DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

DTM Nigeria DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX Round XVIII Report - August 2017 Nigeria IOM 2017 (Photo: Tope Omoyemi) IOM OIM

Table of Contents Execu ve Summary... 2 Background... 2 Overview: DTM Round XVIII Assessments... 2 Key Highlights... 4 1. BASELINE ASSESSEMENT OF DISPLACEMENT... 5 1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTHEAST NIGERIA... 5 1B: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA... 7 1C: REASON FOR DISPLACEMENT... 7 1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT... 7 1E: MOBILITY............ 8 1F: LOCATION AND ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS...... 8 1G: DWELLING TYPE OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS... 9 1H: UNMET NEEDS OF IDPs... 9 2. RETURNEES... 10 2A: SHELTER CONDITION OF RETURNEES... 10 3 SITE ASSESSMENTS... 11 3A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPs... 11 3B: SECTOR ANALYSIS... 12 SHELTER... 12 NON-FOOD ITEMS... 13 WASH... 14 FOOD AND NUTRITION... 18 HEALTH... 19 EDUCATION... 20 COMMUNICATION... 21 LIVELIHOOD... 22 PROTECTION... 23 4 METHODOLOGY... 25 1

Executive Summary This report of the Round XVIII Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) assessment by the Interna onal Organiza on for Migra on (IOM) aims to improve understanding of the scope of displacements, returnees and the needs of affected popula ons in conflict-affected states of northeast Nigeria. The report covers the period of 25 July to 15 August 2017 and includes the six most-affected States of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. Round XVIII iden fied 1,757,288 individuals as displaced in the affected states, represen ng a decrease of 68,033 persons compared to the popula on of 1,825,321 that was iden fied in Round XVII (June 2017). This is in-line with the earlier decrease of 59,010 persons which was recorded in Round XVI (May 2017). The number was arrived at through data collected by different DTM tools used by enumerators at various administra ve levels, i.e., at Local Government Areas (LGAs), wards and displacement sites. For insights into demographic profile of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), reasons for displacement, changes in the percentages of displaced persons over me, origin, dwelling types, mobility and unfulfilled needs, 66,080 displaced people in this round of assessment. This sample represents four per cent of the iden fied IDP popula on. To be er understand the needs of the affected popula on, this report includes site assessments that were carried out in 2,174 sites. The sites included 241 camps and camp-like se ngs and 1,933 loca ons where IDPs were residing with host communi es. This report also presents an analysis of sector-wise needs and response including shelter and non-food Items, water sanita on and hygiene, food and nutri on, health, educa on, livelihood, protec on and communica on. Lastly, this report includes assessments of increasing number of returnees and their shelter condi ons. Background The escala on of Boko Haram violence in 2014 resulted in mass displacement around north-eastern Nigeria. To be er understand the scope of displacement and assess the needs of affected popula ons, IOM began implemen ng its DTM programme in September 2014 in collabora on with the Na onal Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and the State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs). The main objec ve of ini a ng DTM programme in north-eastern Nigeria was to support the Nigerian government and humanitarian partners by establishing a comprehensive system to collect, analyse and disseminate data on IDPs in order to provide assistance to the popula on affected by the insurgency. In each round of assessment, staff from IOM, NEMA, SEMAs and the Nigerian Red Cross Society collate data in the field, including baseline informa on at LGA and ward-levels, by carrying out detailed assessments in displacement sites, such as camps and collec ve centers, and in host communi es where IDPs were living during the repor ng period. IOM s DTM programme is funded by the United States Agency for Interna onal Development (USAID), the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protec on Office (ECHO), the Swedish Interna onal Development Coopera on Agency (SIDA) and the Government of Germany. NEMA also provides financial support. Overview: DTM Round XVIII Assessments Round XVIII of DTM assessments were conducted from 25 July to 15 August 2017 in Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe states, covering 776 wards (an increase from 772 in June round and 767 in May round, showing a steady increase in coverage owing to the improved security situa on) in 109 LGAs. In Borno, the epicentre of the conflict, DTM con nued to have par al access to 25 LGAs out of the 27 LGAs in the north-eastern state, i.e., an increase of one LGA -- Guzamala -- since last round. For the first me since the escala on of the conflict, DTM was able to assess two wards in Guzamala LGA. The LGA has been inaccessible due to security situa on so far. DTM also assessed one addi onal ward in Kukawa LGA. Only two other LGAs, namely Abadam and Marte, now remain completely inaccessible to the humanitarian community in Borno. 2

Katsina Kano Kaduna Kaduna Niger Jigawa Abadam Yusufari Mobbar Machina Yunusari Karasuwa Nguru Guzamala Kukawa Bade Bursari Bade Geidam Gubio Jakusko Monguno Nganzai Marte Tarmua Yobe Magumeri Ngala ZakiGamawa Jere Mafa Itas/Gadau Nangere Fune Damaturu Maiduguri Dikwa JamaareKatagum Potiskum Damban Kaga Konduga Shira Bama GiadeMisau Fika Gujba Warji Darazo Gwoza Ningi Nafada Damboa Gulani Gombe Ganjuwa Dukku Biu Chibok Madagali Funakaye Askira/Uba Kwaya Kusar Michika Toro Bauchi Kirfi Kwami Bayo Hawul Mubi rth Bauchi Yamaltu/Deba Hong Shani Gombi Akko Mubi South Dass Kaltungo Alkaleri Tafawa-Balewa Billiri BalangaShelleng Song Maiha Guyuk Bogoro Shomgom Adamawa Lamurde Girei Numan Karim-Lamido DemsaYola South Plateau Lau Yola rth Mayo-Belwa Fufore JalingoYorro Zing Ardo-Kola Jada Borno Chad Lake Chad Cameroon ± ± Nasarawa Ibi Wukari Gassol Taraba Bali Toungo Ganye Donga Benue Cross River Takum Ussa Kurmi Gashaka Sardauna 0 25 50 100 Km Accesibility Fully accessible Partial accessibility Inaccessible Map 1 : DTM accessibility map Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round State I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI Abuja - - - - - - - - - Adamawa Bauchi Benue - - - - - - - - - - - Borno - Gombe Kaduna - - - - - - - - - - Kano - - - - - - - - - - - Nasarawa - - - - - - - - - Plateau - - - - - - - - - - Taraba Yobe Zamfara - - - - - - - - - - - Total 5 6 6 6 8 10 13 13 13 13 13 6 6 6 6 6 Round XVII - - - - - - Round XVIII - - - - - - - - 6 6 Figure 1: DTM round and number of states covered 3

DTM Round XVIII Report August 2017 KEY HIGHLIGHTS Round XVIII Figures 1,757,288 Displaced individuals 322,931 Displaced households 1,268,140 Returnee individuals 56% of the IDP popula on are children (0-18 Years) 200,786 Returnee households 5 of the IDP popula on are female June to August 2017 Total number of iden fied IDPs decreased by 68,033 () individuals from last DTM round The number of iden fied people who have returned to their places of usual residence increased by 10,229 () individuals from last DTM round Survey of unmet needs showed that food remains the predominant need in majority (7) of IDP sites General Overview Largest IDP popula ons are located in (7), () and (6%) 96% of displacements were due to the insurgency Returnees Predominant Need 9 of the total IDP population Main cause of displacement IDPs and Returnees Caseload Profiling Total IDPs & Returnees 3,025,428 IDPs 1,373,564 Borno 1,885,155 1,757,288 139,362 511,591 Refugee Returnees 110,787 806,164 Gombe 27,339 106,736 666,802 Taraba 54,676 Bauchi Adamawa 55,611 89,747 Yobe 196,483 Figure 2: DTM Nigeria IDPs and Returnees Caseload Returnees 1,268,140 4

1 BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT 1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH-EASTERN NIGERIA As of 15 August 2017, the es mated number of IDPs in Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe was 1,757,288 (322,931 households), represen ng a decrease of 68,033 persons or four per cent compared to the popula on of 1,825,321 iden fied in Round XVII (June 2017), as shown in figure 1 below. This decrease is in line with the decreasing trend noted over the last two rounds. The chief drivers of mobility were people returning to their places of origin and or searching for be er livelihood opportuni es. Other reasons for the changes in numbers included the reloca on of Nigerians from neighbouring Cameroon and more areas becoming newly accessible on account of improved security. 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 - Dec-14 Feb-15 Apr-15 Jun-15 Aug-15 Oct-15 Dec-15 Feb-16 Apr-16 Jun-16 Aug-16 Oct-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Mar-17 May-17 Jun-17 Aug-17 Figure 3: IDP population per round of DTM assessment I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII Table 1 shows the change in IDP figures by state from Round XVII in June to Round XVIII in August 2017. All states except Taraba saw a decrease in the number of IDPs hosted. Borno: Despite the reduc on in Borno, the state con nues to host the highest number of IDPs in Nigeria. Within Borno, the biggest reduc on was recorded in Maiduguri M.C. which saw an 11 per cent decrease in the number of IDPs against the previous round. 36,975 IDPs le Maiduguri M.C. for Damboa, Dikwa, Gwoza, Kala Balge, Kukawa, Mafa, Mobbar, Monguno and Ngala. The second highest reduc on in IDP numbers (25,133) was noted in Dikwa LGA. Gwoza Round XVII Total Round XVIII Total State (June 2017) (August 2017) Change 140,875 139,362-1,513 56,359 55,611-748 1,439,940 1,373,564-66,376 27,985 27,339-646 52,961 54,676 +1,715 107,201 106,736-465 Total 1,825,321 1,757,288-68,033 Table 1: Change in IDP figures by state LGA saw the highest increase in the number of IDPs (4,110) due to returns from Cameroon and the movement of people in Pulka/Bokko wards of Gwoza LGA. Adamawa: The State of Adamawa hosts the second highest number of IDPs with 139,362 displaced persons, a minor reduc on since the number of 140,875 reported in the last round. Within Adamawa, the LGA with the highest number of displaced persons was Michika with 26,179 persons. Followed by Madagali (18,515) and Girei (15,888). Yobe: Yobe had the third highest concentra on of IDPs at 106,736. The state capital of Damaturu hosts the highest number of IDPs at 19,524, a slight decrease from June round on account of people returning to their places of origin. The second highest concentra on of displaced persons in Yobe was in Gujba (18,832) followed by Po skum (15,006). Taraba: The only state that witnessed an increase in number of IDPs was Taraba, where an es mated 54,676 displaced people were iden fied compared to 52,961 in the last round. The increase was a ributed to communal clashes that affected Bali, Sardauna and Takum LGAs. The LGA with the highest number of IDPs in the state was Wukari. 5

Niger Kano Jigawa Abadam Yusufari Kukawa Yunusari Machina Mobbar Karasuwa Nguru Guzamala Barde Borsari Geidam Gubio Monguno Lake Chad Jakusko Nganzai Marte Borno Yobe Tarmua Ngala Magumeri ZakiGamawa Mafa Itas/Gadau Fune KondugaJere Dikwa Kala-Balge Nangere Damaturu Maiduguri Jama'AreKatagum Potiskum Damban Kaga Konduga Bama Shira Giade Misau Gujba Fika Darazo Warji Damboa Gwoza Ningi Nafada Gulani Chibok Biu Madagali Ganjuwa Dukku Funakaye Askira-Uba Gombe Michika Kwami Hawul Toro Kwaya Kusar Kirfi Bayo HongMubi rth Bauchi Bauchi Yamaltu/ Deba Shani Gombi Mubi South Akko Dass Alkaleri Kaltungo Shelleng Tafawa-Balewa Billiri Balanga Cameroon Guyuk Song Maiha Bogoro Shomgom Larmurde Adamawa ± Numan Girei Karim Lamido DemsaYola rth Plateau Lau Yola South Mayo-BelwaFufore JalingoYorroZing Ardo-Kola Jada Nasarawa Ibi Gassol Bali Ganye Wukari Teungo Inaccessible area Benue Donga Taraba Takum Kurmi Ussa Gashaka Sardauna IDPs_Severity Less than 1,000 1,001-5,000 5,001-10,000 10,001-50,000 0 35 70 140 Km More than 50,000 Map 2: LGA level displacement severity map 6

DTM Round XVIII Report - - August 2017 1B: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA A detailed and representa ve sample of age and gender breakdown was obtained by interviewing a sample represen ng four per cent of the iden fied IDP popula on. The results are depicted in figure 4 and 5. The average household size consisted of five persons. Age category 60+ 18-59 6-17 1-5 less than 1 3.79% 3.6 17.1 19.9 12.90% 14.8 8.46% 10.7 3.8 4.7 Male, 46% Female, 5 % popula on by gender Male Female Figure 4: IDP population by major age groups and gender Figure 5: % of IDP population by gender 1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT The percentages and reasons for displacement remained more or less unchanged over me. Insurgency was the leading cause of displacement in all states except Taraba where community clashes accounted for 75 per cent of displacements. All the displacements in Borno, Gombe and Yobe were due to the ongoing conflict. 3 Figure 6: cause of displacement 7 9 6 2 Community clashes Insurgency Natural disasters Niger Katsina Jigawa Kano Nassarawa Benue Cross River 8 Gombe Bauchi 1 8 Taraba Plateau Yobe 1 9 46% 5 Adamawa Abadam 0 80 160 40 Km IDPs Lake Chad Marte Borno Cameroon ± IDPs in Camps & Camp-like settings IDPs with Host Communities Inaccessible areas Less than 30,000 30,001-60,000 60,001-120,000 More than120,000 1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT Map 3: Number of IDPs by state Taraba and Borno, in that order, con nue to have high number of displacements in 2017 as well. In Borno, the percentage of peopled displaced so far in 2017 went up to 15 per cent from 12 per cent (as per Round XVII, June). 3 2 2 4 4 3 2 3 29% 2 3 1 29% 2 19% 1 1 1)Before 2014 2)2014 3)2015 4)2016 5)2017 46% 1 3 6% Figure 7: Year of arrival of IDPs 7

1E: MOBILITY Displacement sites: Many IDPs had been displaced more than once. In 94 (39%) displacement sites, IDPs were displaced before. Thirty-four per cent had been displaced twice, four per cent three mes and one per cent had been displaced four mes. Almost all (98 per cent) IDPs intended to return to place of origin. IDPs intended to stay where they were in only one per cent of sites. Displacement in host communi es: Of 1,933 sites in host communi es, IDPs had been displaced previously at 522 (26%) sites. IDPs reported being displaced twice (2), or three mes () and remaining had not been displaced previously. Ninety-three per cent said they intended to return to their place of origin, six per cent said they want to stay where they were and remaining did not know. 1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS Borno con nued to be the state of origin for highest propor on of displaced people, followed by Adamawa and Yobe. The state of displacement for majority of the displaced people is within Borno itself. State of origin ADAMAW A JIGAW A KADUNA NASARAW A PLATE AU State of displacement ADAMAW A 62. 69% 36. 7 0.56% 3.6 37. 6 0.7 26. 6 16. 4 0.0 0.46% 99. 5 7.49% 62. 06% 30. 4 9.4 15. 30% 75. 2 39. 3 60. 6 Figure 8: Current location and place of origin of IDPs Total IDP Popula n (1,757,288) 1 5. 0. 85. 2. 5. 0. PLATEAU Figure 9: % of total IDP population by state of origin 8

1G: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS While majority of IDPs con nue to reside with host communi es, Borno has almost as many IDPs living with host communi es as in camps (figure 11 and 12). 9 Camp 3 Host Community 6 5 8 8 46% 1 1 Figure 10: IDP settlement type Host Community Figure 11: IDP settlement type by state Camp 1H: UNMET NEEDS OF IDPs Food con nues to be the main unmet need in IDP se lements (figure 14) and the need for food has been steadily increasing (figure 13). Rnd 18-Aug 2017 7 1 Rnd 17-Jun 2017 6 1 Rnd 16-May 2017 70% 6% 1 6% Rnd 15-Mar 2017 69% 16% 6% Rnd 14-Jan 2017 6 6% 1 6% Rnd 13-Dec 2016 66% 1 Rnd 12-Oct 2016 6 1 Rnd 11-Aug 2016 4 10% 20% 1 Potable water Food Medical services NFI Sanita on and Hygiene Security Shelter Water domes c use Figure 12: Trend of main IDP needs Food NFI Shelter Medical services Drinking water Water for washing and cooking Sanita on and Hygiene Security Figure 13: Main needs of IDPs 1 7 9

2. RETURNEES The trend of increasing numbers of returnees con nued in DTM Round XVIII assessment. A nominal increase of one per cent was recorded in the number of returnees (from 1,257,911 to 1,268,140) during Round XVII in June 2017. The increase was in-line with the increasing trend since DTM started recording data on returnees in October 2015. Adamawa once again recorded the highest number of returnees (666,802), followed by Borno at 511,591 and finally Yobe at 89,747. Within Adamawa, the LGA with the highest number of returnees was Hong (166,476), followed by Michika (124,280) and Mubi South (110,550), in line with the results of the last round of assessments. Niger Jigawa Bauchi Yobe 1 8 Gombe 2.7 from Niger 89,747 10% Borno Abadam 509,947 9 Adamawa Marte 90% 0.9 from Chad Lake Chad Chad 4.2 from Cameroon Cameroon ± In Borno, the LGA with the highest number of returnees was Askira/Uba at 164,768, followed by Konduga (45,056) and Ngala (37,442). In Yobe, the LGA with highest number of returnees was Gujba (35,838), followed by Geidam (29,572) and Gulani (17,221). In comparison with the last round of assessment, the LGA with the highest increase in absolute number of returnees was Hawul and the LGA with the highest number of decrease was Damboa, both in Borno. Taraba Map 4: Number of returnees by state 664,633 666,802 90% Returned IDPs Returned regugees Inaccessible area Returnees Total Per State 89,747 509,947 666,802 State Round XVII Total (June 2017) Round XVIII Total (August 2017) Change Adamawa 666,077 666,802 725 Borno 504,016 511,598 7,582 Yobe 87,818 89,747 1,929 Total 1,257,911 1,268,140 10,229 Table 2: Number of returnees by state (Round XVII vs Round XVIII) 262,324 320,365 332,333 389,224 599,164 663,485 910,955 1,026,481 1,099,509 1,151,427 1,234,894 1,257,911 1,268,140 Oct-15 Dec-15 Feb-16 Apr-16 Jun-16 Aug-16 Oct-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Mar-17 May-17 Jun-17 Aug-17 VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII 2A: SHELTER CONDITION OF RETURNEES Figure 14: Trend of population return Shelter condi ons of 200,786 returnees, which is 16 per cent of the total iden fied popula on of returnees, were assessed. Seventy six per cent shelters were not damaged, twenty per cent were par ally burned and four per cent were makeshi shelters. Borno had the highest propor on of returnees residing in makeshi shelters, followed by Adamawa and Yobe. Damage 9,142 4,050 313 20% 76% Par ally Burned Makeshi Shelter 55,831 88,410 23,355 4,992 13,113 1,580 Damage Par ally Burned Makeshi Shelter Figure 15: Return shelter condition Figure 16: # of returnees by shelter condition and state 10

3 SITE ASSESSMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS 3A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPs DTM Round XVIII site assessments were conducted in 2,175 sites, involving a popula on of 1,757,288 people (322,931 households). The sites included 242 camps and camp-like se ngs and 1,933 loca ons where IDPs were residing with host communi es. Assessments in camps and camp-like se ngs iden fied 658,841 displaced people (down by State Camp/camp-like se ngs Sites in host communi es # sites % sites # IDPs # sites % sites # IDPs Adamawa 21 9% 9,750 434 22. 129,612 Bauchi 0 0 0 324 16. 55,611 Borno 194 80% 629,502 389 20% 744,062 Gombe 0 0 0 159 8. 27,339 Taraba 14 5. 6,383 218 11. 48,293 Yobe 13 5. 13,206 409 21. 93,530 Total 242 658,841 1,933 1,098,447 Table 3: % and number of IDPs by states one per cent since the last assessment), while the assessment in sites where IDPs resided with host communi es iden fied 1,098,447 IDPs (down five per cent since the June assessment). Table 3 below shows the number and percentage of camp/camp-like sites and number of IDPs residing in these sites, by states. Displacement sites: Seventy per cent of displacement sites were classified as collec ve se lements or centers. Twenty-nine per cent were camps and one per cent were classified as transi onal centers. Almost all assessed sites (96 per cent) were classified as spontaneous, only three per cent were planned and one per cent of sites were earmarked as reloca on sites. Of the 242 sites, 50 per cent were on public or government owned land and almost an equal number were on private owned land. Of the 1,933 sites where IDPs were residing with host community, 92 per cent were privately owned, six per cent were public or government owned and two per cent were ancestral. Shelter 218 24 Livelihood 235 7 Food Protec on Educa on 123 204 220 119 38 22 146 96 Health 161 81 WASH 173 69 Figure 17: Availability of services at displacement sites in camps/camp-like settings Figure 18: Availability of site management committee on site 11

3B: SECTOR ANALYSIS SHELTER Camps/camp-like settings The assessment in camps and camp-like se ngs showed that self-made shelters are the most common forms of shelter in 33 per cent of sites, followed by emergency shelters and school building, with 28 per cent and 11 per cent respec vely. Other forms of shelter include host-family houses, government buildings, individual houses, community centers and Bunk houses. In Borno, 36 per cent of IDPs were residing in self-made tents (same as last round), 32 per cent in emergency shelters, 12 per cent in school buildings, seven per cent in host family house, six per cent in government buildings and five per cent in individual houses. Self-made/makeshi shelter Emergency shelter 2 3 3 5 6% 36% 1 School 1 3 Host family house Government building Individual house Community center Bunk houses 10% Figure 19: Most common forms of shelter in camps/camp-like settings 1 3 3 10% 2 19% 1 19% Figure 20: Most common forms of shelter in camps/camp-like settings by state Self-made/makeshi shelter Host family house School Bunk houses Individual house Community center Government building Emergency shelter Host Communities In 89.5 per cent of sites where IDPs were living with host communi es, residing in a host family house was the most common shelter arrangement for IDPs. Thirty-one per cent of IDP households residing with host communi es had no access to electricity, 27 per cent of sites had less than 25 per cent of IDP households with access to electricity, 22 per cent of sites had less than 50 per cent of displaced families with access to electricity. Host family house Individual house Self-made/makeshi shelter Government building Emergency shelter 8.6% 1. 0. 0. 89. Figure 21: Most common forms of shelter in host community 12

In Borno, 88 per cent of IDPs were residing with host family, while eight per cent respec vely resided in individual house and self-made/makeshi shelters. In Adamawa, 87 per cent resided with host families, 12 per cent resided in individual houses and one Most Common type of Shelter Community center Bunk houses Emergency shelter Government building Table 4: Most common forms of shelter in host communities by state Selfmade/makesh i shelter Individual house Host family house 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 8 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 8 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 7 0% 0% 0% 0% 9 per cent resided in government building. In Yobe nearly all displaced persons (94 per cent) were residing with host families. Five per cent resided in individual houses and only one per cent were living in self-made or makeshi shelters. In Gombe, all the IDPs were residing with host families. In Bauchi 95 per cent of the IDPs were residing with host families and five per cent resided in individual houses. In Taraba the majority of the IDPs, 74 per cent were living with host families and 25 per cent lived in individual houses. Shelter material was needed in 88 per cent of all IDPs but it was needed most in Yobe (93 per cent), followed by Borno (90 per cent), Adamawa (81 per cent) and Taraba (64 per cent). Of all shelter materials, tarpaulins were most needed by 58 per cent of all displaced persons and Borno had highest number of IDPs seeking tarpaulins (66 per cent). The second most needed item was mber/wood (40 per cent). NFI n-food Items (NFIs) Camps/camp-like settings Out of 242 sites assessed, IDPs at 101 camps/camp-like se ngs requested blankets and mats. At a state level, blankets/mats were the most needed non-food items (NFIs) by 67 per cent of displaced households in Adamawa, followed by 43 per cent in Taraba, 39 per cent in Borno and 38 per cent in Yobe. Thirty-one per cent of IDPs in Borno said their most needed NFI was mosquito nets. Blankets/Mats Mosquito nets Kitchen sets Bucket/Jerry Can Hygiene kits Plas c shee ng Soap 20% 29% 4 Figure 22: % of camps/camp-like settings by most requested top priority NFI Host Communities Among 1,933 sites hos ng IDPs in host communi es, blankets/mats, kitchen sets and mosquito nets figured as the most common requested NFIs. 5 Blankets/Mats Mosquito nets Kitchen sets Hygiene kits Bucket/Jerry Can Soap Plas c shee ng 2 Figure 23: % of host community sites by most requested top priority NFI 3 36% 3 2 36% 3 2 3 30% A D A M A W A B O R N O T A R A B A Y O B E G O M B E B A U C H I Blankets/Mats Bucket/Jerry Can Hygiene kits Kitchen sets Mosquito nets Plas c shee ng Soap Figure 24: Most requested top priority NFI by state 13 0% 6% 3 2 0% 0% 3 3 40% 2 2 1 26% 2 0% 0%

WASH Water sources Camps/camp-like settings Most common source of water in displacement sites con nued to be hand pumps with most sites receiving an average of 10 to 15 liters of water per person per day. Though majority of sites reported improvement in water points, most residents were not differen a ng between drinking and non-drinking water. 13 2 3 1 18 109 60 1 5 1 57 14 7 93 1 7 5 39 <5 ltr >15 ltr 10-15 ltr 5-10 ltr 6 2 5 3 1 10 5 2 3 11 Hand pumps Water truck Protected well Spring Unprotected well Figure 26: Average amount of water available per person per day in camps/camp-like settings 98 96 Piped water supply Lake/dam Figure 25: Most common source of water among people living in camps/camp-like settings 3 10 8 6 12 9 improvement Improved Figure 27:Number of sites reporting improvement to water points in camps and camp-like settings 1 12 28 10 3 6 28 166 188 2 19 17 4 4 10 Potable t potable 11 3 10 Figure 28: Number of camp/camp-like settings with potable water Figure 29: Number of camps/camp-like settings where IDPs differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water 14

Host Communities Hand pumps remained the main source of drinking water with current percentage at 56% in host community displacement loca ons, this is followed by piped water supply at 20%. Unprotected well is the main non-drinking water source in 3 of the loca ons while hand pumps with 2 is the second main source of non-drinking water. 1 3 1 105 9% 6% 5 76% 28 9% 1 3 1 19% 1 4 1 6 1 9% Bauchi Gombe 9% 39% Figure 30: Most common source of water among people living in host communities Lake/dam Protected well Spring Water truck Unprotected well Ponds/canals Piped water supply Hand pumps 2 19% 3 2 4 60% 5 39% 4 6 3 2 2 2 10% 2 2 1 Figure 31: Average amount of water available per person per day in host communities 7 6 70% 80% 7 6% 7 <5 ltr >15 ltr 10-15 ltr 5-10 ltr Unknown 29% 3 30% 20% 2 2 improvement Improved 80% 20% 6 3 A D A M A W A B O R N O T A R A B A Y O B E G O M B E B A U C H I Figure 32: % of host community settings reporting improvement to water points 7 2 Bauchi 2 7 Gombe 29% 3 6 20% 30% 70% 7 Potable 29% 7 Bauchi 4 5 Gombe 80% t potable 3 Figure 33: % of host community settings with potable water 4 59% 69% Figure 34: % of host community settings where residents differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water 15

Personal Hygiene Facili es Camps and camp-like settings A dip was noted in the number of separate toilets for males and females in this round of assessment, down from 94 to 71 per cent. separate bathing areas were provided in 69 per cent (down from 93 per cent) of sites and toilets/bathrooms did not lock from inside in 53 per cent (down from 85 per cent) of sites. 1 86% 7 29% 10% 86% 7 2 86% 9 46% 5 Good (Hygienic) n usable t so good (t hygienic) Figure 35: Conditions of toilets in camps/camp-like settings Figure 36: % of sites reporting evidence of handwashing practice in camps/camp-like settings 46% 5 2 9 Bauchi Gombe 7 3 6 3 4 2 3 6 1 2 50% 4 0% A D A M A W A B O R N O T A R A B A Y O B E 4 5 59% but no soap/water inside Burning Garbage pit waste disposal system Figure 38: Main method of solid waste disposal in camps/camp-like settings Figure 37: % of camps/camp-like settings with availability handwashing facilities 4 5 4 56% 9 5 46% Figure 39: Open defecation evidenced in camps/camp-like settings 16

Host Communities In host communi es, 96 per cent (same as the last round) of toilets were rated as not so good. Availability of handwashing facili es, soap and evidence of prac ce also consistent with last round findings. 9 9 9 96% 9 9 9% 70% 30% 9 9 6% 9 7 6% 2 Good (Hygienic) n usable t so good (t hygienic) Figure 40: Conditions of toilets in host communities Figure 41: Evidence of handwashing practice in host communities 2 9 Bauchi 79% 30% 69% Gombe 9 56% 20% 2 6 30% 36% 1 4 6 19% 20% 4 1 40% 6 1 1 3 9 A D A M A W A B O R N O T A R A B A Y O B E G O M B E B A U C H I 96% 59% ne Burning Garbage pit waste disposal system but no soap/water inside Figure 43: Solid waste disposal in host communities Figure 42: Availability of handwashing facilities in host communities 6 76% 3 2 3 40% 59% 6 6 60% 4 3 Figure 44: Open defecation evidenced in host communities 17

FOOD AND NUTRITION Camps and camp-like settings Cash (49 per cent) and food distribu on (43, up from 38 per cent in previous round of assessment) were the main sources of obtaining food in camps/camp-like se ngs. Only five per cent of IDPs said they were cul va ng. Borno had almost equal percentage of people relying on cash and food distribu on with 48 per cent each, while 4 per cent relied on cul vated food. Table 5: Frequency of food distribution in camps/camp-like settings In 69 per cent of sites, screening for malnutri on was reported. blanket supplementary feeding of children was reported by 49 (down from 56) per cent of displaced persons, no distribu on of micronutrient powders was evidenced in 65 (down from 72) per cent of sites, no supplementary feeding for the elderly was reported in 88 (down from 91) per cent sites and no supplementary feeding for pregnant and lacta ng women was reported in 64 per cent of sites. In 32 (up from 24) per cent of sites, counselling on infant and young child feeding prac ces was found. Host Community 10% 1 State Every 2 weeks Everyday Irregular Never Once a month Once a week Twice a week - 3 16 1 1 - - 5 1 140 7 34 6 1 - - 9 5 - - 5-6 1 1 Figure 45: Access to food in camps/camp-like settings Malnutri on screening was reported in 30 per cent of assessed sites in host communi es. Blanket supplementary feeding was not evidenced in 81 per cent of sites, supplementary feeding for lacta ng and pregnant women was not seen in 89 per cent of sites, counselling on infant and young child feeding prac ces was not evidenced in 87 per cent of sites, micronutrient powder distribu on was not observed in 84 per cent sites and supplementary feeding for the elderly was not found in 97 per cent of sites. 36% 86% 8 9 6, off site, on site 2 2 9 5 7 80% 5 4 6 79% 9 1 1 76% 1 8 4 2 1 8, off site, on site Figure 46: Access to food in host communities 3 2 1 3 1 A D A M A W A B O R N O T A R A B A Y O B E G O M B E B A U C H I Everyday Irregular Never Twice a week Once a month Once a week Figure 47: Frequency of food distribution in host communities 18

Health Camps and camp-like settings All except seven sites in Borno reported access to health facili es (figure 58) but a significant propor on report lack of available medicine (figure 67). Malaria is the most common health problem in the greatest number of sites in all states except Yobe which reports fever as the most common health problem in seven of fi een sites (Figure 66). 70% 56% 5 4 76% 6 3 2 6 7 1 1 0% 1 10% 1 3 10% 0% 6% 2 1 6% 6% 9% 1 0% 0% 29% 1 7 8 A D A M A W A B O R N O T A R A B A Y O B E G O M B E B A U C H I Cough Diarrhea Fever Malaria Malnutri on RTI Skin disease ne Figure 48: Most common health problem in camps/camp-like settings by state Figure 49: % of camps/camp-like settings reporting availability of medicine for IDPs settings 6 1 19% 96% 20% 5 2 50% 4 5 2 1 Figure 50: Access to health facility in camps/camp-like settings Government INGO Local clinic NGO ne Figure 51: Main health providers in camps/camp-like settings Host Community 1 9% 1 1 70% 6 1 6 8 39% 1 10% 1 56% 39% 6 6% 6% 76% 3 5 10% 6% 2 4 1 Cough Diarrhea Fever Malaria Malnutri on RTI Others Figure 52: Most common health problem in host communities 2 4 5 7 5 49% Figure 53: % of host community settings reporting availability of medicine for IDPs 19

6 2 9 69% 3 9 99% 9 96% 5 6 3 6 2 1 9% 0% 3 59% 16% 1 Figure 54: Access to health facility in host community settings Government INGO Local clinic NGO ne Figure 55: Main health providers in host community settings Education Camps/camp-like settings The high costs associated with school was the biggest deterrent to children a ending schools, with 70 per cent ci ng as the main cause. While 13 per cent of displaced persons said lack of school was the cause for out of school children. N O 9 Y E S 77 75 Figure 56: Access to education in camps/camp-like settings 5 39 37 3 14 <2 <50% <7 >7 ne Figure 57: % of children attending school in camps and camp-like settings 0% <10 km <5 km Unknown <2 km <1 km Figure 58: Distance of nearest education facility in camps/camp-like settings Host Communities Among IDPs residing with host communi es also 73 per cent of displaced persons said that the main reason for children not a ending school was the high costs and fees involved. 3 5 1 9 >10 km <10 km Unknown <5 km <2 km <1 km Figure 59: Distance of nearest education facility in host community settings N O Y E S Figure 60: Access to education in host community settings 20

Communication Camps/camp-like settings significant change was no ced around the findings under communica on against the last round of assessment. 1 6% 7 Radio Word of Mouth Telephone voice call Community mee ngs Figure 61: Main sources of information in camps/camp-like settings Distribu on Safety and Security Situa on in areas of origin Other relief assistance Access to services Registra on Shelter How to get informa on How to contact aid providers Figure 62: Most important topic for displaced people in displacement camps/camp-like settings 1 1 2 4 Local leader/community leader Friends, neighbors and family Religious leader Military official Government official Aid worker Tradi onal Leader 3 4 Figure 63: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in camps/camp-like settings Host Communities In contrast to findings in camp and camp-like se ngs, the propor on of IDPs seeking informa on on distribu on was lower in host communi es as against camp and camp-like se ngs. Local leader/community leader Friends, neighbors and family Religious leader Tradi onal Leader Aid worker Government official Military official 16% 3 4 1 6% Radio 1 Word of Mouth 6 Telephone voice call Community mee ngs Figure 64: Main source of information in host communities Figure 65: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in host communities 21

Distribu on Situa on in areas of origin Other relief assistance Safety and Security Access to services Registra on Shelter How to get informa on Figure 66: Most important topic for displaced people in displacement host community settings LIVELIHOOD Camps/camp-like settings 19% 16% 2 3 Most common form of livelihood was to work as daily laborers in camp and camp-like se ngs. 9 3 4 1 Agro-pastoralism Collec ng firewood 9 1 1 4 4 1 36% 2 Daily labourer Farming Fishing Pastoralism 1 2 2 3 Pe y trade Figure 67: Access to livelihood activities in camps/camp-like settings Figure 68: Most common form of livelihood in camps and camp-like settings Host Communities In sites where IDPs are living with host communi es, 91 per cent have access to income genera ng ac vi es. In 55 per cent of sites, farming was reported as the most common form of income genera ng ac vity, followed by pe y trade at 19 per cent and 16 per cent of sites reported daily labour to be the most common form of livelihood ac vity IDPs engage in. 6% 9 1 6 1 10% 1 96% 90% 86% 6% 1 2 9% 6 36% 6 1 3 1 Agro-pastoralism Collec ng firewood Daily labourer Farming Fishing 10% 9 90% 1 10% 56% 56% 2 2 Pastoralism Pe y trade Figure 69: Access to livelihood activities in host communities Figure 70: Most common form of livelihood in host communities 22

PROTECTION Camps/camp-like settings security incidents were reported by 92 per cent (up from 85 per cent) of IDPs in assessed displacement sites. The incidents were reported by four per cent of respondents and fric on among site residents was the reason for two per cent (down from five per cent in previous assessment) incidents. incident of gender based violence were reported by 91 per cent of IDPs. Domes c violence was the leading form of reported gender-based violence by seven per cent of IDPs. cases of physical violence were reported by 97 per cent of IDPs. Child physical or emo onal abuse was reported by nine per cent (up from five per cent), Separated child by one per cent (down from three per cent) and no incident reported by 90 per cent of displaced persons. While 67 (up from 56) per cent of displaced people did not report any problems in receiving support, 22 per cent said that the assistance was not enough for all those en tled to it. Figh ng between recipients was reported by six per cent respondents and two per cent of IDPs said assistance was physically inadequate. There were 23 recrea onal places for children in the sites assessed and out of these 19 were in Borno. There were nine recrea onal places for women and all but one was in Borno. Forty-three per cent of IDPs have ID cards. 3 6 1 1 3 2 Local Authori es 96% 4 5 2 4 59% 36% Military ne Police 5 3 Religious Leaders Self organized Figure 71: % of camps/camp-like settings where protection was provided Figure 72: Main security provider in camp and camp-like settings Host Community security-related incidents were reported by 82 (up from 78) per cent of respondents. The most common type of security incident was the (eight per cent), followed by fric on with other residents (four per cent) and crime (three per cent). Domes c violence was the main reason for gender based violence (seven per cent) while no such incident was reported by 89 per cent of respondents. form of physical violence was reported by 87 per cent. child protec on issues was reported by 85 per cent though forced child labour/forced begging incidents were cited by some. There were 50 recrea on places for children and none in Borno. There were six recrea on places for women but none in Borno. 23

Two per cent of women, one per cent of men and one per cent of children felt unsafe. Fi y per cent people said they had ligh ng in the camp but it was inadequate. Forty-four per cent people said there was no ligh ng. While 41 (up from 36) per cent of respondents reported no problem in receiving humanitarian assistance, 39 per cent said assistance was not enough, in seven per cent sites assistance was found to be physically inadequate for the most vulnerable, four per cent respondents said figh ng among recipients took reported and three per cent people said assistance was reportedly given to non-affected groups. Ninety-five per cent of respondents said rela onship among IDPs was defined as good, while it was excellent according to four per cent of IDPs. The rela onship between IDPs and host community was defined as poor by one per cent people, and good by 95 per cent of people and excellent by five per cent of IDPs. 76% 9 9 76% 2 9% 2 19% 20% 1 2 3 2 1 2 16% 6% 3 9% 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 6% 2 1 6% Community Leaders Local Authori es Military ne Police Self organized 86% 1 2 1 1 26% 2 Figure 73: % of host community sites where protection was provided Figure 74: Main security provider in host communities 24

METHODOLOGY The data collected in this report comes from different DTM tools used by enumerators at various administra ve levels. The type of respondent for each tool is different and focuses on different popula on types: TOOLS FOR IDPs Local Government Area Profile-IDP: This is an assessment conducted with key informants at the LGA-level. The type of informa on collected at this level includes: displaced popula on es mates (households and individuals), date of arrival of IDPs, loca on of origin, reasons for displacement and type of displacement loca ons. The assessment also records contacts of key informants and organiza ons assis ng IDPs in the LGA. The main outcome of this assessment is the list of wards where IDP presence has been iden fied. This list will be used as a reference to con nue the assessment at ward level (see Ward-level profile for IDPs). Ward level Profile-IDP: This is an assessment conducted at ward level. The type of informa on collected at this level includes: displaced popula on es mates (households and individuals), me of arrival of IDPs, loca on of origin, reasons of displacement and type of displacement loca ons. The assessment also includes informa on on displacement origina ng from the ward, as well as a demographic calculator based on a sample of IDPs in host communi es and camp-like se ngs. The results of the ward level profile are used to verify the informa on collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all those wards iden fied as having IDP popula ons in the LGA list. Site assessment: This is undertaken in iden fied IDP loca ons (camps, camp-like se ngs and host communi es) to capture detaileisd informa on on the key services available. Site assessment forms are u lized to record the exact loca on and name of a site, accessibility constraints, size and type of the site, whether registra ons is available, and if natural hazards put the site at risk. The form also captures details about the IDP popula on, including their place of origin, and demographic informa on on the number of households with a breakdown by age and sex, as well as informa on on IDPs with specific vulnerabili es. Furthermore, the form captures details on key access to services in different sectors: shelter and NFI, WASH, food, nutri on, health, educa on, livelihood, communica on, and protec on. The informa on is captured through interviews with representa ves of the site and other key informants, including IDP representa ves. TOOLS FOR RETURNEES Local Government Area Profile-Returnees: is an assessment conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of informa on collected at this level includes: returnee popula on es mates (households and individuals), me of return, loca on of origin and ini al reasons of displacement. The main outcome of this assessment is the list of wards where returnee presence has been iden fied. This list will be used as a reference to con nue the assessment at ward level (see Ward-level profile for returnees). Ward level Profile-returnee: is an Assessment conducted at ward level. The type of informa on collected at this level includes: returnee popula on es mates (households and individuals), me of return, loca on of origin and reasons for ini al displacement. The results of this kind of assessment are used to verify the informa on collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all those wards iden fied as having returnee popula ons 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 various key informant. The accuracy of the data also relies on the regularity of the assessments and field visits that are conducted every six weeks. 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: IOM: Henry KWENIN, DTM Project Coordinator hkwenin@iom.int +234 9038852524 NEMA: Alhassan NUHU, Director, Disaster Risk Reduction alhassannuhu@yahoo.com +234 8035925885 Humanitarian Aid And Civil Protec on http://www.nigeria.iom.int/dtm 25