Nigeria Round XIV Report January

Transcription

1 DTM Nigeria IOM OIM DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX (DTM) Tracking population movement to guide humanitarian response Nigeria Round XIV Report January 2017 The escalation of Boko Haram violence in 2014 resulted in mass displacement in northeastern Nigeria. To better understand the scope of displacement and assess the needs of affected populations in northeastern Nigeria, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) implemented its Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) program in September 2014 in collaboration with the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and the State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs). IOM s DTM is used in countries around the world to track displacement caused by natural disasters and conflict. The main objective of the DTM in northeastern Nigeria is to support the Nigerian government and humanitarian The DTM assessments were conducted from December 19, 2016 to January 25, 2017, in Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba, and Yobe states, covering 762 wards in 108 LGAs. In Borno, the epicentre Overview partners in establishing a comprehensive system to collect, analyze and disseminate data on internally displaced persons (IDPs) in order to provide assistance to the population affected by the insurgency. Staff from IOM, NEMA, SEMAs and the Nigerian Red Cross Society (NRCS) collect data in the field, including baseline information at Local Government Area (LGA)-level and ward-level and conduct detailed assessments in displacement sites, such as camps and collective centers, and host communities. IOM s DTM program is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Office (ECHO) and the Government of Germany. NEMA also provides financial support. of the conflict, the DTM has now partial access to 24 of the 27 LGAs in the northeastern state. Two additional LGAs in Borno were assessed during this round: Kala/Balge and Kukawa. Main features of DTM Round XIV Assessment Covered states Two Newly assessed LGAs ADAMAWA GOMBE BORNO YOBE KALA BALGE KUKAWA IOM-The United Nations Migration Agency 11 Haile Selassie Street Asokoro District- Abuja Nigeria iomnigeria@iom.int BAUCHI DTM assessment in Borno (most affected state with largest number of IDPs) 4 Yet to reach LGAs in Borno TARABA 27 LGAs in Borno Continued DTM assessment despite volatile security situations on the ground and poor road conditions. DTM had partial access to 23 of the 27 LGAs in the worst affected northeastern State of Borno

2 2 KEY HIGHLIGHTS Round XIV Figures 1,899,830 Displaced individuals 337,353 Displaced households December 2016 to January 2017: Total number of identified IDPs increased by 7.3% (129,386) individuals from last DTM round 7% Slight increase in the number of identifed returnees 1,099,509 from 1,039,267 in previous DTM round Returns 1,099,509 Returnees 168,915 Returnee households 56% of the IDP population are children (0-18 Years) Survey of unmet needs showed food is the predominant unmet need of IDPs 68.36% General Overview: Largest IDP populations are located in BORNO (79%), ADAMAWA (8%) and YOBE (6%) 97% of displacements were due to the insurgency Main unmet need 93% of the total IDP population Main cause of displacement Displacement Severity Map Relative Proportion of IDP Population Legend Inaccessible Area Assessed Area International Boundary Water Bodies 50, ,577 66% < 1000, 1% 1,001-5,000 5% 5,001-10,000 6% 10,001-50,000 22% Km aoua Zinder Matameye KANO BENUE Mirriah Gouré NIGER Magaria Yunusari Machina Mobbar Karasuwa Nguru Guzamala Dagana Bade Bursari Geidam Gubio Monguno Haraze Al Biar Nganzai Logone et Chari Jakusko YOBE Marte JIGAWA Tarmua Ngala Magumeri ZakiGamawa Mafa Dikwa N'Djamena Itas/Gadau Fune Jere Nangere Damaturu Katagum Maiduguri Jama'are Potiskum Damban Kaga Konduga Bama Shira Misau Gujba Giade BORNO Fika Warji Darazo Damboa Gwoza Mayo Sava Ningi Nafada Gulani Mayo-Boneye Biu Chibok Extrême-Nord Madagali Ganjuwa Dukku Funakaye Diamaré Askira/Uba Michika Mayo Tsanaga Kwami Mayo Danay Hawul Toro Kirfi Kwaya Kusar Gombe Bayo HongMubi North Bauchi Mayo Kani BAUCHI GOMBE Yamaltu/Deba Shani Gombi Akko Mubi South Dass Kaltungo Alkaleri Shelleng Mayo Louti Tafawa-Balewa Billiri Balanga Guyuk Song Maiha Mont Illi Lac Léré Bogoro Shomgom Lamurde Numan GireriADAMAWA Kabbia Mayo-Kebbi Ouest Karin-Lamido DemsaYola North Bénoué Mayo-Dallah Lau PLATEAU Yola South Mayo-Belwa Jalingo Fufore Yorro Zing Ardo-Kola Jada Nord Gassol Ganaye Ibi Faro Bali Mayo Rey Wukari TARABA Diffa N'Guigmi Maïné-Soroa Diffa Abadam Yusufari Toungo Donga Gashaka Faro et Déo Takum Kurmi Vina Ussa Adamaoua Nord-Ouest Sardauna Menchum Donga Mantung Mayo Banyo Djerem Mbéré Sud-Ouest Boyo Map 1: Displacement severity map of northeastern Nigeria Manyu Bui Lac Mamdi CAMEROON CHAD Kanem Kanem Wayi

3 1 As 1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTHEASTERN NIGERIA DTM Round XIV Report Round I II III IV V VI VI I VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV February States covered Adamawa, Bauchi, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe Abuja, Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Nasarawa, Taraba and Yobe Abuja, Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Kaduna, Nasarawa, Plateau, Taraba and Yobe Abuja, Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Gombe, Kaduna, Kano, Nasarawa, Plateau, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara. Abuja, Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Gombe, Kaduna, Kano, Nasarawa, Plateau, Taraba Yobe and Zamfara. Abuja, Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Gombe, Kaduna, Kano, Nasarawa, Plateau, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara Abuja, Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Gombe, Kaduna, Kano, Nasarawa, Plateau, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara Abuja, Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Gombe, Kaduna, Kano, Nasarawa, Plateau, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe of January 25, 2017, there are an estimated 1,899,830 IDPs (337,353 households) in Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. This represents an increase of 129,386 individuals (7 per cent) from 1,770,444 (311,478 households) IDPs identified in DTM Round XIII (Dec. 2016). This increase is primarily due to improvements in security in Borno, which has allowed stranded IDPs to move to safer Bkonni Madaoua Tahoua Groumdji Dakoro Maradi Madarounfa Map 2: IDP population by state Mayahi Four out of six northeastern states - Adamawa, Bauchi, Gombe, and Taraba - showed a downward trend in IDP numbers during the Round XIV assessments, in comparison to the last DTM. Improved security, the skyrocketing prices of house rentals and the need to return to farming or to take care of their belongings and property are factors that have pushed many IDPs in Adamawa, Bauchi, and Gombe to return home. In addition, the number of IDPs returning home usually increases in line with December s festive season. In Taraba, the decrease in communal clashes and the easing of ethnic tensions motivated some IDPs to return their places of origin. Aguié Tessaoua A total of 1,899,830 Displaced Individuals of the IDP population live in 31.2% camps and camp-like settings Internally Displaced Persons Inaccessible Area Assessed Area Waterbodies DISPLACEMENT places, where DTM teams were able to identify them. The vast majority of IDPs were identified in Borno (1,506,170), followed by Adamawa (147,528) and Yobe (112, 269). The return to relative safety in some of the areas previously held by Boko Haram also explains the increase in the number of returnees from 1,039,267 in DTM Round XIII to 1,099,509 this round. N'Guigmi Kanem Kanem Mirriah Gouré Diffa CHAD Maïné-Soroa NIGER Diffa Abadam Wayi Lac Mamdi Matameye Abadam Zinder Yusufari Mobbar Kukawa Magaria Yunusari Machina Mobbar Karasuwa Nguru Guzamala Bursari Guzamala Haraze Al Biar Bade Geidam YOBE Gubio Monguno Nganzai Marte Logone et Chari Jakusko113,014 Marte Tarmua Ngala Magumeri BORNO N'Djamena ZakiGamawa Mafa Itas/Gadau Dikwa Fune Kala/Balge Nangere Damaturu 1,506,170 Jere Maiduguri Jama'are Katagum Potiskum Damban Kaga Konduga Bama Shira Misau Gujba Giade Fika Warji Darazo Damboa Gwoza Mayo Sava Ningi Nafada Gulani Funakaye BAUCHI Biu Chibok Madagali Extrême-Nord Dukku Diamaré 56,829 Ganjuwa GOMBE Askira/Uba MichikaMayo Tsanaga Kwami Hawul Toro Kwaya Kusar Kirfi Gombe Bayo HongMubi North Bauchi Mayo Kani Yamaltu/Deba Shani Gombi Mubi South Akko Mayo Danay Dass 28,583 Alkaleri Kaltungo Shelleng Mayo Louti Tafawa-Balewa Billiri Balanga Guyuk Song Maiha Mont Illi Lac Léré Bogoro Shomgom Lamurde ADAMAWA Mayo-Kebbi Ouest Numan Gireri Karin-Lamido Demsa 147,528 Bénoué Mayo-Dallah Lau Yola South Mayo-Belwa Jalingo Fufore Yorro Zing Ardo-Kola Jada Nord Gassol Ganaye Mayo Rey Ibi Bali Faro CAMEROON TARABA Wukari 47,706 Toungo Map area Takum Ussa Donga Kurmi Gashaka Nord-Ouest Sardauna Menchum Donga Mantung Sud-Ouest Boyo Manyu Bui Mayo Banyo Faro et Déo Adamaoua Borno and Yobe saw an increase in the number of displaced persons who moved from their locations of displacement to safer places in nearby towns or cities. The population of IDPs in Borno is estimated to have increased by 135,290 during this round of assessments in comparison to those conducted for DTM Round XIII, published in December It is estimated that there are 1,506,170 displaced persons in Borno, in comparison of the figure of 1,370,880 estimated in the last round. Vina Djerem Mbéré Km

4 4 Total IDP population per round 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, , Dec 15-Feb 15-Apr 15-Jun 15-Aug 15-Oct 15-Dec 16-Feb 16-Apr 16-Jun 16-Aug 16-Oct 16-Dec 25-Jan DTM Round I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV Number of IDPs 389,281 1,188,018 1,491,706 1,385,298 2,150,451 2,239,749 2,151,979 2,241,484 2,155,618 2,066,783 2,093,030 1,822,541 1,770,444 1,899,830 Figure 1: IDP population per DTM round Change in IDP figures by state State ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Total Table 1: Change in IDP figures by state Round 13 Total Round 14 Total (November 2016) (January 2017) Difference Direction 152,618 57,114 1,370,880 28,980 48, ,269 1,770, ,528 56,829 1,506,170 28,583 47, ,014 1,899,830 5, , ,386 In Borno state, Monguno LGA saw the largest increase in IDP numbers, with an increase of 46,813 individuals. This increase is related to the movement of people from Soye, Kumshe, Gulumba, and Walasa to Bama and Banki towns. Dikwa LGA had the second largest increase in the number of IDPs with an estimated 45,906 people coming from Ala, Boboshe, Gudorom, Gajibo, Maiduguri, and Wufe. Likewise, movements of IDPs from newly accessible areas to the main town were observed in Konduga LGA. The increase in number of IDPs in Borno can also be attributed to the inclusion of two newly accessible LGAs of Kala/Balge and Kukawa which were assessed for the first time during the DTM Round XIV; 35,295 IDPs were identified in Kala/Balge and 14,063 IDPs in Kukawa.

5 5 Although the overall number of displaced persons have increased in Borno since the last round of DTM assessments, it is worth noting that some LGAs witnessed a decrease in IDP numbers. This is mostly due to people returning to their place of origin as a result of improved security situation. The most significant reduction in number of IDPs in Borno was recorded in the Maiduguri Municipal Council (MMC) where there was a decrease of 28,263 IDPs. However, with 445,314 IDPs, MMC continues to host the highest number of IDPs in the northeast, followed by Jere (335,765 IDPs). MMC, Chibok recorded the second highest decrease in number of IDPs as a result of displaced people going back to their villages. Yobe state also recorded increase in number of IDPs. This increase can be explained by the return of IDPs from other parts of Nigeria as well as from the Republic of Niger. It is also observed that IDPs are moving between LGAs to benefit from humanitarian assistance. Change in IDP population in Borno by LGAs State LGAs Number of Ind - Rnd XIII Number of Ind - Rnd XIV Difference Status BORNO ASKIRA / UBA 7,470 6, BORNO BAMA 29,550 31,992 2,442 BORNO BAYO 1,200 1, BORNO BIU 39,639 41,962 2,323 BORNO CHIBOK 10,194 7,995-2,199 BORNO DAMBOA 51,084 55,887 4,803 BORNO DIKWA 70, ,697 45,906 BORNO GUBIO 5,650 5, BORNO GWOZA 40,517 50,449 9,932 BORNO HAWUL 30,147 29,111-1,036 BORNO JERE 337, ,765-1,592 BORNO KAGA 15,335 19,308 3,973 BORNO KALA BALGE 0 35,295 35,295 BORNO KONDUGA 89,733 90, BORNO KUKAWA 0 14,063 14,063 BORNO KWAYA / KUSAR 2,342 2, BORNO MAFA 6,990 7, BORNO MAGUMERI 2,550 2,550 0 BORNO MAIDUGURI M. C. 473, ,314-28,263 BORNO MONGUNO 88, ,463 46,813 BORNO NGALA 61,761 63,623 1,862 BORNO NGANZAI 5,481 5, BORNO SHANI NEWLY ASSESSED NEWLY ASSESSED Table 2: Change in IDP population in Borno state by LGA

6 6 1.B DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Population profile (Demographic distribution of IDPs) FEMALE MALE 5) % 3.69% 7.49% 4) % 19.71% 36.49% 3) % 15.07% 28.05% 2) % 10.69% 19.23% 1)less than % 4.79% 8.74% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% Figure 2: Population profile (Demographic distribution of IDPs) % of Population In total, 79,654 people were interviewed to obtain a detailed and representative sample of age and gender breakdown. This sample represents 4 percent of the identified IDP population. The results show that 54% of the IDP population are female and 46% are male. Children under 18 make up 56% of the IDP population and 28% of them are under five years old. DEMOGRAPHICS 54% of the IDP population is female 8.7% of the IDP population are infants less than 1 year old 46% of the IDP population is male 7.5% of the IDP population is over 60 years 56% of the IDP population are children (0-18 years) 45% of children in the IDP population are male 55% of children in the IDP population are female

7 7 1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT BORNO 100% Insurgency Lake-Chad YOBE 100% Insurgency YOBE BORNO BAUCHI 70.12% Insurgency 29.88% Communal Clashes BAUCHI GOMBE ADAMAWA GOMBE 100% Insurgency ADAMAWA 99.07% Insurgency 0.93% Communal Clashes TARABA 26.96% Insurgency 71.23% Communal Clashes 1.81% Natural Disaster Displaced popula on by reason of displacement Insurgency, 1,846,636 (97.2%) TARABA Internally Displaced Persons 200,001-1,506, , ,000 50, ,000 1 cm = 71 Km Km Communal Clashes, 52,330 (2.75%) Natural Disaster, 846 (0.05%) Displacement by Insurgency Displacement by Communal Clashes Displacement by Natural Disaster 30,001-50,000 < 30,000 Map 3: Displacement by reason Most IDPs (97%) identified through the DTM assessments were displaced because of the insurgency. 3% were displaced due to communal clashes in the areas assessed. All the IDPs (100 percent) identified in Borno, Yobe and Gombe states were displaced by the insurgency. Also the insurgency is responsible for 99% of displacements in Adamawa, and 70% of displacements in Bauchi. In Taraba, the majority of IDPs were displaced as a result of communal clashes (71%). 1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT 1.11% 31.59% 33.39% Figure 3: Year of displacement 33.90% 1)Before )2014 3)2015 4)2016 Most IDPs were displaced in 2014 and 2015 (34% and 33% respectively). In Adamawa, 30% of people were displaced in 2014, 45% in 2015 and 25% in In Yobe, 63% of IDPs were displaced before or in 2014, 24% in 2015 and 13%in However, most people in Borno were displaced in 2016 (35%), while 34% were displaced in 2015 and 31% in 2014.

8 8 1E: ORIGIN OF THE DISPLACED POPULATION State of displacement State of origin ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Total ADAMAWA 68.97% 3.72% 0.08% 5.95% 3.98% 0.00% 5.72% BAUCHI 0.00% 12.39% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% BORNO 31.03% 39.56% 99.49% 59.45% 16.68% 49.95% 86.76% PLATEAU 0.00% 23.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.70% TARABA 0.00% 7.20% 0.00% 0.00% 78.65% 0.00% 2.19% YOBE 0.00% 12.73% 0.43% 34.59% 0.69% 50.05% 4.24% KADUNA 0.00% 0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% NASARAWA 0.00% 0.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% Grand Total % % % % % % % Table 3: Origin of the displaced population Location of origin of IDPs 2.51% 1.50% 7.77% 2.99% 79.28% 5.95% Figure 4: Location of origin of IDPs ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Out of the 1,648,200 IDPs in Borno (accounting for 87% of all IDPs), 99% were displaced internally within Borno State. Most IDPs displaced to Bauchi, Gombe and Yobe are also from Borno (40% of IDPs in Bauchi, 50% in Yobe, 59% in Gombe). Of the 108,633 IDPs from Adamawa, 69% were internally displaced within Adamawa, the others sought safety in Bauchi, Taraba, Gombe and Borno. 1F: DWELLING TYPE Figure 5: Type of dwelling Type of dwelling Displacement sites 31.16% Host Community 68.84% Settlement type State Host Community Camp/Camp-Like Settings Total ADAMAWA 135,964 11, ,528 BAUCHI 56,829 56,829 GOMBE 28,583 28,583 TARABA 42,981 4,725 47,706 YOBE 102,411 10, ,014 BORNO 940, ,175 1,506,170 Total 1,307, ,067 1,899,830 Table 4: Settlement type 69% of IDPs identified during the assessments live in host communities, with friends and relatives or in rented/donated houses. 31% live in displacement sites. In Borno, 62% of displaced people live in host communities and 37.5% are residing in displacement sites. 10% of IDPs in Taraba, 9% in Yobe and 8% in Adamawa are staying in displacement sites All IDPs in Bauchi and Gombe are dwelling with the host community.

9 9 1G: UNMET NEEDS Food NFI Medical services Shelter Drinking water Sanita on & Hygiene Security Water for washing and cooking Main unmet need (January 2017) 6.21% 5.96% 14.61% 1.79% 1.24% 0.75% 1.09% 68.36% Food continues to be the prevalent unmet need of more than half of the displaced people surveyed, in both camps and host communities. 60% people cited food as their biggest unmet need in this round, a decrease from 66 percent in the last DTM assessment. This was followed by non-food items (NFI), such as blankets and mosquito nets, with 21% of the displaced population citing NFIs as their most important unmet need. Medical services and shelter were both the unmet need for 7 percent people, while 1.9% felt water was needed most. Other unmet needs mentioned included sanitation and hygiene (1.1%) and security (1.4%). Figure 6: Main unmet need (January 2017) Trends in most unmet needs reported (August January 2017) 61.15% 65.73% 68.36% Drinking water 46.05% Food Medical services NFI None of the above 3.49% 10.04% 19.89% 10.88% 2.15% 3.22% 2.22% 2.05% 3.09% 7.23% 16.74% 0.56% 2.18% 0.66% 6.88% 1.52% 2.67% 7.13% 14.78% 0.56% 1.18% 0.62% 6.46% 0.87% 1.79% 6.21% 14.61% 0.00% 1.24% 0.75% 5.96% 1.09% Sanita on and Hygiene Security Shelter Water for washing and cooking Figure 7: Trends in most unmet needs reported (August January 2017)

10 2 DTM Round XIV Report February Return movements continue to be observed in the areas assessed. An estimated 1,099,509 returnees were identified in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe. Most returnees are originally from Borno (28%), followed by Adamawa (25%) and Gombe (9%). The LGAs with the highest increase in 2. RETURNEES number of returns were Chibok (up by 16,096 from zero), followed by Kukawa (up by 9,387 from zero), Dikwa (up by 6,956 from 2,200 in December 2016), and Askira/Uba (up by 3,053 from 158,360 in December 2016). The LGAs with biggest decrease in the number of returnees was Ngala (down by 3,750 from 37,277 in December 2016) and Monguno (down by 2,159 from 46,300 in December 2016). Number of returnees (October January 2017) 910,955 1,039,267 1,099, , , , , , ,224 Oct/15 Dec/15 Feb/16 Apr/16 Jun/16 Aug/16 Oct/16 Dec/16 Feb/17 Figure 8: Number of returnees (October January 2017) States/LGA Households Individuals Number of returnees by state and LGAs ADAMAWA 100, ,899 GOMBI 5,983 51,324 HONG 23, ,438 MADAGALI 11,813 59,065 MAIHA 6,634 55,656 MICHIKA 24, ,355 MUBI NORTH 15,066 91,214 MUBI SOUTH 13, ,847 BORNO 63, ,549 ASKIRA / UBA 19, ,360 BAYO 441 2,752 BIU 1,189 8,081 CHIBOK 2,430 16,096 DIKWA 1,545 9,156 GUBIO 5,895 27,715 GWOZA 2,003 12,033 HAWUL 1,665 11,560 KAGA 5,087 25,437 KONDUGA 5,409 29,253 KUKAWA 1,774 9,387 MAFA 1,172 7,169 MAGUMERI 1,741 9,360 MONGUNO 5,273 44,141 NGALA 6,120 33,527 NGANZAI 1,550 8,522 YOBE 5,265 36,061 GUJBA 3,428 22,286 GULANI 1,837 13,775 Total 168,915 1,099,509 Table 5: Number of returnees by state and LGAs

11 DTM NIGERIA Return Assessment SOURCE: DTM Round XIV DATE: January, 2017 NIGER Mobbar Abadam 9,387 Kukawa Lac Mamdi 1.12% from CHAD Wayi Guzamala Hadjer-Lamis Haraze Al Biar Dagana Gubio 27,715 44,141 Monguno Magumeri 9,360 8,522 Nganzai Mafa 7,169 Marte 9,156 33,527 Ngala Dikwa Logone et Chari Kaga 25,437 Konduga 29,253 Gujba 22,286 Gulani 13,775 Gwoza 12,033 Mayo Sava Bayo 2,752 Biu 8,081 Hawul 11,560 Gombi 51,324 Chibok 16,096 Hong Askira-Uba 158, ,438 91,214 59, ,355 Michika Mubi North 107,847 Mubi South Madagali Mayo Tsanaga 4.71% from CAMEROON Diamaré Mayo Kani Mayo Danay Returnees by States/Countries of Displacement 28.07% Maiha 55,656 Mayo Louti CAMEROON Lac Léré Mayo-Kebbi Est ± Mayo-Kebbi Ouest Mont Illi 25.27% Bénoué Mayo-Dallah 8.59% 7.90% 6.28% 5.87% 4.71% 3.24% 3.16% 2.91% 2.18% 1.12% 0.41% 0.17% 0.10% 1,099,509 Returnees Returned to Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States 64,151 (5.8%) Are Nigerian refugees from Chad and Cameroon. Return Area Inaccessible Area Waterbodies State Boundary Map 4: Returnees by state/countries of displacement

12 12 2A: SHELTER CONDITION OF RETURNEES The conditions of shelters in the areas of return remains remained largely unchanged since DTM assessments began in August % of the houses in the areas of return did not suffer any damage while 15.5% were partially burned. 2.5% of the houses in these areas are makeshift shelters. The proportion of partially-burned houses in Yobe (50%) is significantly higher than in the other states. SHELTER CONDITIONS IN AREAS OF RETURN 2.5% 15.5% Condition The vast majority of returns recorded (82%) in the current DTM round are in areas where shelters were not damaged during the period of displacement (as shown in the chart at the left). 81.9% No Damage Partially Damaged Makeshift shelter Figure 9: Shelter conditions in areas of return SHELTER CONDITIONS IN AREAS OF RETURN BY STATE AND NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD Adamawa Borno Yobe No. of HH % No. of HH % No. of HH % No Damage 86,332 86% No Damage 45,396 72% No Damage 2,543 48% Partially Damaged 12,750 13% Partially Damaged 14,050 22% Partially Damaged 2,643 50% Makeshift Shelter 1,479 1% Makeshift Shelter 3,643 6% Makeshift Shelter 79 2% Total 100, % Total 63, % Total 5, % 13% 1% 22% 6% 2% 86% 72% 48% 50% N O D A M A G E P A R T I A L L Y DAMAGED M A K E S H I F T S H E L T E R N O D A M A G E P A R T I A L L Y DAMAGED M A K E S H I F T S H E L T E R N O D A M A G E P A R T I A L L Y DAMAGED M A K E S H I F T S H E L T E R Figure 10: Shelter conditions in areas of return by state andd number of household

13 3 DTM Round XIV Report February 2017 Site Classifications Camp Open air settlements, usually made up of tents, where IDPs find accommodation 13 The site assessments for Round XIV were carried out in 180 displacement sites (camps, collective centers and transit sites) and 1833 locations in host communities in Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe States. The highest number of displacement sites were identified in Borno State (143), followed by Adamawa (20), Taraba (12), and Yobe (5). These sites were hosting a total of 592,067 individuals (109,157 households) at the time of the assessments. SITE ASSESSMENT The majority of sites were classified as collective settlements (149) and others as either camps (30) or transitional centres (1). The majority of displacement sites are classified as spontaneous (95%), while 5% are considered to be planned. In terms of land-ownership, 3% of the displacement sites are community-owned, 21% are private buildings and the majority of sites (76%) are owned by the Government. Collective Settlement Pre existing buildings and structures used for collective and communal settlements of the displaced population DTM NIGERIA Sites Assessment KEBBI SOKOTO KATSINA Camps 180 and camp-like settings KADUNA JIGAWA KANO BAUCHI YOBE GOMBE BORNO Transitional Centre Centers which provide short term/temporary accommodation for the displaced population OGUN OYO LAGOS 592,067 Individuals Have been identified to be living in camps and camp-like settings Niger Lake-Chad Chad KWARA FCT 109,157 Households XXX EKITI Camps and camp-like settings KOGI NASARAWA BENUE PLATEAU TARABA Camp Collective Settlement/Centre Transitional Centre ADAMAWA 12 Cameroon RIVERS ADAMAWA BORNO TARABA YOBE Map 5: Site assessment IDP site type Site type Camp Collective Settlement Transitional Centre Total Table 6: IDP site type Number Households Number of Percentage of Of sites (HH) individuals individuals 30 8,358 48, % , , % % , , %

14 14 Map 6: Site assessment In total, 1,833 locations were assessed in host communities: 420 in Adamawa, 323 in Bauchi, 334 in Borno, 150 in Gombe, 205 in Taraba and 401 in Yobe.

15 DTM Round XIV Report February B SECTORAL ANALYSIS Shelter & NFI Of the 180 displacement sites assessed, most are self-made tents (61), followed by government structures (24), camps made of tents (24) and schools (22). In host communities, the majority of displacement sites (72%) are located on private lands while 25% of locations are situated on territories owned by the Government of Nigeria. In 49 displacement sites (27%), less than 25% of IDP households are living outside. In 10% of location in host communities, less than 25% of IDP households do not have shelter. Main type of shelter in displacement sites Shelter Type Displacement Sites Host Communities Total Self-made tents Tents Government building School Individual house Community center Host family house Bunk houses Open lot 4 4 Health facility 3 3 No shelter 1 1 Grand Total Table 7: Main type of shelter in displacement sites In 31 displacement sites (camps and camp like settings), less than 25% of IDP households are living in tents, in 22 sites less than 50% are living in tents, in 21 sites more than 75% are living in tents, in 7 sites less than 75% are living in tents, and in 99 sites none of the IDP families are living in tents. In 336 locations in host communities, less than 25% of IDP households are living in tents, in 69 sites less than 50% are living in tents, in 20 sites less than 75% are living in tents, in 3 sites more than 75% are living in tents. In 1,405 none of the IDP families are living in tents. More than 75% of IDP households are living in self-made/makeshift shelters in 42 sites, 45 sites have less than 25% living in makeshift/self-made shelters, 31 sites have less than 50% IDP households living in such shelters, and 20 sites have less than 75% living in self-made/makeshift shelters. In 466 locations in host communities, less than 25% of IDP households are living in makeshift shelters, in 179 sites less than 50% of IDP household are living in the same kind of shelter, in 74 sites less than 75% of IDPs are living in makeshift shelters, in 51 sites more than 75% are living in these shelters and in 1,063, none of the IDPs are leaving in makeshift shelter. Most needed NFI Type of NFI Displacement Sites Host Communities Total Blankets/Mats 66.11% 50.85% 52.21% Kitchen sets 17.78% 19.48% 19.32% Mosquito nets 8.33% 16.75% 16.00% Plastic sheeting 3.33% 6.22% 5.96% Hygiene kits 0.56% 3.22% 2.98% Soap 2.22% 2.18% 2.19% Bucket/Jerry Can 1.67% 1.31% 1.34% Grand Total % % % 66.1 % of the displacement sites assessed in this DTM round reported that blankets are the most needed, non-food item. In both settings, kitchen sets are the second most needed type of NFI (17.8% in displacement sites and 19.5% in host communities). Table 8: Most needed NFI

16 16 WASH In the majority of locations in host communities (52%), hand pumps are the main source of drinking water. Pipped water is the main source of drinking water in 87 displacement sites (48%). The water was reported as potable in 87% of displacement sites but only in 57% of host community. In 68 displacement sites (37% of the total sites assessed) and in 754 locations in host communities (41%), IDPs have access to liters of water per person per day. The conditions of the toilets remain a problem across both categories of sites. In 156 displacements sites (86%) and 93% of host community sites, the condition of the toilets has been reported as unhygienic. This percentage was of 93% in host communities. Surface water Lake/dam Spring Ponds/canals Water truck Protected well Unprotected well Piped water supply Hand pumps 0.05% 0.00% 0.98% 1.67% 1.09% 0.00% 2.13% 0.00% 0.00% 5.02% 2.22% 3.33% 8.18% Figure 11: Main sources of drinking water Main sources of drinking water 11.78% 18.77% Burning was identified as the main means to dispose of garbage in 93 displacement sites and in 917 host communities. Garbage and solid waste problems were identified in 68% of the camps and 64% of host communities. There were reports of open defecation in 122 displacement sites and in 1,009 host communities. In 83% of camps and 82% of locations in host communities there was no drainage working on site. Camps/Camp-like se ng 44.44% 48.33% 51.99% Average amount of water available per person per day 2.22% 2.35% 29.44% 32.13% 37.78% 41.13% 30.00% 21.49% 0.56% 2.89% 51.67% 50.03% Main garbage disposal 24.44% 21.28% 23.89% 28.70% < 5 L T R > 1 5 L T R L T R L T R U N K N O W N Water potable Camps/Camp-like se ng Figure 12: Average amount of water available per person per day 40.44% 59.56% No Figure 13: Access to potable water Yes B U R N I N G G A R B A G E P I T N O W A S T E D I S P O S A L S Y S T E M Figure 14: Main garbage disposal Camps/Camp-like se ng

17 17 Food and Nutrition Of the 180 displacement sites assessed, 113 have access to food on-site (62%) and 43 have access to food off-site. 24 sites have no access to food. In host communities, 1,024 locations have access to food on site (56%). Access to food and frequency of distribution Frequency of food distribution 60.56% 61.27% Food distribution is irregular in 109 displacement sites (60%) and in 1,123 locations in host communities (61%). In 1,139 (62%) locations in host communities, farming is the most common source for obtaining food. In 65 displacement sites (35%), IDPs get food through distributions % 8.40% 12.78% 24.06% 3.33% 4.26% 3.33% 0.16% 2.78% 1.75% 0.56% 0.05% Camps/Camp-like se ng Screening for malnutrition was ongoing in 101 displacement sites (56%) but only in 464 (25%) locations in host communities. Blanket supplementary feeding for children was available in 49 displacement sites and only in 220 locations in host communities. Micronutrient powder distribution was recorded in only 25 displacement sites and in 151 locations in host communities Similarly, targeted supplementary feeding for lactating mothers was found in only 48 displacement sites and 171 host communities. Lastly, supplementary feeding for the elderly was found in only 9 displacement sites and 53 locations in host communities. Figure 15: Frequency of food distribution Targeted supplementary feeding for lactating mothers 73.33% 90.62% 26.67% Camps/Camp-like se ng 9.33% N O Y E S Figure 16: Targeted supplementary feeding for lactating mothers Screening for malnutrition 56.11% 43.89% 25.31% 74.63% Camps/Camp-like se ng Y E S N O Figure 17: Screening for malnutrition

18 18 Health Malaria is the most commonly reported health problem across both categories of sites (49%), reported by 92 (51%) displacement sites and 901 (49%) locations in host communities. Cough is the second most commonly reported health problem in displacement sites (31.7% sites), while fever (12%) which is the second most commonly reported issue in host communities (18% of locations). Most prevalent health problems 51.11% 49.18% 31.67% 17.98% 13.66% 11.67% 10.55% 6.01% 4.44% 1.11% 1.91% 0.27% 0.44% 163 displacement sites (91%) and 1,733 host community locations (95%) have access to health facilities. However, while the majority of displacement sites have regular access to medicine (63% of sites), only 46% of locations in host communities have access to medicine. In the majority of displacement sites, the main providers of health services are NGOs (25%) or INGOs (34%) whereas the Government is the main provider of services in 63% of host communities (1,152 locations). Figure 18: Most prevalent health problems Access to health facility 90.56% 94.60% Yes Displacement Sites Figure 19: Access to health facility 9.44% 5.40% No Displacement sites Local clinic None Government NGO Main health provider 22.00% 6.11% 5.29% 9.44% 62.88% 25.00% 5.46% 25.00% Host Communi es INGO 4.37% Displacement 34.44% Sites Figure 20: Main health provider Education Children have access to formal or informal education services in 180 displacement sites (88%) and in 1,746 locations in host communities (92%). However, in 51 displacement sites (28%) and in 534 locations in host communities (29%), less than 25% of the children are attending school. Access to education services 83.33% 95.25% 16.67% 4.69% N O Y E S Figure 21: Access to education services Camps/Camp-like se ng 29.13% Percentage of children attending school 35.24% 28.33% 24.44% 16.48% 18.33% 20.00% 10.15% 8.95% Camps/Camp-like se ng 8.89% <25% <50% <75% >75% None Figure 22: % of children attending school

19 19 Common types of occupation Livelihoods 62.08% Farming is the occupation of the majority of households in 29% of displacement sites and 62% of locations in host communities. In 27% of displacement sites, IDPs are engaged in daily labor and in 12% of sites, the majority collect firewood which is sold for money % 25.00% 14.78% 27.78% 14.24% 0.00% 3.55% 12.78% 2.35% 2.22% 2.29% 1.11% 0.65% 0.00% 0.05% 1.67% 0.00% The percentage of IDPs who have access to income generating activities is almost the same in displacement sites (80%) and in host communities (81%). In host communities, 1540 locations (84%) reported that there was access to land while 92 displacement sites (51%) have access to land. Camps/Camp-like se ng Figure 23: Common types of occupation Access to income generating activities Yes No 18.28% 19.44% 80.56% 81.67% Camps/Camp-like se ng Figure 24: Access to income generating activities Communication In most IDP sites, the radio remains the main source of information (42% of locations in host communities and 34% of displacement sites). In both settings, IDPs primarily request information about safety and security (42% of displacement sites and 33% of locations in host communities). In 23 out of 180 displacement sites and in 372 locations in host communities, respondents complained of serious problems due to lack of information Sources of information Authori es 2.07% 2.78% Site Management 0.38% 4.44% Mobile phone 10.56% 17.35% Families/Friends 17.24% 21.11% Local Leader 20.62% 26.67% Radio/news 34.44% Displacement Sites Figure 25: Sources of information 42.28% Serious problem due to lack of information 87.22% 12.78% 79.65% 20.29% Displacement Sites N O Y E S Figure 26: Serious problem due to lack of information

20 20 Protection Security is provided in the majority of the displacement sites (77.8%) as well as in the majority of location in host communities (78.9%). The main security providers in displacement sites are the IDPs themselves (34.4% of sites) followed by the military (28.9%). The security is provided by the local authorities in 20% of locations in host communities and by IDPs in 20% of locations. Frictions among residents have been reported in 88 locations in host communities and 16 displacement sites (camp and camp like settings). In addition, 83 of locations in host communities have reported cases of crime while frictions with host communities were reported in 78 locations. communities. Issues regarding children who are forced to beg or work are reported in 25 displacement sites and 252 locations in host communities. Incidents of physical and emotional abuse of children were reported in 13 displacement sites and in 78 locations in host communities. In 60 displacement sites, respondents reported that the assistance provided was insufficient to cover those eligible. In 177 locations in host communities, the assistance was inadequate for the most vulnerable. In 94 locations it was reported that non affected individuals were given assistance. Domestic violence is the most reported incident in both settings, reported in 35 displacement sites and 229 locations in host Yes No Security provided 21.1% 22.2% 77.8% 78.9% Camps/Camp-like se ng 34.4% 19.6% 28.9% 8.8% Main security providers on site 22.2% 21.1% 6.7% 20.1% 13.5% 15.9% 3.3% 3.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% Figure 27: Security provided Camps/Camp-like se ng Figure 28: Main security providers on site Common types of security incidents Common types of GBV cases Type Displacement Sites Grand Total None 132 1,295 1,427 Friction anmong site residents Theft Alcohol/drug-related disturbance Crime Armed conflict 3 3 Friction with host community Type Displacement Sites Grand Total Domestic violence Exchange of goods/food for sex None 136 1,514 1,650 Rape/attempted rape Sexual abuse Sexual harassment/molestation Unknown Grand Total 180 1,833 2,013 Table 9: Common types of security incidents Grand Total 180 1,833 2,013 Table 10: Common types of GBV cases

21 21 METHODOLOGY Local Government Area Profile (IDP) An assessment is conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of information collected at this level includes: displaced population estimates (households and individuals), time of arrival of IDPs, location of origin, reasons of displacement and type of displacement locations. The assessment also captures whether IDPs originated from the LGA and records contacts of key informants and organizations assisting IDPs in the LGA. The main outcome of this assessment is the list of wards where IDPs are present. This list is used as a reference to continue the assessment at ward level. Local Government Area Profile (Returnees) An assessment is conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of information collected at this level includes: returnee population estimates (households and individuals), time of return, location of origin and initial reasons of displacement. The main outcome of this assessment is the list of wards where are present. This list is used as a reference to continue the assessment at ward level. Ward level Profile (IDP) Assessments are conducted at ward level. The type of information collected at this level includes: displaced population estimates (households and individuals), time of arrival of IDPs, location of origin, reasons of 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 IDPs in host communities and camp-like settings. The results for the wards are used to verify the information collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all wards identified as having IDP populations in the LGA list. Ward level Profile (returnee) Assessments are conducted at ward level. The type of information collected at this level includes: returnee population estimates (households and individuals), time of return, location of origin and reasons of initial displacement. The results for the wards are used to verify the information collected through at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all wards identified as having returnee populations in the LGA list. Site assessments: The site assessments are 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, whether registration is available, and if natural hazards put 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 with a breakdown by age and sex, as well as information on IDPs with specific vulnerabilities. Furthermore, the form captures details on key 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. Data are 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 various key informant. The accuracy of the data also relies on the regularity of the assessments and field visits which are conducted every six weeks.

22 22 DEFINITIONS POPULATION CATEGORIES IDP: For the purpose of this exercise, an IDP is a person who left his place of origin in anticipation or as a consequence of natural disaster, communal clashes and insurgency. Returnee: For the purpose of this exercise, a returnee in considered to be a former IDP who has returned to the home he was living in before being displaced. DISPLACEMENT SITES IDP Camps: Settlement with 5 or more households. Collective Centre: Pre-existing building hosting displaced populations including schools, government facilities, religious buildings, unfinished buildings, etc. Transitional Centre: Locations which serve as a temporary accommodation for displaced persons in transit until they are moved to another place. Locations in Host Community: IDPs in host communities who are living with relatives or friends or in rented/donated houses. Locations in host communities are identified as per commonly accepted locations/names in each of the visited

23 Omoyemi DTM Nigeria Humanitarian Aid And Civil Protec on Contacts: International Organization for Migration (IOM) Henry KWENIN, DTM Project Officer National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) Alhassan NUHU, Director, Disaster Risk Reduction Additional information on IOM Nigeria products can be found on: