Multi-Sectoral Needs assessment among displaced and host populations in the Sahel and Centre-North Regions in .

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 1

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 CONTEXT 5 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE MULTI-SECTORIAL ASSESSMENT AND RAPID PROTECTION ASSESSMENT 6 1.3 METHODOLOGY 7

2. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS 11 2.1. GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS 11 2.2. DISPLACEMENT SITUATION 11

3. WATER SANITATION AND HYGIENE 13 3.1. SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER 13 3.2. MAIN BARRIERS TO WATER ACCESS 13 3.3. DISTANCE AND TIME FOR WATER COLLECTION 14 3.4. HYGIENE AND SANITATION 14

4. NON-FOOD ITEMS AND SHELTERS 16 4.1. SHELTER AND CONDITIONS OF HOUSING 16 4.2. NON-FOOD ITEMS 16

5. LIVELIHOOD & MARKETS ASSESSMENT 17 5.1. SOURCES OF REVENUES 17 5.2. FOOD STOCKS 18 5.3. MARKET ACCESS 18 5.4. FOOD AVAILABILITY ON MARKETS 19 5.5. MAIN FOOD SOURCES ON MARKETS 19 5.6. SHORTAGE ON MARKETS 20 5.7. FOOD PRICES ON MARKETS 20 5.8. FOOD BASKET PRICES ON MARKETS 21

6. FOOD SECURITY 22 6.1. NUMBER OF MEALS 22 6.2. FOOD CONSUMPTION SCORE - FCS 23 6.3. HOUSEHOLD DIET DIVERSITY SCORE - HDDS 24 6.4. HOUSEHOLD HUNGER SCORE - HHS 24 6.5. REDUCED COPING STRATEGY INDEX - RCSI 25

7. PROTECTION 27 7.1. OVERVIEW 27 7.2. SECURITY AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION 27 7.3. SOCIAL COHESION 28 7.4. POPULATION MOVEMENTS 29 7.5. CHILD PROTECTION 30 7.6. GENDER BASED VIOLENCE 31

8. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMANDATIONS 32

9. ANNEXES 35

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 2

Table 1: IDP Figures per Communes ...... 7 Table 2 : Sampling of households surveyed ...... 8 Table 3: Household composition ...... 11 Table 4: Special Need Persons ...... 11 Table 5 : IDP living situation ...... 12 Table 6 : Sources of water for IDPs and residents ...... 13 Table 7 : Main problem for water access ...... 13 Table 8 : Average travel time to water sources ...... 14 Table 9 : Type of shelter ...... 16 Table 10 : Average non food items ...... 16 Table 11 : Main sources of revenues ...... 17 Table 12 : Food Stocks ...... 18 Table 13 : Market Access ...... 18 Table 14 : Type of sold food items on markets ...... 19 Table 15 : Food Shortage ...... 20 Table 16 : price of staple cereals (bag of 100kg) ...... 21 Table 17 : Food basket for the assistance of IDPs and Host HH ...... 21 Table 18 : Number of meals for adults ...... 22 Table 19 : Number of meals for children ...... 23

Figure 1: Communes surveyed ...... 6 Figure 3 : Main Food sources on Markets ...... 20 Figure 4 : Food Consumption Score ...... 23 Figure 5 : Household Diet Diversity Score ...... 24 Figure 6 : Household Hunger Score ...... 25 Figure 7 : Reduced Coping Strategy Index ...... 26

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 3

CH Cadre Harmonisé CONASUR Conseil National de Secours d’Urgence et de Réhabilitation CVA Cash & Voucher Assistance DRC Danish Refugees Council FCS Food Consumption Score FGD Focus Group Discussion GBV Gender Based Violence HDDS Household Diet Diversity Score HHS Household Hunger Score IDP Internally Displaced People IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification KII Key Informant Interviews MSA Multi-sectoral Assessment OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs PLW Pregnant and Lactating Women rCSI Reduced Coping Strategy Index SNP Special Need Person USAID United State Agency for International Development WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 4

1.1 Context Burkina Faso is facing a rapidly deteriorating security situation manifested by the increased activity of armed groups, as well as inter-ethnic and criminal violence, with a total of 230 attacks recorded in the country over the past 3 years1. Despite the on-going military operations of the G5 Sahel Joint Force deployed in November 2017, the State has not proven able to maintain proper presence in crisis- affected areas to ensure the safety of civilians. The first quarter of 2019 saw a particularly sharp increase in violence, with a record of 134 attacks and a total of 544 fatalities - an augmentation of 194% compared to the entire year of 20182. Risks to the population are highest in the of Burkina Faso, located along the borders with Northern Mali and Niger. This area has faced the most long-standing destabilization and threats linked to armed groups compared to other areas of the country and remains the epicenter of abuse and insecurity. In a recently released analysis commissioned by USAID, approximately 50% of the population across the four Sahel Region provinces of Oudalan, Seno, Soum, and Yagha reported feeling unsafe either going to the market, walking after dark, and/or sending their children to school3. Human Rights Watch has recorded alleged atrocities against local populations both by armed groups and security forces in 32 hamlets, villages, and towns of the Sahel Region from mid-2018 to February 2019, including the killing of at least 42 people; the pillaging of homes and livestock; the abduction and intimidation of local leaders; the destruction of schools; the exclusion of women from public and social life; and the shooting up of local businesses4. Further violence erupted in Arbinda town of the Sahel Region on March 31, 2019 when armed attackers killed a local leader and 6 members of his family, sparking intercommunal clashes and leading to the deaths of over 60 people5. Insecurity in the Sahel Region has led to waves of population displacement within the Sahel Region and to the neighbouring Centre-North Region. The people of the Sahel and Centre-North Regions are traumatized by brutal attacks and looming insecurity, and many have fled their homes in search of safety to other communities where basic services and resources are limited. April 2019 data from CONASUR reports at least 96,053 internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the Sahel Region and 33,869 IDPs in the Centre-North Region6. As of early May 2019, OCHA reported 564,000 individuals in the Sahel Region and 93,000 individuals in the Centre-North Region (IDP and host) in need of humanitarian assistance across sectors, including protection, education, shelter, food security, and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)7. The on-going escalation of conflict and insecurity indicates that humanitarian needs will continue to rise. At the same time, humanitarian access has become more challenging with further detailed and timely information on the humanitarian situation in affected areas needed.

1 Voice of America (April 2019), Terror Attacks on the Rise in Burkina Faso 2 ACLED data – update March 31st, 2019 3 ORB International (Jan. 2019) Mapping Violent Extremist Org. Influence in Liptako-Gourma Tr-State Region 4 Human Rights Watch (March 22, 2019), Atrocities by Armed Islamists and Security Forces in BF Sahel Region 5 OCHA (April 16, 2019) Burkina Faso: Armed attacks in Arbinda, Flash Update No. 2 6 Conseil Nationale de Secours d’Urgence et de Rehabilitation (CONASUR), April 13, 2019 7 OCHA (May 6 2019) Humanitarian Snapshot

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 5

Figure 1: Communes surveyed

DRC operations in Burkina Faso began in 2013 with protection monitoring and assistance to vulnerable populations in 32 communes near the Malian border, building a network of community focal points in the process. Since then, DRC-DDG has consolidated and built a coherent multi-sectoral programmatic approach in areas of high need in Sahel, North, Boucle du Mouhoun, Centre-North, Centre, East, Hauts- Bassins, Cascades regions, to consolidate and build upon through programming in education, protection, armed violence reduction, WASH and livelihoods thanks to multiple funding sources (i.e. BPRM, DANIDA, ECHO, EU, Dutch MOFA, UNHCR, UNICEF). In 2019, DRC is launching a Rapid Response Mechanism, together with ACF (consortium lead), Solidarités and Humanity and Inclusion in the Center- North and East regions. DRC’s well-established programmatic and operational platform in Burkina Faso is conducive to an effective expansion of sectors and geographic footprint, based on identified needs, to enhance the humanitarian response to the present crisis in the country.

1.2 Objectives of the Multi-Sectorial Assessment and Rapid Protection Assessment The multi-sectorial assessment (MSA) in the Sahel and Centre-North aims to provide a vision of how insecurity and displacement has affected internally displaced and host households and communities in terms of their ability to cover basic survival needs such as food, water, shelter, and safety, and what is required to ensure survival and support resilience. The MSA intends to add to the knowledge base of the Burkina Faso humanitarian community with an emphasis on

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 6

vulnerability analysis and support the development of appropriate interventions in MSA target areas in real-time. The Rapid Protection Assessment (RPA) conducted in the same areas aims to focus on protection risks encountered by Internally Displaced Populations and host communities following massive influx of IDPs in Sahel and Centre-North regions and to identify priority protection needs of most vulnerable individuals and groups so as to inform the humanitarian response in both regions.

Finally the market survey aimed at assessing the availability of goods on key markets, the access to basic necessity goods for vulnerable HH, the capacity of local economic actors and the functionality of the local markets. The market assessment gives a good idea of the most adapted options in terms of response and feasibility of cash and vouchers assistance (CVA) in this volatile context.

1.3 Methodology Survey Sampling

The survey sampling size was based on the number of IDPs as of mid-March 2019. Three out of the four Provinces targeted by the MSA host the highest numbers of IDPs in the country, with 34 456 IDPs in of the Sahel Region; 12,962 IDPs in of the Centre-North Region; 9,877 IDPs in of the Sahel Region. Table 1: IDP Figures per Communes

Region Province Site IDP Figures

Djibo 27,609 Soum Kelbo 6,847 Sahel Gorom-Gorom 1,724 Oudalan Déou 8,153 Foubé 1,200 Barsalogo 5,634 Centre-North Sanmantenga Namissigma 6,036 Dablo 4,595 Pensa 1,533

In order to achieve the objectives of this evaluation, the methodological approach combined mixed quantitative and qualitative techniques. The survey used a two-stage stratified sampling method with the areas or sites of residence of IDP and host households as the primary unit and IDP and host households as the secondary unit. In the first unit, the survey covered all areas or sites of residence of IDPs in the Centre-North and Sahel region. Ten sites or areas of residence of IDPs (Djibo city, Kelbo, Arbinda, Gorom-Gorom, Déou, Barsalgho, Foubé, Namissigma, Dablo, Pensa) were included in the survey. The secondary unit sampling frame consists of all IDP households in the Centre-North and Sahel regions. According to this database, 4,966 households of internally displaced persons have been estimated at the time of the evaluation period for all residential sites in the two regions. For the determination of a minimum size for the achievement of significant results, three (03) parameters have been defined: (i) the estimated proportion of the population of internally displaced persons, (ii) the level of confidence and (iii) the margin of error to arrive to the following formula: 풏 = (풕^ퟐ ∗ 풑 ∗ (ퟏ − 풑))/풎^ퟐ With:

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 7

 n the minimum sample size for an event and a set level of risk;  t the confidence level (the typical value of the 95% confidence level will be 1.96);  p the estimated proportion of the population with the characteristic;  m the margin of error (set at 7%, except for Oudalan it was 10%);

Thus, a sample of 463 households of internally displaced persons was obtained for this survey. The number of host community households surveyed represented 24% of the IDP household sample size, or 90 households. The number of households of persons to be retained per zone or site of residence was proportional to the number of households in the zone or site in relation to the overall number of households to be surveyed. For the selection of surveyed households, in each sample site, the surveyed households were selected using the snowball method.

Repartition of households surveyed Table 2 : Sampling of households surveyed

Region Province Site Number of IDPs Number of hosts Djibo 90 24 Soum Kelbo 22 6 Sahel Gorom-Gorom 11 4 Oudalan Déou 58 21 Barsalogo 115 19 Namissigma 37 8 Centre-North Sanmantenga Dablo 29 6 Pensa 11 2 373 90 Total 463

Methods and data collection tools Multi-sectoral quantitative and qualitative assessments were conducted in 10 sites across the 3 targeted provinces from April 8 - 12 2019 and 6 markets. Assessment methodologies included household level surveys, market surveys, rapid protection analysis, focus group discussions (FGDs), and key-informant interviews (KIIs). A total of 463 household level surveys were carried out with both IDP (373) and host (90) households. In addition to household surveys, focus groups were indeed organized in the sites or areas where IDPs are located. A total of 27 focus group discussions were held, organized into three categories:  Focus groups for men;  Focus groups for women;  Mixed focus groups, where both sexes were represented. Interviews were also conducted with key informants. They were carried out in the form of interviews with the administrative authorities (prefect, mayor, technical services officers) of the localities visited. The sectors covered by the assessment included water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH); Non-Food Items (NFIs); Food Security and Livelihoods; Shelter; and Protection. The tools used for the assessment included:  DRC multi-sectoral assessment household survey  General information questionnaire  DRC rapid protection assessment and risk mapping questionnaires  DRC market survey tools for data collection on prices and information gathering from suppliers

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 8

 Focus group and KII discussion guides Quantitative and qualitative tools for the assessment were developed by the in-county Coordination Team with the technical support of Regional Technical Advisors. Operational Coordination was led by the DRC Burkina Faso Monitoring & Evaluation Team, and information gathering was done by DRC field teams based in Dori and Djibo, who led teams of locally hired surveyors. The interviewers (38) were recruited according to the level of knowledge of the local language. The training of the interviewers on the tools and sampling for the assessment lasted two days and was carried out in three training centres (Kaya, Djibo, Gorom-Gorom). For the Market assessment 20 KII have been conducted with local vendors in 6 markets: - 16 in the Centre-North Region: 10 local vendors were interviewed in the urban markets of Kaya and Dablo, 6 in the rural markets of Namissiguima and Barsalogho, - 4 in the Sahel Region: 2 in the urban market of Gorom-Gorom and 2 in the rural market of Deou.

Data recording and analysis Data collection was carried out using smartphones. The data collected from household questionnaires were directly entered into smartphones and sent regularly to an ODK server. However, the agents had paper questionnaires at their disposal in order to compensate for certain shortcomings (battery recharge, loss of smartphones, etc.) related to the collection of data on smartphones.

Data processing was carried out by the MEAL team in Burkina Faso and data analysis and report writing was carried out by the Food Security & Livelihoods Coordinator of the regional office in Dakar to ensure technical data analysis. The analysis was carried out according to standard methodologies for calculating food security indicators based on the WFP Compendium of Indicators for 2017 - 2021 (Annex 2).

Principal survey indicators

The results of the MSA are based primarily on the following key indicators: 1. Displacement status of households 2. Availability and quality of Shelter 3. Access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene services and infrastructure 4. Possession of basic non-food items 5. Status of food security and livelihoods 6. Perceptions and needs related to protection 7. Market functioning

Survey limitations While the town of Arbinda in Soum Province of the Sahel Region is known to be an area where high needs may be found among the population, DRC was not able to access the area (near the border with Northern Mali) due to insecurity.

Data protection and confidentiality

All DRC staff involved in the collection, process, analysis, storing and sharing of personal and sensitive data and information are under the obligation of confidentiality as per the organization’s guidelines

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 9

and Code of Conduct, and the respect for informed consent, acknowledging beforehand for what specific purpose and with whom the data will be shared. The assessment team members have been trained on data protection and have a strong understanding of data confidentiality and security principles, understanding and being able to identify security risks specific to their context and to explicitly think through the possible implications for data subjects, their families and communities, and for the organization, if data gets into the wrong hands or is misused. Before any recording information from an informant or an individual interviewed, DRC clearly introduced themselves and the organisation, explain the purpose of data collection exercise and the person’s rights, and explain how to address complaints to DRC/DDG. The staff clearly and systematically explained the concept of informed consent/assent for data analysis and use, adopting context-specific but precise language. No original identity paper or documents from any individual was requested, and any identifiable information, such as name or date of birth, were not collected if not for a defined purpose shared and explained to the person beforehand.

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 10

2.1. General demographics Households composition The survey found an average of 12.5 persons per household, which may reflect the regrouping of families due to insecurity and displacement. Children and youth between the ages of 5-18 are most represented across age groups. The average number of females is nearly the same as the average number of males across households surveyed.

Table 3: Household composition

HH members Male Female Average

0-5 years 1.9 1.8 2.75

5-18 years 2.3 1.8 4.10

18-50 years 1.7 1.9 2.65

50+ years 0.5 0.6 0.8

Total average 6.3 6.1 12.5

Households vulnerability The survey covered a number of household level indicators related to vulnerability: 63 households (14% of total) reported having at least 1 physically disabled person across Oudalan (21%), Sanmatenga (11%), and Soum (12%). A total of 16 households reported having a member of the family who is mentally handicapped, with 8 reported in the Sahel region and 8 reported in the Centre-North Regions. A total of 33 households reported the presence of a pregnant girl under the age of 18, with 22 (23%) located in Oudalan Province, 9 (4%) reported in Sanmantengha, and 2 (1%) reported in Soum. A total of 252 households (54%) reported the presence of Pregnant and Lactating woman (PLW) in their Household.

Table 4: Special Need Persons

SNP Oudalan Sanmatengha Soum Total

Physically Handicapped 21% 11% 12% 14%

Mentally Handicapped 4% 4% 3% 3%

Pregnant girl <18 23% 4% 1% 7%

PLW 62% 56% 47% 54%

2.2. Displacement Situation Displacement Locations

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 11

In the Sahel region, the top 5 villages that people have been displaced from are Bélèhédé (12%) Tounté (12%), Bouro (8%), Kourfagi (8%), and Sikiré (7%). In the Centre-North Region, the top 5 villages that people have been displaced from are Tarabramin (14%), Arbila (14%), Arbinda (13%), Kelbo (10°%), and Gasiliki (10%). There are some key differences between the Sahel and Centre-North Regions in terms of shelter access and usage among IDPs. For example, in Soum Province of the Sahel Region the vast majority of IDP families (63%) are renting homes, while only 19% are renting homes in Oudalan Province and only 8% are renting homes in the Centre-North Region. Conversely, the vast majority of IDPs in the Centre- North Region are living in offsite shacks (65%), while only 9% of IDPs in the Sahel Region are living in offsite shacks. Living in collective sites, such as schools, is much more frequent in the Sahel Region (16%) than in the Centre-North Region (4%), with over 90% of IDPs living in collective sites in the Sahel Region located in Oudalan Province. About 7% of IDPs in the Centre-North Region are living in formal sites, and there are no IDPs in formal sites in the Sahel Region. Finally, 25% of IDPs were found to be living with host families in the Sahel Region, compared to 20% in the Centre-North Region.

Table 5 : IDP living situation

Oudalan Soum Total Sahel Santamengha Total Centre- IDP Living Situation Total Province Province Region Province North

Renting a house 19% 63% 46% 8% 8% 27%

Offsite shack 4% 13% 9% 65% 65% 38%

Host family 30% 22% 25% 15% 15% 20%

Collective site (i.e. 39% 2% 16% 4% 4% 10% school)

Formal site 0 0 0 7% 7% 4%

No shelter 7% 0 3% 1% 1% 2%

100% 100% 100%

Displacement duration and frequency

There are significantly more households who have been displaced for more than 6 months in the Sahel Region (15%) than in the Centre-North Region (1%). Most IDPs in both regions have been displaced from 3-6 months: 55% in the Sahel Region and 79% in the Centre-North Region. Approximately 30% and 21% of IDPs have been displaced in the Sahel and Centre-North Regions respectively for under 3 months. 86% of the displaced HH have been displaced only once, and 13% have been forced to move 2 to 4 times. A high percentage of HH (89%) do not intend on returning to their origin homes before the next 6 months considering security issues.

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 12

3.1. Sources of drinking water As shown in the table below, access to water from protected sources is highly inadequate in Soum Province for both IDP and resident populations. Boreholes are the most common source of water for IDP and resident populations in Ouadalan province and are the source of water for nearly all residents of Sanmatengha Province. Running tap water is a resource for a little over 20% of the population in Oudalan Province.

Table 6 : Sources of water for IDPs and residents

Sources of Water for IDPs Oudalan Sanmatengha Soum Water trucking 0% 1% 0% Tap water 26% 5% 4% Borehole 61% 85% 25% Unprotected well 7% 5% 68% Protected well 4% 4% 4% Sources of water for residents Oudalan Sanmatengha Soum Water trucking 8% 0% 0% Tap water 24% 6% 7% Borehole 68% 94% 30% Unprotected well 0% 0% 53% Protected well 0% 0% 10%

3.2. Main barriers to water access By far, the primary barrier to water access for both IDP and resident populations is too much wait time. Long distances to collect water is also an issue for 17% of IDP families and 11% of host families, particularly in Soum Province. Not having money to pay for water is the third greatest barrier to access, particularly in the Sahel Region.

Table 7 : Main problem for water access

Main problem for water access IDPs Residents No money for purchasing water 12% 17% No proper receptacle 9% 8% No improved source in the zone 6% 3% Problem of access or mobility 5% 4% Dangerous road/insecurity 0% 1%

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 13

Long wait 46% 52% Long distance 17% 11% Blank 5% 3% 100% 100%

3.3. Distance and time for water collection On average, the MSA found that IDPs and residents travel a bit less than 1 km to collect water, and they do so 2 times per day. The longest distances that IDPs have to travel to access water are in Soum Province, where 43% of IDPs have to travel between 2-5 km to collect water. This is compared to Oudalan Province where 2 km is the furthest that IDPs have to travel for water (7%) and 65% travel 1 km or less. In Sanmantengha Province between 2- 3 km is the furthest that IDPs must travel for water (5%), and 34% of IDPs travel 1 km or less. The average time for water collection varies across communes surveyed. The table below shows the rounded average amount of time that it takes displaced and resident households to travel between their homes and the nearest water source. This data does not account for wait time once users have reached the source.

Table 8 : Average travel time to water sources

Province Communes Average travel time to source (rounded)

Bharsalogo 20 mn Dablo 30 mn Sanmantengha Namissigima 40 mn

Pensa 40 mn Déou 20 mn Oudalan Gorom-Gorom 25 mn

Djibo 35 mn Soum Kelbo 25 mn

3.4. Hygiene and Sanitation There is a marked need for the support and promotion of proper hygiene practices in the Sahel and Centre-North Regions. The lack of latrines across all areas covered by the MSA is of major concern to public health; in total 76% of IDPs and 62% of hosts do not have access to a hygienic latrine. In addition, 73% of IDPs and 62% of hosts do not have access to a shower. Hygiene knowledge and practices were found to be extremely poor among both IDP and resident households. For example, 70% of IDPs and 67% of hosts do not use soap when washing their hands and only 5% of individual surveyed reported that they wash their hands after defecation, before eating, and before preparing food.

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 14

Out of 1725 children under 5 within the surveyed households, 331 normal diarrhea cases (19%) and 22 bloody diarrhea cases (1%) were reported. This presents a global diarrhea rate of 20%, which is relatively high, even if under the emergency level of 45%. A total of 215 diarrhea cases reported (61%) were during the precedent 48 hours. Considering (i) the relatively low level of proper hygiene practices; (ii) the low access to hygienic latrines (iii) the significant proportion of interviewed households (both resident and IDPs) particularly in Soum province (respectively 53% and 68%) who collect their water from unprotected wells and (iv) the high percentage of displaced HH (89%) who do not intend on returning to their origin homes before the next 6 months, the diarrhea prevalence is likely to increase in the coming months, above all amongst displaced population and host families of Soum Province. 55% of households concerned with sick kids brought their kids to a health centre within the last 2 weeks. The remaining 45% did not mainly because of lack of financial means, and some because they do not trust the health centre.

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 15

4.1. Shelter and conditions of housing The MSA focused on what kinds of shelter both IDP and host families are living in, as well as the state that their shelter is in. There is a high concentration of IDP families living in emergency shelters in poor conditions in Santamengha Province. To illustrate, a 35% of total IDPs and 5% of hosts were found to be living in emergency shelters, with 95% of them located in Santamengha Province in the Centre- North Region, and approximately 90% of the emergency shelters assessed found to be in bad shape. The vast majority (90%) of IDPs in the Sahel Region are living in durable homes, and 100% of these homes across both Oudalan and Soum Provinces were found to be in poor condition. Therefore, there is a need to improve/replace emergency shelters in the Centre-North Region and improve upon durable housing structures in the Sahel Region. Table 9 : Type of shelter

IDP Resident Oudalan Sanmatengha Soum

Emergency 35% 6% 9% 55% 3% Shelter

Durable Shelter 63% 94% 85% 44% 97%

No shelter 1% 0% 5% 0% 0%

N/A 1% 0% 1% 0% 0%

4.2. Non-Food Items The MSA gathered data on essential household items that IDP and host families have or are lacking. Most IDP households (57%) and nearly half of host households (44%) do not have a bucket with a lid. Additionally, at least 57% of IDP households and 32% of host households do not have a mosquito net. Overall IDP families were found to possess about half that of host families, for example:  IDP families have an average of 1.5 cooking pots, while host families have 3  IDPs have an average of 3 mats for sleeping on, while host families have 5  IDPs have an average of 2.5 blankets, while host families have 4.4

Table 10 : Average non food items

IDP Resident Total

Number of buckets with a lid 0,8 1,3 0,9 Number of mosquito nets 1,3 2,0 1,4 Number of cooking pots 1,5 3,0 1,8 Number of beds, mats, and/or mattresses 3,1 5,0 3,5 Number of blankets and/or sheets 2,5 4,4 2,9

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 16

5.1. Sources of revenues There are some marked differences in livelihood activities for both IDPs and residents across the two regions, with the Centre-North Region more active in agricultural productivity and the Sahel Region more dependent on daily work and more engaged in mining activities. For example, in the Sahel Region, daily work is overall the most prevalent source of revenue for both IDP (35%) and resident populations (22%), whereas the percentage of IDPs (12%) and residents (6%) involved in daily work in the Centre- North Region is much lower. The selling of agricultural products among residents in the Sahel Region represents 17% of livelihoods, compared to 51% of residents in the Centre-North Region. Parallel to this, approximately 9% of IDPs in the Sahel Region sell agricultural products, compared to 20% in the Centre-North Region. Mining is a source of revenue for 13% of IDPs and 11% of residents in the Sahel Region, compared to 7% of IDPs and 0% of hosts in the Centre-North Region. The selling of animal products seems to be a relatively common source of livelihoods among IDPs across both regions, with IDPs being slightly more active in the selling of animal products than residents in the Centre-North Region, and just slightly less active than residents in the Sahel Region. Approximately 30% of IDPs in the Centre-North Region earn their livelihoods from ‘other’, while this figure is 18% for IDPs in the Sahel Region, which mainly relate to donation and humanitarian assistance.

Table 11 : Main sources of revenues

Centre Nord Sahel

IDP Resident IDP Resident

1. Sale of agricultural products 20% 51% 9% 17%

2. Sale of livestock products 19% 17% 15% 17%

3. Sale of fishing products 0% 0% 1% 0%

4. Sale of coals, firewood 1% 0% 4% 2%

5. Petty trade 6% 14% 4% 19%

6. Mining exploitation 7% 0% 13% 11%

7. Daily work 12% 6% 35% 22%

8. Handicraft 2% 0% 1% 2%

9. Rental incomes 3% 0% 1% 2%

10. Other 31% 11% 18% 9%

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 17

5.2. Food Stocks While the majority of IDPs (67%) and residents (80%) in the Sahel Region declared that they do have enough resources to be able to feed their household, 62% of IDP households in the Centre-North Region do not have enough resources to feed their household, compared to 8% of residents. Table 12 : Food Stocks

Centre Nord Sahel

IDP Resident IDP Resident

No food stocks 63% 9% 33% 20%

Food Stocks 38% 91% 67% 80%

IDPs in the Centre-North Region have significantly less household food stocks than IDPs in the Sahel Region, whereas the vast majority of residents across both regions have food stocks. The presence of food stocks is greatest for resident households in the Centre-North Region, likely due to the higher rates of agricultural activity taking place. This much more worrying situation in the Centre Nord Region show that the IDPs have been greatly affected by the recent deterioration of security and have left their homes with no resources to face the difficult path of displacement.

5.3. Market Access Access to markets has been found to be relatively un-interrupted in both the Sahel and Centre-North Regions with 91% of IDPs and 99% of residents claiming to have access to markets. However, insecurity as a barrier to accessing the marketplace was cited by approximately 10% of IDPs in Sanmatengha Province. The still possible access to markets for IDPs and residents is appreciated and is a good sign that humanitarian support is feasible through local markets in most areas. Cash Based Interventions could be considered as a response modality depending on the localized contexts and the IDP and residents’ specific needs and preferences.

Table 13 : Market Access

Centre Nord Sahel

IDP Resident IDP Resident

Not supplied market 3% 0% 0% 0%

No access because of insecurity 10% 0% 0% 2%

No physical access 2% 0% 1% 0%

Access to markets 85% 100% 99% 98%

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 18

5.4. Food availability on markets The totality of the interviewed vendors stated that they sell more than 4 articles in their shops, among which 40% sells 4 or 5 articles, 40% sells between 6 and 9 articles, 15% sells 10 to 15 and 5% sells more than 20 articles. All vendors sell pasta, oil and sugar. Among the 20 interviewed traders, 19 sell rice (local or imported), 10 sell local wheat or flour, 6 sell wheat couscous, 5 sell sorghum and/or millet, 4 sell maize, niébé (local legume of the variety of the “cowpea” or “black-eyed bean”) and peanuts. Generally, basic necessity goods are available, however it can observed that food diversity is less present in the markets of Sanmatenga Province.

Table 14 : Type of sold food items on markets

Type of Local Imported Local Wheat Wheat Maize Sorghum Niébé Peanuts Millet Pasta Oil Sugar market rice rice wheat flour Couscous Total Oudalan 50% 100% 50% 0% 100% 75% 50% 75% 75% 75% 100% 100% 100% Rural 100% 100% 50% 0% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% Urban 0% 100% 50% 0% 100% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Sanmatenga 50% 94% 13% 25% 13% 13% 13% 6% 13% 19% 100% 100% 100% Rural 100% 83% 17% 67% 33% 17% 17% 17% 17% 33% 100% 100% 100% Urban 20% 100% 10% 0% 0% 10% 10% 0% 10% 10% 100% 100% 100% 50% 95% 20% 20% 30% 25% 20% 20% 25% 30% 100% 100% 100%

Regarding availability of productive goods, it is noted that they are much less available on the markets compared to food goods. Productive goods such as bovines, goats, poultry and small utensils (for agriculture and for fishing) are sold only in the markets of the Sahel Region, and mainly on rural markets with the exception of bovines which are also found in the urban market of Gorom-Gorom. 7 traders sell livestock food (75% in Sahel), and 3 sell seeds for agricultural production and construction material. According to the opinion of sellers of Centre-North Region, the main articles they sell have not changed lately, unlike traders in Sahel, where 75% stated that most purchased articles have changed recently. 1 vendor out of 3 estimate that it is a reduction of products availability due to the season, 2 out of 3 see the cause in the seasonal reduction of purchasing power of the HH, and all sellers mention the growing insecurity in the area.

5.5. Main food sources on markets 85% of the traders only have one supplier, 10% has two sources and 5% (one trader of Gorom-Gorom) has 3 supply sources. Products are purchased to a wholesaler for 65% of the interviewed sellers located either in the same market or elsewhere, 30% purchase from a carrier, and 15% from producers, either close by or distant.

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 19

Only two traders declare to have changed their supply sources, in the Total Sanmatenga urban market of Kaya and Dablo by Oudalan increasing their suppliers due to a rise of the demand. This situation could be explained by a decrease of the number of clients in some rural markets due to insecurity and population movements towards urban centers.

For 85% of traders the preferred means of transportation are trucks Figure 2 : Main Food sources on Markets (100% for Sahel and urban traders), small trucks of 1 ton for 15 traders, 5 tons and 10 tons respectively for 1 trader. In Centre-North region, three rural traders reported using the pinasse and one trader mentioned the car.

Traders in Sahel get their supplies weekly, while half of Centre-North traders gets their supplies weekly and the other half monthly, with no major distinction between rural and urban markets.

5.6. Shortage on markets A total of 5 traders reported some basic commodities shortages. The markets experiencing shortages concerned are all rural and are located in the Centre-North, mainly in Barsalogho and Namissiguima, and in Déou in the Sahel. According to 60% of traders experiencing shortages, 5 products are missing, and for the remaining 40%, 8 or more products are missing. Notably, all declared a lack of local rice and 4 a lack of imported rice, both being staple cereals for local population. The main goods that seem to be missing are oil, pasta and sugar. To a lesser extent the lack of soap, fruits and vegetables, millet and corn should be monitored. All traders responded to the shortage by raising the prices of their commodities and 80% resorted to the stock whenever possible. According to the 5 traders concerned, the same shortages also affect other markets in their area.

Table 15 : Food Shortage

Loc Local Whe Wheat Fruits & Import Maiz Sorghu Niéb Mill Past Suga Mil Provinces al whe at Peanuts Cousco Oil vegetabl ed rice e m é et a r k rice at flour us es Oudalan 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Sanmaten 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 2 0 2 ga Total 5 4 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 3 1 2

5.7. Food prices on Markets In general, the prices of local staple cereals, namely sorghum, millet and maize, are between 20% and 42% higher in Oudalan compared to Sanmentenga, with lower prices in the Namissiguima and Kaya markets, and the highest in Deou and Gorom-Gorom. Regarding rice, the same trend is observed with

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 20

higher prices especially in the market of Déou. Imported rice is present in all areas, while local rice remains scarce and is sold mainly in small quantities.

Table 16 : price of staple cereals (bag of 100kg)

Municipality / Type of Imported Provinces Maize Millet Sorghum Local Riz Market market Rice Dablo Rural 16167 17417 17000 41333 32000 Kaya Urban 15000 16500 15167 42667 Sanmentenga Namissiguima Rural 12500 15500 15000 44000 Average Sanmentenga 13923 16125 15464 42286 32000 Déou Rural 17500 24900 22600 52000 36000 Gorom-Gorom Urban 16500 20500 19125 44000 Oudalan Average Oudalan 16700 22944 21056 46667 36000

Comparing the prices with the SAP Market Information System (SIM) data (Système d’Information sur les Marchés (SIM) du SAP), despite the comparison not being possible statistically due to different methodologies, it is observed that in the markets of Kaya and Gorom-Gorom in particular, the trend is negative for all commodities compared to the previous year. Indeed, the 2017 rainy season had been erratic with normal rainfall installation over most of the territory, which then continued very irregularly causing dry sequences over the growing season, impacting food crops resulting in a very poor harvest causing an early and long lean season in 2018. The food prices trend is also lower than the five-year average, but less pronounced.

5.8. Food basket prices on Markets As part of their food insecurity response program in the two regions, intervening actors (NGOs represented by Oxfam, Red Cross, ICRC) have defined a harmonized food basket for IDPs and host populations. The prices monitoring in the main markets of Gorom-Gorom and Kaya shows a substantial difference in the food basket cost of the two categories of beneficiaries, being sharply higher in the Sahel than in the Centre-North.

Table 17 : Food basket for the assistance of IDPs and Host HH

Harmonised Food Basket in Oudalan (Gorom-Gorom) Basket in Centre-North (Kaya) Assistance Price of Price of Price of Price of IDP Host HH Unit Price basket for basket for Unit Price basket for basket for IDP hosts IDP hosts Sorghum (KG) 50 50 211 10528 10528 152 7583 7583 Rice (KG) 50 25 344 17188 8594 350 17500 8750 Oil (L) 5 2 833 4167 1667 783 3917 1567 Niebe (KG) 25 20 478 11950 9560 233 5825 4660 Salt (KG) 2 2 400 800 800 400 800 800 FCFA 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 46 632 XOF 33 148 XOF 37 625 XOF 25 360 XOF

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 21

6.1. Number of meals

Number of meals per adults IDP adults have experienced a significant reduction in the number of meals per day since becoming displaced in both the Sahel and Centre-North Regions. For example, 79% of IDP households in the Centre-North Region and 89% in the Sahel Region were accustomed to 3 meals per day before displacement, and now only 7% of displaced adults in the Centre-North Region and 13% in the Sahel Region are able to eat 3 meals per day. Over 60% of displaced adults in both regions now eat 2 meals per day, and 24% in the Centre-North Region and 19% in the Sahel Region eat only 1 meal per day. Resident adults too have experienced a reduction in their number of meals per day across both regions, particularly in going from 3 meals to 2 meals per day. The change is particularly dramatic for resident adults in the Sahel where the numbers of residents able to eat 3 meals per day has dropped by more than 50%.

Table 18 : Number of meals for adults

Centre Nord Sahel

Total Total IDP Resident Centre IDP Resident Sahel Nord

1 meal 24% 0% 20% 19% 4% 15%

Currently 2 meals 69% 80% 71% 69% 65% 68%

3 meals 7% 20% 9% 13% 31% 17%

1 meal 2% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1%

2 meals 18% 37% 21% 10% 13% 11% Before the crisis 3 meals 79% 57% 75% 82% 82% 82%

4 meals 2% 6% 3% 8% 4% 7%

Number of meals per children

The number of meals per day for displaced and resident children has also changed for children in the Sahel and Centre-North Regions, with a significant reduction in the numbers of children eating more than 3 meals per day following displacement. At present, the majority (between 60-70%) of children in both regions are eating 3 meals per day, with approximately 20% eating 2 meals per day, and 3 % of displaced children in the Centre-North Region eating 1 meal per day, compared to 1% in the Sahel

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 22

Region. This is of particular concern as this deterioration of food consumption for children could lead to an increase in the prevalence of children under 5 years old being acutely malnourished.

Table 19 : Number of meals for children

Centre Nord Sahel

Total Centre IDP Resident IDP Resident Total Sahel Nord

1 meal 3% 0% 3% 2% 0% 1%

2 meals 23% 14% 21% 26% 11% 23%

Currently 3 meals 70% 57% 68% 63% 78% 67%

4 meals 3% 17% 5% 8% 9% 8%

5 meals 1% 11% 2% 1% 2% 1%

2 meals 1% 6% 2% 1% 4% 2%

3 meals 66% 49% 63% 37% 53% 40% Before the 4 meals 16% 17% 16% 39% 33% 37% crisis 5 meals 11% 20% 13% 16% 9% 14%

More than 5 6% 9% 6% 7% 2% 6%

6.2. Food Consumption Score - FCS Figure 3 : Food Consumption Score The Food Consumption Score (FCS) for both displaced and resident households are much more worrying in the Centre- North Region, where 60% of residents and 48% of IDPs have poor FCS, compared to poor FCS for 22% of residents and 38% of IDPs in the Sahel Region. In fact, 44% of resident households in the Sahel Region have acceptable FCS, much higher than the 17% of resident households with an acceptable FCS in the Centre-North Region. This data clearly shows a very severe situation in the Centre- North Region in particular. This could be explained by several factors such as, (i) the fact that the magnitude of the crisis in the Centre-North Region was

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 23

unexpected and the population were not prepared for such displacements whereas in the Sahel region, communities have developed coping mechanisms to adapt to the consequences of the security crisis over the years, (ii) the fact that the insecurity has prevented farmers to move freely and access their fields, (iii) the greater humanitarian assistance given to the Sahel region communities as opposed to the Centre-North Regional where the humanitarian assistance is just expending to assist the most affected.

6.3. Household Diet Diversity Score - HDDS The diversity of food available to resident and displaced populations is also significantly greater in the Sahel Region than in the Centre-North Region, with approximately 80% of households in the Sahel Region having access to diverse foods, as opposed to 36% in the Centre-North Region. In fact, food diversity is unacceptably low for roughly 14% of the population in the Centre-North Region with only 1 to 2 food groups consumed at the most (cereals mainly) and 50% of the communities consuming 3 to 4 food groups. Food diversity is thus quite worrying for a great part of the Centre-North region which could lead to a deterioration of the nutritional status of the under 5 years old.

Figure 4 : Household Diet Diversity Score

6.4. Household Hunger Score - HHS The Household Hunger Score – HHS is a key indicator to assess whether households have experienced problems of food access in the preceding 30 days, as reported by the households themselves, to classify the severity of food insecurity for that period. HHS assesses food consumption strategies adopted by households facing a lack of access to food. In particular, 3 key questions are asked to the interviewed HH: In the past [4 weeks/30 days], (i) was there ever no food to eat of any kind in your house because of lack of resources to get food? (ii) did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food? (iii) did you or any household member go a whole day and night without eating anything at all because there was not enough food?

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 24

The cut-offs for HHS are based on the IPC/Cadre Harmonisé Acute Reference Table Phase descriptions. The analysis of the HHS shows that an important part of the communities in the two regions, i.e 47% in the Centre-North region and 39% in the Sahel region, are experiencing moderate to severe hunger. The proportion of HH with a high HHS is quite significantly higher for the IDPs than for the residents, with respectively 43% of IDP in the Centre-North region and 40% of IDP in the Sahel region with a HHS moderate to very severe.

Figure 5 : Household Hunger Score

6.5. Reduced Coping Strategy Index - rCSI In terms of strategies deployed by the communities to face the lack of access to food, the reduced Coping Strategy Index – rCSI shows that communities are using more negative strategies in the Centre- North region with an average rCSI of 12.5. The five strategies used to cope the lack of food are:

 To consume less preferred food  To borrow money to buy food  To limit the quantity of food during the meals  To limit the number of meals during the day  To limit adults food consumption for the children benefit Between 23% and 42% of the interviewed HH are engaging in coping strategies depending on the specific strategy. The reduction of adult meals for children benefit in particular, which is considered as the most severe coping strategy, is used by respectively 42% and 41% of IDP in the Sahel and the Centre-North regions. This confirms a great severity of food insecurity of the displaced households.

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 25

Figure 6 : Reduced Coping Strategy Index

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 26

7.1. Overview Analysis of data from rapid Protection surveys, Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions reveals a hierarchy of protection risks that different groups of the affected populations are facing in the Sahel and Centre-North Regions. The civilian population in the Sahel Region are by far faced with the most severe risks because they live in a complex conflict environment and often have little support (including shelter and education) to reinforce the capacities to protect their community members and enhance their safety. Notably, displaced populations face insidious discrimination linked to tension and mistrust between ethnic groups, have less access to appropriate information and community support mechanisms, and women and children are highly exposed to various forms of physical, psychological and gender-based violence perpetrated by a range of armed and non-armed actors present in the region, including local community members. The increasingly complex conflict environment where one incident seems to escalate to another, and the nature of daily life that has been altered, also drive the resident populations in the Sahel region to face great protection risks, especially the adoption of negative coping strategies, because of the loss of their livelihoods, goods, and access to health services. At the time of the survey, the Centre-North Region was not theatre of an active complex conflict. Yet, the extremely scarce resources, the limited access in some areas, and inflows of thousands of IDPs have put a strain on the availability of basic services and increased the protection risks faced by the forcibly displaced and host communities. IDPs and residents face risks primarily related to competition for these very limited essential resources, which leads to harmful practices adopted by the populations to access them, to discriminatory tensions, and the erosion of cultural solidarity and social support.

7.2. Security and Community Protection

Risks related to civil documentation

Affected populations in the Sahel Region (Déou, Gorom-Gorom, and Djibo provinces) are facing the highest risks related to a lack of documentation as only between 25 and 50% of the population possess a birth certificate and/or another identity document. The lack of civil identification greatly impacts the freedom of movements of the affected populations who may encounter major difficulties and threats when leaving the location. During the group discussions, it was reported that particularly the Fulsé minority group members in Déou are targeted in the limitation of movements and they are strictly prohibited to leave the area even with official identification. In the Centre-North Region, more than 50% of the population possess birth certificates oIn average, with the exception of Barsalogho where possession is limited to around 25%. In Pensa, although there is average possession of birth certificates (50-75%), FGD discussions revealed that obtaining birth certificates for children is becoming increasingly problematic in this area due to the long delays for the obtainment and the lack of appropriate information, in particular for displaced populations.

Risks related to the presence of armed groups Several armed actors are present in the Sahel Region. The participants to the FGDs in this area cited a wide range of armed groups as alleged perpetrators of violence and exploitation towards local populations, including; (i) radical armed groups; (ii) armed opposition groups; and (iii) some individuals

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 27

of the national defence forces. Other perpetrators cited include unknown bandits, criminals, and members of the local community. The situation is quite different in the Centre-North Region where the presence of organized armed groups was not reported during the discussions with the communities. Here it was even stated that the ‘main risk is threats from members of the community’. Across both regions surveyed, less than 25% of the local population reported to be armed, while in some areas such as Barsalogho, Dablo, and Djibo the communities reported that the populations are not armed at all. It should be noted, however, that due to the sensitivity of arms possession the proportion of community members with arms is frequently under reported.

Risks affecting goods There are different factors driving the risks affecting goods between the Sahel and Centre-North Regions, as well as enormous disparity in the severity of these risks. In particular, in the Sahel Region all FGD participants (IDPs, host, women and men) reported that the risks are very high for (i) spread threats like banditry and robbery; (ii) the reduction of the access to land for agriculture and grazing due to conflict and insecurity; and (iii) the occupation of homes. There seems to be a clear link between looming insecurity amongst a variety of armed actors and the risks to goods and livelihoods for local populations. In the Centre-North Region there were relatively fewer risks to goods reported, with Foubé and Namissigima reporting ‘some’ risk of banditry and less available land for cultivation. In Foubé the risk is ‘high’ for the occupation of homes and less land for grazing, although the situation was quite severe even before the current crisis. No risks to goods were cited in Dablo, Pensa, nor Barshalogo of the Centre-North Region.

Risks affecting people

“The core of the problem is discrimination” – Resident man in Djibo. People in the Sahel Region are facing very high levels of risks related to discrimination, threats, physical violence, kidnapping, murder, forced recruitment, and torture. The threats to individuals’ human rights and safety appear to be perceived as higher for the displaced populations than residents, due to dynamics of distrust and discrimination between groups, as well as direct targeting of IDPs for acts of violence. However, residents are also very exposed, in particular as a feeling linked to the arrival of displaced populations and the pressure on the already limited natural resources and basic services. During the exchanges with the communities, one man in particular stated that “There have been many incidents affecting hosts because since the arrival of IDPs they are also insecure and lacking enough water and food. Major banditry risks becoming entrenched in the area”. Some major risks are also affecting the populations in the Centre-North Region, such as physical violence, murder, corporal punishment of children, and arbitrary arrest. However, these risks do not appear related to the current crisis but rather to the fragile rule of law and the structural weaknesses.

7.3. Social Cohesion Tensions linked to natural resources

Tensions linked to access to natural resources and basic services are highest in the Sahel Region, however they also run high in certain parts of the Centre-North Region such as Namissigima and Foubé. Conflict between farmers and herders, as well as conflict over access to water are the most salient issues overall. Tensions between farmers and herders are highest during the rainy (or winter) seasons, while conflict over water appears to be related to structural insufficient hydric resources available to meet the additional needs caused by the IDPs’ influx, as well as long wait times - as underlined by FGD participants in Foubé.

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 28

Conflict related to access to basic services is also an issue in some areas, in particular in Foubé following the departure of MSF, and reportedly linked to as-mentioned ‘corruption’ around access to basic services in Djibo. Where tensions linked to natural resources exist, all FGD groups reported that local conflicts have been increased by the presence of non-state armed groups and the threat of violence. In the Sahel Region in particular there seems to be high awareness among populations about the relationship between local conflicts and overall insecurity: “All of our conflicts today come down to our victimization8” – FGD participant Déou “One has to recognize that the tensions linked to natural resources or services, and those linked to authorities have increased in frequency and impact since the crisis” - FGD participant Djibo

Tensions linked to authorities

Four out of five sites in the Centre-North Region reported that there are no tensions linked to authorities, with the exception of Namissigima where some conflict between local leaders was cited. Conversely, tensions concerning authorities were reported across all areas of the Sahel Region with some differences in perceptions between IDPs and host communities. For example, in Déou IDPs participants to the FGDs stated that there is conflict (i) between authorities, as well as (ii) between traditional leaders and the population, and (iii) between administrative leaders and the population. However, during the discussions with groups of only residents, no conflict linked to authorities was identified. Interestingly, conflicts related to authorities in Déou have reportedly decreased in the wake of crisis – perhaps due to local social cohesion initiatives led by some among the authorities. In Djibo, both IDPs and residents reported that there are tensions between traditional leaders and the population, as well as between administrative leaders and the population, with conflict having increased in the wake of the current crisis. In Gorom-Gorom, the only conflict mentioned is between traditional leaders and the population, and this dynamic apparently existed before the crisis.

Mechanisms for conflict resolution Mechanisms for conflict resolution are reported by residents to exist across all areas where FGDs took place, however IDPs in Déou are unaware of the mechanisms available. Community-based and traditional mechanisms were most frequently cited across the Sahel and Centre-North Regions, with ‘formal’ mechanisms also existing in Dablo, Pensa, and Foubé of the Centre-North Region. Namissigima stands out in the Centre-North as an area with gaps in terms of conflict resolution support because there is only a community-based mechanism which is considered weak. In Barsalogho on the other hand, functional and respected local site management committees deal with conflict and have not been changed by the crisis. Existing methods for conflict resolution are also said to be respected in Dablo, Pense, and Foubé, and local leaders conduct sensitization on social cohesion with local populations. Social cohesion initiatives are also reported in Déou and Djibo of the Sahel Region, with active village committees for peaceful cohabitation, which conduct periodic intercommunal dialogue.

7.4. Population Movements Information on zones of origin of IDPs

8 i.e by non-state armed groups

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 29

Perceptions on access to information regarding the place of origin of IDPs varies widely in the Sahel Region from nothing to ‘widespread diffusion’ within communities such as Déou and Djibo, and average levels of diffusion reported in Gorom-Gorom. In the Centre-North Region this information is largely diffused, except in Namissigima where dissemination is reported to be limited.

Projections for IDP returns No pressure is reported on IDPs to return to their areas of origin in any of the areas where FGDs were held. A high percentage of HH (89%) do not intend on returning to their origin homes before the next 6 months due to security issues. Based on discussions, once there is enough perceived security in communities of origin, high rates of displaced populations located in the Centre-North Region expressed the willingness to return - all IDPs in Pensa and Barsologho reportedly intend to return to their places of origin, and at least 80% of IDPs in Foubé, Namissigima, and Dablo (once there is enough perceived security in villages of origin). Projections are less clear across the Sahel Region with anywhere between 20% to greater than 50% of IDPs planning to remain where they are due to insecurity in their places of origin, or a better security situation where they are now. It is a ‘wait and see’ situation, with IDPs making statements such as: “There is no news from the villages of origin because there is no one there to pass on information to us and no one goes there because those who have tried have not come back”. – FGD participant Déou “For the moment, IDPs feel in security in Djibo and propose to return to their areas of origin if the security situation stabilizes fully.” - FGD participant Djibo In Gorom-Gorom, between 20-50% of IDPs reported not planning to return to their areas of origin, but to settle in a village other than the current one in search of a better security situation and better basic services than in their areas of origin.

7.5. Child Protection

Risks affecting children Children in the Sahel Region are exposed to a wide range of risks, with IDP children being particularly vulnerable. Resident women in Djibo stated that children face some risk of physical violence in the community and very high risk of being out-of-school, while IDP women stated that children face these same risks in addition to very high risk, mainly for girls, of early marriage, other forms of sexual abuse and exploitation, and unwanted pregnancy, forced recruitment by armed groups,forced labour, as well as major vulnerabilities linked to unaccompanied and separated children. Out-of-school children was consistently the biggest concern raised across FGDs with both host and IDP women in the Sahel Region. One woman in Déou stated, “These risks have already existed before the crisis and continue to occur. It is for this reason that sensitization is needed around sending girls to school. Even worse, with the violence these risks are accentuated. Young girls are even victims of rape in some communities. Mechanisms for support and referencing are welcome.” In the Centre-North Region the reported risks for children are much lower than in the Sahel. Out-of- school children is again the greatest concern, followed by some risks for children being separated and/or forcibly married. It was noted in Barsalogho that the cases of orphan children are children who lost their parents during the violence in Yirgou and who are separated from primary care givers. One woman in Namissigima stated that, “Children always find themselves in stressful situations and even jump in their sleep. Many children have left school because they started in the middle of the year. There is not

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 30

enough food and clothes for children, and there has only been 1 distribution since their arrival over three months ago.”

Case management for the support and protection of children In Déou there was no case management for the support and protection of IDP children at the time of the assessment. In Gorom-Gorom there is case by case management at the village level, and in Djibo there is reportedly a mechanism in place for case management and referral, but many IDP women are unaware of this. Case management and referral mechanisms exist in Barsologho and Foubé. In Namissigima, Dablo, and Pensa the protection of children is dealt with on a case-by-case basis at the village level.

7.6. Gender Based Violence

GBV risks There is a marked difference between the gender-based violence risks for women in the Sahel and Centre-North Regions, as well as between resident and displaced women. The risks faced by displaced women in the Sahel region are by far the most severe with high rates of rape, exploitation, physical violence, forced marriage, discrimination, and denial of access to resources reported. While women did not want to disclose more in details the violence they suffer, youth in Déou cited an incident of four IDP women being raped and a child murdered by unidentified armed men whilst out looking for food. Indeed, IDP woman in Déou stated the importance of mechanisms being put in place to end the violence and deal with cases lawfully. The issue of women not having dignified and safe shelter to protect themselves was also raised. One woman in Gorom-Gorom stated, “We are exposed today to all categories of violence because we are weakened and disoriented. The conditions of our households are degraded and many of our husbands have abandoned us following insecurity and in search of security. We want to mobilize the resources to return to our villages.” Few GBV risks were cited by women in the Centre-North Region, and in Barsalogho, Pensa, and Namissigima there was none reported at all. Women in Dablo and Pensa stated that there are some risks of forced marriage, denial of access to resources, and female genital mutilation. Women in the Centre-North Region focused more on other needs, such as insufficient resources for paying for food and medical care, insufficient shelter, and insufficient wood for cooking, which may lead to the adoption of negative coping strategies.

Support to GBV survivors Foubé is the only community where traditional justice mechanisms are in place for dealing with gender- based violence according to the results of the discussions. Most communities deal with these cases on a personal basis between individuals, and in Djibo and Déou it was reported that there are no solutions for addressing GBV. In the Centre-North region, on the contrary, high level of satisfaction is reported with the approach of addressing GBV between individuals at the community level. Displaced populations in Déou also do not know where they can access health services. These services are apparently available in Gorom-Gorom and Djibo. Health services are available in all Centre-North communities, expect in Dablo where women must travel over 15 kilometres to access them.

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 31

Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene While the quality of available drinking water is not captured under this assessment, it is clear that IDP and resident populations in Soum are in dire need of access to protected water sources. The main barriers to water access across all three provinces surveyed (i.e. distance and wait time) indicate a need for more functioning and safe water sources and/or increased water flows from the sources that do exist due to population influx. The poor hygiene knowledge and practices reflected in the survey among IDP and resident populations indicate the need for greater hygiene promotion through sensitization and the provision of basic sanitation infrastructure. Key Recommendations:

 To repair and/or construct protected water sources in the areas of highest need (i.e. Soum Province).

 To identify the wait times for collecting water and where exactly population influx has led to wait times that prohibit access.

 To repair and rehabilitate existing water sources in areas with prohibitive wait times due to population influx.

 To conduct hygiene promotion on the importance of handwashing and key moments for handwashing, as well as enable access to soap for handwashing across the provinces surveyed.

 To work with communities to construct latrines and shower facilities for IDP and resident households across the provinces surveyed.

Shelter and NFIs There is a high concentration of IDP families living in emergency shelters in poor condition in Santamengha Province in the Centre-North Region. The vast majority of IDPs in the Sahel Region are living in durable homes, and 100% of these homes across both Oudalan and Soum Provinces were found to be in poor condition. Most IDP households (57%) and nearly half of host households (44%) do not have a bucket with a lid. Additionally, at least 57% of IDP households and 32% of host households do not have a mosquito net. Overall IDP families were found to possess about half that of host families, for example:

 IDP families have an average of 1.5 cooking pots, while host families have 3  IDPs have an average of 3 mats for sleeping on, while host families have 5  IDPs have an average of 2.5 blankets, while host families have 4.4

Key Recommendations:

 To provide essential NFIs such as cooking pots, sleeping mats, blankets, buckets with lids, and mosquito nets to IDP households across the Sahel and Centre-North Regions.  To improve or replace emergency shelters in the Centre-North Region and improve upon more durable housing structures in the Sahel Region.

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 32

Food security, Markets and Livelihoods While the majority of IDPs (67%) and residents (80%) in the Sahel Region declared that they do have enough food stocks to be able to feed their household, 62% of IDP households in the Centre-North Region do not have enough food stocks to feed their household, compared to 8% of residents. IDP adults have experienced a significant reduction in the number of meals per day since becoming displaced in both the Sahel and Centre-North Regions. Resident adults too have experienced a reduction in their number of meals per day across both regions, particularly in going from 3 meals to 2 meals per day. The change is particularly dramatic for resident adults in the Sahel where the numbers of residents able to eat 3 meals per day has dropped by more than 50%. The number of meals per day for displaced and resident children has also changed for children in the Sahel and Centre-North Regions, with a significant reduction in the numbers of children eating more than 3 meals per day following displacement. This is of particular concern as this deterioration of food consumption for children could lead to an increase in the prevalence of children under 5 years old being acutely malnourished. The deterioration of the situation is also showing through the severity of the food coping strategies used. The reduction of adult meals for the benefit of children in particular, which is considered as the most severe coping strategy, is used by respectively 42% and 41% of IDPs in the Sahel and the Centre- North regions, which confirms a great severity of food insecurity of the displaced households. The Food Consumption Score (FCS) for both displaced and resident households are much more worrying in the Centre-North Region than in the Sahel Region. Centre-NorthCentre-NorthThe diversity of food available to resident and displaced populations is also significantly greater in the Sahel Region than in the Centre-North Region where food diversity is quite worrying for a great part of the population which could lead to a deterioration of the nutritional status of the under 5 years old. This most severe situation in the Centre-North region compared to the Sahel is due to several factors such as, (i) the fact that the magnitude of the crisis in the Centre-North Region was unexpected and the population were not prepared for such displacements whereas in the Sahel region, communities have developed coping mechanisms to adapt to the consequences of the security crisis over the years, (ii) the fact that the insecurity has prevented farmers to move freely and access their fields, and (iii) the greater humanitarian assistance given to the Sahel region communities as opposed to the Centre-North Regional where the humanitarian assistance was just expending to assist the most affected at the time of the assessment. Key Recommendations:

 To provide emergency food security assistance to IDP households in the Centre-North and Sahel regions and very poor resident households in the Centre-North Region which is less covered in terms of humanitarian assistance.  To diversify the food sources available to IDP and resident populations in the Centre-North Region to ensure food access and food diversity to prevent and avoid further deterioration of the food security situation.  To assist vulnerable individual exposed to food insecurity and malnutrition such as children under 5 years old and women affected by the crisis through adequate supplementary feeding assistance to meet their specific needs.  To provide early recovery programs to support economic recovery of the affected communities and households to avoid long term impact of the crisis on the local livelihood and economy.  To promote assistance through local markets to ensure markets continue to be functioning for the overall communities.

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 33

Protection The protection situation in the Sahel and the Centre-North regions of Burkina Faso is extremely concerning, with high level of risks faced in particular by children and women. In the Sahel region, the presence of armed groups and other unknown armed men creates major distress among the civilian population already affected by the crisis. These armed actors limit the freedom of movement of people and reduce drastically their opportunity for access to basic services and resources. This limitation is additionally exacerbated by the lack of civil documentation, which raises the risks of arbitrary arrests and detention when transiting through check-points. When discussing with displaced populations in the Sahel region, the return intentions to the village of origin are quite vague, as a consequence of not very well disseminated information and of very volatile security contexts in the overall region. Furthermore, the limited access to basic services and natural resources create tensions between displaced and host communities, while proper conflict resolution and mitigation community-based mechanisms are weak or clearly missing in most of the locations evaluated. In the Centre-North region, the context is slightly less alarming with fewer security issues linked to scarcer presence of armed actors at the time of the assessment, but with high level of risks for the civilian populations linked to the displacement movements, and the access to limited services and resources. Children and women are generally facing the main protection risks, with particular attention in the Sahel region to gender-based violence, exploitation, violence, forced recruitment by armed groups and criminal gangs, and unaccompanied and separated children. Additionally, limited access to basic services and scarce opportunities of fulfilment for basic needs expose the populations to further risk of adoption of negative coping strategies, such as sexual and/or child exploitation and the denial for children of the right to education. Key Recommendations:

 To ensure that all groups can participate in a safe and secure fashion when information is gathered; adapted approaches are especially important to address gender and age specific vulnerabilities such as GBV, access to education, disability/ access to services, cohabitation/intimacy, water collection/ food preparation, and early marriage.  To strengthen psychosocial support activities for the distress and traumatized populations;  To disseminate appropriate information to the populations, in particular the displaced ones, on existing services, community mechanisms and assistance available;  To reinforce social cohesion activities to mitigate the risks of exacerbating relations between host and displaced communities, through dialogue fora, community mobilization and trainings;  To facilitate access to education for out-of-school children, providing a safe and dignified environment for learning activities;  To strengthen the access to civil documentation in order to ensure the freedom of movement and the enjoyment of fundamental rights for the civilian populations;

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 34

Annexe 1 – MSA Data collection questionnaire Annexe 2 – RPA Data collection questionnaire Annexe 3 – Risk mapping questionnaire Annexe 4 - Market Monitoring Survey Guide Annexe 5 – Merchant questionnaire

Burkina Faso, Sahel and Centre-North Regions – MSA Report – May 2019 35