Nigeria Multi-Sector Needs Assessment (MSNA)

WASHSeptember 2018

BORNO STATE

1

SECTORAL INDEX / SEVERITY METHODOLOGYTwo composite indices were created to estimate levels of needs among assessed households in accessible areas. The severity score indicates how severe the need of a household was in a given sector, with 0 representing no needs and 10 representing the maximum reported needs. The sectoral index of needs shows households scoring four or greater on the severity scale, which are then categorised as being in need of sectoral support.

Below is the list of all indicators feeding into the WASH sectoral composite index, with their corresponding weights, used to generate the sectoral severity scale and sectoral index of need.

Sector Indicator Weighting

WASH

HH is without access to any improved water source 2

HH has access to less than 15 litres per person per day 3

HH is without access to a functioning latrine 2

HH reports spending more than 30 minutes to collect water 2

HH reports that there is no soap in the HH 1

% of households in need of WASH support

Severity of needs in WASH sector

Borno

Yobe

Adamawabe

BIU

BAMA

DAMBOA

KONDUGA

KUKAWA

MAFA

ABADAM

KAGA

MAGUMERI

MARTE

GUBIO

GWOZA

MOBBAR

DIKWA

HAWUL

NGANZAI

NGALA

CHIBOK

SHANI

GUZAMALA

ASKIRA/UBA

MONGUNO

BAYO

JERE KALA/BALGE

KWAYA KUSAR

MAIDUGURI

N I G E RC H A D

C A M E R O O N

0 25 50 75 km

Borno StateAccessible Areas (assessed)Inaccessible Areas (unassessed)

²

ASSESSMENT COVERAGE

12+88I 44+56IReturnees Returnees

11+89I 46+54IIDPs IDPs

11% 4.6

12% 4.4

15+85I 46+54INon-Displaced Non-Displaced

15% 4.6

For more information on this factsheet, please email:

reach.nigeria@reach-initiative.org

(1) OCHA (February 2018) Nigeria 2018 Humanitarian Needs Overview.

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGYDespite the increase in the number of humanitarian actors responding to the crisis in north-eastern Nigeria, humanitarian needs continue to grow as the conditions of civilians displaced by the violent nine-year conflict remain dire. The conflict between armed opposition groups (AOGs) and Nigerian and regional security forces has resulted in 10.2 million affected people including remainees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), returnees and populations in hard-to-reach areas. These groups are largely congregated in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe, the three most affected states in north-east Nigeria.1 Information gaps persist, which complicate the humanitarian community’s capacity for action grounded in verifiable evidence and effective coordination.

Amidst this context, and within the coordination framework of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) and its Inter-Sector Working Group (ISWG), REACH facilitated a multi-sector needs assessment (MSNA) in all accessible areas of the most affected northeastern states of Nigeria. Indicators and questions used in the assessment were developed with all relevant sectors, validated and endorsed by the ISWG. This assessment, funded by the European Union Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (ECHO), was conducted from 25 June to 6 August 2018 through a total of 10,606 household (HH) surveys and 1,481 key informants interviews in 63 Local Government Areas (LGAs) of the three north-eastern states.

4,710 HH surveys were collected in accessible areas of Borno state with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 10% unless stated otherwise. The results presented are statistically representative at the state level for each of the population groups assessed.

2

WASHMSNA | NIGERIA

ACCESS TO WATER AND SOAP

% of HHs reporting that they did not have enough water to cover their basic needs in the 30 days prior to data collection:2

% of HHs who did not have the Sphere standard of 15L of water, per person, per day to cover their basic needs:4

ReturneesIDPsNon-displaced

11% 13% 9%

Top 3 reported issues by HHs, when fetching water for daily use:3

Top 3 reported coping strategies used by HHs, when they did not have enough water to meet their needs:3

Returnees

Returnees

Returnees

IDPs

IDPs

IDPs

Non-displaced

Non-displaced

Non-displaced

37% Long queue time at water point 48% Long queue time

at water point 43% Long queue time at water point

37% Long distance to water point 36% No issue

reported 42% Long distance to water point

29% No issue reported 29% Long distance to

water point 31% No issue reported

41% Reduce water consumption 36% Reduce water

consumption 39% Reduce water consumption

33% Fetch water farther away 34% No strategy

reported 37% Fetch water farther away

23% No strategy reported 20% Fetch water

farther away 27% No strategy reported

51+49I 27+73I 29+71I51% 27% 29%

% of HHs reporting sources of water used in the 30 days prior to data collection for drinking, bathing and cooking:3

Water source type Water source

Improved Water Source

Borehole / tubewell 47% 69% 55%

Public tap / standpipe 16% 27% 20%

Piped into dwelling or plot 2% 0% 2%

Handpump 6% 16% 22%

Protected well 9% 3% 6%

Protected spring 1% 0% 0%

Water truck 7% 3% 1%

Sachet water 0% 0% 0%

Unimproved water source

Surface water 7% 1% 6%

Unprotected well 12% 2% 6%

Unprotected spring 3% 0% 1%

Unprotected rainwater tank 6% 1% 3%

Water vendor/Mai moya 28% 10% 11%

% of HHs reporting the perceived quality of the water coming from the main source of drinking water:2

79+18+3+0

79%18%

3%0%

GoodAverageBadNo response / Don’t know

87+12+1+0

87%12%

1%0%

86+12+2+0

86%12%

2%0%

IDPs ReturneesNon-displaced

% of HHs reporting whether they treated the water that they used for drinking:

3+8+65+22+2

3%8%

65%22%

2%

Yes, alwaysYes, sometimesNo, water is cleanNo, no method toNo, Other / No response / Don’t know

10+11+72+6+110%11%72%

6%1%

11+8+71+10+011%8%

71%10%

0%

IDPs ReturneesNon-displaced

% of HHs by time required to collect water, inclusive of travel and waiting time:

27+28+23+14+5+1+227%28%23%14%

5%1%2%

At shelter, no travel< 15 minutes15-30 minutes31-59 minutes1-2 hoursMore than 2 hoursNo response / Don’t know

22+32+23+16+4+1+2

22%32%23%16%

4%1%2%

17+35+27+12+6+3+0

17%35%27%12%

6%3%0%

IDPs ReturneesNon-displaced

% of HHs needing more than 30 minutes to collect water for their daily use (inclusive of travel and waiting time):4

ReturneesIDPsNon-displaced

20+80I 21+79I 21+79I20% 21% 21%

(2) This indicator reflects HH perception and not actual assessment of the quantity or quality of water.(3) Respondents could select multiple answers.(4) Based on the 2018 Sphere Handbook. Retrieved from: https://handbook.spherestandards.org/

3

WASHMSNA | NIGERIA

Top 3 reported ways HHs disposed of garbage in the 30 days prior to data collection:

WASTE MANAGEMENT

ACCESS TO LATRINES

% of HHs reporting not having soap in their current location:

% of HHs reporting that the latrine they accessed was separated by sex:

Returnees

Returnees

IDPs

IDPs

Non-displaced

Non-displaced

41+59I

11+89I

57+43I

71+29I

53+47I

77+23I

41%

11%

57%

71%

53%

77%

% of HHs with access to a functioning latrine:

94

94%

5%

1%

0%

Yes, access to a functioning latrineNo, open defecation in bushNo, open defecation indesignated area

No response / Don’t know

88%

8%

4%

0%

89%

10%

1%

0%

IDPs ReturneesNon-displaced5 8 10

1 4 1

0 0 0

88 89Main type of latrine accessed by HHs:

ReturneesIDPsNon-displaced

Traditional latrine (pit) Traditional latrine (pit) Traditional latrine (pit)

Main reported reason for HH member not accessing or using latrine:

ReturneesIDPsNon-displacedLatrine hole too big, not safe for children

Latrine hole too big, not safe for children

Latrine hole too big, not safe for children

Top 3 reported categories of HHs members who cannot use or access a latrine:5,6

ReturneesIDPsNon-displaced

93% Infants (< 5 y.o.) 96% Infants (< 5 y.o.) 91% Infants (< 5 y.o.)

3% People suffering from chronic illness 6% Male children 5% Adult men

3% Adult men / women 3% Adult women 5% Adult womenAbout REACHREACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions. REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our country office: reach.nigeria@reach-initiative.org.Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us on Twitter: @REACH_info and Facebook: www.facebook.com/IMPACT.init

ReturneesIDPsNon-displaced

22% Dedicated site, burned 22% Dedicated

site, burned 23% Dedicated site, burned

21%Dedicated site, left in the open

16%Disposed at home, left in the open

16%Dedicated site, left in the open

17%Disposed at home, left in the open

13%Dedicated site, left in the open

15%Dedicated site, collected by public authorities

If collected, % of HHs reporting the frequency of disposed garbage collection in the 30 days prior to data collection:

12+56+23+5+4

12%56%23%

5%4%

DailyOnce a weekOnce a fortnightOnce a monthOther / No response / Don’t know

32+51+13+4+0

32%51%13%

4%0%

62+37+1+0+0

62%37%

1%0%0%

IDPs ReturneesNon-displaced

(5) This indicator reflects only a subset of the population assessed - therefore results should be considered indicative only.(6) Respondents could select multiple answers.