 76 per cent of displaced people residing with host communities intended to go back to their places of origin. Thirty-one per cent of IDPs (no change from Round 26) cited improved security situation as the main reason for wanting to return, followed by access to Kano better services (17%) and access to land (5%).

For those who reported no intention to return, damage to their houses (11%) was cited as the main reason for not returning, followed by better living conditions in the current place of displacement than in their place of origin (3%) and security concerns in their present place of residence (3%).

1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS

The most-affected state, Borno, continues to be the place of origin for the majority of IDPs (83%) in conflict affected states of north-eastern Nigeria. After Borno, Adamawa produced the second largest number of IDPs (respectively 7% - having reduced from 10%). The majority of displaced persons are remaining within their state of origin, see Map 4 and Figure 8

ADAMAWA: 192,534

Total IDPs: 1,996,288

BAUCHI: 64,387

BORNO: 1,467,908

10%

74%

2%

3%

7%

4%

GOMBE: 36,872

TARABA: 85,332

YOBE: 133,003


From ADAMAWA: 133,926

From BAUCHI: 3,477

From BORNO: 1,648,624

From TARABA: 74,080

From YOBE: 103,677

State of Origin State of Displacement Total IDPs

6.8%

83.3%

0.8%

3.7%

5.2%

0.2%

Figure 8: Illustration showing State of origin and State of Displacement

Niger

Borno

Yobe

Taraba

Bauchi

Oyo

Kogi

Kebbi

Kaduna

Kwara

Edo

Benue

Sokoto

ZamfaraKano

Adamawa

Jigawa

Plateau

Katsina

Delta

Ogun Ondo

Nasarawa

Gombe

Cross River

Rivers

OsunEkiti

Imo

Bayelsa

Enugu

Abia

EbonyiLagos

Akwa Ibom

Anambra

Federal Capital Territory

Nigeria

Borno

Yobe

Taraba

Bauchi

Kogi

Kaduna

Kano

Adamawa

Jigawa

Plateau

Nasarawa

Benue

Katsina

Gombe

Cross River

EnuguEbonyiAnambra

Federal Capital Territory

Nigeria

95%

98%

89%

80%

2%

2%1%1%

3%

4%

2%

3%11%

8% 1%

100%

100%100%

IDP population,by State of origin

Displacementpattern

Less than 18,000Less than 18,000More than 140,000

Map 4: Origin of IDPs and location of displacement

Figure 7: Frequency of displacement of IDPs in host communities

73%

93%

60%

95%

58%

66%

24%

7%

38%

5%

35%

29%

2%

2%

7%

5%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

One time Two times Three times Four times

10


1G: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF THE DISPLACED POPULATIONS

As in Round 26, 59 per cent of all IDPs were living in host communities (Figure 9) during Round 27 with the remaining 41 per cent residing in camps and camp-like settings. Out of all the 6 states, Borno is the only state where the number of people residing in camps and camp- like settings is marginally higher than that of individuals living with host communities. In all other states, people living with host communities far outnumber those in camps and camp- like settings.

1H: UNMET NEEDS IN IDP SETTLEMENTS

In a survey conducted among 16,457 displaced persons, food was found to be the main unmet need cited by 73 per cent of interviewees. As seen in Table 4, the need for food has been consistently reported over within the DTM Rounds. Fifteen per cent of individuals cited non-food items (NFIs) as their main needs and 6 per cent identified shelter as their main need. These results are consistent with previous assessments.

Figure 9: IDP settlement type by state

94%

97%

47%

100%

84%

90%

6%

3%

53%

16%

10%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Host Community Camp

41%

59%

Camp Host Communities

Types ofsettlements

Table 2: Main needs of IDPs by round of assessments

DTM ROUND Security Water for washing and

cooking Sanitation and

Hygiene Drinking

water Medical services

Shelter NFI Food

23 1% 1% 1% 2% 4% 6% 15% 71%

24 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 6% 12% 73%

25 1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 6% 13% 74%

26 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 6% 15% 73%

27 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 5% 13% 73%

11


2A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPS

DTM Round 27 site assessments were conducted in 2,383 sites. This is a marginal decrease of 1 per cent from the 2,415 sites that were assessed in the last round. The purpose of

site assessments is to better understand the gaps in services provided and the needs of the affected population. These sites included 281 camps and camp-like settings (down from 298 in last round of assessment) and 2,102 locations where IDPs were residing with host communities (down from 2,117).

2. SITE ASSESSMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS

Kala-Balge

Abadam

Guzamala

Marte

Kukawa

53% 47%

Borno

Adamawa6%

10%

90%

Yobe

Gombe

100%

36,872

1,467,908

Taraba16%

85,332

192,534

Bauchi3%

64,387

133,003

84%

Lake Chad

Cameroon

Niger

Chad

±

94%

Less than 85,50085,501 - 134,000134,001 - 193,000Above 193,000 0 140 28070 Km

IDPs in Camps &Camp-like settings

CommunitiesIDPs in Host

Inaccessible LGA

IDP Population by State

97%

Map 5: IDPs distribution by state and major site type

State Camp/Camp-like settings Host Communities

Total Number of IDPs

Total Number of Sites # IDPs # Sites % Sites # IDPs # Sites % Sites

ADAMAWA 11,873 26 9% 180,661 454 22%

192,534 480

BAUCHI 1,705 7 2% 62,682 369 18%

64,387 376

BORNO 783,215 224 80% 684,693 460 22%

1,467,908 684

GOMBE 36,872 203 10%

36,872 203

TARABA 13,874 11 4% 71,458 218 10%

85,332 229

YOBE 12,641 13 5% 120,362 398 19%

133,003 411

Total 823,308

281 100%

1,156,728

2,102 100%

1,980,036

2,383

Table 2: Change in IDP figures by State

12


2B: SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATION

The highest land ownership type of IDPs residing in camps and camp-like settings is private buildings (54% - down from 55%) followed by 44 per cent (up from 43%) of government or public buildings and 1 per cent of ancestral property. Emergency shelters was the most common shelter type for displaced people living in camps and camp-like settings followed by self-made or makeshift shelters (34%) and public/government buildings (9%).

Most displaced persons residing with host communities lived in private buildings (89% - up from 88%) followed by eight per cent (down from 9%) residing in government or public buildings (8%) and ancestral property (3%).

Out of the 281 displacement sites (camps and camp-like settings) that were assessed, 60 per cent were located in Borno and nearly all were spontaneous (95%). As in the last round of assessment, 59 per cent (up from 58%) of sites were classified as collective settlements or centers, the highest percentage of which was found in Taraba (64%). Forty per cent were categorized as camps and 1 per cent were classified as transitional centers.

IDP Population by Settlement Type

58%42%

Site type Site classification

Host community

Land ownership

Land ownership

Camps/Camp-like settings

59%

40%

1%

CollectiveSettlement/Centre

Camp

Transitional Centre

0.7% 4.6%

94.7%

For RelocationPlannedSpontaneous

89%

8%

3%

Private Building

Public/Government

Ancestral

Private Building

Public/Government

Ancestral

54%

44%

1%

Figure10: IDP settlement type by state

13


2C: SECTOR ANALYSIS

CAMP COORDINATION AND CAMP MANAGEMENT

In the Round 27 DTM assessment, out of the 281 camps and camp-like sites assessed, 85 per cent were informal. Sixty-seven per cent of assessed locations had site management support and rest did not. Forty-seven per cent of locations reported to have CCCM support.

The following support was reportedly available: livelihood (100%), WASH (81%), shelter (89%), food (75%), health (68%) and education (63%).

SHELTERCamps and camp-like settings

Camps and camp-like settings presented a variety of shelter conditions, with the most common type of shelter being emergency shelters in 107 (38.1%) sites, followed by self-made/makeshift shelters (34.2%). Other types were host government buildings (8.5%), family houses (7.8%), schools (3.9%), individual houses (6.0%), community shelters (1.1%) and health facilities (0.4%).

Furthermore, of the total 281 camps and camp-like settings, in 16 sites (hosting 28,250 families) in Borno States some households lived without shelter. Out of the total number of IDPs on site, the number of families in need of shelter was lower than 25 percent, With the exception of SSS Quarter camp (GSSSS Damboa)where 50-75% of households reported no shelter owing to the recent influx from Sabon Gari town into the camp.

In 205 sites (hosting 129,530 families) a number of households lived in makeshift or self-made shelters, of which 66 sites where more than 75 percent of the total IDPs on site live in makeshift shelters. In 76 sites no household lived in makeshift shelters.

In 167 sites (hosting 162,044 families), there were households living in emergency shelters structures primarily provided by humanitarian actors. Of these, 49 sites host more than 75 percent of IDPs on site living in these emergency shelters.

In terms of immediate shelter needs, tarpaulin, followed by timber and roofing sheets were reported in 253 sites that hosted 162,141 families.

The most needed NFI items were blankets/mats, followed by mosquito nets and kitchen sets.

Host Communities

This round of assessment identified 2,102 host communities hosting 211,160 IDP households, most commonly residing in the host family’s house (which was the most common shelter type in 1,830 sites hosting 177,215 households). This is followed by individual houses (most common shelter type in 169 sites hosting 16,998 households), self-made/makeshift shelters (most common shelter type in 81 sites hosting 15,198 households), emergency shelters (in 9 sites hosting 928 households), government buildings (in 2 sites hosting 107 households), and health facilities (in 4 sites hosting 211 households).

Figure 11: Presence and type of camp management agency

67%

33%

No Yes

UN/INGO46%

Government43%

Religious entity 5%

Armed Forces 2%

Local NGO 1%

Individual/Private 1%

Figure 12: Types of shelter in camps/camp-like settings

38.8%

34.2%

8.2%

7.8%

6.0%

3.6%

1.1%

0.4%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%

Emergency shelter

Self-made/makeshift shelter

Government building

Host family house

Individual house

School

Community center

Health facil ity

Figure 13: Number of camp sites with most needed type of shelter material

59.4%

14.6%

10.0%

8.2%

3.2%

2.5%

1.1%

0.7%

0.4%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Tarpaulin

Timber/wood

NULL

Roofing sheets

Block/bricks

Nails

Rope

Tools

Thatches

Figure 14: Number of camp sites with most needed type of NFI

34%

26%

15%

9%

7%

5%

3%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Blankets/Mats

Mosquito nets

Kitchen sets

Mattress

Hygiene kits

Soap

Bucket/Jerry Can

Solar lamp

Figure 15: Types of shelter in host community sites

87%

8%

4%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Host family house

Individual house

Self-made/makeshift shelter

Emergency shelter

14


On analyzing the shelter conditions in host communities, it was noted that in 54 sites where 5,027 households are hosted, some IDPs live without shelter. In all cases, the proportion of IDPs in need of shelter was less than 25 percent of the total IDPs in these sites.

Of the sites assessed, 752 sites, hosting 123,160 households, host IDPs living in makeshift shelters. Of these, in 521 sites the IDPs living in makeshift shelters comprise less than 25 percent of the total number of IDPs in these sites.

Of the sites assessed, 237 sites, hosting 48,242 households, host IDPs living in emergency shelters. For 171 of these sites, the proportion of IDPs living in emergency shelters was less than 25 percent of the IDPs on site.

1,764 (84%) sites hosting 165,562 families, have indicated the need for various shelter items. Among them, 455 sites hosting 47,652 households reported timber/wood as the main need, followed by roofing sheets in 430 sites hosting 29,382 households. The third most needed shelter item is tarpaulin in 388 sites hosting 56,159 households. 338 sites hosting 45,598 households had no shelter items needed at the time of the assessment.

Of all the 2,119 sites assessed, the highest need for NFI items was blankets/mats in 612 sites hosting 73,367 households, followed by mosquito nets in 460 sites hosting 47,725 households and kitchen sets in 352 sites hosting 46,077 households.

WASH: WATER RESOURCES

Camp and camp-like settings:

Piped water continues to be the main source of drinking water in most sites (70% of sites – down from 78% in February assessment), followed by hand pumps in 17 per cent (down from 18%) of sites, water trucks in 7 per cent (up from 6%) of sites, protected wells in 3 per cent of sites (down from 4%), unprotected wells in 2 per cent of sites, while 1 per cent got drinking water from other sources such as ponds, lakes, canals and surface water.

Yobe had the highest reliance on piped water supply, with 92 per cent of sites in that state using piped water as a water source, followed by Borno. In fact, in Borno the main source of drinking water was piped water in 75 (up from 73%) per cent of sites, followed by hand pumps in 15 (down from 16%) per cent of sites and water trucks in 8 (up from 6%) per cent of sites.

Overall, in 81 per cent of sites (down from 82% in the last round of assessment), the main water source was located on-site and at a walking distance of less than 10 minutes. In Borno, the main source of water was on-site and required less than a 10 minutes’ walk in 79 per cent of sites (Figure 22)This is a drop from 82 per cent recorded in last round of assessment. Water sources had been improved in 59 per cent (down from 67%) of all assessed sites (Table 6). In Borno, this figure was 57 per cent (down from 69%) of sites.

As illustrated in Table 3, most residents did not differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water in 91 per cent of sites (up from 87%). In Borno as well the percentage of residents not differentiating went up slightly from 94 to 96 per cent.

Figure 16: Number of host community sites with most needed type of shelter material

21.6%

20.5%

18.5%

17.2%

16.1%

3.2%

2.1%

0.5%

0.3%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%

Timber/wood

Roofing sheets

Tarpaulin

Block/bricks

NULL

Nails

Rope

Tools

Thatches

Figure 17: Number of host community sites with most needed type of NFI

29%

22%

20%

17%

5%

3%

3%

2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Blankets/Mats

Mosquito nets

Mattress

Kitchen sets

Soap

Solar lamp

Hygiene kits

Bucket/Jerry Can

Figure 18: Main drinking water sources in camps/camp-like settings

67.6%

15.7%

6.4%

5.7%

1.8%

1.4%

1.1%

0.4%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

Piped water supply

Hand pumps

Water truck

Unprotected well

Protected well

Ponds/canals

Lake/dam

Spring

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Off-site (<10 mn) Off-site (>10 mn) On-site (<10 mn)Figure 19: Distance to main water source in camps/camp-like settings

15


The average amount of water available per person per day was 10 to 15 liters in 58 per cent (up from 49%) of sites. This figure was 60 per cent over the last 2 rounds of assessments published in November and August, respectively. In 31 per cent (up from 15%) of sites, it was more than 15 liters per person and in 12 per cent (down from 13%) of sites IDPs had an average of 5 to 10 liters per person. Drinking water was potable in 93 per cent (up from 91%) of sites with Borno still faring relatively better at 95 per cent.

Host Communities

Unlike the scenario in camps and camp-like settings, hand pumps are the main source of water in 52 per cent (down from 51%) of sites where IDPs are residing with host communities. In 23 per cent of sites (down from 25%), piped water was the main source of drinking water, followed by protected wells (10%) and unprotected wells (7%). Other common water sources include water trucks (6% of sites) and springs (1%).

The scenario differed in Borno, where piped water was the main source in 49 per cent of assessed sites, followed by hand pumps in 29 per cent (up from 28%) of sites and unprotected wells in 10 per cent (down from 12%) of sites.

The main source of water was on-site and less than a 10-minute walk in 78 per cent (up from 74%) of sites. In 8 per cent of sites (down from 11%), water was off-site but at less than a 10-minute walk distance. This figure was 3 per cent (down from 5%) in Borno. In 7 per cent of sites, water was available on-site but at more than 10-minutes’ walk and similarly in water was available off-site and more than a 10 minutes’ walk.

Water points had been improved in 57 per cent (down from 59%). This improvement of water points differed between states: In Yobe, where cholera disease is recurring, 76 per cent (down from 82%) of sites had improved water points and in Borno this figure was 50 per cent (up from 57%).

Table 5: Percentage of sites reporting improvement to water points in host communities

STATE No Yes

ADAMAWA 38% 62%

BAUCHI 40% 60%

BORNO 50% 50%

GOMBE 72% 28%

TARABA 50% 50%

YOBE 24% 76%

OVERALL 43% 57%

Forty-eight per cent (up from 46%) of displaced persons living with host communities differentiated between drinking and non-drinking water. In Borno, residents were differentiating between drinking and non-drinking water in 18 per cent of sites.

Table 3: Percentage of sites where IDPs differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water in camps/camp-like settings

STATE No YesADAMAWA 58% 42%

BAUCHI 57% 43%

BORNO 96% 4%

TARABA 73% 27%

YOBE 92% 8%

OVERALL 91% 9%

Table 4: Percentage of sites reporting improvement to water points in camps and camp-like settings

STATE No Yes

ADAMAWA 50% 50%

BAUCHI 14% 86%

BORNO 43% 57%

TARABA 27% 73%

YOBE 15% 85%

OVERALL 41% 59%

Figure 20: Average amount of water available per person per day in camps/camp-like settings

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

<5 ltr >15 ltr 10 - 15 ltr 5 - 10 ltr

Figure 21: Main drinking water sources in host communities

70.1%

17.1%

7.1%

2.5%

1.8%

0.7%

0.4%

0.4%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Piped water supply

Hand pumps

Water truck

Protected well

Unprotected well

Ponds/canals

Lake/dam

Spring

Figure 22: Distance to main water source in host communities

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Off-site (<10 mn) Off-site (>10 mn) On-site (<10 mn) On-site (>10 mn)

16


15%

3%

18%

85%

100%

96%

82%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Good (Hygienic) Non usable Not so good (Not hygienic)

Table 6: Percentage of sites where IDPs differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water in host communities

STATE No Yes

ADAMAWA 23% 77%

BAUCHI 30% 70%

BORNO 83% 17%

GOMBE 57% 43%

TARABA 50% 50%

YOBE 70% 30%

OVERALL 52% 48%

In 50 per cent (down from 51%) of sites, 10 to 15 liters of water was available per person per day; 34 per cent of sites (up from 31%) reported access to more than 15 liters of water per person per day; and in 14 per cent of sites (down from 17%), 5 to 10 liters of water per person per day was available. In Borno, in 63 per cent of sites (no change from last round of assessment), the amount of water available for IDPs living with host communities was between 10 and 15 liters per day (Figure 23).

Figure 23: Average amount of water available per person per day in host communities

2%

5%

19%

38%

22%

39%

40%

60%

71%

44%

63%

36%

45%

28%

10%

19%

15%

24%

13%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

<5 ltr >15 ltr 10 - 15 ltr 5 - 10 ltr

PERSONAL HYGIENE FACILITIES

Camps and camp-like settings

In 95 per cent of displacement sites (up from 93% in the last round of assessment in February), toilets were described as ‘not hygienic’, while toilets were reported to be in hygienic conditions in only 5 per cent of sites and non-usable in less than a per cent of sites. In Yobe, where cholera is recurring, 100 per cent of toilets were described as not good/hygienic. In Borno, 96 per cent (up from 95%) were reported as not hygienic.

Separate toilets for male and female IDPs were available in 34 per cent (down from 42%) of sites; this figure was 33 per cent (down from 43%) in Borno state. In Yobe, 38 percent of sites (down from 46 ) had separate toilets for men and women. Only 5 per cent of toilets locked from inside. Thirty-three (down from 37.2%) per cent of toilets did not lock from inside.

Handwashing stations were found in 16 per cent (no change from last round of assessment) of sites, out of which 4 per cent did not have soap or water inside. Handwashing practice was practiced in in 27 per cent (up from 24%) of sites, although hygiene promotion campaigns had taken place in 65 per cent (up from 64%) of displacement sites.

Waste was burned in 76 per cent (down by 6%) of sites and garbage pits were used in 13 per cent of the identified sites, while there were no waste disposal mechanisms in 11 per cent (down from 12%) of sites.

Open defecation was observed in 33 per cent of sites (down from 2%) and fully functioning drainage systems were evident in only 1 per cent of the sites.

Host communities

In 98 per cent of host community sites, toilets were described as ‘not hygienic’ (up from 96% in November round of assessment) and good in 2 per cent of sites. In Borno, 97 per cent (up from 96%) of toilets were reported as not good/hygienic.

3%

5%

11%

1%

1%

3%

1%

1%

97%

99%

95%

97%

88%

98%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Good (Hygienic) Non usable Not so good (Not hygienic)Figure 26: Condition of toilets in host communities by state

Separate toilets for male and female IDPs were available in only 6 per cent (up from 5%) of sites; There was a 4% increase in Borno Borno state. In Yobe, 4 per cent of sites had separate toilets for men and women (down 1%). Toilets lock from inside in 34 (up from 13%) per cent of sites.

Handwashing stations were found in 5 per cent of sites (same as in stations were found in 5 per cent of sites (same as in November round of assessment) but nearly none of them had soap. In Borno, 8 per cent of toilets had handwashing facilities. The practice of handwashing was, however, observed in 15 per cent (up by 1%) of sites, although hygiene promotion campaigns had taken place in 27 per cent of sites.

Figure 25: Availability of targeted hygiene promotion (L); Main garbage disposal mechanism (R) in camps/camp-like settings campaigns

No35%

Yes65%

Burning70%

Garbage pit

12%

No waste disposal system

18%

Figure 24: Condition of toilets in camps/camp-like settings by state

17


Regarding, garbage disposal in host communities, waste was burned in 61 per cent (down by 65%) of sites, put in garbage pits in 12 per cent of the identified sites (down from 13%) and there was no waste disposal mechanism in 26 per cent (up from 21%) of sites.

Open defecation was observed in 53 per cent (up by 47%) of sites and functioning drainage systems were evident in 25 per cent up by 5%

FOOD AND NUTRITION Camps and camp-like settings

In camps and camp-like settings, access to food was on site in 75 per cent (down from 85%) of sites and off-site in 12 per cent of sites. But there were no food provisions in 13 per cent of sites assessed. The situation across the states is depicted in Figure 28.

In 58 per cent of sites, the last food distribution took place one to three months ago. In 15 per cent of sites, food was last distributed a year or more ago while no food assistance was provided in 13 per cent of sites.

Ninety-seven per cent of displacement sites had access to markets (no change from last round of assessment). The frequency of cash or voucher distribution was irregular in 42 per cent (up from 36%), once a month in 42 per cent of sites (up from 41%) and never in 13 per cent of sites (up from 9%). As shown in Figure 33, in Borno 14 per cent (up from 9%) reported no food or cash assistance.

Once again, food distribution was not the most common means of obtaining food. Personal money was the most common means of obtaining food cited by 46 per cent (down from 45%) of sites. followed by distribution (43%).

In 68 per cent of sites (no change from the last round of assessment) screening for malnutrition was reported. No blanket supplementary feeding of children was reported in 42 per cent (same as in last round of assessment) of sites, and no distribution of micronutrient powders was observed in 63 per cent of sites (up from 60%). The state-wise scenario is given in Figure 29.

No supplementary feeding for the elderly was reported in 95 per cent of sites (down from 95%). Supplementary feeding for pregnant and lactating women was found in 37 per cent (down from 47%). In 46 per cent of sites (up from 37%), counselling on infant and young child feeding practices was available. Host Communities

In comparison with IDPs residing in displacement sites, the number of individuals with access to food on-site continues to be lower for IDPs residing in host communities (Figure 30). 56 per cent (by 2%) of sites had access to food on-site. This was the case for 61 per cent of sites assessed in Borno.

Twenty-five per cent of IDPs had access to food off-site and 19 per cent had no access to food. Ninety-seven per cent of sites (up from 96%) had access to markets, although the frequency of obtaining food or cash vouchers was irregular in 64 per cent of sites (up from 63%). Reportedly, food or cash voucher distribution never took place in 20 per cent (down from 22%) of sites and once a month in 10 per cent of sites (down by 13%).

In Borno, the frequency of food distribution was slightly better than the overall figures with 52 per cent of sites getting irregular food distribution.

Cultivation was most common among IDPs living with host communities and was observed in 52 per cent (down3%) of sites assessed. The situation in Borno closely mirrored the overall figures.

Malnutrition screening was reported in 32 per cent of assessed sites in host communities.There was no supplementary feeding in 77 per cent of site, for lactating and pregnant women, this was higher (81% of sites). There was no micronutrient powder distribution observed in 82 per cent (up from 79%) of sites. Supplementary feeding for the elderly was evidenced in only 1

Figure 27: Availability of targeted hygiene promotion (L); Main garbage disposal mechanism (R) in host communities

No73%

Yes27%

Burning61%

No waste disposal system27%

Garbage pit

12%

Figure 28: Access to food in camps/camp-like settings

8% 14% 14% 9% 8%

29%17%

18%

92%

57%69% 73%

92%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE

No Yes, off site Yes, on site

Figure 29: Frequency of food or cash distribution in camps/camp-like settings

81% 86%

33%

82%

46%

8%14%

14%

9%

8%

8%

50%46%

4% 2% 9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Irregular Never Once a month Once a week Twice a week

33%

2%18%

4%

53%

4%

22%

18%

21%

24%

29%

31%

45%

81%61%

72%

17%

64%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBENo Yes, off site Yes, on site

Figure 30: Access to food in host communities

18


per cent of sites.

HEALTHCamps and camp-like settings

Malaria was the most common health problem in 52 per cent (down by 6%) of assessed displacement sites, followed by fever in 27 per cent of sites (up from 15%) and cough in 14 per cent. Regular access to medicine was observed in 78 per cent of sites (down from 81%), same for Borno (81%).

Virtually all sites (99%) had access to health facilities. Sixty-one per cent of sites (down by 9%) had health facilities available on-site and within three kilometers; 30 per cent (up from 26%) had access to health facilities off-site but within 3 kilometers; mobile clinics were found in 2 per cent of sites and the health facility was offsite and more than 3 kilometers away in 1 per cent of sites.

United Nations agencies and International NGOs were the main providers of health facilities for IDPs in 56 per cent of sites (down from 59%), followed by the Government in 33 per cent (up from 30%) and NGOs in 7 per cent of sites. The situation in Borno is presented in Figure 34.

Host communities

Mirroring the situation in displacement sites, the most prevalent health ailment among IDPs residing with host community was malaria (53%). The situation by State is illustrated in Figure 35. Fever was the next most prominent health issue in 24 per cent of sites (up from 16%), followed by cough (10% - down from 14%) and diarrhea in 6 per cent of sites.

Regular access to medicine was observed in 72 per cent of sites (same as in last round of assessment),however, in Borno, this was higher as 89% reported regular access. In 99 per cent of sites where IDPs were living with host communities, there was access to health facilities was observed.

In 57 per cent of sites (up from 54%), health facilities were on-site and located within 3 kilometers (Figure 36). For 26 per cent of sites (up from 27%), health facilities were off-site but located within 3 kilometers, in 8 per cent of sites the health facilities were off-site but more than 3 kilometers and in 7 per

Figure 31: Frequency of food or cash distribution in host communities

65%

94%

52%

95%

44%63%

34%

2%

18%

4%

55%5%

1%2%

27%

1%

30%

2% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBEIrregular Never Once a month Once a week

Figure32: Common health problems in camps/camp-like settings


Cough 23% 29% 12% 0% 31%

Diarrhea 4% 0% 4% 0% 0%

Fever 15% 14% 30% 27% 0%

Malaria 50% 57% 51% 73% 46%

Malnutrition 4% 0% 0% 0% 15%

Skin disease 4% 0% 3% 0% 8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Figure 34: Main health providers in camps/camp-like settings

58%

100%

21%

82%

62%

12%

71%

8%

12%

18%

15%

15%

7%

8%

4%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Government INGO Local clinic NGO None

Figure 33: Regular access to medicine in camps/camp-like settings


Mobile clinic 0% 0% 3% 0% 0%

None 4% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Off-site (<3 km) 4% 43% 36% 27% 23%

Off-site (>3 km) 0% 0% 2% 0% 0%

On-site (<3 km) 85% 43% 56% 73% 69%

On-site (>3 km) 8% 14% 4% 0% 8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 35 Common health problems in host communities

YOBE GOMBE BAUCHI BORNO ADAMAWA TARABA

Malaria 63% 58% 52% 46% 46% 44%

Fever 20% 28% 20% 34% 21% 21%

Cough 5% 11% 10% 7% 14% 9%

Diarrhea 5% 2% 9% 4% 9% 9%

Hepatitis 0% 0% 4% 1% 8% 0%

Malnutrition 5% 0% 4% 5% 1% 14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Malaria Fever Cough Diarrhea Hepatitis Malnutrition

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE

On-site (<3 km) 63% 74% 53% 69% 14% 57%

Off-site (<3 km) 19% 15% 31% 16% 67% 21%

On-site (>3 km) 13% 9% 4% 13% 0% 7%

Off-site (>3 km) 3% 2% 6% 1% 19% 12%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

On-site (<3 km) Off-site (<3 km) On-site (>3 km) Off-site (>3 km)

Figure 36: Regular access to medicine in host communities

19


cent of sites the health facilities were off-site but less than 3 kilometers away.

The Government was the main provider of health care for IDP sites in 67 per cent of sites (same as in last round of assessment), followed by local clinics in 22 per cent of sites (up 1%) and international NGOs in 7 per cent of sites. The situation in Borno differed from the overall trend due to higher presence of INGOs in the state (Figure 37).

EDUCATION Camps and camp-like settings

Access to schools improved from an already high of 98 per cent and was universal in all camps and camp-like settings that were accessible during the Round 27 assessment. There has been a steady increase in access to formal and informal schools over the last few rounds of assessments. The scenario in Borno was similar (Figure 38).

In 63 per cent of sites (up by 8%), formal or informal education facilities existed on-site, while they were located off-site in 36 per cent of sites (up by 10%). The distance to education facilities was less than 1 kilometer in 75 per cent of sites (up from 74%) and less than 2 kilometers in 25 per cent of sites (up from 23%).

In 40 per cent of sites (up by 5%), between 25 and 50 per cent of children were attending school. In 33 per cent of sites (up from 34%), between 50 and 75 per cent of children were

attending school. In 20 per cent of sites, less than a quarter of children were attending school. In 5 per cent of sites (down from 7%), more than 75 per cent of children attended school. The scenario in Borno mirrored the overall picture (Figure 40).

The high costs associated with school constituted the main deterrent for school attendance in 64 per cent (down by 5%) of sites. The other key reasons preventing school attendance were the lack of teachers in 18 per cent (up by 1%) of sites and lack of school in 9 per cent of sites.

Host Communities:

In sites where IDPs are residing with host communities, access to education services was recorded in 98 per cent of sites (down by 1%). In 72 per cent of sites (up from 71%), formal or informal education facilities existed on-site, while they were located off-site in 26 per cent (down from 28%) of sites.

The distance to education facilities was less than 1 kilometer in 64 per cent of sites (no change from last round of assessment), between 1 and 2 kilometers in 29 per cent (no change), and between 2 and 5 kilometers in 4 per cent (down by 1%) of

70%

71%

64%

76%

40%

78%

9%

22%

2%

11%

29%

8%

24%

60%

13%

8%

6%

3%

2%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Government INGO Local clinic NGO None

Figure 37: Main health providers in host communities

Figure 38: Access to formal/informal education services in camps/camp-like settings

7.7%

100.0% 100.0% 99.6% 100.0% 92.3%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%


No Yes

Figure 39: Locations formal/informal education facilities in camps/camp-like settings

15%29%

42% 36% 31%

85%71% 58% 64% 69%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Off-site On-site


<25% 23% 14% 19% 36% 23%

<50% 35% 0% 44% 18% 23%

<75% 15% 86% 33% 27% 46%

>75% 23% 0% 3% 18% 0%

None 4% 0% 1% 0% 8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

<25% <50% <75%

Figure 40: Percentage of children attending school in camps/camp-like settings

7%2% 1%

93% 98% 100% 100% 100% 99%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


No YesFigure 41: Access to formal/informal education services in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 42: Locations formal/informal education facilities in host communities

6% 1%

21% 15% 26% 4%

85%

20%

73% 84% 74%96%

15%

80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


None Off-site On-site

20


sites.

In 37 per cent of sites (down by 1%) between 25 and 50 per cent of children attended school. In Borno, this was 54 per cent (no change from last round of assessment), while in 35 per cent of sites (no change) between 50 and 75 per cent of children attended school. Of all assessed sites, less than 25 per cent of children were enrolled in schools in 17 per cent of sites (no change in comparison to the last round of assessment but an improvement from the 25% in October round of assessment). No children attended school in 3 per cent of sites. The scenario in Borno was different from the overall picture (Figure 42, mostly because of the relatively higher number of humanitarian actors in the state.

In 78 per cent of sites (no change since last round of assessment), the main reason preventing school attendance were the high costs and fees.

COMMUNICATION Camps and camp-like settings

Friends and neighbors were cited as the most-trusted source of information in 57 per cent of sites (down from 65% observed in Round 26). Local and community leaders were cited as the second most trusted source of information in 26 per cent of sites (up 1%). This reflects a decreasing trend observed over the last few rounds of assessment. 8 per cent of sites cited religious leaders as source of information, which is an increase from 5 per cent from Round 26. See Figure 44 for the reported trustworthy sources of information.

Radio was cited as the most preferred medium for receiving information in 26 per cent of sites, followed by word of mouth by 30 per cent of sites, telephone voice calls were cited by 4 per cent of sites and 3 per cent of sites said community meetings.

In 85 per cent of sites, few people had access to functioning radio, see Figure 45. Only 2 sites in camps/camp-like settings reported having nearly universal access to a functioning radio.

The main topics that the IDPs wished to receive information about included: distributions (46% - down from 49%), other relief assistance (17% - up 1%), access to services (13% - down from 17%), safety and security of sites (12% - up from 9%) and situation in areas of origin (7%), see Figure 46.

Figure 46: Most important topic for IDPs camps/camp-like settings

43%

20%

12%

12%

9%

2%

Distribution

Other reliefassistance

Access to services

Safety and Security

Situation in areas oforigin

Registration

Host communities

Thirty-nine per cent of sites, reduced from 41 per cent in Round 26, stated that friends, neighbors and family were the next most trusted sources of information. Religious leaders were selected in 11 per cent of sites as the most trusted information source, see Figure 47.

In 59 per cent of sites, radio was the most preferred source of information for displaced persons living with host communities,

Figure 44: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

57%26%

8%

3% 3%

2%1%

Friends, neighbors andfamilyLocal leader/CommunityleaderReligious leader

Government official

Military official

Traditional Leader

Aid worker

1%

85%

11%

2%

Almost all Few Most NoneFigure 45: Access to functioning radio in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 43: Percentage of children attending school in host communities


<25% 20% 8% 13% 11% 50% 15%

<50% 29% 33% 54% 25% 26% 41%

<75% 33% 46% 30% 44% 18% 39%

>75% 11% 11% 2% 18% 4% 5%

None 7% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<25% <50% <75% >75% None

Figure 47: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in host communities

41%

39%

11%

3%

2% 2%1%

Local leader/Communityleader

Friends, neighbors andfamily

Religious leader

Aid worker

Government official

Traditional Leader

Military official

21


in 59 per cent of sites. Twenty-five per cent of sites said that word of mouth was their preferred source of information. Ten per cent preferred telephone voice calls and 5 per cent got their information from community meetings, see Figure 48.

In 71 per cent of sites the majority of residents did not have access to a functioning radio. Almost all residents possessed a functioning radio in 3 per cent of sites, see Figure 49.

The main topics IDPs in host communities wished to receive information on were: distributions in 47 per cent (up from 45%) of sites, followed by the situation in their area of origin in 18 per cent of sites (up by 1%), information on other relief assistance in 14 per cent (up by 1%) of sites, and safety and security in 12 per cent of sites (no change from last round of assessment), see Figure 50,

Figure 50: Most important topic for IDPs in host communities

47%

18%

13%

12%

7%

2%

1%

1%

Distribution

Situation in areas of origin

Other relief assistance

Safety and Security

Access to services

Registration

How to get information

Shelter

LIVELIHOODSCamps and camp-like settings

Petty trade and daily labor were the main livelihood activities of displaced persons in 33 per cent of assessed sites. This is in-line with previous rounds of assessment.

Access to income generating activities was found to be universal in all camps and camp-like sites, while the presence of livestock was recorded in 91 per cent (up from 87% in Round 26 and 82% in Round 25) of sites, and access to land

for cultivation was found in 63 per cent (up from 59%) of sites. Refer to figure 51.

Host communities

In contrast to IDPs living in displacement camps, the majority of IDPs living with host communities engaged in farming. In Round 27, IDPs in 60 per cent of sites engaged in farming this is the same as Round 26.

Access to income generating activities was found to be universal in host communities across all states except in Adamawa, where 96 per cent of IDPs reported having access to income generating activities. Livestock was found in 91 per cent of sites (reduced from 93%) and similarly, access to land for cultivation was reported in 63 per cent (down from 90%) of sites in which IDP households lived with host communities.

PROTECTIONCamps/camp-like settings

Security was provided in 90 per cent of evaluated sites, compared to 97% in Round 26. In Borno, security was provided in 92 per cent of sites, see Figure 53.

In more than half of the sites, security was self-organized (56%) across the 6 north-eastern Nigerian states. Whereas the military provided security in 21 per cent of sites and police provided security in five per cent of sites (Figure 54).

Figure 48: Most preferred channel of information for IDPs in host communities

59%

25%

10%

5%

Radio

Word of Mouth

Telephone voice call

Community meetings

Figure 49: Access to functioning radio inhost communities

3%

71%

24%

2%

Almost all Few Most None

33%

31%

24%

7%

3%

Petty trade

Daily labourer

Farming

Collecting firewood

Agro-pastoralism

Figure 51: Livelihood activities of IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 52: Livelihood activities of IDPs in host communities

60%

17%

15%

4%

1%

1%

1%

Farming

Petty trade

Daily labourer

Agro-pastoralism

Collecting firewood

Fishing

Pastoralism

35%

8%

8%

65%

100%

92%

100%

92%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

No YesFigure 53: Security provided in camps/camp-like settings

22


IDPs in 92 per cent (up from 89% in Round 26) of sites did not witness any security incident. Theft and friction among site residents were the main types of security incidents reported in four per cent of sites, respectively.

Ninety-eight per cent of sites did not report any incidents of Gender-Based Violence (GBV). Whereas sites in Adamawa and Borno states were the only areas which reported instances of domestic violence. In Adamawa, 8 per cent of sites reported GBV incidents and in Borno 2 per cent of sites reported GBV incidents. No cases of physical violence were reported in 99 per cent (up from 96%) of sites.

Incidents of children being involved in forced employment were reported in one per cent of the sites (this is in-line with previous rounds of assessments).

In 35 per cent of sites (up from 31%) there were no reports of problems in receiving humanitarian assistance. The major problem relating to support had to do with inadequate coverage of the assistance for all those who are entitled to it. This was cited in 60 per cent of sites, this is the same as in Round 26. In two per cent of sites, assistance did not respond to actual needs. Fighting between recipients was reported in one per cent of sites (down 1% from Round 26).

There were 52 (up from 58) recreational places available to children in the sites assessed. This, however, represents an increase from the 30 recreational areas that were recorded in Round 26. Additionally, there were 22 recreational places for women, of which 15 were in Borno.

The majority of IDPs had identity cards (94% - up from 89% in Round 26), with 96% of IDPs living in Borno possessing identity cards, this is an increase from the 89 per cent observed in Round 26. No referral mechanism for security incidents was in place in 49 per cent of sites (up from 48%). Women, men and children felt unsafe in 99 per cent of sites, respectively.

Good relationships between IDPs were reported in 98 per cent of sites, which is an increase of one per cent compared to Round 26. Relationships with surrounding host communities were described as good in 98 per cent of sites.

There was no lighting in 82 per cent (up from 76% in Round 26) of sites. Whilst inadequate lighting was reported in 16 per cent of sites, this is an decrease from 22 per cent in Round 26.

Lastly, work opportunities were offered within Nigeria in five per cent of sites.

Host Communities

Amongst the sites where IDPs lived within host communities, 90 per cent (up from 89% in Round 26) had some form of security, see Figure 56.

Local authorities were the main providers of security in 24 per cent of sites, followed by security provided by police in 22 per cent of sites (a 4% increase from Round 26). Self-organized security was reported in 20 per cent of sites.

In host communities, no security incidents were reported in 75 per cent of sites (down from 78% from Round 26). Theft was the most commonly reported type of security incident in 15 per cent (up from 13%) of sites, followed by crime and friction amongst site residents reported in three per cent of sites, respectively.

In 96 per cent of sites, no incident of GBV was reported. Much like the situation in camps and camp-like settings, domestic violence was the main type of incident reported amongst the sites in which incidents of GBV were reported. No case of physical violence was reported in 92 per cent of sites (up from 88%).

Child labor or forced begging was reported in 4 per cent of sites. Ninety-four per cent of sites did not report any child protection incidents.

In 58 per cent of sites the assistance provided was not adequate for all those in need. There were 143 recreational spaces for children in all assessed sites (down from 177 recorded in Round 26). 52 recreational spaces were available in Borno. In total, there were 28 (reduced from 45 observed in Round 26) social places for women, none of which were in Borno. Ten per cent of IDPs residing with host communities did not have identification documents. Ten per cent of IDPs in Borno did not have identification documents, this represents a 1 per cent increase compared with Round 26

Relations among IDPs were described as good in 93 per cent (reduced from 97% reported in Round 26) of sites. Excellent relations were reported in 8 per cent of sites (up from 3%). Similarly, relations with host communities were good in 96 per cent of sites and excellent in 3 per cent but were reported as poor in one per cent of sites, these are similar to figures observed in Round 26.

Fifty-six per cent of host communities had lighting in their sites though only 4 per cent of IDP sites said the lighting was adequate.

Figure 54: Main security providers in camps/camp-like settings

56%

21%

10%

5%

5%

1%

1%

Self organized

Military

None

Local Authorities

Police

Community Leaders

Religious Leaders

Figure 55: Security provided in host communities

19%2%4%4%6%

18%

81%98%96%96%94%

82%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

No Yes

24%

22%

20%

12%

12%

10%

Local Authorities

Police

Self organized

Military

Community Leaders

None

Figure 56: Main security providers in host communities

23


3. RETURNEES

The number of returnees went up by 64,850 to take the total number to 1,622,908 (or 265,649 households) from 1,558,058 returnees that were assessed in the last round of assessment conducted in January 2019.

An increase of 4 per cent was thus recorded in the number of returnees assessed during DTM Round 27 assessments in the most-affected north-eastern Nigerian states.

The number of LGAs assessed for returnees saw an increase from 39 to 40 during this round of assessment. But the number

continues to be less than the 41 LGAs that were assessed by DTM prior to the recent escalation of hostilities between the Government security forces and NSAGs. The LGAs that could not be assessed by any humanitarian actor as well as DTM enumerators during the assessment period include Guzamala, Kala/Balge and Kukawa.

The increase in the total number of returnees, however, is in line with the trend observed since the start of collection of returnees data by DTM in August 2015. The increase in returnees was most notable in the State of Yobe where 28,216 returnees were recorded (21% increase in Round 27 assessment as against Round 26), followed by Adamawa (2% increase) and Borno (3% increase – taking the total number of returnees in the state to 658,869).

During this round of assessment, in the state of Borno which is most adversely affected, DTM enumerators could access Nganzai LGA. This resulted in an increase of 9,905 returnees identified.Bama also witnessed an increase in the number of returnees by 22 per cent, bringing the total number of returnees in that LGA to 19,941. Gwoza, with 22 per cent increment, and Dikwa, with 15 per cent increase, were the other two LGAs that witnessed notable increases in returnees.

There was a slight increment in number of returnee refugees as compared to IDP returnees during this round of assessment. While 122,142 returnee refugees were recorded in the Round

26 DTM assessment conducted in January 2019, during this assessment, a 3 percent decrease in returnee refugees was recorded in the states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe.

Borno

Yobe

Taraba

BauchiAdamawa

Gombe

Plateau

Jigawa

Jigawa

Benue

Abadam

Guzamala

Marte

Kala/Balge

Inaccessible LGA

Cameroon

Niger Lake ChadKukawa

Returnees from Abroad

Returnee IDPs

Returnees Total by State

161,814

658,869

802,225

Chad2% from

Niger2% from

Cameroon4% from

Lake Chad

10%

94%

92%

6%

8%

±

161,814 658,869

802,225

90%

Map 6: Returned population by State

Figure 57: Returnee population trend

Mili

ons

262,324 320,365 332,333

389,224

599,164 663,485

910,955 958,549

1,039,267 1,099,509

1,151,427 1,234,894 1,257,911 1,268,140 1,307,847 1,329,428

1,386,229 1,441,099

1,549,630 1,580,093 1,642,696

1,558,058 1,622,908

58,041 11,968

56,891

209,940

64,321

247,470

47,594 80,718 60,242 51,918 83,467 23,017 10,229 39,707 21,581 56,801 54,870

108,531 30,463 62,603 84,638 64,850

-

-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

A U G - 1 5 O C T - 1 5 D E C - 1 5 F E B - 1 6 A P R - 1 6 J U N - 1 6 A U G - 1 6 O C T - 1 6 D E C - 1 6 J A N - 1 7 M A R - 1 7 M A Y - 1 7 J U N - 1 7 A U G - 1 7 O C T - 1 7 D E C - 1 7 J A N - 1 8 M A R - 1 8 M A Y - 1 8 J U L - 1 8 S E P - 1 8 J A N - 1 9 M A Y - 1 9

R 5 R 6 R 7 R 8 R 9 R 1 0 R 1 1 R 1 2 R 1 3 R 1 4 R 1 5 R 1 6 R 1 7 R 1 8 R 1 9 R 2 0 R 2 1 R 2 2 R 2 3 R 2 4 R 2 5 R 2 6 R 2 7

Total returnees Returnee population change from previous DTM assessment

Table 8: Change in returnee population by State

STATE R26 (January 2019)

R27 (April 2019)

Population Change

ADAMAWA 783,244 802,225 18,981 BORNO 641,216 658,869 17,653 YOBE 133,598 161,814 28,216 OVERALL 1,558,058 1,622,908 64,850

24


3A: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT FOR RETURNEES

While 39 per cent of returnees reported 2015 as their year of displacement, 29 per cent reported 2016.

Overall, 94 per cent (no change from the last round of assessment) attributed their displacement to the ongoing conflict in north-eastern Nigeria and 6 per cent returnees said they were displaced due to communal clashes.

3B: SHELTER CONDITIONS FOR RETURNEES

Borno has the highest number of returnees living in makeshift or emergency centers, with 67 per cent (up from 63%) of returnees living in these centers. Forty-eight per cent (up by 1%) of returnees in Borno reside in solid-wall buildings and 27 per cent (down from 34%) live in traditional shelters, such as Bukka, Gidan zana and thatched roof shelters.

3C: HEALTH FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

An assessment carried out in 679 sites hosting returnees (up from 665 sites assessed in last round of assessment) 65 per cent did not have any health facility. Figure 60 showsthe State-wide breakdown of available health facilities. Overall, there was a decrease in Primary Health Care Centre (14% drop), clinic (2% drop), mobile clinic (5% drop) and General Hospital (2% drop).

3D: EDUCATION FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

Education facilities were available in 50 per cent of sites assessed, with the corresponding figure for Borno at 55 per cent. In Borno, there were no education facilities in 45 per cent of sites (Figure 62). Ninety-three per cent of education facilities were functional.

3E: MARKET FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

Twenty-five per cent of sites where returnees have settled had markets nearby. In Borno, it was 26 per cent. Twenty-five per cent of markets were functional.

3F: PROFILE OF ASSISTANCE FOR RETURNEES

Out of the 680 sites assessed, returnees. Of the assistance proved, Non-Food Items were provided in 21 per cent of sites, followed by food in 14 per cent, water and sanitation in 11 per cent and health in 10 per cent of sites.

United Nations agencies were the main providers of assistance in majority of sites (23%), followed by local non-government

Figure 58: Year of displacement for returnees

Retu

rned

indi

vidu

als

Year of return

311,226

636,159

474,355

91,975 105,852

3,341

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9

Figure 60: Shelters conditions of the returned households in areas of return

52%

41%

7%

100%

26%

60%

14%

100%

24%

56%

21%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

OVERALL

No Damaged Partially Damaged Fully Damaged

Figure 59: Shelters type of the returned households in areas of return

44%

48%

8%

23%

67%

10%

63%

27%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

Wall Buildings Emergency/Makeshift shelters/Temporary structures Traditional Shelters

Figure 61: availability of medical services in areas of return

65%

22%

8%

3%

3%

None

PHCC

CLINIC

MOBILE CLINIC

GENERAL HOSPITAL

Figure 62: Availability of education services in areas of return

53%

45%

52%

50%

47%

55%

48%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

OVERALL

no yes

Figure 63: Availability of market services in areas of return

78%

74%

64%

75%

23%

26%

36%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

OVERALL

NO YES

25


organizations in 19 per cent of sites and international non-government organizations in 18 per cent of sites.

3G: WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) facilities were available in 75 per cent (an 11% decrease since the last round) of sites, while no WASH facilities were found in 25 per cent of sites.

The most common form of WASH assistance provided were communal boreholes (provided in 34% of sites – down from 37%), followed by handpumps (in 27% of sites - up from 24%), communal wells (11% - down from 19%) and public toilets (1% - down from 5%). On the other hand, 90 per cent of WASH facilities were functioning and catering to 708,407 returnees.

3H: LIVELIHOOD FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

Farming is the means of livelihood for the great majority of returnees with 94 per cent (up by2%) or 251,170 people. Petty trade and trading tied were both second important means of with 2 per cent returnees practicing either.

Access to farmland was high at 94 per cent (up from 92%). In Borno, 94 per cent of returnees had access to farm land.

Figure 64: Percentage of sites received by type of assistance

30%

21%

14%

11%

11%

6%

4%

2%

1%

None

NFI

Food

Wash

Health

Shelter

Livelihood

Education

Protection

Figure 65: Percentage of sites by WASH assistance provided

34%

27%

25%

11%

2%

1%

COMMUNAL BOREHOLE

HAND PUMPS

NONE

COMMUNAL WELLS

RIVER

PUBLIC TOILETS

Figure 66: State-wise breakdown of farmers with access to farmland

4%

6%

10%

6%

96%

94%

90%

94%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

OVERALL

NO YES

26


4. METHODOLOGY

The data collected in this report was obtained through the implementation of different DTM tools used by enumerators at various administrative levels. The type of respondent for each tool was different as each focuses on different population types:

TOOLS FOR IDPS

Local Government Area Profile - IDP: This is an assessment conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of information collected at this level focuses on IDPs and includes: displaced population estimates (households and individuals), date of arrival, location of origin, reason(s) for displacement and type of displacement locations (host communities, camps, camp-like settings, etc.). The assessment also records the contact information of key informants and organizations assisting IDPs in the LGA. The main outcome of this assessment is a list of wards where IDP presence has been identified. This list will be used as a reference to continue the assessment at ward level (see “ward-level profile for IDPs”).

Ward level Profile - IDP: This is an assessment conducted at the ward level. The type of information collected at this level includes: displaced population estimates (households and individuals), time of arrival, location of origin, reason(s) for displacement and type of displacement locations. The assessment also includes information on displacement originating from the ward, as well as a demographic calculator based on a sample of assessed IDPs in host communities, camps and camp-like settings. The results of the ward level profile are used to verify the information collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all wards that had previously been identified as having IDP populations in the LGA list.

Site assessment: This is undertaken in identified IDP locations (camps, camp-like settings and host communities) to capture detailed information on the key services available. Site assessment forms are used to record the exact location and name of a site, accessibility constraints, size and type of the site, availability of registrations, and the likelihood of natural hazards putting the site at risk. The form also captures details about the IDP population, including their place of origin, and demographic information on the number of households disaggregated by age and sex, as well as information on IDPs with specific vulnerabilities. In addition, the form captures details on access to services in different sectors: shelter and NFI, WASH, food, nutrition, health, education, livelihood, communication, and protection. The information is captured through interviews with representatives of the site and other key informants, including IDP representatives.

TOOLS FOR RETURNEES

Local Government Area Profile - Returnees: This is an assessment conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of information collected at this level focuses on returnees and includes: returnee population estimates (households and individuals), date of return, location of origin and initial reasons of displacement. The main outcome of this assessment is a list

of wards where returnee presence has been identified. This list will be used as a reference to continue the assessment at ward level (see “ward level profile for returnees”).

Ward level Profile - Returnees: The ward level profile is an assessment that is conducted at the ward level. The type of information collected at this level focuses on returnees and includes information on: returnee population estimates (households and individuals), date of return, location of origin and reasons for initial displacement. The results of this type of assessment are used to verify the information collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all wards that had been identified as having returnee populations in the LGA list.

Data is collected via interviews with key informants such as representatives of the administration, community leaders, religious leaders and humanitarian aid workers. To ensure data accuracy, assessments are conducted and cross-checked with a number of key informant. The accuracy of the data also relies on the regularity and continuity of the assessments and field visits that are conducted every six weeks.

27


The depiction and use of boundaries, geographic names, and related data shown on maps and included in this report are not warranted to be error free nor do they imply judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries by IOM.

Contacts:

NEMA: Alhassan Nuhu, Director, Disaster Risk Reduction,

[email protected]

+234 8035925885

IOM: Henry Kwenin, Project Officer,

[email protected]

+234 9038852524

http://nigeria.iom.int/dtm

https://displacement.iom.int/nigeria

Documents

DTM ROUND 27 DTM MAY 2019 Nigeria › sites › default › files › dtm › ... · by DTM Round, can be seen in Figure 1. Round 25 identified 2,026,602 IDPs which was in-keeping