REACH MULTI-SECTOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT UPDATE

REACH MULTI-SECTOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT UPDATE LIBYA REPORT FEBRUARY 2016

Photo: Housing for internally displaced persons in Libya, 2016 About REACH REACH is a joint initiative of two international non-governmental organizations and the UN Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNOSAT). REACH s mission is to strengthen evidence-based decision making by aid actors through efficient data collection, management and analysis before, during and after an emergency. By doing so, REACH contributes to ensuring that communities affected by emergencies receive the support they need. All REACH activities are conducted in support to and within the framework of interagency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information please visit our website: www.reach-initiative.org. 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2016, continued political instability and ongoing armed conflict in Libya has led to deteriorating living conditions and reduced access to essential services for a significant part of the country. Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) remain one of the most vulnerable population groups as they seek out temporary shelter and scarce livelihood opportunities in urban centres, many without access to basic services. The power vacuum that gave way to the rise of armed groups in Libya, and the ongoing violence has caused thousands more Libyans to flee their homes in search of protection and assistance. 1 In February 2016, while the political situation in Libya remains tumultuous new patterns of displacement are occurring, with a growing trend of return reported in the East. 2 In June 2015, persisting information gaps and the need to inform the 2015 Libya Humanitarian Appeal, prompted the Humanitarian Country Team to request that the World Food Programme lead a multi-sector needs assessment in coordination with UNOCHA, UNHCR, IOM, UNICEF, UNDP and UNFPA. 3 The assessment was conducted by REACH and JMW Consulting, together with local partner Diwan Market Research, and provided an overview of the humanitarian needs of conflict-affect populations across Libya in the summer of 2015. In February 2016, a second round of the MSNA updates was initiated by REACH, supported by ECHO. This assessment has a reduced scope compared to the 2015 assessment, with findings drawn from community level data, collected from People with Knowledge (PwK) with particular focus on the situation in East Libya. All relevant sector partners were involved in the collaborative design of the indicators measured, reviewing and validating the assessment tool, and providing their observations on assessment results, feeding directly into the analysis process. Key findings were then presented to the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) in Tunis. This latest MSNA update indicates that the situation of some population groups remains challenging, with prevalent threats to personal safety and security reported, in addition to unaffordable basic needs, weakened WASH infrastructure, and restricted access to livelihoods and liquidity in some areas. Key Findings: WASH: There continues to be an urgent need to rehabilitate core WASH infrastructure in Libya, particularly with regards to waste water management. In February 2016 less than half of PwK (43%) reported that the sewerage system in their community remained functional at pre-conflict levels. Overall, a quarter of PwK (25%) stated that the sewerage system in their community was no longer functioning at pre-conflict levels due to being disconnected or only partially connected, followed by 15% reporting that the sewerage system was damaged, 5% citing flooding, and 5% reporting no access to sewerage in their community. In total, over a third of PwK (34%) reported that there had been a reduction in the volume of safe water available in their community during the 30 days prior to assessment, with over half (56%) attributing this to a lack of electricity to power the main water network. This indicates a continuing need to rehabilitate the mains electricity grid which is reported to have sustained considerable damage since the onset of the armed conflict. The second most commonly reported reason cited by 4 of PwK was that damage to the main water network was responsible for the reduction in the volume of safe water available, followed by 27% indicating that water treatment stations had sustained damage. According to 83% of PwK, the main water network remains the primary source of drinking water for the population, representing no change in primary water source since the June 2015 MSNA. However, some people continue to rely on water trucking, wells and other primary sources of drinking water. Garbage collection and disposal to the streets and in public facilities is on the increase and remains a concerning issue. There is also continuous reporting on negative coping strategies in PwK communities for dealing with the disposal of solid waste. In some areas there was a rise in the proportion of PwK indicating that the local population relied on negative coping strategies with regards to solid waste disposal. Overall, 38% of respondents in the East stated that garbage was left in the street or in public areas, compared to only 27% in June 2015, with the response rate for this indicator also rising from 21% to 25% in the South of Libya in February 2016. Meanwhile, the proportion of respondents indicating that 1 Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-oil-iduskcn0vv0qz, February 2016. 2 IOM, DTM, February 2016. 3 Libya MSNA, http://reliefweb.int/report/libya/libya-multi-sector-needs-assessment-report-june-july-2015, June 2015 3

garbage was burned or buried reportedly increased in all three regions in February 2016, with 15% citing this response overall. Lower affordability of WASH NFIs is an additional priority. The prices of WASH NFIs, particularly baby diapers, soap for handwashing, laundry washing powder and water tanks have increased, and therefore WASH NFI distribution to affected people is considered an urgent response. Overall, 93% of PwK stated that baby diapers were unaffordable. Shelter & NFIs: Protection: The majority of PwK (77%) stated that IDP housing was either inadequate or very inadequate indicating a continued need for shelter support in urban centres hosting large displaced populations. 4 Some IDPs continue to rely on sub-standard housing such as collective public spaces not intended for shelter and unfinished buildings. IDPs who continue to dwell in collective public spaces, such as schools and camps, and other improvised shelters must endure insecurity, limited privacy, and multiple families sharing WASH facilities. While a range of different housing types was reported for IDPs and members of the Host Community, rented accommodation with own family was the most commonly indicated form of shelter for both population groups, with 9 of PwK indicating this response for IDPs and for Host Community. A greater financial burden can be attributed to this type of housing given the obligation to cover often unaffordable rental costs. A particularly high risk of eviction was reported in the East of Libya, with 8 of PwK indicating that some population groups could be evicted from their shelters during the next 30 days. This is compared to 55% of PwK in the South and 26% in the West citing the same response. Of PwK citing the risk of eviction, IDPs were reported by 87% to be the most at risk population group, indicating that they are particularly vulnerable to shelter rights violations. 5 The most commonly cited reason for risk of eviction was the inability to cover rental costs, with 69% of PwK who reported a risk of eviction indicating this response. The majority of PwK (59%) indicated that at least 1-25% houses in their community or more had sustained damage since the onset of the May 2014 conflict The top reported shelter NFI need for both the South (55%) and West of Libya (5) was blankets, while in the East of Libya, it was fuel (26%). PwK reported that most shelter NFIs were highly priced and indicated a strong demand for winterization items, emphasizing the need to continue NFI kit distributions to vulnerable communities across Libya. In February 2016 there was an increase in the proportion of PwK reporting that families in their community had lost documentation compared to June 2015, rising from 59% to 9 in the West and from 72% to 88% in the East. An increase in the proportion of PwK reporting that families in their community had lost legal documentation highlights this ongoing protection concern, particularly for IDPs who are likely to be at a greater risk due to their transient status in fleeing conflict affected areas. Overall, 29% of PwK reported that families were having difficulty registering newborns. Among PwK citing this type of difficulty, the most commonly cited explanation was that people were unclear on the process or lacked information (53%), followed by refusal by registration entities (23%), long waiting periods (21%) and not knowing where to register (21%). Access to most protection services was reported to be limited across Libya, with psychosocial services and women s and children s centres most commonly cited as not available in the community, with 3 and 27% respectively. This highlights the need to increase the coverage of protection centres and services currently available to vulnerable groups in Libya. The prevalence of reported landmines and UXOs in proximity to houses and workplaces continues to present an immediate danger to a large number of assessed locations across South, West and East 4 Adequate shelter is defined as incorporating; adequate privacy; adequate space; physical accessibility; adequate security; security of tenure; structural stability and durability; adequate lighting, heating and ventilation; adequate basic infrastructure, such as water-supply, sanitation and waste-management facilities; suitable environmental quality and health-related factors; and adequate and accessible location with regard to work and basic facilities, UN Documents, Habitat Agenda: Chapter IV: B. Adequate shelter for all, < http://www.un-documents.net/ha-4b.htm> June 1996. 5 Respondents were asked to indicate which population groups in their city or village were at risk of being evicted during the 30 days after the assessment date. 4

Livelihoods: Libya. There was a particularly high reported presence of landmines/uxo in the East, with almost half of PwK (48%) indicating the presence of this danger, compared to 25% in the South and 1 in the West. This points to a continued need for demining efforts, risk awareness sessions and widespread messaging on the issue in contaminated areas and their surroundings. Violent incidents linked to small arms and light weapons (SALW) were indicated by the vast majority of PwK across Libya. Overall, 72% of PwK reported the incidence of deaths by SALW, while 77% reported the incidence of injuries by SALW in their community. Male children and adults were indicated to be at a significantly greater risk of SALW related incidents than their female counterparts. Initiatives aimed at reducing the prevalence and usage of SALW and raising awareness of associated risks would help to alleviate this prominent protection concern. GBV continues to be underreported, however it is clear when responses are disaggregated by male and female PwK that violence to women and girls remains a protection priority. Disability services were reported to be inadequate across all disability types. Difficulty with seeing and walking were the two most common disabilities according to people with knowledge. Delayed salary payments continue to represent the most significant barrier to accessing incomes in Libya, with 81% of PwK citing this response in February 2016 compared to 64% in June 2015, while reduced banking system functionality only serves to exacerbate this issue. Salaried work was the primary source of income in February 2016 with 64% of PwK across all three regions of Libya. Regular delays reported in the payment of government salaries by 9 of PwK threaten to undermine the payment of pensions which represent the second most commonly reported source of income according to over a third of PwK (35%). The proportion of respondents indicating a lack of opportunities as the main barrier to incomes rose sharply from 9% in June 2015 to 38% in February 2016 highlighting a rising need for the creation of new jobs and livelihood opportunities across Libya. Food Security (East Libya) High prices are reportedly making it difficult to obtain food items in Libyan markets, with the 95% of PwK indicating that some types of food are too expensive in February 2016 compared to 68% in June 2015. The proportion of PwK indicating that some people in their community are relying on negative coping strategies, such as buying food on credit (3) and reducing expenditure on health and education (26%) due to a lack of food or a lack of money to buy food points to an ongoing need for food assistance across the East of Libya. Purchasing food was the most commonly cited means of obtaining food cited by 10 of PwK in February 2016 compared to 96% in June 2015, and followed by food received through distributions, with 5 in February 2016 compared to 74% in June 2015 indicating this response. Wheat bread and wheat flour were cited by respondents as particularly difficult to obtain at the time of assessment, with only 21% of PwK reporting the availability of subsidised food items in their community. According to 61% of PwK the volume of food consumed by children has decreased since the onset of the crisis due to the lack of affordability of food items, pointing to a potential risk of decreased food security for this vulnerable group. A wide range of problems are reported to be faced by traders supplying food markets, with poor currency exchange rates cited as the top reason followed by a lack of liquidity and road blockages. In terms of barriers to traders supplying markets, poor currency exchange rates were indicated as the number one obstacle, followed by lack of access to cash and road blockages. Findings indicate that a larger proportion of IDPs than Host Community members have received food assistance. PwK most commonly reported that 1-25% of the IDP population in their community had received food items, food cash vouchers, and non-food utensils, while the most commonly reported response for the Host Community was that they had not received any food assistance. Continued communication with stakeholders will help to ensure proper access to food assistance. 5

The largest proportion of PwK (4) reported that mothers in the community exclusively breastfeed their children for an average period of more than 6 months. Meanwhile, the vast majority of PwK (96%) stated that semi-solid foods were the type of food most commonly introduced to infants. Early Recovery (East Libya) An overwhelming majority of respondents (88%) reported that necessary repairs to basic infrastructure had not been completed during the six months prior to the assessment, with almost identical results to the June 2015 MSNA (89%).This underlines the ongoing need for further rehabilitation efforts, particularly with regards to the mains electricity grid and telecommunications networks which were indicated by PwK to have sustained the greatest level of damage. Mosques were found to be the most accessible type of community infrastructure, with 96% of PwK stating that they were easy to access, followed by 75% indicating this response for police stations and 64% for government administrative buildings. Limited vocational training opportunities means that there is reduced access to livelihoods for both host community and IDPs residing in East Libya. There was low access to cash reported across the East, with 98% of PwK citing regular or occasional delays to government salary payments. Benghazi and Derna were indicated to be particularly badly affected by rubble and debris landmass coverage, highlighting a persisting need for debris clearance and management operations in these locations. Participation in public local decisions was reported to be considerably lower among women than their male counterparts. Participation in public local decisions was indicated to be lower among women with only 51% of PwK reporting their active participation compared to 68% for youths and 83% for men. Civil society initiatives should aim to involve women in public political processes to a greater degree. A positive finding was that almost PwK (99%) perceived foreign migrant workers to be important or very important to the Libyan economy. Education (East Libya) Schools being used to house IDPs was cited as the primary barrier to accessing formal education for children in both June 2015 and February 2016. The main barrier to children accessing education was stated to be schools used for sheltering IDPs, remaining unchanged since the June 2015 MSNA. This services to highlight a pressing need to provide alternative IDP shelter solutions in the place of schools to allow children full access to educational facilities in their community. This was followed by reports that the route to school was unsafe (35%), or that school buildings were perceived as insecure (28%) while in June 2015 shared latrines and a lack of teaching staff took second and third place. This suggests that perceptions of insecurity surrounding schools have increased. Despite the fact that the majority of PwK (69%) indicated 81-10 of school aged children to be attending formal education, 23% indicated that the majority of out-of-school children had missed more than one year of formal education. This suggests a need for back-to-school campaigns, the provision of catch-up classes and further outreach efforts. The proportion of PwK indicating that formal education facilities remained accessible to the community remained largely the same for primary and secondary schools between the June 2015 and the February 2016. However, there was an increase in the proportion of People with Knowledge reporting access to universities in their city or village. In February 2016 there was a considerable increase in PwK reporting on the proportion of schools with damage in the community. Overall, 64% indicated damaged schools in February 2016 compared to 43% in June 2015. This points to a continuing need to repair and rehabilitate destroyed school buildings in order to increase access to learning opportunities. 6

CONTENTS Executive Summary... 3 Table of Figures... 7 List of Tables... 9 Introduction... 11 Methodology... 12 Challenges and Limitations... 17 Findings... 18 Displacement... 18 Shelter and NFIs... 19 Water, Hygiene and Sanitation... 28 Protection... 35 Livelihoods... 45 Food Security (East Libya)... 46 Education (East Libya)... 52 Early Recovery (East Libya)... 56 Annex 1: MSNA Questionnaire Link... 62 Table of Figures Figure 1: Reported prevalence of compensation paid to hosts by IDPs in their city/village, whole of Libya... 20 Figure 2: Reported type of compensation provided to hosts by IDPs in their city/village, whole of Libya... 21 Figure 3: Reported adequacy of most IDP housing in their city/village, whole of Libya... 22 Figure 4: Most commonly reported type of Host Community/Returnee housing, whole of Libya... 22 Figure 5: Reported risk of eviction for all population groups in city/village over the next 30 days, by region... 23 Figure 6: Population groups reportedly at risk of eviction in their city/village in the next 30 days, by region... 23 Figure 7: Most common reason for a risk of eviction in city/village, whole of Libya... 24 Figure 8: Estimated damaged to housing in respondents city/village since May 2014 conflict, by region... 24 Figure 9: Reported availability of NFI support in respondents city/village, by region... 25 Figure 10: Reported availability of Shelter NFI support in respondents city/village, by type and region... 25 Figure 11: Reported availability of Shelter NFIs in respondents city/village, whole of Libya... 26 Figure 12: Main reported source of electricity in respondents city/village, by region (2015/2016)... 27 Figure 13: Most commonly used source of cooking fuel in respondents city/village, whole of Libya... 27 Figure 14: Most commonly used heating fuels in respondents city/village, whole of Libya... 28 Figure 15: Perceived drinking water quality in respondents city/village, by region (June 2015)... 29 Figure 16: Perceived drinking water quality in respondents city/village, by region (February 2016)... 29 Figure 17: Reported presence of water quality monitoring in respondents city/village, by region (2015/2016)... 30 Figure 18: Reported reductions in the volume of safe drinking water in their city/village during the 30 days prior to assessment, by region (2015/2016)... 30 Figure 19: Reported reasons for reduction in volume of safe drinking water, whole of Libya... 31 Figure 20: Reported level of sewerage system functionality in respondents city/village, by region... 32 Figure 21: Reported availability of WASH-related items in respondents city/village, whole of Libya... 34 Figure 22: Main reported type of solid waste disposal during the last 30 days, by region (2015/2016)... 35 Figure 23: Perceived status of relationship between Host Community and IDPs, by region... 36 Figure 24: Reported awareness of families who have lost legal documentation, by region (2015/2016)... 36 7

Figure 25: Respondents reporting difficultly registering newborns in assessed communities, whole of Libya... 37 Figure 26: Reported ease of access to core protection services in respondents city/village, whole of Libya... 37 Figure 28: Perceived safety of areas in the community for women and men, whole of Libya... 38 Figure 28: Perceived safety of areas in the community for boys and girls, whole of Libya... 38 Figure 29: Reported exposure of people in respondents city/village to specific threats, by region... 38 Figure 30: Respondents reporting that children and/or adolescents (under 18 years old) were the victim of specified threats to personal safety & security... 39 Figure 31: Reported presence of landmines/uxo close to housing/workplaces, by region (2015/2016)... 39 Figure 32: Reported incidence of injuries and deaths by landmines/uxo and small arms, by region... 40 Figure 33: Reported awareness of violence against women/girls in their city/village, whole of Libya... 42 Figure 34: Reported prevalence of disabilities/special needs in assessed locations, whole of Libya... 43 Figure 35: Estimated proportion of disabilities linked to landmines/uxo and/or SALW in assessed locations, whole of Libya... 43 Figure 36: Reported adequacy of services for people with special needs in assessed locations, whole of Libya 44 Figure 37: Estimated proportion of self-sufficient IDP families with access to work in their city/village, by region 44 Figure 39: Top three reported sources of income relied upon in respondents city/village, by region... 45 Figure 39: Reported crisis-related challenges to income in assessed locations, whole of Libya (2015/2016)... 45 Figure 40: Reported functionality of banking system in respondents city/village, by region... 46 Figure 41: Most common reported ways of obtaining food in the last 30 days, East Libya (2015/2016)... 47 Figure 42: Most common food access problems in the last 30 days, East Libya (2015/2016)... 47 Figure 43: Reported availability of subsidised foods respondents city/village, East Libya... 48 Figure 44: Reported coping strategies used to cover basic needs in the past 30 days, East Libya... 49 Figure 45: Estimated proportion of IDPs in assessed locations in receipt of food assistance, East Libya... 49 Figure 46: Estimated proportion of Host community in receipt of food assistance, East Libya... 50 Figure 47: Most common reported constraints for traders supplying markets, East Libya... 50 Figure 48: Average reported length of breastfeeding by mothers in assessed communities, East Libya... 51 Figure 49: Reported types of food most commonly introduced to infants, East Libya... 51 Figure 50: Reported level of child food consumption in assessed locations compared to before the crisis, East Libya... 52 Figure 51: Estimated formal school attendance rates in respondents city/village, East Libya... 54 Figure 52: Most commonly reported reasons for school-aged children not attending school in the last three months, East Libya... 55 Figure 53: Reported proportion of formal schools affected by a lack of teachers, East Libya (2015/2016)... 55 Figure 54: Estimated proportion of formal schools destroyed or damaged by conflict, East Libya (2015/2016)... 56 Figure 55: Estimated schooling missed by most out-of-school children in assessed locations, East Libya... 56 Figure 56: Respondents reporting if necessary repairs have been conducted to basic infrastructure in their city/village over the last 6 months, East Libya (2015/2016)... 57 Figure 57: Reported access to community infrastructure in respondents city/village, by type, East Libya... 57 Figure 58: Reported level of damage to basic community infrastructure in their city/village, by type, East Libya. 58 Figure 59: Reported proportion (%) of city landmass currently affected by rubble/debris, by city, East Libya... 58 Figure 60: Reported level of access to cash in assessed city/village, by city, East Libya (% respondents)... 59 Figure 61: Reported service provision available in respondents city/village, East Libya... 59 Figure 64: Reporting level of delay in payment of government salaries in respondents city/village, East Libya.. 60 Figure 65: Respondents reporting active community participation in local decision making, East Libya... 60 Figure 66: Reported active participation of demographic groups in public local decision making, East Libya... 60 Figure 67: Reported prevalence of vocational training for community members in their city/village, East Libya.. 61 Figure 68: Perceived importance of foreign/migrant workers to the economy in assessed locations, East Libya. 61 8

List of Tables Table 1: People with Knowledge matrix... 15 Table 2: PwK Profile... 15 Table 3: % Respondents reporting top 3 reasons for IDP displacement to Benghazi from area of origin... 18 Table 4: Top three reported reasons for IDP arrival to Benghazi from area of origin... 19 Table 5: Top three reported reasons for IDPs to stay in Benghazi... 19 Table 6: Most common types of IDP housing in assessed locations, by region, 2015/2016 (% respondents)... 20 Table 7: Top three priority Shelter NFI needs according to respondents, by region... 26 Table 9: Reported victims of injuries and deaths by landmines/uxo and SALW in assessed locations, by demographic group, whole of Libya... 41 Table 10: Reporting availability of food items in assessed locations, East Libya (% respondents)... 48 Table 11: Top reported reasons for school non-attendance by school-aged children, East Libya (2015/2016)... 54 9

Abbreviations and Acronyms CSO Civil Society Organisation DTM Displacement Tracking Matrix ECHO European Commission for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection GBV Gender Based Violence HNO Humanitarian Needs Overview HRP Humanitarian Response Plan IDP Internally Displaced Person INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation IOM International Organisation for Migration KI Key Informant LCC Local Crisis Committee MSNA Multi-Sector Needs Assessment NFI Non Food Item NGO Non-Governmental Organisation ODK Open Data Kit PwK Person/People with Knowledge SALW Small Arms and Light Weapons UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UXO Unexploded Ordnance WHO World Health Organisation 10

INTRODUCTION Armed conflict and political instability has affected over 3 million people across Libya. An estimated 2.44 million people are in need of protection and some form of humanitarian assistance, including approximately 430,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) who have been forced to leave their homes since the beginning of the conflict. 6 Potential for return is present in some parts of the country, while new displacement is occurring elsewhere. The conflict and degradation of institutional and financial systems in Libya is directly affecting these IDPs, with displacement primarily taking place towards urban areas, particularly in the East of the country around Benghazi. In terms of shelter, some IDPs are renting apartments in safe areas, while others are being hosted by families, occupying schools or unsuitable buildings. This assessment identifies the priority needs and vulnerabilities of Libyans and IDPs in the East of the country, to inform a more effective and targeted humanitarian response. The volatile situation and a widespread misunderstanding of IDP related issues by local authorities and stakeholders makes it difficult to have reliable and comprehensive figures of the IDP population and needs. In the face of these critical information gaps, and a need to inform the Libya Humanitarian Appeal, this assessment, known as the REACH Multi-Sector Needs Assessment I, was conducted in January and February 2016. Given the volatility of the situation in Libya, and the dynamic nature of humanitarian needs, REACH, funded by ECHO, is delivering periodic updates to the MSNA. This is the first update for January/February 2016, while the second and third rounds of data collection will follow in March and May 2016. Updates are not intended to repeat the comprehensive data gathering of the baseline, but rather to measure key indicators which are a) important to measure over time b) can feed directly into the planning of responses by partners. Due to fieldwork limitations and the reduced scope of the MSNA updates, an exhaustive list of indicators could not be included for every sector. Information was gathered through interviews at community-level, using indicators that are most suitable to be measured at this level. Such an approach allows regular data collection through a key informant network of People with Knowledge, activated through local crisis committee (LCC) and partner members. Data collectors and a small number of LCC members attended training in Tunis in early January 2016 and are now responsible for rolling-out training with LCC and select stakeholders within Libya. These individuals have helped to identify People with Knowledge based on pre-defined criteria provided by sector experts, who will be interviewed for each subsequent REACH MSNA update. A training of trainers (ToT) covered IDP rights, protection, and humanitarian principles, thereby improving local actors awareness of key IDP issues. Furthermore, the training included a module on data collection and assessment techniques, enabling these actors to acquire the skills needed to conduct KI interviews and to provide good quality data, which has been analysed and included in this assessment report. Context in Libya 2015-2016 Since July 2014, Libya has been in a state of civil unrest due to conflict between rival parties and armed groups. Against this backdrop, as of June 2015, there were 434,869 internally displaced persons (IDPs) within Libya, in addition to a large number of migrants and refugees attempting to make the treacherous journey across the Mediterranean Sea in a bid to flee the conflict.7 As of the beginning of 2016 armed conflicts continued to affect all regions the country. According to the June 2015 MSNA, urban centres are more acutely affected by the conflict than rural areas, with large numbers of IDPs flooding to major cities. In Tripoli, Benghazi, Derna, Zintan, Awbari and Sabha, shortages of food, fuel, medical supplies, a lack of potable water, and electricity, as well as reduced access to health care and public services are having a profoundly negative impact on all members of Libyan society. Furthermore, the prices of food and basic items, such as cooking fuel, rice and wheat flour, have at least doubled in the most populated areas. 8 Since the end of November 2015 over 143,500 people arrived in Italy by boat from North African origins, the vast majority setting sail from Libya. 9 In total, Libya currently hosts an estimated 250,000 vulnerable refugees, asylum 6 Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO), http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/libya_hno_final_english.pdf September 2015. 7 UNHCR, 2015 UNHCR sub-regional operations profile - North Africa, June 2015. 8 REACH/JMW MSNA, http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/jmw_reach_lby_report_libya_multi_sector_needs_assessment_aug_2015.pdf, June 2015. 9 Human Rights Watch, Libya: Events of 2015, 27 January 2016. 11

seekers and migrants from North and sub-saharan Africa. 10 IOM estimates that there are over 150,000 migrants in Libya, many of whom were previously labour migrants with well-paid jobs. Of these 150,000 migrants, it is estimated that 7,000 can be considered particularly vulnerable and in need of humanitarian repatriation assistance, non-food items, health services and psychosocial support. 11 METHODOLOGY Key objectives Overall Objective: Providing updates to the June 2015 MSNA baseline, delivering current information on critical needs and priorities for humanitarian actors supporting vulnerable communities in Libya, with the aim of contributing to a more targeted and evidence based humanitarian response. Specific Objectives: I. Identifying priority needs across key sectors through periodic updates. II. Empowering local actors by improving their ability to understand the needs of their community through data collection and IDP rights and protection training. Geographic scope The February 2016 REACH MSNA update covers the locations across East Libya listed below incorporating the sectors Protection, Shelter & NFIs, Displacement, WASH, Livelihoods, Education, Early Recovery and Food Security. Meanwhile, findings from the complementary IDP Protection Monitoring assessment conducted simultaneously by REACH on behalf of UNHCR in the South, West and East of Libya covering the sectors Protection, Shelter & NFIs, Displacement, WASH, Livelihoods, using the same indicators, have been incorporated into this report to ensure the data s maximum utility and comparability with MSNA June 2015 findings. For sectors covered in all regions of the country, a total of 162 PwK were interviewed. For sectors covered in the East only, 80 PwK were interviewed. The below locations were targeted in this complimentary assessment using the same Key Informant methodology: Region of Libya: East West South Assessed Locations: Ajdabiya, Al Bayda, Al Kufrah, Al Marj, Umm Saad, Benghazi, Derna, Tobruk. Al Ajaylat, Al Khoms, Al Qalah, Bani Walid, Brak, Gawlish, Ghariyan, Jufra, Kabaw, Misrata, Mssallata, Nalut, Rajaban, Ryayna, Sorman, Tarhuna, Tejerhi, Tripoli, Yefren, Zawiyah, Zintan, Zliten. Al Giryafa, Attanahma, Awbari, Ghat, Murzuq, Qatrun, Sabha. All assessment sites were selected based on IOM s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) as hosting a significant number of IDPs. Further, the REACH MSNA in the East covers Benghazi, a key location for IDPs in Libya that was not incorporated by IOM s latest DTM round, released in January 2016. Selected assessment locations also incorporate urban centres that were covered by the Multi-Sector Needs Assessment conducted in June 2015, allowing for a degree of comparability between the results. 10 UNICEF, Humanitarian situation for children and programme for 2016. 11 IOM, IOM Humanitarian Compendium, 05 January 2016. 12

Map 1: Assessed locations Targeted groups and sectors The target population for the REACH MSNA includes IDPs, returnees, host community, while some indicators (such as perceived importance of foreign migrant workers to the economy, and refugees as a group at potential risk of eviction) also incorporate migrants and refugees. Target groups were defined as follows: IDPs: those facing first-time displacement and multiple displacements are considered among the most vulnerable groups due to limited coping capacity and a loss of assets due to displacement. Returnees: former IDPs returning to their habitual place of residence who lack access to mechanisms for property restitution, reconstruction of their homes, or compensation. In the meantime, they are accommodated in temporary unsafe housing with very limited means of shelter or basic relief items or are accommodated in their own damaged structures. Host Community (the non-displaced affected population): including households in the host community whose homes have been damaged by the conflict and have no alternative shelter may benefit from repair kits. The scale of damage among some communities needs to be better documented and analysed. 12 The sectors covered in this assessments include: Protection, Shelter & NFIs, Displacement, WASH, Livelihoods, Education, Early Recovery & Food Security. Methodology Overview The REACH MSNA is not intended to substitute, but rather to supplement other data collection efforts in Libya, including information gathered from ministries, INGOS, UN agencies, local partner secondary data, quantitative assessments, and the UNHCR IDP Protection Monitoring which was conducted simultaneously. The REACH MSNA aims to provide three consecutive updates to existing information on IDPs residing in Libya, in contrast with one-off comprehensive assessments conducted as a snapshot only. In response to lessons learned from the baseline assessment, as well as to engage all sectors, REACH has approached all relevant sector working groups 12 Humanitarian Needs Overview Libya 2015, http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/libya_hno_final_english.pdf, September 2015. 13

in Tunis to provide feedback on indicators, modifying and adapting the tool, within the limitations of recognising the need to maintain a degree of comparability with the June 2015 MSNA baseline. Partners were invited to make suggestions for changes and additions to ensure that indicators that were considered important to measure over time, and could be assessed through Key Informant interviews at the community level. Unit of analysis The main unit of analysis being used for this assessment will be the city/village level. This is given the considerable constraints limiting access to different areas and the number of suitable People with Knowledge that could be identified for interview in each location. Further, the questions included in the survey are asked at the community level and are therefore best suited to this unit of analysis. The geographical denomination below the city/village level in Libya is the mahala or neighbourhood level. These geographical boundaries are still widely contested by local authorities, and have yet to be fully defined. For this reason it was not advisable to use the mahala as a unit of analysis for this round of data collection. Secondary data mapping formed part of the research design process and will inform the final report. Available information sources from other humanitarian actors within Libya, including IOM s DTM and other humanitarian reports will be used to triangulate findings and deepen the level of analysis included in the final report. Sampling approach A purposive sampling approach has been adopted for the MSNA. This is in recognition of the limited level of accessibility in Libya, rendering representative and random household level sampling unattainable within the current context. For this assessment key informants are referred to as People with Knowledge (PwK) throughout this assessment due to the sensitive nature of information gathering, and in order to avoid any negative connotations relating to intelligence actors. PwK are people who know what is going on in their own community and can be contacted to provide information which is accurate and reliable about the situation on the ground in Libya. The purpose of PwK lists is to have a wide range of people including community leaders, professionals or residents who have first-hand and in-depth knowledge about their community and can collect useful information from it. People with Knowledge interviewed in this assessment have been identified by LCC partners on the ground using a snowballing sampling technique. These individuals were selected according to recommended profiles for the sectors being covered by the REACH MSNA. The number of target PwK per location was determined in accordance with the estimated IDP population. IDP population figures were taken from IOM s January 2016 round of DTM. The Key Informant Matrix below outlines the scale that was used to determine the number of People with Knowledge to interview per location. The target of PwK was determined by taking the middle range of each IDP population bracket, with one person interviewed for every 1,000 estimated IDPs. Once established, this network of PwK will be contacted for the two further REACH MSNA updates. In total, 80 People with Knowledge participated in the REACH MSNA survey in the East, while overall 162 PwK were interviewed across the South, West and East of Libya for the REACH MSNA and IDP Protection Monitoring. Target numbers could not be met in all assessment locations due to reduced access routes and limited telecommunications network coverage in some areas. 14

Table 1: People with Knowledge matrix Estimated IDP Households: Less than 100 1 100-499 2 500-799 3 800-1399 6 1400-2999 11 3000-5999 23 More than 6000 35+ Target number of PwK to interview: Table 2: PwK Profile PwK Profile: Face-to-face interview 24% Telephone interview 76% Female PwK 12% Male PwK 88% PwK age range 22-65 years Host community 78% IDPs 21% Returnees 1% People with Knowledge Guidelines: In order to support aid actors active in Libya (Local Crisis Committees, Municipalities, Local and International NGOs, UN agencies, etc.) to gain a better and dynamic understanding of the situation of Libya through data collection and analysis, REACH developed a set of profiles for People with Knowledge to be interviewed during the REACH MSNA. These profiles were developed through the input of relevant sector working groups and experts. The information that they provide will help the humanitarian organizations in designing and carrying out their programs in the different sectors of the humanitarian interventions. 15

Key Sector: Displacement Early Recovery & Livelihoods People with Knowledge Profiles: Community leaders, local authorities, police officers, IDPs living in collective centres, drivers of shared out-of-town transport, short and long term IDPs, and migrants established in Libya and in transit. Community leaders, CSO/INGOs workers, local authorities, functionaries from relevant ministries, bank workers, HR / management staff. Education Teachers, administrative staff and support staff of universities, schools, educational institutions, culture institutions, training centers, etc. as well as students. Food Security Protection Shelter & NFIs Employees working in farming and fishery, food markets, wholesalers of food, restaurant owners, food distribution officers, NGO workers. CSO/INGOs workers, journalists, lawyers, community leaders, local authorities, functionaries of relevant ministries, short and long term IDPs, migrants established in Libya and in transit. CSO/INGOs workers, wholesalers, shop owners, workers of electricity companies, community leaders, local authorities. WASH Water engineers, sanitation engineers, workers for water supply, waste management and water treatment companies, municipality officials. Training In preparation for the implementation of the February 2016 MSNA, the data collection team, including four data collectors and two Local Crisis Committee (LCC) members from Benghazi, East Libya, attended a five day training programme in Tunis. The training schedule comprised of a day and a half focused on data collection and assessment methodology, including how to use Open Data Kit (ODK) on smart phones, interview technique, ethics in data collection, and the questionnaire content, led by REACH. In addition, three days of training on IDP protection and rights were administered by an external consultant from the Danish Refugee Council (DRC). Ethics in Evidence Generation The data collection activity adopted a Do No Harm approach, to avoid causing any harm or injury to assessment participants. As part of the assessment design process, the impact on both participants and the broader community throughout the research cycle from planning through to dissemination was taken into consideration. The assessment adhered to the following guiding principles to ensure that data collection was ethically sound: Informed consent This assessment was conducted with respondents aged 18 years or above only. Respondents volunteered to participate in the survey and were given the option of non-response. Data collectors were trained to provide sufficient knowledge and understanding of the nature of the proposed evidence generating activity to respondents before commencing the survey. Confidentiality This assessment ensures that the confidentiality of the information provided by respondents is respected. All personal information will be made anonymous in datasets and excluded from the final report. During the assessment, People with Knowledge were asked if they were willing to provide their name and contact details for referral and were given the option of withholding this information. Ethical data collection This assessment took into consideration the cultural and socio-political context in Libya. Only questions appropriate for this setting, and according to what is ethical, moral and responsible, were included in the survey. Any questions that were deemed too sensitive to include by Libyan enumerators were 16

removed from the survey in advance of data collection. Sector specialists from relevant working groups in Protection, Shelter & NFIs, Displacement, WASH and Livelihoods were consulted throughout research design Challenges and Limitations - Where possible, interviews will be conducted face-to-face. However, in areas with low levels of accessibility due to distance from the data collection base or security concerns, the survey will be conducted via phone call. It should be acknowledged that face-to-face interviews may provide more reliable information, given that the enumerator can build a stronger rapport with the respondent. - Due to constraints limiting accessibility to specific areas and the sensitivity of data collection exercises in the Libya context, the ability to conduct random and statistically representative sampling is highly limited, and therefore a purposive and snowballing approach to sampling was adopted. - When comparing between the June 2015 MSNA and the February 2016 MSNA update, it is worth noting that there were slightly different sample sizes (162 PwK in February 2016 - with IDP Protection Monitoring findings incorporated - compared to 177 PwK in June 2015), and the same team of enumerators was not used to conduct data collection for both assessments. - There were a larger number of male than female People with Knowledge identified to participate in this assessment, with females representing 12% of the total. This may reflect a comparatively larger proportion of males than females currently occupying community leadership positions within Libya. - This was a perceptions based survey. Under the Protection section, disabilities were reported by People with Knowledge and not verified by a disability specialist. These findings should therefore be considered as indicative only. - The prevalence of GBV perpetrated against women and girls is likely to be underreported due to the sensitive nature of this topic, and given the lower proportion of female PwK who participated in this survey. 17

FINDINGS Displacement An estimated 435,000 people have fled their homes in search of safety and security due to armed conflict and escalating violence since mid-2014. 13 However, this has put them at increased risk of rights violations and exploitation. Most of the displaced are living in urban areas among the host community, with just over 100,000 IDPs living in collective centres, in the open, in makeshift shelters or other buildings. 14 Limited coping capacities and loss of assets, particularly among displaced women, children, the elderly and those who are impoverished, render this population group particularly vulnerable in the context of ongoing armed conflict in Libya. Comprehensive and reliable data on displacement in Libya is lacking due to weak local authorities, limited humanitarian access and political divisions. As such, most figures on the number of IDPs are indicative only. The IOM s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) is able to provide key population figures on IDPs in a large number of locations across Libya. However, where gaps in their coverage existed in the January 2016 DTM update, the IDP Protection Monitoring and REACH MSNA has sought to provide indicative IDP information at the city/village level through interviews with People with Knowledge. In the East of Libya, Benghazi was the only major urban centre not included in the DTM January 2016 update, and thus has been covered by the February 2016 REACH MSNA, with interviews conducted for a total of 37 PwK in this assessment location. In Benghazi, PwK reported an average range of 194,897 275,138 total estimated IDP individuals residing in the city at the time of assessment, 15 while the estimated length of displacement for IDPs living in Benghazi was indicated to be 17-24 months, on average. The most commonly reported top three areas of origin for IDPs living in Benghazi were stated to be Ajdabya (43%), Sirte (22%), and Brega (8%). 16 In terms of push and pull factors, the most commonly cited reason for IDP displacement, for those IDPs now residing in Benghazi was that their area of origin was controlled by armed groups, with 43% of PwK indicating this response, followed by a general lack of safety (32%) and housing destroyed (22%). Notably, the same first and second ranked displacement reasons were also cited in the top two reasons by IDP respondents participating in the June 2015 MSNA. With regards to arrival reasons, PwK most commonly responded that IDPs had family or friends living in Benghazi, at 49%, while the top reason for IDPs to stay in Benghazi was reported to be access to income and shelter with 51% of PwK overall citing this response. At 76%, the majority of PwK stated that 1-25% of IDPs had some family members remaining in their place of origin. Table 3: Top three reported reasons for IDP displacement to Benghazi from area of origin (% respondents) Response: Reason for displacement % Respondents Ranked 1 Area controlled by armed groups 43% Ranked 2 General lack of safety 32% Ranked 3 Housing destroyed 22% 13 HNO Libya 2015. 14 Ibid. 15 This figure includes IDPs from all areas of origin. 37 PwK from Benghazi participated in the survey, of which 29 provided a high and low estimate for total IDP individuals. 16 These figures are all indicative only. 18