MAR APR DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX 2020 dtm.iom.int/libya [email protected]

LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT

MOBILITY TRACKING ROUND 30 MARCH - APRIL 2020

Project funded by the European Union © 2020 International Organization for Migration (IOM)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

Cover Photo: IOM collecting household information from an IDP head of household in Surman, Libya, as part of assistance provided via interagency Rapid Response Mechanism; February 2020 ©IOM 2020 / Majdi El Nakua

Note: Lack of use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is appropriate to context as the photo was taken before Covid-19 cases were reported in Libya, and therefore before public health advisory on use of PPE. JAN FEB LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT 20202019

Contents

Key findings (Round 30)...... 4 Overview...... 5 Update on Conflict in Western Libya...... 6 Areas of Displacement and Return...... 7 Locations of Displacement and Return Map...... 9 Demographics...... 9 Drivers of Displacement...... 10 MultiSectoral Location Assessment...... 12 Humanitarian Priority Needs...... 12 Education...... 14 Food...... 15 Health...... 16 NFI and Access to Markets...... 17 Security and Mine Action...... 18 Accommodation...... 19 Water Sanitation And Hygiene (WASH)...... 21 Other Public Services...... 22 Reference Map - Libya...... 23 Methodology...... 24

DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 3 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

IOM LIBYA

KEY FINDINGS (ROUND 30)

IDPs Returnees

401,836 457,324 idps in libya returnees in libya

94% 8,751 were displaced due to new returnees identified the deterioration of the indicating an uptick in security situation 0% 20% return40% movements60% 80% 100%

108,003 Tripoli

60% 39,605 84% Almargeb of idps live in self-paid of returnees live in rented accommodation their previous homes 34,595

0% TOP20% 3 REGIONS40% WITH60% IDP80%s 100% 0% TOP 20%3 REGIONS40% WITH60% RETURNEES80% 100%

108,003 TRIPOLITripoli BENGHAZIBenghazi 189,025

39,605 ALMARGEBAlmargeb SIRTSirt 77,510

34,595 MISRATA TRIPOLITripoli 62,370

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% INTERVIEWS WITH KEY INFORMANTS Benghazi 189,025 2,071 (ROUND 29, MOBILITY TRACKING) 659 of 667 COMMUNITIES Sirt 77,510 100% of 100% COVERAGE MUNICIPALITIES Project funded by Tripoli 62,370 the European Union

4 DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020

LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT OVERVIEW IOM LIBYA

This report presents the findings of Round 30 of the mobility tracking component of the Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) programme in Libya, covering the IDPs reporting period from March to April 2020.

In Round 30, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) identified in Libya 401,836 78,787 Individuals increased from 373,709 IDPs to 401,836 IDPs. New displacements during the Families reporting period were primarily due to an increase in the instances of armed conflict in western Libya. In particular during March – April 2020 displacements to the areas 94 473 of Abu Qurayn, Sirt, Hai Alandalus, Tajoura, and Garabolli were observed from the Municipalities Communities conflict affected areas. The sustained use of air strikes and artillery shelling in the vicinity of areas inhabited Returnees by civilians continues to negatively impact the safety and lives of the civilian population in southern Tripoli region and other conflict-affected areas in Libya. In the context of ongoing armed conflict in and around southern Tripoli since April 2019, and 457,324 91,346 the protracted cases of previously displaced households, the municipalities of Tripoli Individuals Families region now collectively host more than 108,000 IDPs. In Round 30 an uptick in return of IDPs to their places of origin was also observed as 8,751 individuals previously 44 181 displaced returned to their places of origin. Close to 89% of these returnees returned Municipalities Communities to their places of origin in Aljfara, followed by Almargeb (3% of the new returnees).

Towards the end of the data collection cycle intensification in the conflict was reported in the areas of Tarhuna, Bani Waleed, and Sirt resulting in the displacement of over 18,475 additional individuals to areas in eastern Libya. (Further details in DTM Flash Update.)1

The reporting period also coincides with the emergence of Covid-19 in Libya2. As public health measures including widespread restrictions on movement and mobility were imposed, DTM also initiated a Covid-19 component of Mobility Tracking aimed at understanding the socio-economic impact of these restrictions on vulnerable populations on the move. During the first round of the Covid-19 Mobility Tracking (last two weeks of April), in 9 out of the 39 municipalities assessed key informants reported that arrivals of IDPs seeking safety in these areas will be negatively affected due to the restrictions on movement that prevent people from arriving at or leaving these areas. In 90% of the municipalities assessed (35 municipalities) these restrictions on movement put in place as a public health measure had negatively affected the residents including IDPs and returnees in these areas.3

DTM Multi-Sectoral Location Assessment's (MSLA) key informant data on health facilities’ distribution by region (mantika) in Libya highlights critical structural issues and gaps. In 43 municipalities a lack of functional hospitals was reported. For life saving clinical management of critical Covid-19 patients only hospitals with fully functional intensive or critical care units may be considered to provide adequate level of care, and therefore lack of hospitals in 43% municipalities of Libya is a critical gap that should be considered in any potential Covid-19 response plan.

Fig 1 Libya displacement and return timeline 444,760 447,388 457,324 403,978 372,022 310,829 304,305 401,836 249,298 343,180

268,629 240,188 199,091 179,400 187,423

Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 1 DTM Libya — Bani Waleed, Tarhuna, Sirt, Ejdabia, Benghazi Flash Update (07 JUNE 2020) report accessible here. 2 For further details see DTM Mobility Restrictions Dashboards: Click here for Dashboard #1, Dashboard #2, Dashboard #3 at: https://migration.iom.int/reports/libya- —-mobility-restriction-dashboard-3-7-may-2020 3 For further details see DTM Libya — COVID-19 MOBILITY TRACKING #1 (16 May 2020): https://migration.iom.int/reports/libya-—-covid-19-mobility-tracking-1-16- may-2020

DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 5 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

IOM LIBYA

EVENT TRACKING MUNICIPALITY TYPE OF INCIDENT FLASH UPDATE UPDATE ONTARHUNA CONFLICT DISPLACEMENT IN WESTERN LIBYA 21 APRIL 2020 During March - April 2020 (round 30) a sharp increase in the number of armed conflict related events was reported in Libya by the

Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) project (see figure 2 below). Sustained armed conflict on the ground (battles), and use of air strikes andSITUATION artillery shelling UPDATE (explosions/remote violence) in the vicinity of areas inhabited by civilians continued to negatively

impact the safety andFollowing lives of the intensification civilian population, of theand conflictresulted in in significant Western new Libya displacements. over the pastAll displacements weeks, several observed locations and reported during the round 30 data collected cycle were driven by armed conflict directly and indirectly via increase in general insecurity. between Garabolli and Tarhuna were heavily affected by armed clashes on 18-19 April 2020.

Reportedly, at least 620 families (approximately 3,100 individuals) were forced to displace from Fig 2 Comparison of reported events related to armed conflict in Libya via utilization of ACLED project dataset.

different villages in the conflict affected area, including Al Kwiaa, Al Rawagih and Sidi4 Madi, over the past 48 hours. 11 DISPLACEMENT LOCATIONS 205 2 AT LEAST According to field observers, 4most newly internally displaced populations131 moved to surrounding 104 11 5 93 5 3,100 IDPs areas, particularly6 to the close-by localities70 2 of Garabolli (1,925 new IDPs), Al Khums (150 new 59 49 6 4 2 55 48 (620 FAMILIES) 9 IDPs), 34Msallata & Al Aloos (225 new IDPs), Zliten (175 new48 IDPs)61, Qasr Akhyar (275 new IDPs) 75 40 82 93 52 62 60 46 56 16and Tarhuna37 37(350 new IDPs). Most IDP families are reportedly36 staying22 with relatives, friends, Apr-19 May-19hostJun-19 familiesJul-19 and inAug-19 rentedSep-19 accommodations.Oct-19 Nov-19 PleaseDec-19 referJan-20 to theFeb-20 map belowMar-20 forApr-20 more details on displacement locations. Battles Explosions/Remote violence Violence against civilians HUMANITARIAN PRIORITY NEEDS 1 Data as of 2 June 2020 from Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), Data Export Tool, https://www.acleddata.com/data/ Critical humanitarian needs reported by IDP families include food, non-food items, medical Furthermore, the securitysupplies situation, including around forthe areaschronic of Abu diseases Qurayn, such Sirt, and as Tarhunadiabetes, deteriorated as well substantiallyas WASH assistance.during the reporting Required period. During the reporting period DTM identified at least 620 newly displaced families (approximately 3,100 individuals) who were non-food items particularly concern mattresses and blankets. forced to leave their homes due to armed conflict and seek safety in the areas of Garabolli, Qasr Alkhyar, Msallata and Alkhums.

Fig 3 Tarhuna and Garabolli Displacement Map

1,925 IDPs 275 IDPs 175 IDPs150 IDPs 225 IDPs 175 IDPs

350 IDPs

6 DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 [email protected] http://dtm.iom.int/libya Project funded by the European Union LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT R30 IOM LIBYA Tripoli 108,003

Almargeb 39,605 Row Labels Sum of IDPs in B AREAS OF DISPLACEMENT ANDMisrata RETURN34,595 Tripoli 108,003 Aljfara 30,360 Almargeb 39,605 Misrata 34,595 In continuation with a trend observed over several rounds of data collection, in roundBenghazi 30, the Tripoli region27,365 (mantika) continued to Aljfara 30,360 host the largest population of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Libya. In the contextMurzuq of ongoing armed26,775 conflict in and around Benghazi 27,365 south Tripoli since April 2019, and the protracted cases of previously displaced households,Sebha the municipalities25,930 of Tripoli region Murzuq 26,775 (mantika) now collectively host over one hundred thousand IDPs. Azzawya 23,258 Sebha 25,930 Zwara 14,653 The Tripoli municipalities of Tajoura (33,578 IDPs), Suq Aljuma (29,825 IDPs), and Hai Alandalus (13,993 IDPs) host 71 percent of the Azzawya 23,258 Ejdabia 14,435 Zwara 14,653 total IDP population in the Tripoli region. The majority of IDPs seeking shelter and protection in these municipalities were displaced Sirt 12,925 Ejdabia 14,435 from the conflict affected areas of Ain Zara and southern Tajoura from within the Tripoli region, and from the municipalities of Al Sirt 12,925 Aziziya, Qasr Bin Ghasheer and Swani Bin Adam in Aljfara region. Al Jabal Al Gharbi 9,527 Ghat 8,135 Al Jabal Al Gh 9,527 Ghat 8,135 The regions (manatik) of Misrata and Almargeb in Western Libya host the second and Ubarithe third largest7,020 populations of IDPs in Libya Ubari 7,020 respectively. The majority of IDPs in these locations were also displaced from conflictAlkufra affected areas6,855 in and around southern Tripoli Alkufra 6,855 since April 2019. Nalut 6,735 Nalut 6,735 Aljufra 1,945 During the reporting period, Aljfara region was identified to host the fourth largest population of IDPs in Libya (30,360 individuals). Aljufra 1,945 A large proportion of these IDPs were displaced from within the Aljfara regions'Wadi conflict Ashshati affected1,810 areas of Qasr Bin Ghasheer, Swani Wadi Ashshat 1,810 Bin Adam, and Espeaa. Tobruk 915 Tobruk 915 Al Jabal Al Akhdar 410 Al Jabal Al Ak 410 Derna 405 Derna 405 Almarj 175 Fig 4 Number of IDPs by Region (Mantika) Almarj 175 Fig 5 Top 5 MunicipalitiesR30 of Displacement Grand Total 401836 Tripoli 108,003

Almargeb 39,605 Row Labels Sum of IDPs in B Tajoura 33,578 Misrata 34,595 Tripoli 108,003 Municipalities (updated

Aljfara 30,360 Suq Aljumaa Almargeb 39,60529,825 Row LabelsSum of IDPs Benghazi 27,365 Misrata 34,595 Aljfara 30,360 Tajoura 33,578 Murzuq 26,775 Benghazi 27,265 Benghazi 27,365 Suq Aljuma 29,825 Sebha 25,930 Sebha Murzuq 26,77525,655 Benghazi 27,265 Azzawya 23,258 Municipality (Baladiya) Sebha 25,930 Sebha 25,655 Zwara 14,653 Misrata Azzawya 16,240 23,258 Misrata 16,240 Ejdabia 14,435 Zwara 14,653 Sirt 12,925 Ejdabia 14,435 Number of IDPs Region (Mantika) Region Al Jabal Al Gharbi 9,527 Sirt 12,925 Ghat 8,135 Al Jabal Al Gh 9,527 Ghat 8,135 Ubari 7,020 Ubari 7,020 Alkufra 6,855 Alkufra 6,855 Nalut 6,735 Nalut 6,735 Aljufra 1,945 Aljufra 1,945 Wadi Ashshati 1,810 Wadi Ashshat 1,810 Tobruk 915 Tobruk 915 Al Jabal Al Akhdar 410 Al Jabal Al Ak 410 Derna 405 Derna 405 Almarj 175 Almarj 175 Grand Total 401836 Number of IDPs

Tajoura 33,578 DTM ROUNDMunicipalities 30 | MARCH (updated- APRIL 2020 7

Suq Aljumaa 29,825 Row LabelsSum of IDPs Tajoura 33,578 Benghazi 27,265 Suq Aljuma 29,825 Sebha 25,655 Benghazi 27,265 Sebha 25,655 Misrata 16,240 Misrata 16,240 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

IOM LIBYA

During round 30 data collection a slight uptick in return movements was reported. As in previous rounds of data collection, the highest number of returnees (IDPs who had returned to their habitual place of residence since 2016) were identified in the regions of Benghazi (189,025 individuals), followed by Sirt (77,510 individuals) and Tripoli (62,370 individuals).

The charts below show the distribution of IDPs and returnees by region (mantika) of displacement and return respectively, followed by top 5 municipalities of displacement and return.

Fig 6 Number of Returnees by Region (Mantika) R30 Benghazi 189,025 Sirt 77,510 Row LabelsSum of Ret R30 Tripoli 62,370 Benghazi 189025 Benghazi 189,025 Sirt 77510 Derna 37,270 Sirt 77,510 TripoliRow LabelsSum62370 of Ret Ubari 28,130 Tripoli 62,370 DernaBenghazi 37270189025 Aljfara 16,220 Sirt 77510 Derna 37,270 Ubari 28130 Zwara Tripoli 62370 Ubari 13,470 Aljfara 16220 28,130 Derna 37270 Al Jabal Al Gharbi 12,067 Zwara 13470 Aljfara 16,220 Ubari 28130

Region (Mantika) Region Al Jabal Al 12067 Misrata 9,620 Zwara 13,470 MisrataAljfara 962016220 Sebha 2,510 Al Jabal Al Gharbi 12,067 SebhaZwara 251013470 Nalut 2,310 Al Jabal Al 12067 Misrata 9,620 Nalut 2310 Alkufra Misrata 9620 Sebha 1,735 Alkufra 1735 2,510 Sebha 2510 Murzuq 1,565 Murzuq 1565 Nalut 2,310 AlmargebNalut 13072310 Almargeb 1,307 Alkufra 1,735 GhatAlkufra 9801735 Ghat 980 Murzuq 1,565 EjdabiaMurzuq 5001565 Ejdabia 500 Almargeb 1307 Almargeb 1,307 Aljufra 450 Aljufra Ghat 980 Ghat 450 Wadi Ashsh 210 980 Ejdabia 500 Wadi Ashshati 210 Azzawya 75 Ejdabia 500 Al JabalAljufra Al A 0450 AzzawyaNumber75 of Returnees Aljufra 450 AlmarjWadi Ashsh 0210 Wadi AshshatiNumber210 of Returnees TobrukAzzawya 075 Al Jabal Al A 0 Azzawya 75 Grand Tota 457324 Benghazi 188,625 Fig 7 Top 5 Municipalities of Return Almarj 0 Tobruk 0 Sirt 77,210 Grand Tota 457324 Benghazi 188,625 Abusliem 42,334 Sirt 77,210 Derna 37,270 Abusliem 42,334 Ubari 28,130 Derna 37,270 Municipality (Baladiya)

Ubari 28,130

Number of Returnees

8 DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT IOM LIBYA LOCATIONS OF DISPLACEMENT AND RETURN MAP

16,220t30,360 62,370 Aljfara Tripoli 108,003 405 37,270 Azzawya Almargeb Derna Zwara Al Jabal Al Akhdar

Almarj 1,307 Misrata 75 Benghazi 410 13,470 14,653 39,605 175 23,258 9,620 34,595 27,365 189,025 Tobruk Al Jabal Al Gharbi Sirt

Nalut 915

12,067 9,527 12,925 77,510 2,310 6,735 Ejdabia

500 Wadi Ashshati 14,435 Aljufra

210 1,810 450 Sebha 1,945

Ubari 2,510 Ghat 25,930

7,020 28,130 980 8,135 Murzuq Alkufra

1,565 26,775 1,735 6,855

Fig 8 Map of IDPs and returneed by region (mantika)

DEMOGRAPHICS 0-5M 6 -17M In the context of ongoing armed conflict in western Libya, DTM conducted a rapid profiling exercise of displaced households to better2339 6886 understand the demographic composition of IDP familiesIDP (figure Sex 9).- AgeTo this Disaggregationend, DTM enumerators gathered demographic data from a sample of 59,473 IDPs (11,228 families) displaced in western Libya till April 2020.

Fig 9 IDP Profiling: Age - Gender Disaggregation

Female 2%

60 years Male 2% 50% and above Female 24% years 18-59 Male 23%

Female 18% 6-17 50% years Male 18%

Female 6% 0-5 years Male 6%

DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 9 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

IOM LIBYA DRIVERS OF DISPLACEMENT

During the assessment, internal displacement in Libya was determined to be primarily driven by insecurity due to armed conflict, and its negative on the economic situation and availability of basic services. Most IDPs left their communities of origin in search of safety, with deterioration of economic situation and lack of availability of basic services as exacerbating factors.

Similar to the previous assessments, insecurity was identified as the main driver of displacement in Libya. An overwhelming majority of key informants (94%) reported during round 30 (March - April 2020) data collection that IDPs had left their places of origin because of insecurity.

As an exacerbating factor deterioration of the economic situation was cited by 28 percent of the key informants to play a role as a driver of displacement in Libya. While only in 15 muhallas or communities (3% communities with displacement) deterioration of economic situation was identified as the primary reason in all other locations, rising insecurity and economic deterioration were both identified together as drivers of displacement. Some of the factors contributing to the deterioration of the economic situation were reported as an increase in the rents for accommodation and loss of IDP household’s financial capacity over the protracted crisis.

Figure 10 shows that while insecurity was the primary driver of displacement, as identified by key informants in 94% of the communities affected by displacement, it was identified as the only primary driver of displacement in 39% of the communities. For the remaining communities other exacerbating factors such as economic deterioration due to armed conflict (25% communities), lack of basic services (22% communities), and a combination of both economic deterioration and lack of basic services (9% communities) were identified as exacerbating factors in addition to insecurity as the primary driver of displacement in Libya. Furthermore, in the remaining communities primary drivers of displacement were related to deterioration of the economic situation (3%), lack of access to services (0.4%), or other factors (2%).

Insecurity, Economic Deterioration, and Lack of Basic Services Insecurity and Lack of Basic Services Insecurity and Economic Deterioration Fig 10 Reasons for Displacement from Place of Origin (multiple choice) Insecurity (single factor)

94%

9%

22%

25%

39% 3% 0.4% 2% Percentage of communities (KIs) Percentage Insecurity Economic Lack of Access to Other Factors Deterioration Basic Services

Insecurity, Economic Deterioration, and Lack of Basic Services Insecurity and Lack of Basic Services Insecurity and Economic Deterioration Insecurity (single factor)

94%

9% 10 DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 22%

25%

39% 3% 0.4% 2%

Insecurity Economic Lack of Access to Other Factors Deterioration Basic Services

LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT IOM LIBYA

Figure 11 shows that various factors play a role in the decision making by displaced families on where to seek safety after displacing from their places of origin. The multiple-choice question on reasons for choosing the current location as place of displacement identifies that in 70% of the locations of displacement IDPs had chosen these communities due to better security situation there in comparison to their places of origin which had been affected by insecurity due to armed conflict. While, the second major factor was identified as presence of relatives or social and cultural bonds (55%) in the locations of displacement as a reason for IDPs seeking safety in these locations. These findings further reinforce that the deterioration of the security situation due to armed conflict is the most significant driver of displacement in Libya, and that IDP families decide on seeking safety in areas that offer better security and social connections. Rest of the contributing factors shown in figure 11 such as availability of basic services, access to humanitarian assistance, livelihood opportunities etc. also play a role in the decision of the IDP families on where to displace.

Fig 11 Reasons for Choosing the Place of Displacement (multiple choice)

Better security situation 70%

Presence of relatives or social and cultural 55% bonds

Availability of basic services 35%

Access to humanitarian assistance 32%

Better access to livelihood opportunities 31%

Other reason for coming 11%

In transit (on the way to elsewhere) 3%

Percentage of communities (KIs)

DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 11 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

IOM LIBYA MULTISECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT

DTM Libya’s Mobility Tracking includes a Multi-Sectoral Location Assessment (MSLA) covering all regions (mantika) and municipalities (baladiya) of Libya. The MSLA key informant interviews regularly collect sectoral baseline data on availability and access to services and priority humanitarian needs. The regular and continuous implementation of the MSLA is aimed at supporting both strategic and operational planning of humanitarian programming via identification of specific sectoral issues at community-levels.

Round 30 presents the findings for the reporting period on MSLA covering multisectoral priority needs of IDPs and returnees, details of IDP accommodations, and key findings related to education, food, health, non-food items (NFI) and access to markets, protection (security and Mine Action), water sources (WASH), and other public services.

HUMANITARIAN PRIORITY NEEDS

The priority needs identified by IDPs were accommodation, food assistance, health services and non-food items (NFIs) as shown in IDPs Needs Figure 12. For returnees, key priority needs were found to be food assistance,Accommodation followed by non-food items, support28% in the provision Updated (R30) Need Reported of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services, and health services as shown in Figure 13. Food 25% Accommodation Similar to the previous round, the top challenges in fulfilling these needs were related to the erosion of coping mechanisms of the Food Health Services 21% affected populations due to the protracted nature of the ongoing armed conflict. The majority of key informants reported that IDPs Health Services and returnees, in need, were unable to meet their basic needs such as food and non-foodNFIs items due to reported12% price hikes (inflation) NFIs and limited or irregular supply of the needed items on the market. The health services were reported to face challenges related to WASH WASH irregular supply of medicines and more than one third of private and public health facilities not being5% fully operational. Access to income Education Education 2% The chart shows ranked priority needs of both the affected population groups based on the top three needs reported at community Legal Help Security (muhalla) levels. Security 1%

Fig 12 Priority Needs of IDPs (Ranked) Fig 13 Priority Needs of Returnees (Ranked) IDPs Needs Accommodation 28% Food Updated (R30)21% Need Reported Food 25% NFIs Accommodation16% Food Health Services 21% WASH Health Services14% NFIs NFIs 12% Health Services 13% WASH WASH 5% Education Access10% to income Education Education 2% Accommodation Legal 10%Help Security Security 1% Security 9%

Area analysis of priority humanitarian needs shows variation in the reported priority needs for the top three regions (mantika) as per the population figuresFood for IDPs and returnees21% in these regions. See next page.

NFIs 16%

12 DTM ROUND 30 WASH| MARCH - APRIL 2020 14%

Health Services 13%

Education 10%

Accommodation 10%

Security 9% LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT IOM LIBYA

The top three ranked humanitarian needs for the regions (mantika) with three largest IDP and returnee populations are shown below. The ranking is based on weighted average score calculated for the highest number of people with humanitarian needs. This indicates regional variation in the key informant identified humanitarian needs for IDPs and returnees, where for IDPs in Tripoli region (mantika) the top three humanitarian needs were related to access to health services (particularly critical in the context of Covid-19), and provision of food and shelter assistance. The rest of the ranking per region (mantika) for IDPs and returnees respectively can be seen figures 14 and 15 below.

Fig 14 Priority humanitarian needs of IDPs (ranked) Fig 15 Priority humanitarian needs of returnees for top three regions (mantika) with highest IDP (ranked) for top three regions (mantika) with Updated R30 Updatedpopulations. R30 highest returnee populations.

Tripoli Tripoli BenghaziBenghazi

Health servicesHealth services Wash Wash

Food Food EducationEducation

Shelter Shelter NFIs NFIs

AlmargeAb lmargeb Sirt Sirt

Shelter Shelter Food Food

Food Food Health servicesHealth services

Access toAccess income to income NFIs NFIs

Misrata Misrata Tripoli Tripoli

Shelter Shelter Health servicesHealth services

Food Food Food Food

Access toAccess income to income NFIs NFIs

The following section presents key sectoral findings of the DTM Multi-Sectoral Location Assessment conducted during round 30 data collection (March - April 2020).

Top 3 NeedsTop 3 of Needs Top 3of Mantika Top 3 Mantika Top 3 NeedTop 3 Need

Top 1 TopTripoli 1 Tripoli Used forUsed Chart for Chart Top 1 Top 1 * * ** ** Need RepoNeedTotal RepoTotal% % Tripoli Tripoli 100% 100% Need RepoNeed Repo Health servHealth27421.1 serv 27421.133% 33% Health servHealth serv100% 100% Water, SanWater, San Food Food 20897 2089725% 25% Food Food 100% 100% EducationEducation Shelter Shelter20934.520934.525% 25% Shelter Shelter 100% 100% NFIs NFIs NFIs NFIs 7540 7540 9% 9% MisrataMisrata 100% 100% SecuritySecurity Water, SanWater, 5970.4San 5970.4 7% 7% Shelter Shelter 100% 100% Shelter Shelter Legal HelpLegal Help403 403 0% 0% Food Food 100% 100% Food Food DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 13 ProtectionProtection 0 0 0% 0% NFIs NFIs 100% 100% Health servHealth serv Access toAccess in to in435 435 1% 1% AlmargebAlmargeb100% 100% ProtectionProtection EducationEducation 0 0 0% 0% Shelter Shelter 100% 100% Access toAccess i to i SecuritySecurity 0 0 0% 0% Food Food 100% 100% Legal HelpLegal Help NFIs NFIs 100% 100% Top 2 TopMisrata 2 Misrata Top 2 Top 2

Need RepoNeedTotal RepoTotal% % Need RepoNeed Repo DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

IOM LIBYA

EDUCATION During Round 30 DTM multi-sectoral location assessment (MSLA) data collection, key informants in 100 municipalities (baladiya) of Libya reported that 3% public and 2% private schools were not operational for various reasons such as damage to buildings and physical infrastructure due to armed conflict or being utilized for sheltering IDPs in need of emergency shelters. Furthermore, a total of 43 schools were reported to be fully destroyed due to armed conflict. See figures 16 and 17 for further details.

However, during round 30 data collection as part of DTM's Mobility Tracking activities focused on Covid-19, a complete closure of schools as a public health measure was reported in all municipalities assessed.1

Public Schools (n = 3,625) 97% 3% Public Schools (n = 3,625) 97% 3% Fig 16 Operational and non-operational schools. Private Schools (n = 1,326) 98% 2% Private Schools (n = 1,326) 98% 2% Public Schools (n = 3,625) 97% 3% Operational Non-operational

Operational Non-operational

Private Schools (n = 1,326) 98% 2%

OperationalPercentage of municipalitiesNon-operational

Fig 17 Number of schools reported as partially and fully destroyed

209

43 25

Schools used as shelter Partially damaged Fully destroyed schools for IDP schools

1 For further details see DTM Libya — COVID-19 MOBILITY TRACKING #1 (16 May 2020): https://migration.iom.int/reports/libya-—-covid-19-mobility-tracking- 1-16-may-2020

14 DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT IOM LIBYA

FOOD In 98 municipalities local markets, such as local grocery stores, supermarkets, and open markets, were reported to be the main source of food supplies for residents, including IDPs, returnees and the host community.

Furthermore, in 18 municipalities food distributions by charity and aid organizations were also identified as sources of food supply for vulnerable populations as shown in the figure below.

Fig 18 Main sources of food supplies for residents by number of municipalities

98 Local markets

18 Donated by charity or aid

9 Donated by relatives or friends

1 Other food sources

Number of municipalities

The modes of payment utilized for purchasing food were reported to be payments in cash, along with ATM cards or on credit are shown in the figure below as per the number of municipalities reporting use of each payment mode utilized.

The biggest obstacle in accessing adequate food to meet household needs was most frequently reported as food being too expensive compared to the purchasing power of affected populations, furthermore in three municipalities of Bani Waleed, Tarhuna, and Sidi Assayeh insufficient availability of food items was also reported.

Fig 19 Main modes of payment used for purchasing food by number of municipalities

64 Pay in cash Food purch

61 Pay with ATM card Obtain on c Pay with AT Pay in cash 57 Obtain on credit

Number of municipalities

Fig 20 Main problems related to food supply

Insufficient availability 3%

No Problem Too expensive 4% 93%

Percentage of municipalities

DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 15 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

IOM LIBYA

HEALTH

During Round 30 data collection, same as the findings of the previous round, across Libya key informants identified 63% of all the health facilities as operational, while 32% were reported to be partially operational and 5% were reported to be not operational at all. Across all municipalities, only 53% of the hospitals were reported to be operational, while 41% were partially operational and 7% were reported non-operational. Figure 21 presents the statistics on reported operational, partially operational, and non-operational private and public health facilities.

Furthermore, the range of services available in operational health facilities was often reported to be limited due to various factors, including shortages of medical supplies, such as shortages of medicines for chronic diseases as reported in 98 municipalities out of a total of 100 municipalities in Libya.

Fig 21 Availability of health services in the assessed municipalities Fig 22 Irregular supply of medication reported in 98 municipalities (baladiya) 1192 Not operational 2% R30 Partially operational 25% Regular Acces# Baladiyas 873 Fully operational In No regular ac 98 8% 98 Regular acces 2 Baladiya Don`t Know 0 39%

73%

196 7% 52% 41% 53%

Hospitals Public health centers Private health centers and clinics and clinics

Analysis of health facilities’ distribution by region (mantika) highlights structural issues, such as lack of fully functional hospitals in 43 municipalities (43% of Libyan level 3 administrative units / areas). Similarly, the worst three regions (mantika) in terms of overall availability of health services reported by key informants were identified as Aljufra, Alkufra, and Ghat.

For life saving clinical management of critical Covid-19 patients only hospitals with fully functional intensive or critical care units may be considered to provide adequate level of care and service. Repeated instances of armed conflict in various parts of Libya, chronic underinvestment in health infrastructure, and dependence on private health service providers has drastically reduced the capacity of health sector in Libya to deal with the Covid-19 emergency.

DTM's Mobility Tracking population data and key informant reports on health services collected via Multi-Sectoral Location Assessment can be used to identify key critical areas of gaps in health services along with higher proportion of affected populations such as IDPs, returnees, and migrants.

16 DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT IOM LIBYA

NFI AND ACCESS TO MARKETS

Data was also collected on humanitarian priority needs related to non-food items (NFIs) in the local market. The most commonly cited obstacle to accessing NFIs was that items were too expensive for those in need of assistance. In 18 municipalities the main challenge in accessing non-food items was reported to be related to the poor quality of items available, followed by distance from local markets as a main challenge reported by key informants in 14 municipalities.

Fig 23 Main challenges reported in obtaining the required Non-Food Items

Too expensive 98 Main prob Too expens Quality Quality 18 Distance fr Other prob Distance from local market 14 No problem

Other problems 7

Number of municipalities

Notably, mattresses emerged as the most commonly cited item in need as part of the humanitarian Non Food Items kit, reported by key informants in 71 municipalities. The second priority NFI need identified was hygiene items (55 municipalities) which is also significant in terms of facilitating the prevention of the spread of Covid-19. While gas/fuel (53 municipalities) and clothes (31 municipalities) were reported as third and fourth NFI priority need respectively.

Fig 24 Most reported priority Non-Food Items in need

71 Mattress

55 Hygienic items

53 Gas/fuel

31 Clothes

23 Portable lights

11 Heaters

Number of municipalities

DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 17 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

IOM LIBYA

SECURITY AND MINE ACTION

As part of the Multisectoral Location Assessment, security-related indicators were collected in all municipalities, including questions specifically related to mine action (Mine Action Area of Responsibility). The aim was to understand the challenges faced by residents in moving safely within their municipalities, the reasons hindering safe movement, and awareness of the presence of unexploded ordinances (UXOs).

Visible presence of UXOs was reported in 6 municipalities. Residents were reported as not being able to move safely within their area of residence in 18 municipalities. In municipalities where movement was restricted, the main reason was insecurity (16 municipalities), road closures (9 municipalities), and presence of unexploded ordinance (1 municipality).

During round 30 data collection, restrictions on freedom of movement were also reported and observed as part of the Covid-19 public health measures, however those are not covered under this section (or in the list of reasons restricting movement in figure 27)

Fig 25 Presence of UXOs reported in 6 Fig 26 Restrictions on freedom of movement municipalities reported in 18 municipalities

In In In In 6 6 18 18 Baladiya Baladiya Baladiya Baladiya

Fig 27 Reasons for restrictions on freedom of movement as reported in 19 municipalities

Municipality Reason for Restricted Freedom of Movement Abu Qurayn Insecurity Abusliem Road closures, Insecurity, Other Ain Zara Road closures, Insecurity, Other Al Aziziya Road closures, Insecurity, Other Algatroun Insecurity Azzahra Insecurity Derna Road closures, threat/presence of explosive hazards Espeaa Road closures, Other Garabolli Insecurity Ghat Insecurity Murzuq Insecurity Qasr Akhyar Insecurity Qasr Bin Ghasheer Road closures, Insecurity, Other Sebha Insecurity Sidi Assayeh Road closed, Insecurity, Other Suq Alkhamees Road closures, Insecurity, Other Tarhuna Road closures, Insecurity, Other Ubari Insecurity

18 DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT IOM LIBYA

ACCOMMODATION

In round 30, 60% of all IDPs identified in Libya were reported to be residing in privately rented accommodation, while 25% were staying with host families without paying rent, and 6% were taking shelter in schools and other public buildings. Other places of IDP accommodation include informal camp settings (3%), other types of shelter arrangements (7%) including abandoned buildings (2%).

84% of returnees were reported to be back in their own homes in their areas origin. The remaining returnees were in rented accommodations (8%), with host families (7%) or utilizing other accommodation arrangements (1%).

Please refer to the map on next page for the geographical distribution of IDPs in public shelter or communal accommodation settings by region.

Fig 28 Accommodation types utilized by IDPs

60%

25%

6% 7% 3%

Percentage of IDP families Percentage

Rented Host Family Public Buildings Informal Camp Other Accommodation Setting

Fig 29 Accommodation types utilized by returnees

84%

8% 7% Percentage of returnee families of returnee Percentage 1%

Their own house Rented With host family, Other Accommodation no rent

DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 19 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

IOM LIBYA

Fig 30 Map of public shelter or communal accommodation types used by IDPs by location Tripoli Almargeb 85% 89% 9% 5% 5% Zwara 10,953 4% Misrata Benghazi 100% 10 2% 92% 2,870 93% 2,2802,010 2,717 Aljfara 8% 7% 81 % 1,665 Tripoli 4,090 12% 1,560 77% 7% Nalut 9,012 Misrata 23% Benghazi 275 4,090 Al Jabal Al Gharbi 2,870 83% 96% 93% 2,4352,010 3,164 100% 17% Ejdabia 4% Aljfara35 7% 2,235 Almargeb 100% 1,460 93 % 4,090 66% 1169 7% Sirt 32% Nalut 100% Al Jabal Al Gharbi 2% 27560 4,090 98% 86% Sebha Ejdabia 2% 355 14% 63% 100% 8,530 1,460 37%

1,340

Ghat Ubari 5,010 48% 6,560 73% Sebha 29% 27% Murzuq 63% 23% 8,530 53% 37% 36% 1,340 45 11% Ghat Ubari 5,005 Alkufra 71% 6,560 73% 100% 29% 27% Murzuq

53% Shelter Type Abondened Buildings 36% 45 Squating on other people’s 11% properties(farms, flats, houses) Alkufra Schools or Other publicShelter buildings Type 100% Abondened Buildings Informal settings (e.g tents, caravans, makeshift shelters) Squating on other people’s No Accomodation properties(farms, flats, houses) Schools or Other public buildings

Informal settings (e.g tents, caravans, makeshift shelters)

No Accomodation

Figure 30 represents the distribution of IDPs in public shelters or communal accommodation per region (mantika), where the percentages are showing the proportion of the IDPs per region (mantika) in public shelters / communal accommodation only. The bubble (with number) along with each region’s name shows the number of IDPs (individuals) in such public/communal accommodations.

20 DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT IOM LIBYA

WATER SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH)

In terms of the water sources utilized, in 61 municipalities (out of the 100 municipalities in Libya) use of water trucking was reported to meet the household needs of residents, including IDPs, returnees, host community and migrants. While in 44 municipalities water networks, and in 43 municipalities open wells (boreholes) were reported to be used as sources of water available to the households. Bottled water was also identified as a commonly utilized source for drinking water in 42 municipalities. The entire distribution of the main water sources reported can be seen in the chart below.

Fig 31 Main sources of water in use by the number of municipalities

61 Water trucking

44 Water network

43 Open well

42 Water bottles

8 Springs or river

5 Other water source Number of municipalities

Analysis of water source availability and utility by municipality shows that in 36 municipalities only one source of water was available and therefore utilized. Whereas in 31 municipalities two water sources, in 27 municipalities three water sources, and in 6 municipalities 4 water sources were available and utilized. Figure 32 below shows that in 42% (15 municipalities)110% of the 3636 municipalities that 31 27 6 40 3% depended on one source of water, open wells were the most common source of water, followed by 28% (10 municipalities each) 6% 35 10% 90% 7% 25% reporting dependence on water network and water trucking as the110% only source of 3water6 utilized. As the3 1availability and utility2 of7 6 40 42% 30 water sources increases the diversity of the types of water sources utilized also increases. However, as shown3 %in figure 31, the reliance 20% 70% 6% 32% 35 10% 25 on water trucking – reported by 61 municipalities – as a source of 90%water for household use was common for over a quarter 7%of 25% 25% 110% 36 31 27 3% 6 40 19% all municipalities irrespective of the diversity of water sources available. Use of water42% bottles was50% reported the most amongst the 30 20 3% 20% 70% 6% 32% 35 municipalities reporting availability of two water sources for household use. Both 10%water trucking and use of water28% bottles are resource 25 90% 7% 25% 37% 25% 27% 25% 15 3% 30% 19% 30 intensive and indicate a dependence on alternative sources42% of water 50%in the absence of municipal water20 %networks. 20 70% 32% 10 28% 28% 25 25% 10% 37% 25% 27% 18% 25% 21% 15 3% 30% 19% 5 Fig 32 Analysis of number of50% water sources in use by municipality and their diversity 20 -10% 10 0 28% 28% 1 Water Source 2 Water Sources 325 Water% Sources 4 Water Sources 10% 37% 27% 18% 25% 21% 15 110% 36 30%31 27 6 40 Available Available Available 5 Available 3% 10 28% 6%-10% 1 Water Source 2 Water35 SourcesWater Network3 Water SourcesWater Trucking4 Water Sources Water0 Bottles 90% 10%10% 7% 21% 25% 18%Available25% AvailableOpen well Available Springs5 / RiverAvailable Water Other Sources 30 42% 20% 70% -10%32% 1 Water Source 2 Water SourcesWater Network3 Water SourcesWater Trucking4 Water Sources Water0 Bottles 25% 25 3% Available 19% AvailableOpen well Available Springs / RiverAvailable Water Other Sources 50% 20 Water Network Water Trucking Water Bottles 28% 25% 37% Open well27% Springs / River Water 15 Other Sources 30% 10

per number of sources 10% 28% 21% 25% Percentage of municipalities Percentage 18% 5 -10% 1 Water Source 2 Water Sources 3 Water Sources 4 Water Sources 0 Available Available Available Available Water Network Water Trucking Water Bottles Open well Springs / River Water Other Sources DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 21

110% 36 31 27 6 3% 6% 10% 90% 7% 25% 110% 36 31 27 6 42% 20% 70% 3% 6%32% 10% 90% 7% 25% 25% 110% 36 31 27 3% 6 19% 42% 50% 20% 70% 3% 6%32% 10% 28% 90% 7% 25% 37% 25%27% 25% 3% 30% 19% 42% 50% 20% 70% 3228% % 37% 25%27% 25% 3% 30% 19% 50% 28% 37% 27% 25% 110% 36 30% 31 27 6 3% 6% 10% 90% 7% 25% 42% 20% 70% 32% 25% 3% 19% 50% 28% 37% 27% 25% 30% DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

IOM LIBYA

When asked about the main challenges faced by the residents, IDPs and returnees in accessing adequate drinking water, the most cited obstacle was related to access to water being “too expensive” (reported in 56 municipalities), as dependency on resource intensive water trucking to meet household needs, and use of bottled water for drinking were identified. In 20 municipalities the water available was reported to be not safe for drinking or cooking as shown in the chart below.

Fig 33 Challenges related to water availability by number of municipalities

56 Too expensive

32 No problems

20 Not safe for drinking or cooking

11 Other problems

2 Security reasons

Number of municipalities

OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES

Similar to the previous Round, garbage disposal services, electricity, and water networks were the most commonly available municipal services reported during the Round 30 data collection, although electricity was often only available intermittently. Out of the 100 municipalities in Libya, 65 municipalities reported the availability of garbage disposal services, whereas electricity was regularly available in only 61 municipalities, and water networks were reported as fully operational in only 48 municipalities. Infrastructure repairs were the least frequently reported available public service.

Fig 34 Public services by number of municipalities reporting their regular availability

65 Garbage disposal Services re# Baladiya 61 Electricity Full Garbage D 65 100 48 Water network Electricity 61 100 13 Sewage treatment Water Netw 48 100 Sewage Tre 13 100 5 Infrastructure repair Infrastruct 5 100

Number of municipalities

22 DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT IOM LIBYA

REFERENCE MAP - LIBYA t n m a 0 K y p d 0 g u 4 E S d b e a a h s h s m a E l A

0 r i 0 B 2 k u r b o 0 T m 0 a a z 1 r a f r u r k a l

A m m U a 0 n r e b D a q q y i a r a q b l r a r d A L e e h e l k b u j e l a a l E a h d J a A u

y a s b s l a s r a a i b j l A z d u r a A r a A T a a J y r k b u a l a g j o i r A u T b a n o a l e m d t u l j i l S A E i Z a z g s a i y h n a r g e i b n l a e m d A e s B a a G r m r a u d i M h s k l s A A

j e e a d l t a a a r l h l a h a K y s h C k M A

r s a a Q w i l a l r o H b a a r n a u h G r t a r i T S a r f h u e j l y a A a n s r y s u a A o r a

j i r s u a a d a e i y T Q i Z

e a m

S u t u n i a a n a l g i b a a d r r o A e A s w a A i p

n p i a h f r i r n u M s b s i r u l l T o n E y i o B r A A n

a n t a z h i d e y a a n g t n w e i i a y g a a z l a e l h r i l h r i J Z s z w A k a a b h a h a T S A e y r

a W s G l a

S a y i r B A A q y n h M

u a a l a z z B B r A

z t u a A n y i a M w a a B m f a a b a s t y z g a y e n z a E e a

r a w N i i A g b h y r a d n h a r g z d i a i l a s s z r h E a h A W m l a A G

s r b A b a u A l U u S k o a n k i n h a t t a K a n J i r z b z u a

A d S t a a J r b i e a h g

r i r A N a l i r a a t u w m l j l Z n a i A N z j a a r W a n t D u a t l h i Z G s i a m s i a i d n a h u G T a i r e g l A

DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 23 DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

IOM LIBYA METHODOLOGY

The data in this report is collected through DTM’s Mobility Tracking module. Mobility Tracking gathers data through key informants at both the municipality and community level on a bi-monthly data collection cycle and includes a Multi-Sectoral Location Assessment (MSLA) component that gathers multisectoral baseline data. A comprehensive methodological note on DTM’s Mobility Tracking component is available on the DTM Libya website.

In Round 30, DTM assessed all 100 municipalities in Libya. 2,071 key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted during this round. 325 KIIs were carried out at the municipality level and 1,795 at the community level. 33% KIIs were with the representatives from various divisions within the municipality offices (Social Affairs, Muhalla Affairs etc.), 11% from key civil society organizations, and 11% with local crisis committee representatives. 7% KIIs were with female key informants, whereas 93% were male key informants.

49% 36% 14%

Very Credible Mostly Credible Somewhat Credible

49% of data collected was rated as “very credible” during the Round 30, while 36% was rated “mostly credible”, and 14% was “somewhat credible”. This rating is based on the consistency of data provided by the Key Informants, on their sources of data, and on whether data provided is in line with general perceptions.

For more details on the methodology, the current situation in Libya, databases and more, consult the DTM Libya website: www.dtm.iom.int/libya. You can also find our latest IDP & Returnee report in the same website.

IOM DTM DATA COLLECTION

55 enumerators

3 100% COVERAGE team leaders

5 implementing partners

24 DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 24 DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT IOM LIBYA

DISCLAIMER

The content of this report is based on the evidence collected during the assessment and surveys. Thus the reported findings and conclusions represent the views and opinions of the key informants interviewed and surveyed, for which DTM cannot be held responsible.

DTM ROUND 30 | MARCH - APRIL 2020 25 Project funded by the European Union

Funded by the European Union the Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) in Libya tracks and monitors population movements in order to collate, analyze and share information packages on Libya’s populations on the move. DTM is designed to support the humanitarian community with demographic baselines needed to coordinate evidence-based interventions. DTM’s Flow Monitoring and Mobility Tracking package includes analytical reports, datasets, maps, interactive dashboards and websites on the numbers, demographics, locations of origin, displacement and movement patterns, and primary needs of mobile populations. For all DTM reports, datasets, static and interactive maps and interactive dashboard please visit DTM Libya website: dtm.iom.int.libya/