Iom Niger 2016 Migrant Profiling Report

IOM NIGER 2016 MIGRANT PROFILING REPORT Acknowledgements: The editors would like to acknowledge the European Union for its support of the “Migrant Resource and Response Mechanism” program implemented in Niger under which this report is prepared, the hard work and support of all the authors and the staff working with migrants to allow the collection of information in the IOM Niger transit centers.

The IOM Niger mission would also like to acknowledge the support received from IOM’s Global Migration Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC) for the analysis of the data and writing of the report in collaboration with the IOM Niger staff. GMDAC is based in Berlin at the invitation of the Government of Germany.

The opinions expressed in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IOM concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries. IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an intergovernmental organization, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to: assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration, advance understanding of migration issues, encourage social and economic development through migration; and uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants.

Editor: This publication was not reviewed by IOM editing services

International Organization for Migration 17, Route des Morillons 1211 Geneva 19 SWITZERLAND Tel.: +41 22 717 91 11 Fax.: +41 22 798 61 50 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.iom.int

THIS REPORT WAS PRODUCED WITH SUPPORT FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 2. INTRODUCTION...... 4 3. CONTEXT ...... 5 4. METHODOLOGY ...... 7 5. RESULTS ...... 8

5.1. DESCRIPTION OF CASELOAD ...... 8 5.1.1. How many cases; when and which centers; return category; referral to IOM centres...... 8 5.2. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF BENEFICIARIES ...... 9 5.2.1. Country and region of origin (distribution and maps, total and by centre) ...... 9 5.2.2. Age, sex, civil status ...... 11 5.2.3. Educational attainment and literacy ...... 12 5.2.4. Key differences by country of origin (top-5 countries of origin) ...... 13 5.2.5. Women ...... 13 5.2.6. Minors ...... 14 5.3. THE MIGRATORY JOURNEY ...... 14 5.3.1. Reasons for migration ...... 14 5.3.2. Travel organization, pre-departure information, funding ...... 14 5.3.3. Travel time, travelling alone/with family, use of smuggling services ...... 16 5.3.4. Violence and abuse during travel ...... 17 5.4. EXPERIENCE IN COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE ...... 19 5.4.1. Country and city of temporary residence, by country of origin ...... 19 5.4.2. Duration of stay, income sources, remittances ...... 20 5.4.3. Violence and abuse during stay, by country of residence ...... 21 5.4.4. Reason for leaving country of temporary residence, by country of residence ...... 21 5.5. FUTURE PLANS ...... 22 5.5.1. Return intentions ...... 22 5.5.2. Desired economic activity upon return and income sources ...... 22 5.5.3. Intention to continue migration and desired destination ...... 23 5.6. FURTHER ANALYSIS ...... 23 5.6.1. Key trends between 2015 and 2016 ...... 23 6. CONCLUSIONS ...... 25

In 2016, the IOM mission in Niger collected the testimonies of the almost 6,300 migrants it assisted its four transit centres in Niger – in Agadez, Arlit, Dirkou and Niamey – during that year. Most of the migrants were West African nationals who arrived in IOM transit centres after having resided for varying periods of time in Algeria or Libya, largely with the intention of returning to their countries of origin. The number of migrants assisted in IOM transit centres in 2016 represents an almost 3-fold increase relative to 2014, also due to the increasing numbers of returns through the country, which mainly reflects IOM’s efforts to expand its assistance activities in the country. By presenting the results of the migrant profiling exercise the report provides evidence of the numerous difficulties and risks faced by migrants during their journeys and upon arrival in countries of temporary residence. The aim of the report is to contribute to a better understanding of recent migration trends and experiences from West and Central Africa to North Africa, thus improving programmatic and policy responses to protect migrants in vulnerable situations and address the challenges of irregular migration and migrant smuggling. A summary of the key points emerging from the analysis are reported here below:

 Almost half of the migrants assisted across the four transit centres in 2016 came from just two countries – Guinea (24%) and Senegal (21%).

 In terms of socio-demographic profiles, 93% of the migrants were male; 72% of the migrants were aged 18–29, and 19% were between 30 and 39 years of age. The majority (60%) reported they were single. Sixty percent of the minors who arrived at the centres were unaccompanied.

 Most (60%) of the migrants interviewed across the four transit centres declared they had received some formal education (contrary to 2014 when the majority stated the opposite).

 The majority of women assisted came from just two countries – Niger (36%) and Nigeria (27%). Most of them had been residing in Niger before arriving in IOM transit centres. Women were, on average, more likely to be married (56%), illiterate (56%) and to lack any type of formal education (57%).

 Poverty and lack of job opportunities were the main drivers of migration: almost 90% of the migrants interviewed reported they moved in search of better livelihood opportunities – 60% to look for employment, 27% to escape poverty.

 In terms of travel organization, use of smuggling services appears to increase as people get farther away from their country of origin and approach Libya or Algeria.

 72% of the migrants said they received information about the migration experience from family and friends, 15% from returned migrants.

 The majority of migrants who answered questions about their sources of information prior to undertaking the migration journey said the information they received revealed to be false. This is also true when the information was provided by family and friends.

 A significant proportion of migrants reported having faced instances of abuse and exploitation of various kinds during the journey. Close to 80% of the migrants who answered such questions (about 46% of the entire sample), were subject to abuse, violence and exploitation at each leg of their journeys from countries of origin to North Africa.

 Routes through Mali appeared to be particularly dangerous for migrants. The most common types of abuses were threats and psychological violence, followed by confiscation of money and goods and physical violence.

 Algeria, Libya and Niger were the main countries of temporary residence for migrants assisted in IOM transit centres: 75% stayed in these countries for a period between 6 months and 1 year.

 Experiences of violence and abuse in country of temporary residence were quite common, particularly in Algeria and Libya: 65% and 61% of the migrants who resided in these countries, respectively, witnessed having been subject to various types of violent or abusive treatments.

 Economic insecurity and being forcibly returned (fleeing from violence or abuse or being forcibly encouraged to return) from the country of temporary residence were the main reasons for leaving the latter.

 68% percent of the migrants declared they had no intention to continue the migration journey, while 18% said they would want to re-migrate.

This report presents statistics resulting from a profiling exercise conducted by IOM Niger with stranded migrants and migrants in transit wishing to return to their country of origin or usual residence with IOM’s assistance. The profiling was conducted between January and December 2016 across four IOM migrant assistance centres located in Agadez, Arlit, Dirkou and Niamey (Figure 1). IOM Niger also runs a second centre located in Niamey where assistance is specifically focused on vulnerable migrants (e.g. minors, women, mentally and medically impaired individuals, etc.). Migrants are all profiled in the first transit centre and transition to the centre for vulnerable migrants is done following the profiling and following a protection assessment which takes place at the first reception point. The wealth of information collected through interviews with migrants is mainly aimed at informing operational programming of IOM Niger. Moreover, this is the most detailed data IOM collects on migrants who transited through the country, or nationals returning to their countries and communities of origin, and on a large sample of individuals: 6,283 migrants in 2016 only. Interviews with migrants provide information on individuals’ demographic and socio-economic profile, their reasons for leaving the country of origin, the migration journey and vulnerabilities experienced along the route and during temporary residence (usually in Libya or Algeria), as well as their future plans. In-depth and regular analysis of the data collected can therefore allow for a better understanding of migratory processes to and through Niger. The report represents an update of a similar report produced in 2014, based on interviews with 2,127 migrants assisted in IOM transit centres.

Figure 1: IOM's presence in Niger

The migrant profiling exercise conducted in IOM transit centres is part of the “Migrant Resource and Response Mechanism” (MRRM), established between 2015 and 2016 with the aim of developing a comprehensive approach to manage migration flows in the country for improved security and stability. The programme involves 1) the provision of humanitarian assistance to migrants in transit centres and along migratory routes; 2) assisted voluntary return and reintegration activities (AVRR) for migrants wishing to return to their communities of origin; 3) the promotion of collaboration between countries or origin and transit (and, to a certain extent, destination) to improve understanding of community development as an alternative to irregular migration, including through sensitization campaigns. IOM Niger has been implementing AVRR activities since 2006, but the numbers of returns tripled between 2015 and 2016, reaching 5,089 in 2016, mainly due to IOM’s outreach efforts to migrants finding themselves in distress in Niger. Assistance to migrants in IOM transit centres include provision of food, shelter, non- food items such as hygiene kits, targeted healthcare and psycho-social support, based on individual profiles and needs. Migrants usually spend a few days in the centre, depending on their conditions and on the time to arrange for transportation back to their countries of origin (for those wishing to return).

Niger has long been a crossroad of migratory routes in West and Central Africa.1 Rooted in trans-Saharan trade, migration from West and Central Africa to the Maghreb countries became particularly significant since the 1970s and 1980s, when oil production fields and construction sites in Libya and Algeria started attracting increasing numbers of migrant workers from sub-Saharan African countries.2 Niger has become the main transit country for migrants originating from West and Central Africa, moving to North Africa and, in lower numbers, embarking on perilous journeys across the Mediterranean.3 Despite the widely testified and documented abuses faced by migrants (particularly from sub-Saharan countries) in Libya, this country is still viewed by many as an attractive destination in the region. A history of circular migration between Niger and Libya and Algeria is also present, whereby it has been common for Nigeriens to work in these countries for a number of years before returning to Niger. The relevance of migration routes through Niger increased particularly since the 1990s, due to the closure of the border between Chad and Libya and growing dangers on the route through Mali to Algeria.4 The relative stability of Niger as opposed to neighboring countries – notably Mali and Nigeria – has been an important factor in the increasing relevance of migratory routes through the country. Quantifying such movements in an accurate and comprehensive fashion is very challenging due to Niger’s geography (three-quarters of the country being occupied by deserted land) and porous borders. Since February 2016, IOM’s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) team has been monitoring flows of migrants transiting through two key locations in the Agadez region – Arlit, in the northwestern part of the country and an important transit point between Niger and Algeria, and Séguédine, in the northeastern part of the country, and a known transit point for migration to Libya. Flow-monitoring operations include both estimations of numbers of people moving North (outgoing individuals – those intending to move towards

1 IOM (2017) Annual Report 2016, Niger Country Office. 2 De Haas, H. (2008) The Myth of Invasion – The inconvenient realities of African migration to Europe, available at https://afrique-europe-interact.net/files/de_haas_2008_-_myth_of_migration_artikel_.pdf (last accessed on 24 May 2017). 3 CARIM – Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration (2011) Migration Profile, Niger, available at http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/22442/migration%20profile%20EN%20Niger%20- %20links.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (last accessed on 24 May 2017), and Altai Consulting (2015) Free Movement and Migration in West Africa, available at http://www.rodakar.iom.int/oimsenegal/sites/default/files/Altai%20Consulting- Free%20Movement%20and%20Migration%20in%20West%20Africa-Final%20Report..._0.pdf (last accessed on 24 May 2017). 4 Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration (CARIM) (2011) Migration Profile, Niger. 5

the border between Niger and Algeria or Libya), and of those moving South (incoming individuals – those arriving at transit points with the intention of heading towards Niger). IOM’s DTM estimated that between February 2016 and December 20165, a total of 333,891 individuals were identified while passing through Arlit and Séguédine heading North, while 111,230 individuals were estimated to be travelling through these transit points heading inland. Numbers recorded during the period indicate a decreasing trend in outgoing flows since May 2016, particularly since the month of September, which could be due to the implementation of an anti-smuggling regulation by the Government of Niger. Preliminary reports suggest that tighter controls may have made it more difficult for irregular migrants (and smugglers) to travel through Agadez – the traditional migration hub in Niger – as well as Arlit and Séguédine, prompting smugglers to find alternative and likely more dangerous (and more expensive) routes off the beaten tracks across the desert to avoid controls. More information is required to confirm if this is indeed occurring. Niger is, however, not only a country of transit but also one of origin and destination of migration, particularly within the region, facilitated by the 1979 Free Movement Protocol among countries of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). According to the CARIM Migration Profile for Niger, close to 90% of migrants originating from Niger live in ECOWAS countries (mainly in Burkina Faso, Guinea- Conakry, Ivory Coast and Nigeria). Economic and environmental factors are also significant drivers of migration in Niger. Low levels of socio- economic development – the second lowest in the world according to the Human Development Index 20166 – widespread poverty, rapid population growth, adverse climatic conditions, with periodic drought and flooding, coupled with an economy largely reliant on subsistence agriculture are all fundamental drivers of human mobility through the country. Importantly, migration has become a main source of income for some households residing along the main migrant routes across Niger that provide accommodation and other services to migrants, particularly due to the declining tourism industry in the country (IOM, 2016). The fragile security situation in Niger may be undermined by increasing pressure on limited resources given the large numbers of people transiting through the country and residing in “migrant ghettos” in key transit locations (Ibid). Conversely, though, security may also be indirectly affected by anti-smuggling legislation and stricter controls, due to a potential lack of alternative income sources for poor households profiting from the migration “business”. However, and just as importantly, migration journeys through the desert may often pose migrants in extremely precarious and vulnerable situations, and at critical risks for their health and safety. Protection and assistance needs cannot effectively be addressed by local authorities and governmental structures in place, meaning migrants often find themselves stranded and vulnerable to abuse and exploitation, particularly as they reach Libya. More efforts are needed to understand migration movements through Niger, so that migrants can be appropriately protected and assisted, and that policy measures can be implemented to stem smuggling activities. This report is an attempt to learn about migration drivers, routes and experiences from returnees assisted by IOM in Niger.

5 Note: Figures are based on estimations only. Migrant routes may often change depending on circumstances encountered during the journey, therefore data collected at transit locations may not reflect data collected at destination, and should not be interpreted as a comprehensive account of migration flows in the region. For more information on IOM DTM’s methodology, see IOM (January, 2017) Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM). A full methodological document can be requested by contacting [email protected].

6 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2016) Human Development Report 2016 – Human Development for Everyone, available at http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf (last accessed on 24 May 2017). 6

Migrants participate in the profiling exercise upon arrival at IOM’s transit centres on a voluntary basis. The information collected concerns migrants’ basic socio-demographic profiles, reasons for migrating, sources of funding and information prior to undertaking the journey, experiences during the journey and in the country of residence before return, instances of violence experienced along the way or during temporary residence in the third country, and other aspects. The profiling is often done in the language of the migrant and then translated into French by IOM staff members. The profiling has several aims, including but not limited to:

 Providing a database by which all IOM assistance is tracked  Establishing protection concerns that the migrant might face which will entail a more detailed and specific protection follow up  Collecting information that will be used to inform IOM’s programmatic response to migrant needs, profiles and intentions  Gathering information for long term research and advocacy purposes A total number of 6,283 migrants were interviewed by IOM staff during the course of 2016 – about three times the number of migrants profiled in 2014 (2127). The questionnaire administered by IOM interviewers was revised and expanded in 2016. Migrants’ voluntary consent is obtained prior to interviews and confidentiality of migrants’ personal data is fully guaranteed, as per IOM’s data protection principles.7 Cleaning and analysis of the data was conducted by IOM’s Global Migration Data Analysis Centre, based in Berlin, in close coordination with IOM staff in Niger. Analysis mainly consisted of cross tabulations. Levels of disaggregation included countries of residence and origin as well as age and sex and were computed using statistical software. Some important limitations of the data should be considered in the interpretation of results contained in this report. First, there are gaps in the information collected – which is self-reported – due to the fact that migrants may not be willing to share or may not recall the details of long and difficult, often traumatic journeys across the desert, and experiences in countries of temporary residence (“recall bias”). Depending on the questions asked, shares of valid responses in the dataset may therefore differ. IOM is working to further improve the questionnaire to minimize such a bias, and improve training of interviewers to make sure they can establish a rapport with migrants and allow sufficient time to recall their experiences, while respecting their privacy. Second, and importantly, the sample of migrants interviewed cannot be considered as representative of the migrant population travelling from West and Central Africa to Northern Africa and onward to Europe. Migrants transiting through Niger, typically after having spent varying amounts of time in Libya or Algeria, are a selected sample of migration flows in the region that may display specific characteristics, not necessarily reflecting those of the migrant population in the region at large (“selection bias”). For instance, the distribution of migrants by country of origin shows that only about 3% of the migrants interviewed in IOM transit centres were from Nigeria, compared to 20% of the 181,000 migrants who arrived to Italy by sea in 2016.

7 IOM (2010) Data Protection Manual, available at http://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/iomdataprotection_web.pdf (last accessed on 26 May 2017). 7

5.1. Description of Caseload 5.1.1. How many cases; when and which centers; return category; referral to IOM centres.

Between January and December 2016, IOM profiled a total number of 6,283 migrants in its four transit centres across Niger. Numbers of migrants arriving at the transit centres were, on average, lower during the first half of the year, with about 324 cases per month between January and June 2016, while it generally increased during the second half (723 cases per month), with the highest monthly number of migrants profiled in November 2016 (1104 –Figure 2). This may be due to the political situation in Niger, whereby government security forces became stricter in preventing migratory movements in the Agadez region. Apart from these cases, there were over 186 unaccompanied minors who arrived in the centres in 2016. Of those, 177 were assisted in 2016 in the Niamey centre specifically dedicated to assistance to vulnerable migrants such as minors, victims of human trafficking, vulnerable women, and disabled migrants.

Figure 2: Case load in 2016, by month

1104 918 679 602 655 428 426 362 381 302 215 211

About 75 per cent of the migrants profiled were assisted in the transit centres located in Agadez and Arlit (2,274 and 2,487, respectively; Figure 3); less than 20 per cent of the respondents were assisted in the Niamey centre (1,094), and about 6 per cent were located in Dirkou (428). Looking at the distribution of migrants profiled by centre and by month reveals that the Arlit centre experienced a high peek in August (626, or one-quarter of all migrants profiled in this centre during 2016), and the Agadez centre in November (513, one-fifth of the total number profiled in the centre in 2016).

Figure 3: Caseload in 2016, by month and transit centre

Agadez Arlit Dirkou Niamey

Typically, migrants interviewed were transiting through Niger on the way back to their country of origin or usual residence from a country where they had been temporarily residing (usually Libya or Algeria). A large majority of respondents were migrants returning voluntarily to their country of origin or usual residence from the country where they had temporarily resided (78%; Table 1). This can be understood as a voluntary desire to return back to their country of origin because the migration experience did not provide the outcomes they expected. Close to 15% of respondents had been either forced to return to Niger from their country of residence, or had been apprehended and refused entry by the country’s authorities. Less than 6% of migrants did not respond to this question and for a small minority of cases (0.8%) the return category could not be clearly identified. While IOM only accepts migrants into the assistance program who voluntarily seek to return to their country of origin, those who said they were forced to return, are often pressured to leave their country of temporary residence due to authorities or circumstances there and are therefore stranded in Niger and seeking to find their own way home.

Table 1: Case load by return category Voluntary Return Forced to Return No Answer No clear answer 78% 15% 6% 1%

Less than half of the migrants interviewed arrived to IOM centres on their own initiative (45%; Table 2). In 10.5% of the cases, migrants declared they were referred to IOM centres by orientation offices, while 5.5% of respondents stated they came to know about the existence of IOM assistance and transit centres through consular offices or other national authorities. Close to 11% of the migrants profiled were referred to IOM through other entities/individuals (e.g. civil society organizations or other international organizations, IOM community mobilizers, transport companies, or other migrants). It should be noted that the non-response rate for this question was relatively high, as one in four respondents did not provide this information (either because they were not willing to or they did not know how to respond).

Table 2: Referral to IOM centres

Own Initiative Orientation Office Consulate or Other Authority Other No Answer 45% 11% 5% 11% 28%

5.2. Socio-Demographic Profile of beneficiaries 5.2.1. Country and region of origin (distribution and maps, total and by centre)

Looking at the socio-demographic profile of respondents, the vast majority of migrants profiled across the 4 centres in 2016 were from West and Central Africa. Almost half of the migrants assisted across the four centres in 2016 came from just two countries – Guinea (24%) and Senegal (21%). These were followed by Cameroon (9%), Côte d’Ivoire (8%), Guinea-Bissau and Gambia (7% each), and Mali (6%). Nigeriens constituted 5% of the total number of interviewees, while Nigerians made up about 4% of the total number – although Nigeria was the top country of origin of migrants arriving irregularly to Italy via the Central Mediterranean route in 2016 (37,551 nationals – about one-fifth of the total number of arrivals to Italy during that year8); this may be due to the fact that it is generally easier and quicker for Nigerians to return to their place of origin by their own means, instead of waiting for assistance with voluntary return at IOM’s transit centres. Other top nationalities of migrants profiled in the four centres included Burkinabé and Liberian (3%), Ghanaian (1%), Beninese and Togolese (0.5%).

8 Source: IOM, based on data from the Italian Ministry of the Interior. 9

Table 3: Country of origin of profiled migrants (number and % of total) Total: 6 283 Guinea Senegal Cameroon Côte d‘Ivoire 1 524 24% 1 327 21% 536 9% 491 8% Guinea-Bissau Gambia Mali Niger 441 7% 419 7% 397 6% 307 5% Burkina Faso Liberia Sierra Leone Ghana 159 3% 159 3% 118 2% 60 1% Benin Togo Tchad Other 34 1% 33 1% 19 0% 38 1%

Regarding the distribution of nationalities by transit centre for the top-5 countries of origin, more than half of the Guinean respondents arrived in the Arlit transit centre, while one-fourth were in the Agadez centre and 15 per cent in the Niamey centre. Senegalese migrants arrived, for the most part, in the Agadez centre (53% of the total number of profiled Senegalese), while 24 per cent were in the Niamey centre and 15% in the Arlit centre. Almost two-thirds of the Cameroonian migrants arrived in the Arlit centre, and one-fourth in the centre located in Agadez. Beneficiaries from Côte d’Ivoire were more equally distributed across the centres, although 45 per cent of them were in the Arlit centre. Seventy-five per cent of migrants from Guinea-Bissau arrived in the Agadez centre, while 15% were in the Arlit centre.

Figure 4: Country of origin of beneficiaries by transit centre (top-5 countries of origin) 2000

1500

1000

500

0 Agadez Arlit Dirkou Niamey Guinea-Bissau Côte d'Ivoire Cameroun Senegal Guinea

Considering the region of origin of the two main nationalities of the migrants profiled, about one in four of the 1524 Guinean migrants assisted in IOM transit centres in Niger in 2016 were from Conackry, the country’s capital in the southern coastal region (Figure 5). Other main regions of origin were Mamou, in the central-western part of the country (12% of the total), Kankan, a large region in Eastern Guinea (11%), and Kindia, a relatively large region in the West (10%). Information on migrants’ region of origin is missing for sixteen percent of the Guinean migrants interviewed. About one-third of the Senegalese migrants profiled in 2016 originally came from the southern region of Kolda. A further 17% were from Tambacounda, a large region in the southeastern part of the country, and 14% of respondents were from the capital region, Dakar. The rest of the 1327 Senegalese migrants assisted in IOM transit centres in 2016 came from a variety of regions across the country.

Figure 5: Regions of origin of Guinean and Senegalese migrants profiled.

The vast majority of migrants assisted in IOM transit centres in 2016 were male (93%) and young (Table 4 and Figure 6). About seventy-two percent of the migrants were aged 18–29, and 19% were between 30 and 39 years of age. Five percent of the total, or 311 migrants were minors (younger than 18 years old). Only 4% were aged 40 or older (information on beneficiaries’ age was missing for 22 individuals). The average age of men and women was about the same, contrary to 2014 when female migrants assisted were 5 years older, on average, than male (the proportion of female in the total in 2014 was similar to that in 2015, equaling 5% of the 2,127 migrants profiled that year).

Table 4: Sex distribution of beneficiaries

Male Female 93% 7%

Figure 6: Age distribution of profiled migrants (%)

44.5

27.5

12.8 6.0 3.7 2.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.5

0-4 5-9 10-13 14-17 18-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55+

The majority of the migrants profiled in 2016 (58.5%) were single, while about one-third of them declared to be married. Information on civil status was missing for 8% of the interviewees (about 500 individuals; Figure 7). The data collected in 2016 confirms that migrants transiting through Niger on the way back to their countries of origin are typically young males, though contrary to 2014, male migrants are more likely to be single than married – in 2014, two-thirds of the migrants interviewed in the centres were married, while one-third of them were single. In 2015, the majority of migrants were also married, though the share of single migrants was higher than in 2014 (41%).

Figure 7: Civil status of beneficiaries (%) 63.1 58.5 53.8 40.7 32.7 33.3

8.2 4.2 5.5

2014 2015 2016 Married Single Other/no answer Note: Percentages for 2014 refer to a total of 2890 respondents, for 2015 to a total of 1388 migrants, and for 2016 to 6283 individuals. 5.2.3. Educational attainment and literacy

The majority (60%) of migrants interviewed across the four transit centres declared they had received some formal education – contrary to 2014, when a similar proportion of the migrants interviewed indicated they had not received any formal education in their countries of origin. Almost 20% of the migrants profiled in 2016 had attained primary education, about 30% said they had received secondary education, and almost 9% had university education. Another 5% of the total had some level of education (declared attending Koranic school but the level of education was not specified). Twenty-two percent of the migrants assisted in the four centres in 2016 declared not having received any formal education. Information on education was not available for 16% of the interviewees. Overall, 28% of the migrants interviewed declared they were not able to read or write (Table 5).

Figure 8: Educational attainment of beneficiaries (%)

29.8

22.3 18.6 15.9

8.7 4.6

None Primary Secondary Tertiary Some No answer (unspecified) Table 5: Literacy

Literate Illiterate No Answer 62% 28% 10%

5.2.4. Key differences by country of origin (top-5 countries of origin)

A comparison of key socio-demographic variables between migrants from the top-2 countries of origin – Guinea and Senegal – reveals that the average age of respondents from these countries was fairly similar, equaling 24 years for Guinean migrants and 26 for Senegalese interviewees. Almost all the migrants from the two countries in the centres were male (Table 6). Guineans generally had lower levels of illiteracy (21%) than Senegalese migrants (36%). Also, while approximately half of the Senegalese migrants were married, just over 20% of the Guinean had such civil status (Table 6).

Table 6: Key differences by country of origin (top-10 countries)

Average % % with some Country % minors % married % illiterate age women schooling Guinea 24 0.5 5.4 20 21 83 Senegal 26 1.3 3.4 45 36 80 Cameroon 26 5.8 3.2 16 4 93 Cote d'Ivoire 25 6.1 6.9 21 23 67 Guinea Bissau 27 0.5 1.4 51 43 64 Gambia 25 0.2 9.8 29 29 84 Mali 26 3.3 3 31 31 71 Niger 29 49.5 8.8 81 81 8 Nigeria 25 51.1 6.8 24 18 65 Burkina Faso 25 6.9 6.9 48 36 47 Note: the number of respondents changed by country and by question asked Other differences by top country of origin worth noting are the relatively high shares of women among Nigerien and Nigerian migrants in the centres – respectively 49.5% and 51.1% of the total numbers of migrants from these groups. Minors were more likely to be present among Gambian migrants, but also Nigeriens, Ivorians, Burkinabés and Nigerians. Migrants from Niger were, for the most part, married, reported high levels of illiteracy, and extremely low levels of schooling compared to migrants from other countries (8% had some formal education). Nigeriens were also older, on average, than migrants from other countries, with an average age of 29. Migrants from Guinea Bissau also had relatively high levels of illiteracy (43%) and just over half of them reported they were married. Generally, the majority of migrants had some years of schooling, with particularly high shares among Cameroonians, Gambians, as well as the already mentioned Guineans and Senegalese.

5.2.5. Women As seen above, women accounted for less than 7% of the total number of migrants who arrived in IOM transit centres in 2016 (a total of 421). About 63% of them came from just two countries – Niger (36%) and Nigeria (27%). Nigerien women all came from the Zinder region – traditionally a main region of origin of migrants from Niger. Other main countries of origin for women migrants in the centres were Cameroon (7.4%), Cote d’Ivoire (7.1%) and Liberia (5%). The age distribution of women is similar to that of men, with the majority of women aged between 18 and 34; however, 14% of women were minors, compared to 5% in the total sample. Contrary to the sample average, women were more likely to be married (56%), illiterate (56%) and to lack any type of formal education (57%).

In terms of country of temporary residence before arriving in IOM’s transit centres, 61% of the women had been residing in Niger, 32% in Algeria and only 6% in Libya. Over 60% of Nigerien women had been residing in Niger, mainly in Arlit or Assamakka. The rest had been residing in Algeria, also spending less than a year in the country, for the most part. Over 70% of women from Nigeria had also been residing in Niger – mainly Agadez – typically for less than one year. A small number of them resided in Libya or Algeria before arriving in IOM transit centres. Almost 40% of the women witnessed having been subject to various kinds of abusive or violent treatment during their temporary stay the in country of residence – mostly physical violence, threats and psychological violence, and confiscation of money. Very few women admitted having been sexually abused, either during the journey or during temporary residence. The response rate for questions related to violence during the journey was generally very low for women, with about 15–20% of the women assisted having answered such questions. The types of abuses experienced do not appear to be different from those reported by male migrants. However, it should be noted that, given the sensitivity of these questions, women may be less likely to report abuses, particularly sexual violence. 5.2.6. Minors As noted above, minors represented about 5% of the total number of migrants profiled in IOM transit centres in 2016. Almost 60% of them reported that they were unaccompanied. Among these, 40% stated they had spent a period of time in Algeria, and another 40% reported they had resided in Niger. Only few had spent some time in Libya prior to arriving at IOM centres in Niger. The majority of the unaccompanied minors also declared they had been subject to abuse and exploitation in the country of temporary residence – mainly physical violence. 5.3. The migratory journey 5.3.1. Reasons for migration

Economic factors were the primary drivers of migration for migrants assisted across the four IOM transit centres in Niger in 2016. Sixty percent of respondents declared they move to search for employment opportunities, while 27% said they emigrated to escape poverty – meaning almost 90% of the 6283 migrants interviewed moved in search of better livelihood opportunities. A minority of respondents declared they left their countries following the promise or an offer of work or other reasons (3% of the total). Information about the reasons for initial migration was not available for 9% of the interviewees.

Table 7: Reasons for leaving the country of origin

Search for Poverty Offer/promise of Other No Answer employment work 60% 27% 1% 2% 9%

5.3.2. Travel organization, pre-departure information, funding

The IOM profiling exercise included questions on the journey undertaken by migrants for each leg including from the country of origin (or usual residence) to the country of temporary residence in North Africa – Libya or Algeria. A “leg” of the journey is generally understood as travel from one city to another where migrants stopped temporarily to reorganize the continuation of it, although it should be kept in mind that these experiences may vary greatly among migrants. Migrants were asked about individuals who organized the journey, about whether migrants received pre-departure information and from whom, and how the journey was financed, among other questions. With regard to the first aspect – who organized the travel – by journey leg, the majority of respondents stated they had organized it on their own (56%), while only 2% of respondents (around 130 individuals) said they did so with the help of a smuggler, and less than one percent

were helped by others (mainly friends and relatives; Figure 9); this represents a significant change from the profiling exercise conducted in 2014, when about one-fourth of the migrants profiled stated their journey had been organized by third people. Interestingly, the proportion of migrants who declared they organized the journey alone decreases at each leg of the journey – to 51% for the second leg, 32% for the third and only 11% for the fourth leg – as the smugglers‘ role appears to be increasingly important as migrants get closer to Libya or Algeria. Around 750 migrants (12% of the total) stated they had been assisted by smugglers in the third or fourth legs of the journey, compared to between 130 and 300 (2–5%) in the first and second leg. It should also be noted, however, that the number of migrants who did not provide information on how travel was organized increases substantially at each leg of the journey (to about 77% of the total in relation to the fourth leg). This may be due to various reasons, including unwillingness to provide information, lack of memory of details for such long journeys, and the consequent difficulty faced by enumerators in collecting very detailed information about each leg of the journey. However, when restricting the sample to those migrants who provided information on the four legs of the journey, smugglers’ role in the fourth leg becomes even more significant: 44% of the migrants in this sample said they used a smugglers’ services, against 48% who organized the journey leg on their own.

Figure 9: Organization of travel, by leg of the journey (%)

100%

80%

60%

40% 20%

0% First leg Second leg Third leg Fourth leg

Alone Smuggler Others No answer Over half of the migrants interviewed in IOM Niger transit centres in 2016 declared they did not collect information about migration before they left (56%). Thirty percent declared the opposite (the remaining 11% did not answer the question). For 72% of the 2058 individuals who collected information on migration before leaving their countries, relatives and friends were those who provided such information (Table 8). Former migrants allegedly represented the source of information for 15% of the migrants. About 10% of respondents said they got their information from the media (mainly the internet), smugglers and other sources.

Table 8: Sources of pre-departure information for migrants who received such information (total: 2058)

Family/friends Returned Media/Internet Smuggler Others No answer migrant 72% 15% 5% 3% 2% 4% Note: The shares are calculated on a total of 2058 migrants who received information on migration prior to departure. Migrants were also asked whether the information they received about the migration experience revealed to be true or false. Over 80% of the individuals who provided information on their sources said the

information turned out to be false. Only 336 individuals (16%) said the information they received proved to be true. The majority among them reported that their source of information was relatives and friends; however, even in cases where migrants obtained information about the journey from relatives and friends, most of them were still disappointed by their actual experiences. Out of the 1636 migrants who stated that they received false information prior to departure, 74% mentioned they were ill informed about the riskiness and, more generally, the conditions of the journey (Table 9). Eleven percent said the false information related to absence of economic opportunities (upon arrival at destination countries); for 9% percent of this group, costs of travels were higher than anticipated.

Table 9: Categories of false information received by migrants

Risks Conditions Of Economic Costs of Travel Other No Answer Journey Opportunities 40% 34% 11% 9% 1% 4% Note: The shares are calculated on a total of 1636 migrants who declared the information they received was false. Almost 70% of the migrants profiled said they funded the journey independently, while 17% borrowed money from their family and friends to pay for the journey (Table 10). In a minority of cases funds came from the sale of goods (3%) or a third person covered the costs.

Table 10: Sources of funding for migration journeys

Own Funds Borrowed from Sale of Goods Travel Funded by Other No Answer family/friends Third Person 68% 17% 3% 1% 0.5% 10.5%

5.3.3. Travel time, travelling alone/with family, use of smuggling services

The duration of the journey generally varied depending on the leg of the journey: while the majority of migrants who provided such information had travelled for, on average, one or two days initially, the share of respondents who had travelled for 3–6 days increased significantly as the journey continued (Figure 10). It should be noted, however, that information on the duration of the journey was available for over half of the migrants in relation to the first and second leg, about 40% for the third leg, and just over 20% of the total number of respondents.

Figure 10: Travel time, by leg of the journey (%)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% First leg Second leg Third leg Fourth leg

1--2 days 3--6 days 1 week or more Information on total travel time for at least one leg of the journey was available for 56% of the total number of migrants in the centre (a total of 3530). As shown in Figure 11, the majority of the migrants reported

having travelled for a period of 7–14 days before reaching the location of temporary residence, while the journey lasted for 1–6 days for 26% of the migrants profiled. In 13% of the cases migrant travelled for a period of 15–30 days, and only 1.5% said their journey lasted over 30 days.

Figure 11: Total travel time (%)

59.4

26.4

12.7

1.5

1--6 days 7--14 days 15--30 days > 30 days About 80% of the migrants assisted in the four centres were travelling alone, while only 6% were accompanied by someone (the information was not available for 14% of respondents). 5.3.4. Violence and abuse during travel

Profiling interviews in IOM transit centres revealed that a significant proportion of migrants faced instances of abuse and exploitation of various kinds during the journey. Close to 80% of the migrants who answered such questions (about 46% of the entire sample, on average), were subject to abuse, violence and exploitation at each leg of the journey from their country of origin to North Africa. By comparison, in 2014, about 41% of the 2890 migrants interviewed reported having faced at least one type of abusive, violent or coercive treatment. Again, the relatively low response rate for such questions is largely due to the fact that people who may have been abused or exploited during the journey may not be willing to share what they were subject to. In any event, these testimonies illustrate the challenges faced by migrants travelling irregularly and their vulnerability to abuse and violence. Table 11 shows the country-to-country routes where most violence occurred according to migrant testimonies. The table is based on number of people who reported having travelled a certain route (from one country to another) and having experienced some type of violent, abusive or coercive treatment during the journey. The numbers should only be interpreted as indicative, given the prevalence of non-responses for questions related to violence, and the likely difficulty for migrants to recall the details of the initial journey, including specific routes travelled and risks encountered. Only routes where more than 50 migrants experienced violence and abuse are shown here. It appears that migratory routes from or to Mali are likely to be riskier for migrants, compared to others – an indication that political instability and insecurity in Mali may indeed be affecting the safety of migrants travelling through the country. Relatively numerous instances of violence and abuse also seem to occur within Niger, based on migrant testimonies, although it is not clear if risks relate to the actual journey or temporary stay in Niger. Quite high numbers of migrants travelling from Niger to Libya or Algeria also declared they were subject to some kind of violent, abusive or coercive treatment.

Table 11: Instances of violence and abuse during travel N. of migrants who experienced Departure country Arrival country violence and abuse Mali Burkina Faso 404 Senegal Mali 341 Niger Niger 308 Mali Niger 287 Guinea Conakry Mali 272

Niger Libya 272

Nigeria Niger 209

Niger Algeria 207 Mali Algeria 186 Cameroon Nigeria 146 Côte d'Ivoire Burkina Faso 115 Algeria Niger 76 Gambia Senegal 59

Note: The number of migrants who responded to questions about violence was higher for the first and second legs of the journey (about 3,700 people on average), and it was lower for the third and fourth legs (2,100 individuals, on average). As explained above, this may be due to the difficulties in recalling the details for every step of the journey. For those who admitted having been subject to violence and abuse, threats and psychological violence was the most recurrent type of abuse - 42% of the migrants who faced abuse during their journeys declared having faced this type of abuse along the way (Figure 12). Confiscation of money or goods was the second most common type of abuse – over 30% were robbed of their money at some point during the journey (or more than once). 16% of migrants who were abused experienced physical violence or aggression (the share increased from 7% to 27% from the first to the fourth leg of the journey). Other types of abuse included confiscation of documents, detention, deception and false promises, lack of food and beverages, and, in a minority of cases, forced prostitution and sexual violence, according to testimonies collected by IOM staff in the centres.

Figure 12: Type of violence and abuse experienced (average, %)

Threats/psychological violence 42 Confiscation of money/goods 35 Physical violence 16 Other 8

Note: these shares are calculated on the total number of migrants who experienced abuse and violence at each leg of the journey (average of the four legs) – specifically 2308 respondents for the first leg, 1877 for the second, 1576 for the third, and 1018 for the fourth leg of the journey.

5.4. Experience in country of residence 5.4.1. Country and city of temporary residence, by country of origin

Algeria was the main country of temporary residence for migrants profiled in 2016, with 39% of respondents saying they had lived in Algeria before transiting through Niger (Figure 13). Over half of these migrants had resided in the town of Tamanrasset; about 20% of them had lived in Algiers, Ouargla and Oran, and another 20% mentioned other cities across the country. About half of respondents said they had temporarily resided in Libya (27%) or Niger (23%) before arriving in IOM transit centres. Tripoli was the main city of residence (almost 40% of migrants who had resided in Libya were in this city), followed by Sabha (23%). Qatrun and Murzuk were mentioned by 10% of the almost 1700 migrants who had resided in Libya. One-third of the 1500 migrants who had resided in Niger had been located in Agadez, and around 40% in Niamey and Arlit. Seguedine and Assamaka were mentioned by about 10% of this group. Information on country of residence was not available in 9% of the cases.

Figure 13: Country of temporary residence (last stay before arriving at IOM).

Base Map Source: ESRI. This map is for illustration purposes only. The depiction and use of boundaries, geographic names, and related data shown on maps and included in this report are not warranted to be free of error nor do they imply judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries by IOM. Figure 14 depicts the distribution of the profiled migrants by country of origin and country of temporary residence9. Algeria appears to have been the main destination (country of temporary residence) for migrants from Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mali, Guinea and Liberia, while the majority of migrants from Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, and Sierra Leone had resided in Libya before transiting through Niger. Niger appeared to be the main country of residence for Nigerian and Ghanaian migrants, with 58% of Nigerians and 76% of Ghanaians saying they had resided in the country before arriving at IOM transit centres. Migrants from Côte d’Ivoire, Niger and Gambia were, on average, more evenly split between the three countries of destination/temporary residence.

9 Information on both variables is available for 90% of the total sample of migrants profiled. 19

Figure 14: Country of temporary residence, by country of origin (%)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

Algeria Libya Niger

Note: the chart includes only nationalities from which at least 50 migrants were interviewed. 5.4.2. Duration of stay, income sources, remittances

As for duration of residence, the vast majority of migrants interviewed (75%) had spent a period of between six months and one year in the country of residence before transiting through Niger on the way back to their countries of origin or usual residence (Table 12). In 7% of cases duration of stay ranged between three and six months, while 5% of respondents had stayed in Algeria or Libya for more than one year (information on duration of stay was not available for 12% of the profiled migrants).

Table 12: Duration stay in country of temporary residence

Less than 6 months 6 months to 1 year More than 1 year No answer 7% 75% 6% 12%

With regard to sources of income in the country of residence, most of the migrants who provided this information, or 15% of the total number of respondents, were employed in the construction sector – often as painters, bricklayers, electricians, welders and carpenters (Figure 15). Less than 5% of the migrants interviewed said they worked as small traders, or in the services industry – including domestic, transport and food services, usually as housekeepers, cleaners, drivers, and waiters or cooks. Two percent of the migrants were employed in agricultural or livestock farming activities. One percent said they relied on begging, although 40% of the migrants interviewed said they had no source of income in the country of temporary residence. For over one-fifth of the sample information on sources of income in the country of residence was not available.

Figure 15: Sources of income for migrants in country of residence (%)

Construction 15 Other/unspecified 7 Trade 3 Services 3 Agriculture 2 Begging 1 No source 40 No answer 28

5.4.3. Violence and abuse during stay, by country of residence

Experiences of violence and abuse in countries of residence were quite common, particularly in Algeria and Libya, where 65% and 61% of the migrants who resided in these countries, respectively, witnessed having been subject to various types of violent or abusive treatments. This is unfortunately common for migrants who are often not in situations where they don’t have valid identification papers or visas or are working in black market trades. This situation of legal irregularity makes them more vulnerable to experiencing abuses and violence. Less than half of the migrants who had resided in Niger prior to being assisted in IOM transit centres said they had experienced such treatment. Physical violence, threats and psychological violence were particularly common among migrants; among those who experienced some kind of abuse, more than one in three in Libya and Algeria were subject to violent treatment, and more than one in three in Niger said they faced a number of threats and psychological violence (Table 13). Other common types of abuses were food deprivation, confiscation of salary (particularly in Algeria, with 8.7% of the migrants who resided there), confiscation of money, or restrictions to free movement; 15% of the migrants who faced abuse in Libya said they were detained at some point during their stay.

Table 13: Violence and abuse of migrants, by country of residence (% of migrants who report incident)

Algeria Libya Niger Detention 2% 15% 10%

Restrictions to movement 4% 2% 8%

Confiscation of money 8% 8% 11% Confiscation of salary 9% 3% 2% Food deprivation 9% 3% 8% Threats and psychological violence 29% 27% 35% Physical violence 36% 38% 19% Other 4% 3% 8%

Note: percentages are calculated on the total number of migrants who said they faced some type of abuse during their stay in the country of temporary residence – a total of 1064 in Algeria, 1059 in Libya, and 696 in Niger. 5.4.4. Reason for leaving country of temporary residence, by country of residence

Reasons mentioned by migrants for leaving the country of temporary residence generally varied depending on the country. For migrants who had spent some time in Algeria, general livelihood insecurity was the most common reason for leaving the country. This was mentioned by 46% of the migrants who had resided there. 62% percent of those who had spent time in Libya left after having been forcibly returned from the country. This indicator was only expressed by 30% of those who had been residing in Algeria. Almost half of the migrants who had been living in Niger said they were leaving the country as per their own decision, and one-fifth of them due to lack of job opportunities.

Table 14: Reasons for leaving country of residence, by country of residence (%) Algeria Libya Niger Insecurity 46% 10% 2% Forced to return 30% 62% 21% Lack of job opportunities 10% 5% 24% Own decision 5% 19% 46% Other 2% 2% 3% No answer 7% 2% 4%

5.5. Future Plans 5.5.1. Return intentions

Migrants profiled in IOM transit centres were also asked about their plans for the future. Ninety percent of interviewees stated a desire to go back to their country of origin, while only 2% said they did not wish to return.

Table 15: Desire to return to country of origin Yes No No answer

90% 2% 8%

5.5.2. Desired economic activity upon return and income sources

When asked about what profession they would like to undertake upon return, migrants gave a variety of answers. Among those wishing to return to their country of origin, trade was the most common desired economic activity, with one-third of respondents saying they wanted this (Figure 16). About 20% of interviewees said they would want to work in the construction sector, while 15% indicated agriculture and livestock farming activities as their preference. Transportation and other services (e.g. house-keeping and gardening), together with the food service industry represented another 14 percent of responses. Around 8% of the migrants wishing to return to their country stated they wanted to begin or continue their studies.

Figure 16: Desired economic activity upon return (%)

Trade 33.0 Construction 20.3

Agriculture 14.8 Transport 9.6 Studies 7.6

Services 3.7 Food service 1.9 Other 6.9 Does not know 2.3

Note: Total number of respondents for this question is 5451. In terms of income sources, over 40% of the migrants who answered this question (81% of the total number of interviewees) said they would rely on financial assistance from people in their network (Figure 17). Over

one in five said their income back in the country of origin would derive from existing assets, such as land or livestock. Eighteen percent would recur to credit mechanisms as a source of income, while 7% would count on financial assistance from their family members.

Figure 17: Income sources upon return (%)

Help from others 41

Existing assets/savings 22

Credit 18

Help from family 7

Other 1

Does not know 10

Note: Total number of respondents for this question is 5126. 5.5.3. Intention to continue migration and desired destination

Migrants in IOM transit centres were also asked whether they intended to continue their migration journey to another destination. Less than one in five respondents responded affirmatively, while 68% of the migrants said they would not want to continue the migration experience (Figure 18). Among those in the former group, Italy appeared to be the preferred destination – close to 600 migrants said they would want to continue the journey to Italy; Spain was the preferred destination for three percent of the migrants in the sample, while Libya still appeared as a favorite destination for 1% of the migrants interviewed. Five percent of respondents said they would want to continue the journey to Algeria, Morocco and a number of European countries.

Figure 18: Intention to continue migration and desired destination

5.6. Further analysis 5.6.1. Key trends between 2015 and 2016

The number of migrants profiled in 2016 was over four times higher than that registered in 2015 (1388). Senegal was the main country of origin of migrants who arrived in IOM transit centres in 2015, with 36.6% of the migrants being nationals of this country. Other main countries of origin were Cameroon (10.6%), Guinea Bissau (7.9%), Gambia (6.7%) and Guinea (5.1%) – all of which appeared among the top-10 countries of origin of migrants who arrived in IOM transit centres in 2016. Eighty-seven percent of all interviewees said they left their country of origin to search for employment opportunities elsewhere. While the distribution of migrants across countries of temporary residence in 2016 was quite balanced between Algeria, Libya and Niger, almost half of the migrants profiled in 2015 (48%) had spent a period of

time in Libya before transiting back through Niger – roughly double the percentage registered in 2016 (27%). Niger and Algeria followed, with respectively, 21% and 14% of the interviewees. Three percent of the migrants had been residing in Morocco before making their way back to Niger (Table 16).

Table 16: Country of temporary residence, 2015 (%)

Libya Niger Algeria Morocco Other No answer 48% 21% 14% 3% 1% 13%

In terms of demographic characteristics, as in 2016, the vast majority of the migrants interviewed were male – 96% compared to the 93% in 2016. The age profile of migrants was quite similar to that recorded in 2016 – 62% of the migrants were aged 18–29, 19% were between 30 and 39 years of age. The proportion of minors in the group was lower than that registered in 2016 – 3.5% compared to 5%, respectively. Considering the much lower number of migrants profiled in 2015, the absolute numbers of minors arriving in IOM transit centres in Niger in 2015 was therefore much lower than in the following year.

Table 17: Sex distribution of beneficiaires, 2015 (%)

Male Female 96% 4%

Figure 19: Age of migrants arriving in IOM transit centres in 2015 (%)

31.6 30.8

18.1

9.1

3.4 2.1 1.7 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.6 0-4 5-9 10-13 14-17 18-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ Education levels of migrants varied by country of residence, with all of the migrants who resided in Morocco reporting some formal education, compared to low levels in Niger (42%), and somewhat higher shares in Libya (61%) and Algeria (79%). Interestingly, the (self-reported) average length of stay in the country of temporary residence in 2015 was only 68 days, which is lower than in 2016 when most migrants declared having spent between 6 months and one year in the country before returning. Almost half of the migrants who stayed in Niger said they wanted to leave due to insecurity in the country; among those who had resided in Algeria, forced return or lack of job opportunities were the main reasons reported by migrants; 75% of the migrants who resided in Libya before arriving in IOM transit centres did not provide any reasons for leaving Libya; 13% of them said they were forcibly returned from the country; about 6% reported they left due to lack of job opportunities and a similar proportion gave insecurity as a reason for leaving Libya.

Table 138: Reason for leaving country of temporary residence, by country of temporary residence

Algeria Libya Niger Forced to return 29% 13% 2% Lack of job opportunities 19% 6% 1% Insecurity 10% 6% 47% Other/no answer 42% 75% 50%

In 2015, 60% of the 1388 migrants interviewed declared having been subject to at least one type of abusive, violent or coercive treatment during the journey – compared to 41% in 2014 and 46% in 2015. Threats, physical abuse, false promises or restriction of movements and confiscation of documents were the most cited types of abuses in 2015.

6. Conclusions

Interviews conducted with close to 6,300 migrants assisted in five IOM transit centres in Niger in 2016 provide a vivid testimony to 1) the lack of economic opportunities for many migrants in West and Central Africa; 2) the risks faced by migrants during their journeys through the desert and their temporary stay in Algeria, Libya or Niger; and 3) the widespread misinformation (or lack of information) on the reality of the journeys and on living conditions in countries of temporary residence, particularly Libya. The information presented in this report allows to identify certain trends that need to be regularly monitored and further investigated to inform appropriate, human-rights-based responses to the challenges of irregular migration through Niger. The number of migrants assisted in 2016 was the highest number recorded in 3 years, and represented a significant increase relative to numbers of migrants arriving in IOM transit centres in 2014 (2,127) and 2015 (1,388). While this may be due to IOM’s growing presence in Niger, it may also be an indication that return flows, particularly from Libya, are on the rise, due to the exacerbation of violence and the greater dangers faced by migrants residing in the country. Most of the migrants arriving in IOM centres are nationals of West African countries, typically young males and – differently from 2014 – mostly single and with some level of schooling. According to the data collected, they tend to move through Niger to Algeria or Libya in search of better livelihood opportunities or to escape poverty, and normally remain the country for less than a year, reportedly due to insecurity or expulsion from the country. In 2016, a higher proportion of migrants who resided in Libya said they were forcibly returned from the country, compared to 2015 – providing a preliminary indication that forced return from Libya may have increased, in relative terms, between 2015 and 2016. More research is needed to verify if this is indeed the case. Although the vast majority of migrants are male, the share of women arriving in IOM transit centres in 2016 was two percentage points higher than in 2014, and four percentage points higher than in 2015. Given the much higher numbers of migrants arriving in IOM centres in 2016, the absolute number of women was significantly higher in that year. Most of the female migrants were from Niger and Nigeria, and had been residing in Niger before arriving in IOM centres. They were more likely to be married, illiterate, and uneducated than male migrants. Women were also more likely to be minors than males. These elements point to the need to further investigate the specific needs and vulnerabilities of female migrants – and minors in particular – to inform targeted protection and assistance programmes.

Experiences of violence and abuse during the journey and during stay in the temporary country of residence are dramatically common among migrants – despite the relatively low response rates for questions related to such experiences, particularly among women (and more so for questions related to sexual exploitation). Physical violence, and different types of threats and psychological abuse are the most frequently reported by migrants. A large share of them are unaware of the risks they will face during the journey and upon arrival in countries of temporary residence. The information gathered by migrants from family, friends, and other sources prior to departure often reveals to be false, according to migrant testimonies. It seems therefore critical to facilitate access to reliable information for migrants – on risks of the journey, conditions in intended countries of destination, and possible alternatives – whilst ensuring timely and targeted protection of migrants in vulnerable situations. As the majority of the people interviewed intend to return to their communities of origin, it is also essential to guarantee a successful socio-economic reintegration upon return. Finally, the report has shown how the profiling exercise is a precious source of information on drivers, experiences and risks of migration in West and Central Africa, as well as migrants’ profiles and intentions. The exercise should ideally be complemented with in-depth research with migrants in the centres, as well as migrants en route, to gain a better understanding of how migrants’ decisions are shaped during the journey, and what differentiates migrants who decide to return from those who decide to stay in North Africa or attempt the dangerous Mediterranean crossing. A regular implementation of such an exercise will allow for the identification of trends of return migration in Niger, and migration within the region more generally, which would contribute to informing effective policy responses to minimize the risks associated with irregular migration.