MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 20 (Tropical Cyclone Eloise Aftermath) Data Collection Period: 18 March - 14 April 2021

MOZAMBIQUE: TROPICAL CYCLONE AND FLOODS MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 20 (Tropical Cyclone Eloise Aftermath) Data collection period: 18 March - 14 April 2021

24,230 IDP households 116,385 IDPs 80 resettlement sites 18,875 by Cyclone Idai 80,579 by Cyclone Idai 3,016 by floods 13,675 by floods

From 16 March to 14 April 2021, in close coordination with Mozambique’s National Institute for Disaster Management Manica and Risk Reduction (INGD), International Organization for 4,726 households Migration (IOM)’s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) teams 87% conducted multi-sectoral location assessments (MSLA) in 10% 13% - 3% Other resettlement sites hosting internally displaced persons (IDPs) reasons in the four provinces affected by Cyclone Idai (March 2019) 24,230 and floods (between December 2019 and February 2020). Sofala 63% households 18% - 15,895 Displaced by oods households 9% The assessments were carried out following Tropical Cyclone 68% - Displaced due to Eloise, which hit the central region of Mozambique on 23 Tropical Cyclone Idai 28% January 2021. The most affected districts were Buzi, Dondo Tete 717 100% Nhamatanda, and Chibabava in Sofala province. Zambezia households 2,892 households Around 8,755 families in the resettlement sites had their 39% tents and shelters destroyed/partially destroyed as a result of 61% Tropical Cyclone Eloise. Resettlement Sites in the Central Region of Mozambique Muawa 2 Zibuia EPC Maquina Maxiquiri alto 3 Niassa

Mutassa Matarara Manhandure Nhanhemba 2 Nhanhemba 1 Madibunhana Manica Zichão Sussundenga Mucombe Ngurue Macocoe Metchisso Chibue Tete Zambezia 25 de Setembro Chibue Mateo Mdhala Matundo - unidade Chimbonde Chiruca Magaro Manhama 2 3 Magueba Javera Panducani Mocuba Landinho Gudza Sofala Chibabava Nhamississua Nkganzo Zambezia Maganja Da Costa Magagade Mucoa Mussaia Tchetcha 2 Muchambanha Nicoadala Namacurra Ndoro Ronda Nhacuecha Machacuari Brigodo Namitangurini Gogodane Parreirão Sofala Mossurize Manica 1 Gorongosa 2 Metuchira

Muanza

Gondola Ndedja_1 Nhamatanda Savane Macate Mutua Manica 7 Abril - Cura Dondo Assessed site Bopira Sofala Mandruzi IDP families by site 1,037 - 2,797 566 - 1,036 Cidade Da Beira 301 - 565 Machonjova Nhamacunta 135 - 300 Sussundenga 22 - 134

Geromi Buzi Mussocosa Chicuaxa Mucinemue Chibabava Guara-guara 2021( Chindo) Maxiquiri 2 Province boundary Muconja Bandua 2021 Begaja Bandua 2019 0 10 20 40km Maximedje Cherimonio Chingemidji District boundary Estaquinha sede MOZAMBIQUE: TROPICAL CYCLONE AND FLOODS MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 20 GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE Manica Sofala Zambezia Of the 80 sites Tete assessed, 84% are located in Sofala and 33 sites 34 sites 3 sites 10 sites Manica provinces which represent 23,601 individuals 78,751 individuals 1,357 individuals 12,676individuals 88% of the displaced individuals

Table 1: Number of sites and population by province Total families Total families Number of Total Province displaced due to displaced due Total families sites assessed individuals Cyclone Idai to floods Manica 33 4,092 491 4,726 23,601 Sofala 34 9,994 1,410 15,895 78,751 Tete 3 717 0 717 3,012 Zambezia 10 1,777 1,115 2,892 12,676 Grand Total 80 18,875 3,016 24,230 116,385

30,000 90

80 25,000 70

20,000 60 s l d o

50 e h i t e s 15,000 S

u #

o 40 H

# 10,000 30

20 5,000 10

- 0 R6 June R7 July R8 Aug R9 Sep R10 Oct R11 Nov R12 Dec R13 May R14 July R15 Sep R16 Sep R17 Nov R18 Jan R19 Jan R20 Mar 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021 Households 11,577 15,851 16,665 16,889 17,711 17,839 18,556 19,660 19,628 19,575 19,492 19,515 19,479 19,505 24,230 Site 50 66 66 66 66 66 71 71 73 73 73 73 73 73 80 Figure 1: Evolution of the number of displaced households and resettlement sites DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

52% 48% Children Female Male (0 - 17 years) 51%

1 y 3% 3% Adults 1-5 yr 10% 7% (18 - 59 years) 44% 6-17 yr 15% 15% Elderly 18-59 yr 22% 21% (60+ years) 5% 60 yr 2% 2% Figure 3: Percentage of population by age groups Figure 2: Population by age groups and sex PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY STATUS Of the 80 resettlements sites assessed, 76 per cent (61 4% 10% sites with 20,845 households) are fully accessible, with 10 per cent (8 sites with 907 households) only accessible 10% by boat, 10 per cent (8 sites with 1,383 households) only Accessibility Accessible accessible with 4x4 vehicles and 4 per cent accessible only Limited access (only by boat) status Limited access (only 4x4 vehicles) on foot. In contrast with previous assessments, no sites Limited access (only on foot) have been reported as not accessible. Previously Chicuaxa, Mdhala and Muconja, all situated in Sofala province, were 76% inaccessible. Figure 4: Accessibility status

2 MOZAMBIQUE: TROPICAL CYCLONE AND FLOODS MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 20 ORIGIN OF DISPLACED FAMILIES

All the families living in the resettlement sites originated from the same districts of their resettlement sites location, as illustrated in the figure below: District of origin District of displacement Resettlement site

25 de Setembro: 163 Bairro da unidade: 266 Chibue: 154 Chibue Mateo: 130 Chiruca: 30 Gudza: 144 Javera: 30 Machacuari: 22 Macocoe: 148 Madibunhana: 196 Magaro: 143 Magueba: 120 Manhama 1: 90 Manhama 2: 263 Manhandure: 97 Matarara: 194 From: Sussundenga: 4,597 Sussundenga: 4,597 Metchisso: 217 Minas Gerais: 142 Muawa: 262 Muchai: 56 Muchambanha: 56 Mucombe: 132 Muoco Chiguendere (Madudo): 72 Mutassa: 36 Ngurue: 138 Nhamississua: 46 Nhanhemba 1: 548 Nhanhemba 2: 260 Tossene Choma: 339 Zibuia: 62 Zichão: 41 Bandua 2019: 872 Bandua sede: 442 Begaja: 210 Chingemidji: 446 Estaquinha sede: 299 Inhajou 2019: 452 From: Buzi: 6,178 Buzi: 6,178 Machonjova: 512 Maximedje: 189 Maxiquiri 2: 266 Maxiquiri alto 3: 155

Maxiquiri alto/Maxiquiri 1: 1,863

Mussocosa: 42 Nhamacunta: 430 Magagade: 175 Ndoro: 200 From: Caia: 992 Caia: 992 Nhacuecha: 215 Tchetcha 1: 218 Tchetcha 2: 184 Chicuaxa: 551 Geromi: 384 From: Chibabava: 1,806 Chibabava: 1,806 Macarate: 461 Mdhala: 160 Muconja: 250 Mandruzi: 372 From: Dondo: 1,349 Dondo: 1,349 Mutua: 694 Savane: 283 7 Abril - Cura: 164 Metuchira: 370 From: Nhamatanda: 996 Nhamatanda: 996 Ndedja_1: 462 From: Cidade De Tete: 565 Cidade De Tete: 565 Matundo - unidade Chimbonde: 565 Nkganzo: 63 From: Mutarara: 150 Mutarara: 150 Panducani: 87 Landinho: 300 From: Maganja Da Costa: 1,397 Maganja Da Costa: 1,397 Mussaia: 671 Parreirão: 426 Brigodo: 481 Gogodane: 38 From: Namacurra: 1,123 Namacurra: 1,123 Mucoa: 125 Munguissa: 209 Ronda: 270 Digudiua: 162 From: Nicoadala: 352 Nicoadala: 352 Namitangurini: 190 Figure 5: District of origin of families in resettlement sites

3 MOZAMBIQUE: TROPICAL CYCLONE AND FLOODS MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 20

PRIORITY NEEDS Figure 6: First most urgent needs (top three) Of the 80 resettlement sites assessed, key informants in 49 per cent of the sites (39 sites representing 12,299 households) reported shelter as the most urgent need, followed by food (26%, 23 sites representing 6,352 10% households), and WASH (10%, 8 sites representing 2,474 49% 29% households). According to key informants, the second most urgent needs were healthcare (24%, 19 sites), shelter (20%, 16 sites) and water (20%, 16 sites). Finally, key informants reported healthcare (13%, 17 sites), NFIs (19%, 15 sites) and WASH (14%, 10 sites) as third most urgent needs. For the sixth assessment in a row (since September 2020), shelter was the most mentioned first urgent need (49%, compared to 51% in the previous round), which may be linked to the onset of the rainy season. Food remained the second most mentioned first urgent needs with a significant increase compared to previously (21% in the Round 18). While WASH related needs were cited very often, healthcare was the most commonly cited second and third priority need, continuing a trend of an increasing proportion of key informants reporting them as second and third most urgent needs.

WASH 10% 2 0 1

a r Food 26%

2 0 M Shelter 51% R Healthcare 5%

2 0 1 Food a n 34%

1 9 J Shelter

R 51%

Health 10%

2 0 1 Food a n 21%

1 8 J Shelter

R 58%

Health 7% 2 0

o Food 18%

1 7 N Shelter 64% R Health 10% 2 0 p

e Food 22%

1 6 S Shelter 56% R Water 5% 2 0 p

e Food 40%

1 5 S Shelter 44% R Water 10% y 2 0 l Shelter 34% u

1 4 J Food 44% R Health 24%

a y 2 0 Shelter 27%

1 3 M Food 49% R Water 15% 2 0 1 9 c

e Shelter 23%

1 2 D Food 51% R Shelter 17% 2 0 1 9

o Water 18%

1 N Food 56% R

9 Shelter 13% 2 0 1 t

c Water 16%

1 0 O Food 54% R

Shelter 8% 2 0 1 9

p Water 23% e 9 S

R Food 66%

Shelter 11% 2 0 1 9 g Water 13% u 8 A

R Food 54%

Shelter 10% y 2 0 1 9 l Health 15% u 7 J

R Food 66% Figure 7: Top three first urgent needs in resettlement sites by round

4 MOZAMBIQUE: TROPICAL CYCLONE AND FLOODS MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 20

SHELTER/NFI In the 80 resettlement sites assessed, 62 per cent of the IDP households (14,924 households compared to 53% or 10,356 households in the previous round) currently live in emergency shelter whilst 38 per cent (9,300 households compared to 47% or 9,149 households in the previous round) live in permanent shelter. According to key informants, 0 households are currently sleeping outdoors.

Permanent shelter Emergency shelter Namitangurini… 143 47 Digudiua… 105 57 Zambezia Ronda… 189 81 2,883 families Munguissa… 167 42 Mucoa… 94 31 27% in emergency shelters Gogodane… 36 2 Brigodo… 385 96 73% in permanent shelters Parreirão… 341 85 Mussaia… 537 134 Landinho… 90 210 Panducani… 87 0 Tete 715 families Nkganzo… 0 63 Matundo - unidade Chimbonde… 28 537 84% in emergency shelters Ndedja_1… 370 92 Metuchira… 337 33 16% in permanent shelters 7 Abril - Cura… 164 0 Savane… 247 36 Mutua… 556 136 Mandruzi… 372 0 Muconja… 50 200 Mdhala… 73 87 Macarate… 230 231 Geromi… 175 209 Chicuaxa… 531 20 Sofala Tchetcha 2… 0 184 Tchetcha 1… 0 218 11,311 families Nhacuecha… 36 179 42% in emergency shelters Ndoro… 6 194 Magagade… 0 175 58% in permanent shelters Nhamacunta… 430 0 Mussocosa… 22 20 Maxiquiri alto/Maxiquiri 1…736 1127 Maxiquiri alto 3… 15 140 Maxiquiri 2… 105 161 Maximedje… 18 171 Machonjova… 485 27 Inhajou 2019… 281 163 Estaquinha sede… 235 64 Chingemidji… 186 260 Begaja… 27 183 Bandua sede… 226 216 Bandua 2019… 650 222 Zichão… 0 41 Zibuia… 0 62 Tossene Choma… 0 339 Nhanhemba 2… 0 260 Nhanhemba 1… 0 548 Nhamississua… 23 23 Ngurue… 0 138 Mutassa… 0 36 Muoco Chiguendere (Madudo)… 0 72 Mucombe… 0 132 Muchambanha… 0 56 Muchai… 0 56 Manica Muawa… 0 262 4,597 families Minas Gerais… 0 142 Metchisso… 100 117 92% in emergency shelters Matarara… 0 194 8% in permanent shelters Manhandure… 0 97 Manhama 2… 46 217 Manhama 1… 6 84 Magueba… 0 120 Magaro… 0 143 Madibunhana… 0 196 Macocoe… 99 49 Machacuari… 0 22 Javera… 0 30 Gudza… 0 144 Chiruca… 0 30 Chibue Mateo… 3 127 Chibue… 5 149 Bairro da unidade… 102 164 25 de Setembro… 0 163

Permanent shelter Emergency shelter Figure 8: Number of families living in resettlement by site and shelter type

5 MOZAMBIQUE: TROPICAL CYCLONE AND FLOODS MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 20

Evolu�on of shelters by families in rese�lement sites 16,630 16,630 14,385 14,924 13,169 12,371 11,118 9,967 10,346 9,512 9,149 9,300 8,397 6,459 6,584 5,170 5,190

1,855 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0

R12 Dec 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020 R18 Jan 2021 R19 Jan 2021 R20 Mar 2021

Outside shelter Emergengy shelter Permanent

Figure 9: Evolution of the number of families living in permanent shelters, emergency shelters and outside

As first most urgent Non-Food Items (NFIs) needed but not accessible to IDPs in the site, focal points mentioned: 1) items for sleeping (mats, blankets, etc.) in 27 sites; 2) closed containers to transport or store water in 17 sites, and 3) mosquito nets 15 sites. The lack of money to purchase these items was mentioned as the main reason why IDPs are unable to access these NFIs, by 89 per cent of sites.

WASH

Ninety-three per cent of resettlement sites assessed (76 sites hosting 23,220 households) reported having access to functional latrines on sites, compared to 84 per cent in the previous assessment. The sites reporting a lack of access to functional latrines were situated in Sussundenga district (2 sites) in Manica province, Dondo district (1 site) in Sofala province, and Mutarara district (1 site) in Tete province. The assessment shows that key informants in 78 per cent of the assessed sites reported the availability of individual latrines (used by one to two families), while 22 per cent of the sites reported the presence of communal latrines (used by many families). In 86 per cent of the sites (69 sites), key informants reported that latrines are not adapted to persons with disabilities or elderly people, while in 9 per cent reported that latrines adapted to persons with disabilities or people are available but too few to meet the needs, and in 3 per cent the latrines are adapted and there are sufficiently many to meet the needs. Open defecation is frequently visible in 8 per cent of the assessed sites (down from 22 in the previous round).

99% 96% 96% 96% 95% 95% 92% 90% 90% 89%

84%

80%

76%

R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R10 Oct 2019 R11 Nov 2019 R12 Dec 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020 R18 Jan 2021 R19 Jan 2021 R20 Mar 2021

Figure 10: Evolution of the percentage of sites reporting the presence of functional latrines Functional bathing spaces are available in 97 per cent of the sites (77 sites with 24,107 households). The sites without bathing spaces were located in Sussundenga district (1 sites) in Manica province and Mutarara district (1 site) in Tete province. Handwashing stations with soap are available in 40 per cent of the sites (32 sites with 15,125 households), while handwashing stations without soap are available in 46 per cent of the sites (37 sites with 6,269 households). Non-functioning handwashing stations are available in nine sites (2,401 households), while two sites reported the complete absence of any handwashing station (435 households).

94% 96% 96% 96% 97% 92% 96% 83% 80% 74% 76% 64%

R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R10 Oct 2019 R11 Nov 2019 R12 Dec 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020 R18 Jan 2021 R20 Mar 2021

Figure 11: Evolution of the percentage of sites reporting the presence of functional bathing spaces

6 MOZAMBIQUE: TROPICAL CYCLONE AND FLOODS MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 20 Hygiene promotion campaigns have been conducted recently in 96 per cent of the sites, but in this group 35 per cent of the sites they were held more than two weeks ago. The only sites where these campaigns have not been conducted are Sussundenga district (1 site) in Manica Province, Tete sede district (1 site) in Tete province, and Buzi district (1 site) in Sofala province. 96% 99% 99% 99% 99% 96% 86% 90% 76% 85% 83% 85% 84%

R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R10 Oct 2019 R11 Nov 2019 R12 Dec 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020 R18 Jan 2021 R19 Jan 2021 R20 Mar 2021 Figure 12: Evolution of the percentage of sites reporting hygiene promotion campaigns In terms of cleanliness of sites, key informants in 64 per cent of the sites (51 sites) stated that the site was clean, while 35 per cent (28 sites) stated that their site was more of less clean. Only one site is reported to be very clean. Regarding the drainage system, key informants reported that it is functioning as following: very well in 1 per cent of the sites (1 site), well in 39 per cent (31 sites), more or less functioning in 25 per cent (20 sites), poor in 20 per cent (16 sites), and very poor in 15 per cent (12 sites). The sites reporting poor drainage systems are located in Sussundenga district (13 sites) in Manica province, Dondo district (2 sites) in Sofala province, and Namacurra district (1 site) in Zambezia province; while very poor conditions of the drainage system have been reported in Buzi and Chibabava districts (3 and 5 sites representatively) in Sofala province, Mutarara district (1 site) in Tete province, and Namacurra and Nicoadala districts (1 and 2 sites respectively) in Zambezia province.

Regarding water sources, 79 per cent of the assessed sites (63 sites) reported using hand pumps as their main sources of water, followed by 11 per cent using an open well (9 sites) and 14 per cent using other water sources (11 sites). The main problems with water reported by key informants were long waiting times/queues in 19 per cent of the sites, flavour/taste (10%), shortage for human consumption (3%), and long distance (1%). Regarding the time spent in queues for water, key informants reported that on average people do not have to wait in 43 per cent of the cases, while the waiting time is less than 15 minutes in 34 per cent of the sites, between 16 and 30 minutes in 20 per cent of the sites, between 31 and 60 minutes in 3 per cent of the sites and more than 60 minutes in 1 per cent of the sites. Other 8% a n Open wells 8% 1 9 J 2 0 1 R Hand pumps 74%

c Other 8% e Open wells 10% 2 0 1 1 8 D

R Hand pumps 76%

v Small water system 8% o Open wells 13% 2 0 1 7 N

R Hand pumps 73%

p Small water system 10% e Open wells 16% 2 0 1 6 S

R Hand pumps 85%

p Small water system 12% e Open wells 14% 2 0 1 5 S

R Hand pumps 82% y

l Small water system 10% u Open wells 11% 2 0 1 4 J

R Hand pumps 74% Tanks 4% a y Small water system 13% 2 0 1 3 M

R Hand pumps 69%

c Tanks 6% e Small water system 7% 2 0 1 9 1 2 D

R Hand pumps 73%

v Tanks 6% o Small water system 8% 2 0 1 9 1 N

R Hand pumps 65%

t Rivers 8% c Small water system 9% 2 0 1 9 1 0 O R Hand pumps 67% Open wells 7% p e Small water system 17% 9 S 2 0 1 9 R Hand pumps 52%

g Open wells 8% u Lagoons and waterways 17% 8 A 2 0 1 9 R Hand pumps 45%

y Open wells 6% l u Small water system 15% 7 J 2 0 1 9 R Hand pumps 38% Figure 13: Evolution of main water sources in resettlement sites 7 MOZAMBIQUE: TROPICAL CYCLONE AND FLOODS MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 20

FOOD SECURITY Of the 80 resettlement sites assessed, 48 per cent (up from 44% the previous round) reported having access to a functioning market (17,361 households in 38 sites). More than half the sites have reported a lack of access to a functioning market, including 28 sites in Manica province, 10 sites in Sofala province, 2 in Tete province, and 2 in Zambezia province. Long distances and the absence of a market in the area were reported as the main factors for the lack of access to a functioning market. 48% 45% 44% 44% 44% 41%

37% 36% 35% 34% 33%

26% 25%

R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R10 Oct 2019 R11 Nov 2019 R12 Dec 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020 R18 Jan 2021 R19 Jan 2021 R20 Mar 2021 Figure 14: Evolution of the percentage of sites reporting access to a functioning market Key informants in 90 per cent of sites (72 sites hosting 22,809 households, compared with 68 sites or 93% in the previous round) reported that the site received food assistance; the remaining 7 sites reporting having never received food assistance are: Minas Gerais, EP1 Muwawa, and Javera sites in Manica province; Maxiquiri Alto 3 and Savane sites in Sofala province; Matundo, Nkganzo, and Panducani sites in Tete province. Many of these sites also reported not receiving food assistance in the preivous found. Of the sites that reported having received food assistance, 46 per cent (13,261 households in 33 sites) received it last week, 14 per cent (2,745 households in 10 sites) received it in the last two weeks, 13 per cent (2,727 households in 9 sites) received it more than two weeks ago, and 8 per cent (969 households in 6 sites) received one distribution more than a month ago.

8% 19% 90% 13%

14% 46%

10%

No Yes More than one month Two weeks - one month

One - two weeks Last 7 days

One month Figure 15: a) Have people received food from a distribution at this site? b) When was the last food distribution at this site? HEALTH Of the 80 resettlement sites assessed, 43 per cent (16,413 households in 34 sites) reported having access to healthcare services on-site, whilst the remainder indicated that they access healthcare off-site. The sites that do not have access to healthcare services on-site are located in: Manica province (22 sites); Sofala province (17 sites); Tete province (2 sites); Zambezia province (4 sites). Concerning the time required to reach the nearest health facility, 36 per cent require more than 60 minutes walk, 31 per cent can reach the health facility within 31-60 minutes, 23 per cent within 16-30 minutes and 10 per cent in less than 15 minutes. 83% 74%

45% 41% 41% 43% 36% 38% 37% 32% 33% 27% 18%

R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R10 Oct 2019 R11 Nov 2019 R12 Dec 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020 R18 Jan 2021 R19 Jan 2021 R20 Mar 2021

Figure 16: Evolution of the percentage of sites reporting access to healthcare services on-site

8 MOZAMBIQUE: TROPICAL CYCLONE AND FLOODS MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 20

More than 60 minutes 36% 43% 31 - 60 minutes 31% of sites access healthcare services on-site 16 - 30 minutes 23% Less than 15 minutes 10%

Figure 17 a). Health care facility locations b). Time spent in reaching the closest health facility For basic care, key informants in 33 per cent of the sites reported that community workers (APEs) are active on site, while APEs are situated in a nearby village in 13 per cent of the sites, and are present but not active in 3 per cent. In addition, in 53 per cent of the sites, an APE is not available. For the availability of medicines at the site, key informants in 41 per cent of the sites (down from 51% in Round 19) reported that medicines are of good quality and people can afford them, while in 26 per cent of the cases (up from 5% the previous rounds) the quality of the medicines is considered insufficient. Finally, in 28 per cent of the sites) medicines are not usually available to the majority of the population. EDUCATION According to key informants, the majority of households can write and read moderately in 21 per cent of the sites (17 sites with 9,391 households), while in 76 per cent of the sites (14,531 households in 61 sites) the majority of the population does not read or write. As in the previous round, the majority of the primary school aged children have access to primary school in all sites. However, in 46 per cent of the assessed sites the school is not functional. The sites with accessible but non functional primary schools (10,510 households in 37 sites) are located in: Sussundenga district (23 sites) in Manica province; Buzi (7 sites) and Chibabava

(4 sites) districts91% in Sofala province; Cidaded de Tete (1 site) in Tete province, and Maganja da Costa (1 site), 85% Namacurra (1 site) and Nicoadala76% (1 site) districts in Zambezia province. 91% 89% 53% 83% 49% 51% 76% 77% 38% 34%

53% 49% 51% 48% 48% 48% 38% 34%

R7 July 2019 R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020

R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R10 Oct 2019 R11 Nov 2019 R12 Dec 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020 R18 Jan 2021 R19 Jan 2021 R20 Mar 2021 Figure 18: Evolution of the percentage of sites reporting access to a secondary school Of the 80 sites assessed, 48 per cent (38 sites with 15,885 households) have access to secondary school. The sites that do not have access to secondary school are located in: Sussundenga district (29 sites) in Manica province; Caia (5 sites) and Nhamatanda (1 site) districts in Sofala province; Cidaded de Tete (1 site) in Tete province; Maganja da Costa (2 sites) and Namacurra (4 sites) districts in Zambezia province. PROTECTION Twenty-five per cent of the assessed sites (6,712 households in 20 sites) reported the presence of a protection desk on-site, representing the lowest level since May 2020. The remaining 75 per cent without protection desks (17,518 households in 60 sites) are located in: Sussudenga district (25 sites) in Manica province; Buzi (12 sites), Caia (5 sites), Chibabava (4 sites) and Dondo (1 site) districts in Sofala province; Mutarara district (2 sites) in Tete province; and Maganja Da Costa (3 sites), Namacurra (5 sites) and Nicoadala (2 sites) districts in Zambezia province. 91% 85% 76%

76% 53% 49% 51% 38% 34%

36% 37% 30% 30% 29% 25% 25% R7 July 2019 R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020

R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020 R18 Jan 2021 R19 Jan 2021 R20 Mar 2021 Figure 19: Evolution of the percentage of sites reporting the presence of a protection desk on-site

9 MOZAMBIQUE: TROPICAL CYCLONE AND FLOODS MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 20 Among the assessed resettlement sites, key informants reported the presence of the following structures where people can report incidents: a safety community committee in 35 per cent of the sites (28 sites with 6,394 households), both police and protection community committees in 45 per cent of the sites (36 sites with 13,739 households) and police in 14 per cent of the sites (11 sites with 3,071 households). The only sites reporting the absence of any structure where people can report incidents were: Nkagonzo and Matundo in Tete, Muchambanha in Manica, and Digudiua and Namitangurini in Zambezia. No 6%

2 0 1 Yes, police 14% a r Yes, both police and protec�on community commi�ees 45% 2 0 M

R Yes, safety community commi�ee 35% No 3%

2 0 1 Yes, police 21% a n Yes, both police and protec�on community commi�ees 36% 1 9 J

R Yes, safety community commi�ee 41% No 4%

2 0 1 Yes, police 15% a n Yes, both police and protec�on community commi�ees 38% 1 8 J

R Yes, safety community commi�ee 42% No 1% 2 0 Yes, police 14% v o Yes, both police and protec�on community commi�ees 40% 1 7 N

R Yes, safety community commi�ee 45% No 4%

2 0 Yes, police 14% p e Yes, both police and protec�on community commi�ees 36% 1 6 S

R Yes, safety community commi�ee 47% No 4%

2 0 Yes, police 11% p e Yes, both police and protec�on community commi�ees 36% 1 5 S

R Yes, safety community commi�ee 49% No 8% Yes, police 12% y 2 0 l u Yes, both police and protec�on community commi�ees 38% 1 4 J

R Yes, safety community commi�ee 41% Unknown 1% No 11%

a y 2 0 Yes, police 7% Yes, both police and protec�on community commi�ees 14% 1 3 M R Yes, safety community commi�ee 66% Figure 20: Evolution of the percentage of sites with structure where people can report incidents Child protection committees were functioning in 46 per cent of the sites (37 sites hosting 14,132 households), compared with 38 per cent in the previous round. Finally, as in the previous assessment, in 59 per cent of the sites (47 sites, hosting 17,180 households) key informants reported the availability of a mechanism for referral of Gender-Based Violence (GBV) survivors.

91% 85% 76%

99% 99% 99% 100% 97% 97% 53% 98% 49% 51% 94% 94% 93% 38% 89% 88% 34%

67% R7 July 2019 R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020

R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R10 Oct 2019 R11 Nov 2019 R12 Dec 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020 R18 Jan 2021 R19 Jan 2021 R20 Mar 2021 Figure 21: Evolution of the percentage of sites with mechanism for referral of GBV survivors

10 MOZAMBIQUE: TROPICAL CYCLONE AND FLOODS MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 20

LIVELIHOOD More than 3 hours According to key informants, IDP families have 4% 12% access to farmalnd in 98 per cent of the sites (78 16% 2-3 hours sites hosting 23,293 households, up from 93% in the previous round). The sites without access to 1-2 hours farmaland are Mandruzi in Sofala, and Matundo in Tete. Households in 72 per cent of the sites Less than 1 hour can reach farmlands in one-two hours, while 16 per cent require between two and three hours to reach farmlands from the site, and 12 per cent need less than one hour to reach farmland. In 4 72% per cent of sites it takes more than three hours to reach the farmland. Figure 22: Time taken to reach farmland from the assessed sites

91% 85% 76%

99% 99% 99% 100% 97% 97% 53% 98% 49% 51% 94% 94% 93% 38% 89% 88% 34%

67% R7 July 2019 R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020

R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R10 Oct 2019 R11 Nov 2019 R12 Dec 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020 R18 Jan 2021 R19 Jan 2021 R20 Mar 2021 Figure 23: Evolution of percentage of sites reporting access to farmland Of the farmers that have access to farmland, 65 per cent (down from 93 per cent the previous round) have received agriculture inputs (seeds and tools). The sites that have not received agriculture inputs are: Sussundenga district (12 sites) in Manica province; Mandruzi in Dondo district (Sofala province); and Pundacani site in Mutarara district (Tete province). COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Eighty-five per cent of resettlement sites assessed (62 sites with 16,813 households, up from 86% in the previous round) reported that there are volunteers conducting social mobilization activities on site. The 15 per cent of sites (11 sites with 2,692 households) that report a lack of social mobilization volunteers on site are located in: Sussundenga district (1 site) in Manica province; Buzi (8 sites) and Caia (4 sites), and Dondo (1 site) in Sofala province; Mutarra distrcict (2 sites) in Tete province`in Zambezia province. 91% 85% 76%

53% 49% 51% There exist volunteers conduc�ng social mobiliza�on ac�vi�es on 3s8it%e 93% 34% 90% 89% 86% 86% 85% 84% 85% 82% 81% 79% 79% 79% R7 July 2019 R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020

R8 Aug 2019 R9 Sep 2019 R10 Oct 2019 R11 Nov 2019 R12 Dec 2019 R13 May 2020 R14 July 2020 R15 Sep 2020 R16 Sep 2020 R17 Nov 2020 R18 Jan 2021 R19 Jan 2021 R20 Mar 2021 Figure 24: Evolution of percentage of sites reporting the presence of volunteers conducting social mobilization activities on site According to key informants, the three most common channels used by humanitarian organizations to reach the communities are: the local government office (65 sites),community leaders or groups (58 sites) and staff from humanitarian agencies (44 sites).

11 MOZAMBIQUE: TROPICAL CYCLONE AND FLOODS MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT - ROUND 20 METHODOLOGY To ensure a more robust and targeted response for the humanitarian community, DTM provides key information and critical insights into the situation on internally displaced persons (IDPs), affected persons and returning populations across the affected areas. Specifically, DTM implements four component activities:

1) Daily Monitoring: rapid daily assessments of IDP population numbers (individuals and households) at accommodation centres and resettlement sites. 2) Multi-Sectoral Location Assessment: multi-sector assessment at resettlement sites providing in-depth information on mobility, needs, and vulnerabilities. 3) Baseline Locality Assessment: multi-sector assessment of affected localities to determine the number of affected populations and returnees along with basic shelter and access to service information. 4) Thematic Survey: DTM conducts surveys to provide a deeper understanding of the intentions/perceptions of populations of concern and to describe communities’ socio-economic characteristics. DTM surveys are carried out on a sample of the population.

For this assessment, resettlement sites are defined as sites where populations have voluntarily moved after staying in accommodation centres. Since all accommodation centres have formally closed, DTM activities continue in the remaining resettlement sites.

The depiction and use of boundaries, geographic names, and related data shown on maps and included in this report are not warranted to be error free nor do they imply judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries by IOM.

For more information or to report an alert, please contact: [email protected]

DTM information products: http://displacement.iom.int/mozambique

DTM activities are supported by