Rapid Multi Sectoral Needs Assessment in Kukawa, Cross Kauwa and Doro Baga

Transcription

1 Rapid Multi Sectoral Needs Assessment in Kukawa, Cross Kauwa and Doro Baga November 2017 List of Contents Introduction and Methodology... 2 Main findings... 2 Kukawa... 2 Cross Kauwa... 4 Doro Baga... 6 Contact in Nigeria: Julian Zakrzewski, Country Director, julian.zakrzewski@acted.org Contact at HQ: Camille Chemin, Grants Manager, camille.chemin@acted.org

2 Introduction and Methodology The conflict in North-East Nigeria is now entering its ninth year, and the devastating consequences continue to impact community structures and the local population, especially vulnerable groups such as women and children. The latest Humanitarian Situation Update for North-East Nigeria released by OCHA in September 2017, indicates that 8.5 million women, girls, boys, and men are in urgent need of life-saving assistance. On 8 and 9 November, ACTED conducted a rapid multi-sector needs assessment in the villages of Kukawa, Cross Kauwa, and Doro Baga, all of which are located in Kukawa LGA of Borno State. The intention of this assessment was to gain a basic overview of humanitarian needs in parts of Kukawa LGA that are outside the more accessible town of Baga, and where the humanitarian presence is currently either limited or non-existent. The assessment was conducted through key informant (KI) interviews with Bulamas (traditional community leaders) in the assessed villages. 1 As time and access constraints for this rapid assessment meant that only two interviews could be conducted per village one with a Bulama representing the host community and one with a Bulama representing the IDP community findings should only be considered indicative, and information was unavailable for some assessed indicators. As such, these findings should serve as the basis for more detailed sector-specific or multi-sector assessments in the future, rather than as definitive conclusions. Main Findings Food security was reportedly the top priority sectoral need for in all three villages. It was also reported as the top priority need for the host population in Kukawa and Cross Kauwa. in Doro Baga were reportedly heavily reliant on food aid, but did not receive it in sufficient quantities to meet most households needs. Food assistance was reportedly last delivered in Kukawa 6 months ago, and NGOs previously operating in Cross Kauwa reportedly no longer operated there. Other than food security, the top three reported needs for both and host populations in all three villages usually included shelter, WASH, livelihoods, and health. KIs in all three villages expected additional IDP arrivals in the next month. Host populations reportedly did not have access to a market in Doro Baga, as the local market only sold fish. were reported to lack access to a market in both Doro Baga and Cross Kauwa. were estimated to most commonly live in makeshift shelters in all three villages. Around 20-35% were estimated to be living in collective centres, while abandoned or unfinished buildings were also reported as a common IDP shelter type. Host populations also faced vulnerabilities in terms of shelter, with the majority estimated to be living in solid finished houses only in Kukawa. There were reportedly no latrines in all three villages, with open defecation reported by all IDP KIs. Access to health services was reported to be limited in all three communities, with less than half of the host population and very few reportedly able to access needed health services. In Doro Baga, the one clinic present was no longer operational, and residents therefore had to travel to Baga to access health services. Kukawa Overall priority sectoral needs 1. Food security 1. Food security 2. Shelter 2. Shelter 3. Health 3. WASH 1 The questionnaire used is available upon request by partners. Page 2 of 8

3 Demographics and displacement Estimated current host community population: 4,000 Estimated current IDP population: 9,000 According to the IDP KI, around 6,000 lived in the Lawanti area of Kukawa, with a further 3,000 living in a field nearby. There were reportedly no major access restrictions into or out of the community, although routes were sometimes unsafe due to conflict. KIs reported that they did expect displacements into the community in the next month. Food security Although food security was reported as a top priority need for both and host populations, both population groups did have access to a market in the village. However, food from markets was reportedly too expensive for most of the population, and there were also issues with the quality and quantity of available food in these markets. Around 90% of the IDP population was estimated to be using coping strategies in response to a lack of food, including reducing the number of meals eaten per day and switching to less preferred but less expensive food items. For both and the host population, KIs reported rice, maize, and millet as the most needed food items in the community. The IDP KI reported that food assistance had last been delivered to the community 6 months ago by the ICRC, but that no aid had been received since then. Livelihoods The main livelihoods sources in the community were reportedly crop cultivation and the selling of firewood and charcoal. Both the IDP and host KIs reported that people often could not access the site of their livelihoods activities due to security concerns. The host KI additionally reported low wages and damage to livelihoods sites as barriers to livelihoods access. Shelter and NFIs Estimated breakdown of populations by shelter type 60% 30% 51% 16% 33% Solid finished house Makeshift shelter Unfinished/abandoned building Collective centre Estimated breakdown of populations by shelter occupancy status 90% 66% 34% Ownership Renting Hosted As shown in the graphs above, were estimated to live in far more vulnerable shelter types and shelter occupancy arrangements than the host population, with most living in makeshift shelters and one-third living in collective centres. However, it should also be noted that 40% of the host population were either living in makeshift shelters or unfinished or abandoned buildings, suggesting that there was shelter vulnerability amongst the host population as well. The most needed NFIs for both and host populations reportedly included bedding, water containers, and binding material/ropes. The host KI also reported mosquito nets as a top NFI need, while the IDP KI additionally reported kitchen utensils and clothing. 2 Firewood was the main cooking fuel in the community for both population groups, although charcoal was also sometimes used. 2 KIs could select up to 5 items. Page 3 of 8

4 WASH There was a significant difference in the reported access to water between the IDP and host populations, with 100% of the host population reportedly having sufficient access to water to meet household needs, but only 25% of the IDP population. KIs reported that the main drinking water source for both groups was boreholes, although springs were also sometimes used. The IDP KI reported that there were issues with the colour and smell of drinking water, and that distance and queuing times were problems during water collection. There were no latrines in the community, even though half of the host population and two-thirds of reportedly lacked access to toilets in their shelters, and KIs for both population groups reported that open defecation took place in the community. In addition, both KIs stated that garbage and sewage in the streets and contamination of food and people from rats and pests were common sanitation problems. were reported to most commonly burn their garbage, while the host population usually dumped it in open areas. Health There was reportedly one hospital and one primary health centre in Kukawa, with the host KI reporting that the following medical services were available: hygiene promotion; outpatient consultations; child immunisations; diarrhoea management; skilled care during childbirth; diabetes treatment; HIV treatment; mental health services. However, very few and less than half (25-49%) of the host population reportedly had access to healthcare. Further assessments may be needed to determine why access to healthcare is so limited despite the presence of a hospital offering a range of medical services. The most needed medical services for both and the host population reportedly included outpatient consultations and skilled care during childbirth, with the IDP KI additionally reporting diarrhoea management and the host KI additionally mentioning malaria treatment as top needs. Education Both KIs reported that there was access to primary but not secondary education, through formal government-run schools. However, school buildings were reportedly damaged, and there were insufficient teachers and school supplies. In addition, the IDP KI reported that children were unable to focus due to hunger. Cross Kauwa Overall priority sectoral needs 1. Food security 1. Food security 2. WASH 2. Livelihoods 3. Health 3. WASH Demographics and displacement Estimated current host community population: 15,000-18,000 Estimated current IDP population: 3,000-5,000 In Cross Kauwa, the IDP site was reportedly quite far from the host community, with the result that were often unable to access some of the services available to the host community. Approximately 10,000 members of the host population were reported to have left the community since the start of the conflict, mostly due to security concerns, of whom 8,000 had since returned. No access restrictions into or out of the community were reported, and KIs expected IDP arrivals in the next month. Food security The host population reportedly had access to a market in the town, although people faced security risks en route to the market, while, who lived further away, mostly relied on their own production as their main source of food. Approximately 80% of the host population were estimated to use coping strategies in response to a lack of food, most commonly switching to less preferred but less expensive food. 3 No humanitarian actors were reportedly present in Cross Kauwa, although KIs reported that ICRC had previously operated in the community. 3 Information was not available for the percentage of estimated to use coping strategies in response to a lack of food. Page 4 of 8

5 Livelihoods The main livelihoods activities for the host population were reportedly livestock rearing, casual wage labour, and the sale of firewood and charcoal, while mostly relied on crop cultivation and the sale of firewood and charcoal for their livelihoods. Both KIs reported that livelihoods access was impeded by security concerns preventing people from going about their activities, although the IDP KI also reported that there were not enough livelihoods opportunities. Shelter and NFIs Estimated breakdown of populations by shelter type 60% 15% 5% 60% 20% 15% 5% Makeshift shelter Solid finished house Unfinished/abandoned building Collective centre Tent Sleeping in open areas Estimated breakdown of populations by shelter occupancy status 70% 20% 40% 30% 20% Ownership Squatting without permission Squatting with permission Hosted Renting As shown above, the majority of both and the host population were estimated to be living in makeshift shelters, with only 15% of the host community reportedly living in solid shelters. Moreover, a quarter of were estimated to be either living in unfinished or abandoned buildings or sleeping in open areas. In terms of shelter occupancy arrangements, the host population mostly owned their shelter or land, while 70% of were reportedly squatting. The most needed NFIs for both and the host community reportedly included water containers, kitchen utensils, and clothing, with the host KI also citing mosquito nets and bathing soap, and the IDP KI mentioning bedding and binding material/rope, as priority NFI needs. 4 WASH According to KIs, both and the host community most commonly accessed drinking water from boreholes, with no issues being reported with taste, smell, or colour, although problems were reported with queuing times and distances to water points. Approximately 30% of the host community was estimated not to have sufficient access to water to meet household needs, with people reportedly travelling to further water points to cope with a lack of water. 5 were reported to cope with a lack of water by reducing the amount they drank water and bathed, and also by travelling to further water points. There were reportedly no latrines in the community for either host populations or, although 60% of the host community was estimated to have access to a toilet in their shelter. However, no were reported to have access to toilets, and open defecation was reported amongst the IDP population. Both KIs cited garbage and sewage in the streets and contamination of food and people from rats and pests as common sanitation problems, and stated that garbage was most commonly disposed of in open areas. Health reportedly had access to a mobile clinic, while the host KI reported that there were two primary health centres in the community, of which one was no longer operational. Both KIs reported that the following healthcare services were available: skilled care during childbirth; hygiene promotion; diarrhoea management; child immunisation. The host KI also stated that emergency care was available. Around half of the host population, and under half (25-49%) of were estimated to have access to healthcare. For, the most needed health services were reportedly hygiene promotion, diarrhoea management, and skilled care during childbirth. 4 KIs could select up to 5 items. 5 The percentage of with sufficient access to water was unavailable. Page 5 of 8

6 For the host community, outpatient consultation, blood pressure treatment, and skilled care during childbirth were the most needed services. Both KIs also stated that there had been outbreaks of malaria in the community in the past month. Education Both KIs reported that there was access to primary but not secondary education, through formal government-run schools. The host population also reportedly had access to a religious school. The host KI stated that school buildings were in good condition and there were no barriers to accessing education. However, according to the IDP KI, the school buildings accessible to were damaged, and barriers to education included the low quality of teaching and a lack of facilities such as furniture and toilets at schools. Doro Baga Overall priority sectoral needs 1. Livelihoods 1. Food security 2. Health 2. WASH 3. Shelter 3. Shelter Demographics and displacement Estimated current host community population: 10,000 Estimated current IDP population: 6,000 The IDP site was reportedly somewhat far from the host community in Doro Baga. Approximately 10,000 members of the host population were reported to have left the community since the start of the conflict due to security risks, of whom 6,000 had since returned. Both the host and IDP KIs reported that routes into or out of the community were sometimes unsafe due to conflict, with the host KI also stating that local authorities sometimes restricted movement to and from the community. In addition, KIs reported that additional IDP arrivals into the community were expected within the next month. Food security According to the IDP KI, were reportedly heavily reliant on NGO assistance to meet food needs, but food aid was reported to be distributed only once every three months and in quantities greatly insufficient to meet household needs. The host population was reported to rely on their own production as their main source of food. While there was a market in the community that was accessible to, the IDP KI stated that the market only sold fish, and other markets were too far away. The host KI also reported that people did not have enough money to buy from markets. All of the IDP population, and 75% of the host community, were estimated to be using coping strategies in response to a lack of food. Commonly used coping strategies reportedly included reducing meal size and reducing the number of meals eaten per day. Livelihoods Both KIs reported that the main livelihoods sources in the community were fishing, crop cultivation, and trade. Fishing was cited as being especially important for both population groups, although were reportedly often unable to access the areas where they fished, as local authorities believed that it was unsafe. Meanwhile, the host KI reported that those selling fish in the local market often could not find enough buyers, and that there was not enough available land for those cultivating crops. Shelter and NFIs Estimated breakdown of populations by shelter type 40% 40% 5% 5% IDP 40% 30% Makeshift shelter Collective centre Sleeping in open areas Tent Solid finished house Unfinished/abandoned building Page 6 of 8

7 Estimated breakdown of populations by shelter occupancy status 50% 45% 5% IDP 70% 30% Squatting without permission Hosted Ownership Squatting with permission Both IDP and host populations were estimated to be living in vulnerable shelter types and occupancy arrangements, with the host KI reporting that 40% of the population slept in open areas, and half were being hosted by friends or relatives. Further assessments may be needed to determine whether those in the host community facing vulnerable shelter conditions were usually returnees. Approximately 40% of both and the host population were estimated to be living in makeshift shelters, and 20% of were sleeping either in open areas or abandoned or unfinished buildings. The most needed NFIs for both and host populations reportedly included bedding, water containers, kitchen utensils, and clothing. The host KI also reported mosquito nets as a top NFI need, while the IDP KI additionally reported binding materials/ropes. 6 Firewood was the main cooking fuel in the community for both population groups, although KIs stated that charcoal and kerosene were sometimes also used. WASH Both and the host population reportedly relied on boreholes and unprotected wells as their main drinking water sources. The IDP KI reported that the entire IDP community had access to only one borehole, which had been built in the 1980s and could only meet the needs of a few households. Issues with the colour and taste of drinking water was reported for both and the host population, as were problems with both queuing times and distance to water points. Both KIs reported the use of reduced bathing as a coping strategy. reportedly also diverted expenditure towards water, while borrowing water from friends and relatives was also commonly used as a coping strategy in the host community. There were reportedly no latrines in the community for either host populations or, but 70% of the host community was estimated to have access to a toilet in their shelter. None of the IDP population were estimated to have access to toilets in their shelter, and the IDP KI reported that open defecation occurred in the community. Both KIs reported that garbage and sewage in the streets and contamination of food and people by rats and pests were common sanitation problems. The host population was estimated to most commonly burn their garbage, while usually dumped it in open areas. Health According to KIs, there was only one clinic in the community, which was no longer operational, so no health services were available. The IDP KI reported that there was a basic dispensary available for medical items, but none of the community could access medical services. Instead, residents had to travel to the nearby town of Baga for treatment. For, the most needed health services were reportedly surgery, malaria treatment, and skilled care during childbirth, while hygiene promotion and skilled care during childbirth were reported as the services most needed by the host community. Education A religious school and a government-run primary school were reportedly present in the community, but KIs reported that school buildings were damaged. In addition to damaged buildings, additional barriers to education cited by the IDP KI were low quality of education and overcrowding, while the host KI reported that routes to schools were sometimes unsafe. 6 KIs could select up to 5 items. Page 7 of 8

8 Conclusion and Recommendations Overall, the assessment showed high needs across multiple sectors in the three villages. Although findings can only be seen as indicative and should be followed by more in-depth assessments, the results confirm the level of need among communities located in close proximity to areas served by the humanitarian community. Based on the findings above, and in an effort to highlight the most urgent needs expressed by the own community and IDP key informants, ACTED has included below a list of recommendations that can help guide the humanitarian response in the months to come. Doro Baga: - Food distributions need to resume on a regular basis to cover food security needs and prevent communities from adopting or pursuing negative coping mechanisms. - Water supply systems need to be rehabilitated and new systems built to provide sufficient access to drinking water. - Latrines and showers need to be provided to the IDP community, as these communities resort to open defecation. - Emergency shelters and transitional shelters are needed for those with inadequate shelter conditions. Cross Kauwa: - Food distributions seems to be halted and needs to be resumed. Alternatively, cash or voucher responses need to be considered after further analysing the security situation, access to markets, and the market capacity. - Latrines and showers need be provided, especially for the IDP communities who opt for open defecation, increasing health risks and causing potential health problems amongst the community. Kukawa: - Food distribution needs to resume as communities are resorting to negative coping strategies to cope with food shortages. - Emergency shelters and transitional shelters, as well as non-food items, need to be provided to host and IDP communities. - The water supply for the IDP population is insufficient, requiring more water supply systems to be constructed or rehabilitated. - Latrines for the IDP community and host community should be provided. Page 8 of 8