DTM Nigeria
IOM NIGERIA DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX (DTM) NORTH EAST NIGERIA | DISPLACEMENT REPORT 35
DECEMBER 2020 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Background 3 Overview: DTM Round 35 Assessments 4 Key highlights 5 1. BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT 6 1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH EAST NIGERIA 6 1B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 8 1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT 8 1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT 8 1E: MOBILITY 8 1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS 9 1G: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF THE DISPLACED POPULATIONS 9 1H: UNMET NEEDS IN IDP SETTLEMENTS 10 2. SITE ASSESSMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS 10 2A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPs 10 2B: SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATION 11 2C: SECTOR ANALYSIS 12 3. RETURNEES 16 3A: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT FOR RETURNEES 17 3B: YEAR OF RETURN FOR RETURNEES 17 3C: REASONS FOR INITIAL DISPLACEMENT OF RETURNEES 17 3D: SHELTER CONDITIONS FOR RETURNEES 18 3E: HEALTH FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 18 3F: EDUCATION FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 18 3G: WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 19 3H: LIVELIHOOD FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 19 3I: MARKERT FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 19 3J: PROFILE OF ASSISTANCE FOR RETURNEES 19 4. METHODOLOGY 20 Tools for IDPs 20 Tools for Returnees 20
2 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report, which presents results from Round 35 of Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) assessments carried out by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) aims to improve understanding of the scope of internal displacements, returns and the needs of affected populations in conflict-affected states of north east Nigeria. The report covers the period from 9 to 21 November 2020 and reflects trends from the 6 states in Nigeria’s North East geopolitical zone. This zone is the most affected by the conflict and consist of the following states: Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. In Round 35, 2,150,243 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) or 442,297 households were recorded as displaced, an increase of 6,108 individuals (or 0.3%) against the last assessment (Round 34) published in January 2021 when 2,144,135 IDPs were recorded as displaced. There was 1.2 per cent increase in the number of IDPs in Round 34 compared to Round 33. The Round 35 number of IDPs is also higher than the figure reported in Round 32 which was conducted in June 2020 when 2,088,124 IDPs were identified. Prior to Round 32, the February 2020 (Round 31) assessment had recorded 2,046,604 IDPs, confirming a 5 per cent increase in the number of IDPs during the past year. The number of displaced persons in the region is now well above (increase by more than 6%) the number recorded in Round 25 (2,026,602 individuals), which was conducted before the escalating violence was observed in October 2018. This despite the fact that accessibility remains lower than it had been during the Round 25 and prior. Since the Round 25 of assessments, the LGAs Kukawa, Kala/Balge and Guzamala in Borno State have been largely inaccessible due to increased hostilities in those districts. In Round 29, the ward Rann in Kala/Balge LGA became accessible again and is reachable up till date. Given that the number of IDPs is slowly increasing, although accessibility currently remains low, it can be inferred that the actual displacement figures could be considerably higher. To gain insights into the profiles of IDPs, interviews were conducted with 5.5 per cent of the identified IDP population — 117,998 displaced persons — during this round of assessments. The information collated and analysed in this report includes the reasons for displacement, places of origin and shelter types, mobility patterns, and unfulfilled needs of the displaced populations. During Round 35, assessments were conducted in 2,396 locations (up from 2,391 locations compared to Round 34 of assessments conducted in October 2020). Assessed locations included 308 camps and camp-like settlements (up from 306 in Round 34) as well as 2,088 locations where internally displaced persons were living among host communities (up from 2,085 in Round 34). The purpose was to better understand the gaps in services provided and the needs of the affected population. Site assessments included an analysis of sector-wide needs, including shelter and non-food items (NFIs), water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), food and nutrition, health, education, livelihood, security, communication and protection. Furthermore, a total of 1,742,907 returnees were recorded in the DTM Round 35 assessment. This signifies an increment of 6,058 individuals or less than 1 per cent compared to Round 34 when 1,736,849 returnees were recorded (Ocober 2020). This number confirms the increasing trend in the number of returnees that was noticed throughout the year 2020. Notably, this report will specifically focus on the dynamics of forced displacement in the state of Borno, as it is the most affected by the conflict in Nigeria’s North East Zone.
BACKGROUND The escalation of violence between all parties in north-eastern Nigeria in 2014 resulted in mass displacement and deprivation. To better understand the scope of displacement and assess the needs of affected populations, IOM began implementing its Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) programme in September 2014, in collaboration with the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and relevant State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs). In recent times, escalation of conflict has been noted with the security situation remaining unpredictable and leading to fluid mobility. Most notably, accessibility was reduced markedly following a spurt in violence in October 2018. Some access has been restored since then. The main objective of the DTM programme is to provide support to the Government and humanitarian partners by establishing a comprehensive system to collect, analyse and disseminate data on IDPs and returnees in order to ensure effective assistance to the affected populations. In each round of assessment, staff from IOM, NEMA, SEMAs and the Nigerian Red Cross Society collate data in the field, including baseline information at Local Government Area and ward-levels, by carrying out detailed assessments in displacement sites, such as camps and collective centers, as well as in sites where communities were hosting IDPs at the time of the assessment.
3 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
OVERVIEW: DTM ROUND 35 ASSESSMENTS
DTM Round 35 assessments were carried out from 9 to slowly although accessibility remains low, it can be inferred that 21 November 2020 in 107 LGAs (no change from the last the actual displacement figures could be much higher. round of assessments). Within the 107 accessible LGAs, the The LGAs Guzamala, Kukawa and Nganzia in Borno continued assessments were conducted in 791 wards (similar to Round to remain completely inaccessible. For this reason, the 34) in the conflict-affected north-eastern Nigerian states of continuous high numbers of IDPs despite limited accessibility Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. As per the are an indication that actual displacement numbers could be assessments, 2,150,243 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) or higher. 442,297 households were recorded as displaced, an increase of 6,108 persons (less than 1%) against the last assessment Before the decrement in accessibility, only two LGAs — Abadam (Round 34) conducted in October 2020 when 2,144,135 IDPs and Marte — were inaccessible during Round 25 assessment were recorded. in October 2018. But in Round 26, 13 wards were inaccessible and populous LGAs like Guzamala, Kukawa and Kala/Balge in The number of IDPs recorded during Round 35 is also the most-affected State of Borno were no longer accessible. marginally higher than the figures reported in Round 33 and Round 32, respectively conducted in August and June 2020, Likewise, in Round 28, only 107 LGAs were accessible while when 2,188,550 and 2,088,124 IDPs were identified. Since the Guzamala, Kukawa, and Nganzai LGAs and 12 wards were dip recorded in January 2019, IDP numbers in Nigeria’s north- inaccessible. Inaccessibility continued during Round 29 with eastern states have been increasing gradually, demonstrating a 794 wards accessible. slight upward trend. As per Round 31 of the DTM assessment, In Rounds 30 and 31, accessibility was lower than that in published in February 2020, 2,046,604 IDPs were recorded, Round 29 with 790 wards accessible. However, accessibility confirming a 5 per cent increase in the number of IDPs during improved marginally in Round 32 when 792 where accessible the past year. and has since then dropped to 791 accessible wards during The number of displaced persons in the region is now well the last 3 rounds of assessments. above the number recorded in Round 25 (2,026,602 persons), Before the reduction in accessibility due to the deterioration in which was conducted before an escalation of violence was overall security situation, the number of wards that DTM was observed in October 2018 even though accessibility remains assessing had been steadily going up over the months. From lower than it had been for Rounds 25 and prior. During Round 797 wards assessed in June 2018, a high of 807 wards were 25, for instance, a higher number of LGAs and wards (807) assessed in Round 25 that was conducted before a spurt in were accessible. Given that the numbers of IDPs is increasing violence in October 2018.
Chad Niger Abadam Yusufari Lake Chad Yunusari Lake Chad Machina Mobbar Nguru Karasuwa Guzamala Kukawa Bade Katsina Bursari Gubio Bade Geidam Nganzai Monguno Jakusko Marte
Jigawa Yobe Magumeri Ngala Tarmua Zaki Gamawa Mafa Kala/Balge Borno Jere Dikwa Itas/Gadau Nangere Fune Maiduguri Jama'are Potiskum Damaturu Kaga Kano Katagum Damban Konduga Bama Shira Misau Fika Giade Gujba Gwoza Darazo Warji Nafada Damboa Ningi Gulani Ganjuwa Chibok Dukku Biu Madagali Funakaye Bauchi Askira/Uba Michika Toro Kwami Kirfi Kwaya Kusar Hawul Gombe Mubi North Bayo Gombe Hong Bauchi Shani Cameroon Yamaltu/Deba Gombi Mubi South Akko Dass Alkaleri Shelleng Maiha Tafawa-Balewa Billiri Kaltungo Balanga Song Guyuk Bogoro Shomgom Lamurde Demsa Girei Numan Adamawa Karim-Lamido Yola North Lau Plateau Yola South Fufore Mayo-Belwa Jalingo Yorro Zing ± Ardo-Kola Jada
Gassol Ganye Nasarawa Ibi Bali
Wukari Taraba Toungo
Donga Gashaka Takum Benue Kurmi DTM Accessibility Ussa Accessible
Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries Partially accessible Sardauna in this map do not imply of cial endorsement or acceptance by IOM Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXV), HDX, ESRI Hard to reach ward 0 195 390 780 Km Cross River Hard to reach LGA
Map1: LGA Coverage of DTM Round 35 Assessments
4 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
KEY HIGHLIGHTS
2,150,243 1,742,907 Displaced Individuals Returned Individuals
23% 20% 31% 26% 22% 18% 32% 28% Women Men Girls (<18) Boys (<18) Women Men Girls (<18) Boys (<18)
Chad 1% from Chad Lake Chad 1% from Niger Abadam Lake Chad Niger Niger Niger Abadam Lake Chad 1% from Guzamala Kukawa Kukawa Chad Katsina Guzamala 9% Nganzai
Jigawa Marte Jigawa 7% Nganzai B 91% Marte
197,910 Kano 143,759 55% 6% B 93% Bauchi B 45% 724,263 3% 1,603,044 Cameroon 1% from 97% Cameroon 94% 66,062 100% Gombe 39,532 92% ± 8% ± 11% 1% from Chad Plateau Chad 209,252 Plateau 17% 820,734 Nasarawa Water bodies IDPs in Camps & Camp-like settings Returnee IDPs 83% IDPs in Host Taraba Communities Returnees from abroad Hard to reach LGA 89% 88,594 Cameroon Hard to reach LGA Benue IDP Population by State Returnees Total by State Less than 101,000 197,910 101,001 - 135,000 Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries in this map do not imply of cial endorsement or acceptance by IOM Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries 724,263 Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXV), HDX, ESRI 135,001 - 205,000 in this map do not imply of cial endorsement or acceptance by IOM Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXV), HDX, ESRI Above 205,000 Benue 820,734 Cross River 0 50 100 200 Km 0 35 70 140 Km IDPs population per state and major site type Returnee population per state
From ADAMAWA: 150,891 TO ADAMAWA: 209,252 52% From ADAMAWA: 451,555 Returned within 89% the states of origin From BAUCHI: 40,061 Displaced within TO ADAMAWA: 820,734 states of origin From OTHER STATES: 260,031 From BORNO: 1,785,399 TO BORNO: 1,603,044 40% Returned from From TARABA: 79,029 other states From ABROAD: 145,948 11% Displaced from different states From BORNO: 516,135 8% TO BORNO: 724,263 TO GOMBE: 39,532 Fled to From BAUCHI: 3,079 TO BAUCHI: 66,062 neighbouring From OTHER STATES: 16,912 From GOMBE: 144,588 From TARABA: 79,408 TO TARABA: 88,594 countries before TO YOBE: 197,910 return From YOBE: 105,560 From YOBE: 114,554 TO YOBE: 143,759
2.5
9 4 Millions
4 8
4 1 7 9
5 7 8 9 1 0 4 9 1 3 4 2 3 4 2 2.0 3 3 6 8 2 0 6 9 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 7 3 6 6 3 0 5 5 5 8 6 5 2 2 3 2 8 0 6 1 1 5 4 6 4 6 9 9 8 2 150 243 0 0 2 144 135 6 8 088 124 1 1 7 3 5 4 0 2 3 2 2 0 1 3 9 5 2 118 550 0 3 3 0 8 0 3 1 0 2 2 6 8 0 8 1 3 0 2 1 0 8 9 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 9 2 4 2 9 8 1 1 4 7 4 3 9 9 2 1 1 5 4 0 9 8 8 9 4 8 2 7 5 8 1 2 1 4 8 8 2 8 2 7 1 3 2 6 2 8 7 0 1 1 8 1 8 3 8 2 7 5 7 1 1 1 0 7 7 1.5 1 1 7 7 1 1 1 736 849 1 742 907 1 1 736 849 1 1 714 682 0.3% 6 0
1 705 567 7 8 1 642 539 1 642 696 1 619 010 9 1 622 908 1 611 676 1 611 676 0.3% 1 1 580 093 2 1 549 630 1 558 058
9
4 5 8
increase in 1 1 441 099 8 3
1 386 229 1 1 0 1 329 428 1.0 1 307 847 Increase in 8 1 268 140 1 257 911 8 1 234 894
displaced 1
1 151 427 1
1 099 509
1 039 267 return population
958 549
population from 910 955 0.5 from DTM R34
1
8 DTM R34 663 485
2 599 164
9
8
3
389 224
332 333 320 365 0 262 324 8 7 6 5 9 8 7 6 5 9 0 8 7 6 7 5 0 8 6 5 9 8 7 6 5 9 9 7 9 7 6 5 4 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 ------l t - t - t - t - r r r r r v y y c c c c c n n n n g g g g g n b n b b p c c c c u a a p p p a a e e e e e o a e a e e e u u u u u u u u u J O O O O J F A J F A F A J J J J S D D D D D Dec - N M M A A A A A Nov - M M R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34 R35
IDPs RETURNEES IDP and Returnee population trend
5 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
1.BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT 1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH EAST NIGERIA The estimated number of IDPs identified during the Round 35 in Round 34 to 22,397 persons in Round 35. This can be of DTM assessments in the conflict-affected north-eastern explained by the fact that many IDPs are moving from various states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe locations, including the populous LGAs Jere and Maiduguri was 2,150,243 individuals or 442,297 households. Metropolitan Council, into the Government Girl’s Secondary The number of IDPs represents an increase of 6,108 individuals School camp located in Mafa LGA. Also in Gubio LGA, a steep or less than 1 per cent vis-à-vis the last assessment (Round 18 per cent increase in the number of IDPs was reported (from 34) conducted in October 2020 when 2,144,135 IDPs were 6,704 persons in Round 34 to 8,985 persons in Round 35). identified. The Round 35 number increased with 1.5 per cent This was the result of new arrivals from locations that were compared to the number of IDPs identified in Round 33 (August hard to reach, including the LGAs Abadam, Guzamala, Kukawa, 2020). Marte and Nganzai. The Round 35 assessment is in-line with the recent trend of total Maiduguri Metropolitan Council, Borno’s capital city, continued IDP numbers slowly inching up over the last few assessments. to host the highest number of IDPs among all LGAs in the state In Round 32 that was conducted in June 2020, 2,088,124 IDPs with 303,642 individuals or 19 per cent of IDPs in Borno. A small were recorded. This number was marginally higher than the decline in IDPs was recorded in this LGA compared to Round figure reported in Round 31 which was conducted in February 34 (859 individuals or less than 1%). Maiduguri Metropolitan 2020 when 2,046,604 IDPs were identified. Council was closely followed by Jere as the LGA hosting the second highest number of IDPs in Borno State with 287,585 Analysis of the Round 35 data demonstrated that IDPs regularly individuals or 18 per cent of IDPs in Borno. Monguno was the traveled between different LGAs in search for safety and LGA hosting the third highest number of IDPs in Borno State security. At the time of the assessment, the majority or 70 per with 150,579 individuals or 9 per cent of displaced individuals cent of IDPs were residing in an LGA other than their LGA of in the state. Compared to Round 34, Monguno LGA recorded a origin. Furthermore, in 81 per cent of the wards assessed, the 5 per cent (or 7,783 individuals) decrease in IDPs during Round presence of IDPs originating from a different LGA was reported. 35. This is as a result of the relocation of IDPs into Baga ward, The most conflict-affected state of Borno continued to host the Kukawa LGA by the government. highest number of IDPs at 1,603,044 individuals, an increment Among the other five states that were assessed, Bauchi recorded of 7,227 persons or less than 1 per cent compared to the a notable change in the number of IDPs with an increase of 1,595,817 IDPs recorded in the last round of assessments. almost 2 per cent (or 1,077 individuals), from 64,985 persons Borno is now home to almost 75 per cent of all IDPs in North in Round 34 to 66,062 individuals in Round 35. Adamawa East Nigeria (similar to Round 33 and Round 34). The fact remained the state with the second highest number of IDPs that the number of displaced persons in Borno has plateaued with 209,252 individuals or just under 10 per cent of the total instead of decreasing, all while the state’s most populous LGAs amount of IDPs in north-eastern Nigeria. Remarkably, Taraba of Guzamala, Kukawa and Nganzai were not accessible, could was the only state were IDP numbers decreased compared to be an indicator of continued insecurity and mobility in the Round 34. This was as a result of IDPs moving back to their region. locations of origin for farming activities. A significant reduction During this round of assessments, some specific LGAs in Borno of more than 3 per cent or 2,931 individuals was recorded recorded a steep increase in IDPs. Remarkable is the 55 per during the Round 35 assessment (from 91,252 individuals in cent increase of IDPs in Mafa LGA from 14,444 individuals Round 34 to 88,594 individuals in Round 35).
2.5 Million 2.0 4
8
4 50,243 9 , 1 4 9 8 1 , 1 4 7 7 1 4 44,135 2 2 5 , 4 2 9 3 0 6 2 9 0 1 4 9 , 2 , 1 , , 8 3 3 , 3 0 6 , 18,550 1 3 5 , , 2 2 7 0 1 0 2 8 1 5 , , , 2 5 9 6 , 2 6 5 5 , 8 1 6 3 , 5 1 3 4 2 , 8 0 3 1.5 1 2 , 0 6 0 6 9 1 1 8 3 , 8 0 0 , 2 8 0 6 0 2 3 4 , , 0 0 4 3 3 , , 1 2 4 1 4 0 2 6 9 5 , , 8 3 , 2 5 4 3 , 6 0 2 4 , 2 8 7 , 0 0 , , 0 2 2 1 , , 2 7 1 0 , 8 2 8 4 9 3 8 8 7 8 2 , 4 9 , , 6 2 , 2 7 8 1 1 0 9 9 4 9 2 2 8 4 , 0 5 , 2 , 1 7 6 , 8 9 8 9 2 8 3 8 7 , , , 2 1 7 , 2 9 , 9 , , , 2 8 , 8 5 3 2 , 1 7 1 8 1 4 5 1 , 1 8 , , 1 , 7 1 0 1 8 7 8 1 1 1 , 1 7 7 , , , 1.0 1 3 1 , 1 0 1 1 , 1
8
8
1 ,
1
1
0.5 8
2 ,
9
8
3
0 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 5 6 7 7 8 9 0 0 5 6 8 5 6 7 8 9 7 9 9 4 5 6 7 9 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 ------l t - t - t - t - r r r r r v y y c c c c c n n n n g g g g g b b n b n p c c c c u a a p p p a a e e e e e o e e a e a e u u u u u u u u u J O O O O F A F A J F A J J J J J D D D D S D M N M A A A A A Nov - Dec - M M R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34 R35 Figure 1: IDP population by round of DTM assessment
6 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
R34 (September 2020) R35 (November 2020) Population Percentage State Count of LGAs Status Total population Total population (%) Total population Total population (%) difference difference ADAMAWA 21 209,125 10% 209,252 10% Increase 127 0.1% BAUCHI 20 64,985 3% 66,062 3% Increase 1,077 2% BORNO 22 1,590,943 74% 1,603,044 74% Increase 12,101 1% GOMBE 11 39,266 2% 39,532 2% Increase 266 1% TARABA 16 91,525 4% 88,594 4% Decrease -2,931 -3% YOBE 17 143,417 7% 143,759 7% Increase 342 0.2% GRAND TOTAL 107 2,139,261 100% 2,150,243 100% Increase 10,982 1% Table 1: Change in internally displaced population by state Chad Lake Chad Abadam Lake Chad Niger Yusufari Machina Yunusari Mobbar Nguru Karasuwa Guzamala Kukawa Bade Katsina Bursari Gubio Bade Geidam Nganzai Monguno Jakusko Jigawa Marte Tarmua Ngala Magumeri Mafa Zaki Gamawa Jere Kala/Balge B Dikwa Itas/Gadau Nangere Fune Damaturu Maiduguri Jama'are Potiskum Kano Katagum Damban Kaga Konduga Bama Shira Misau Fika Z Giade Gujba Darazo Gwoza Warji Nafada Damboa Ningi Gulani Biu Chibok Madagali Ganjuwa Dukku Funakaye B Askira/Uba Michika Kwami Cameroon Toro Kirfi Kwaya Kusar Hawul Bayo Mubi North Gombe Hong Bauchi Yamaltu/Deba Shani Gombi Mubi South Akko Dass Song Alkaleri Shelleng Maiha Tafawa-Balewa Billiri KaltungoBalanga Guyuk Bogoro Shomgom Lamurde Numan Girei ± Demsa Karim-Lamido Lau Yola South Fufore Plateau Mayo-Belwa JalingoYorro Zing Ardo-Kola Jada
Gassol Nasarawa Ibi Ganye Bali
Wukari Toungo Water Bodies Hard to reach LGA Donga IDP Population by LGA Gashaka Less than 6,743 Takum Benue Kurmi 6,743 - 19,363 Ussa 19,364 - 39,143 Sardauna
Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries 39,144 - 158,362 in this map do not imply of cial endorsement or acceptance by IOM Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXV), HDX, ESRI More than 158,363 Cross River 0 50 100 200 Km
Map 2: IDP distribution by LGA
7 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
1B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE A detailed and representative overview of age and sex B breakdown was obtained by interviewing a sample of 117,998 persons, representing 5.5 per cent of the recorded IDP 97% population in the six most conflict-affected states of Adamawa, 3%
Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. Fifty-three percent 7% of the internally displaced population is female while 47 per 100% cent of IDPs is male. Fifty-seven per cent of IDPs are minors (under 18 years old) and 6 per cent are above 60 years old. The 74% results are depicted in Figures 2 and 3 below. B 66% 87% Male 47% Female 53% 34% 13% 3% 60+ 3% 3% 2% 6%
24% 18% 18-59 19% 70% 10% ± 16% 6-17 15% 17% 81% 2%
7% 1-5 11% 4%
4% less than 1 5% Natural Disaster Communal clashes Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries in this map do not imply of cial endorsement or acceptance by IOM Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXV), HDX, ESRI Insurgency 0 30 60 120 Km Figure 2: Age and demographic dreakdown of IDPs XX% Percentage of IDPs by State Map 3: Cause of displacement and percentage of IDp population by State Elderly 1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT (60+ years) 6% The year during which the highest percentage of IDPs were displaced remained 2015 (25% - similar to Round 34), followed Adults (18 - 59 years) 37% by 2016 with 18 per cent of IDPs. Also in line with the last round of assessment, 16 per cent of IDPs were displaced in 2017 and 11 per cent in 2018 (Figure 5). Eight per cent of Children (0 - 17 years) 57% displacements took place in 2019 on account of increased insecurity, communal clashes and natural disasters (no change Figure 3: Proportion of IDP population by age groups since last round of assessment) and 6 per cent in 2020.
30%
25% 1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT 25%
20% 18% Reasons for displacement remained unchanged since the last 16% 16% 15% round of assessment conducted in October 2020. The ongoing 11% conflict in north-eastern Nigeria continued to be the main 10% 8% 6% reason for displacement (92% - similar to the last 3 rounds of 5% assessments), followed by communal clashes for 7 per cent of 0% IDPs and natural disasters in 1 per cent of cases. B 2015 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Map 3 provides an overview of the reasons for displacement ADAMAWA 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 10% BAUCHI 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% by state. Once again, the state of Taraba showed the highest BORNO 9% 20% 15% 13% 8% 5% 5% 75% number of displacements due to communal clashes during the GOMBE 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% Round 35 assessments. These are often triggered by land and TARABA 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 4% YOBE 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 7% border issues during the farming seasons. 16 25 18 16 11 8 6 100 92% Figure 5: Year of displacement by State
1E: MOBILITY Among IDPs living in camps and camp-like settings, 59 per cent of respondents said they were displaced once, 32 per mentioned that they were displaced two times, 7 per cent said they were displaced three times and 2 per cent said they were displaced four times. In the most affected state of Borno, 61 7% per cent of displaced persons living in camps and camp-like 1% settings were displaced once, 34 per cent were displaced two Insurgency Community clashes Natural disasters times and 5 per cent were displaced three times. Figure 4: Percentage of IDPs by reason of displacement
8 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
100% But as has been the trend, most displaced persons remain within their state of origin. In Borno, 100 per cent of IDPs 80% originated from the state of Borno. In Adamawa, 69 per cent 60% of IDPs were originally from Adamawa while 31 per cent were
40% displaced from Borno State. In Yobe, 64 per cent of IDPs originated from Yobe State while 36 per cent fled their locations 20% of origin in Borno State.
0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total Once 42% 100% 61% 50% 52% 59% Sokoto Twice 31% 0% 34% 43% 19% 32% B Three times 19% 0% 5% 7% 19% 7% Katsina 81% 7% Four times 8% 0% 0% 0% 10% 2% Jigawa 11% 1% 3% Figure 6: Frequency of displacement of IDPs per State 100% 90% Kano 2% 1% Seventy-three per cent of displaced persons residing with host 3% 1% communities said that they were displaced once, 22 per cent B said they were displaced two times, 4 per cent said they were Gombe 100% 100% Displacement displaced three times and 1 per cent said they were displaced pattern IDP population, Niger 1% by State of origin four times. The corresponding percentages for Borno were 53, 2% Less than 18,000 39, 7 and 1 per cent, respectively. 1% 95% Greater than 18,000 FCT 100% 2% 100% 1% More than 140,000 100% 90% 80% 98% 70% Kogi Benue 60% Edo Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. 50% Names and boundaries in this map do not imply of cial endorsement or acceptance by IOM. 40% Edo Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXV), HDX, ESRI Ebonyi 30% Cross River 20% Map 4: AnambraOrigin of IDPs and location of displacement 10% Imo Abia Delta 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total 1G: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF DISPLACED Once 77% 95% 53% 96% 61% 63% 73% Akwa Ibom BayelsaPOPULATIONSRivers Twice 20% 5% 39% 4% 31% 29% 22% Three times 2% 0% 7% 0% 8% 6% 4% Most of IDPs in north-eastern Nigeria (57%) were living with Four times 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1% host communities (Figure 8) during Round 35 assessments, Figure 6: Frequency of displacement of IDPs per State with the remainder (43%) residing in camps and camp-like settings. 1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS Out of all six states, Borno continued to be the only state where Eighty-three per cent of IDPs cited Borno, the most conflict the number of people residing in camps or camp-like settings affected state in north-eastern Nigeria, as their state of origin. exceeded the number of IDPs living in host communities. After Borno, Adamawa is the state of origin of 7 per cent of Fifty-five per cent of IDPs in Borno lived in camps or camp- IDPs, followed by Yobe (5%) and Taraba (4%). Plateau was cited like settings while 45 per cent of IDPs lived among host as the state of origin by 1 per cent of the IDPs. communities. As Borno Sate can be considered the epicentre of the insurgency in North East Nigeria, many fled their rural 7% From ADAMAWA: 150,891 TO ADAMAWA: 209,252 10% areas of origin to urban centres in search of security and humanitarian assistance. Hence, the IDP population in urban centres increased significantly and camps were established, mainly in the LGAs Maiduguri, Jere and Konduga. As the insurgency intensified over time, more IDPs relocated to the camps around the urban centres of Borno State.
TO BORNO: 1,603,044 83% From BORNO: 1,78,399 Grand Total 43% 57%
74% TOTAL IDPs: 2,150,243 Yobe 9% 91%
Taraba 17% 83%
Gombe 100%
Borno 55% 45% TO GOMBE: 39,532 2%
From BAUCHI: 3,079 0.2% TO BAUCHI: 66,062 3% Bauchi 3% 97% 0.8% From OTHERS: 16,912
7% Adamawa 8% 92% 5% From YOBE: 114,554 TO YOBE: 143,759
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 4% From TARABA: 79,408 TO TARABA: 88,594 4% Camp Host Community State of origin State of displacement Total IDPs Figure 8: IDP settlement type by State Figure 7: State of origin, State of Displacement and Percentage per State of Origin/Displacement
9 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
1H: UNMET NEEDS IN IDP SETTLEMENTS Food 75% Similar to the previous rounds, the percentage of IDPs who NFI 11%
were in need of food remained high. In 75% of the locations Shelter 5% assessed, food was cited as the main unfulfilled need (down by Medical services 4% 1% compared to the Round 34 results). Sanitation and Hygiene 2% Non-food items (NFIs) were cited as the main unfulfilled need in 11 per cent of the locations (down by 1%) followed by shelter non of the above 1% in 4 per cent of the locations and WASH in 2 per cent of the Portable drinking water 1% Water for washing and 1% locations. cooking Fig 9: Main needs of IDPs 2. SITE ASSESMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS 2A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPS DTM Round 35 site assessments were conducted in 2,396 These assessed locations included 308 (up from 306 and 300 locations which included sites where IDPs were residing in in the last two rounds of assessments, respectively) camps camps and camp-like settings as well as sites where displaced and camp-like settings and 2,088 sites (a slight increase from persons were living with host communities (up from 2,392 2,085 sites that were assessed in the last round of assessment) in the last Round 34 of assessment that was conducted in where IDPs were residing with host communities. October 2020). The purpose was to better understand the gaps in services provided and the needs of the affected population.
Chad LakeLake Chad Chad Niger Abadam
Guzamala Kukawa Katsina
9% Nganzai
Jigawa Marte B 91%
Kano 143,759 55%
B 45% 1,603,044 3% Cameroon 97% 66,062 100% 39,532 92% ± 8%
Plateau 209,252
17% Nasarawa Water bodies IDPs in Camps & Camp-like settings IDPs in Host 83% Communities Hard to reach LGA 88,594 Benue IDP Population by State Less than 101,000 101,001 - 135,000 Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries in this map do not imply of cial endorsement or acceptance by IOM Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXV), HDX, ESRI 135,001 - 205,000 Above 205,000 Cross River 0 50 100 200 Km
Map 5: IDPs distribution by state and major site type
10 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
Camps/Camp-like settings Host Communities Total Number Total Number of State of IDPs # IDPs # Sites % Sites # IDPs # Sites % Sites Sites Adamawa 1 6,851 26 8% 1 92,401 460 22% 2 09,252 4 86 Bauchi 1 ,652 5 2% 6 4,410 372 18% 6 6,062 3 77 Borno 8 79,840 242 79% 7 23,204 460 22% 1 ,603,044 7 02 Gombe 0 0 0% 3 9,532 202 10% 3 9,532 2 02 Taraba 1 4,826 0 5% 7 3,768 205 10% 8 8,594 2 19 Yobe 1 3,440 21 7% 1 30,319 389 19% 1 43,759 4 10 Grand Total 926,609 308 100% 1,223,634 2,088 100% 2,150,243 2,396 Table 3: Number of sites by settlement type and distribution of IDPs by settlement type, by state
2B: SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATION When considering camps or camp-like settings, nearly all sites camps and camp-like settings were located on private property were classified as spontaneous settlements and less than 1 per (51%), followed by publicly owned land (47%) and ancestral cent were planned (similar to Round 34). Most of them were ground (2%). classified as collective settlement/centers (56%) and the rest Most IDPs living with host communities resided in private were camps (43%). Only El-Miskin camp II in Old Maiduguri, buildings (89%). Six per cent were dwelling in public structures Jere LGA was considered a transitional centre. The majority of and 5 per cent in ancestral homes.
IDP Population by Settlement Type
Camp/Camp-like settings Host Community 43% 57%
Site Type Site Classi cation Land ownership 1% 1%
Private Building 89%
43% 56% Public Government 6% 99%
Ancestral 5%
Collective Settlement/Centre Spontaneous Camp Planned Transitional Centre
Land ownership
Private Building 51%
Public Government 47%
Ancestral 2%
Figure 10: IDP settlement type by state
11 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
2C: SECTOR ANALYSIS Host family house CAMP COORDINATION AND CAMP MANAGEMENT 62%
In the Round 35 DTM assessments, out of the 308 camps Rented house 23% and camp-like sites assessed, a high of 89 per cent (similar to
Round 34) were informal sites while the remaining 11 per cent Individual house 11% were formal. Furthermore, 56 per cent of sites did not have a camp management agency (similar to Round 34). Self-made/makeshift shelter 3%
1% Other 1% 10% 56% Figure 13: Types of shelter in host community sites religious_entity 44% 41% 23% local_ngo For more analysis, click here.
government un NON-FOOD ITEMS (NFIS) 25% ingo no SMA SMA presence Camps and camp-like settings Blankets/mats continued to remain the most needed type of non-food item (NFI) in camps and camp-like settings at 51 per Informal 89% cent (down from 56% in Round 34, followed by mosquito nets (17%) and kitchen sets (14%).
Formal 11% Blankets/Mats 51%
Mosquito nets 17% Figure 11: Presence and type of site management agency SHELTER Kitchen sets 14%
Camps and camp-like settings Mattress 8% Camps and camp-like settings presented a variety of shelter conditions, with the most common type of shelter being self- Soap 4% made/makeshift shelters at 36 per cent (down by 2%), followed Hygiene kits 3% by emergency shelters at 33 per cent (down by 1% since
Round 34). Bucket/Jerry Can 2%
Self-made/makeshift shelter 36% Solar lamps 1%
Emergency shelter 33% Figure 14: Number of camp sites with most needed type of NFI
Host family house 8% For more analysis, click here.
Government building 7% Host Communities Among IDPs living in host communities, blankets/mats were School building 6% the most needed NFI at 38 per cent (down from 40%) followed by mosquito nets (22%, similar to Round 34), mattresses at 16 Individual house 5% per cent (similar to Round 34) and kitchen sets (15% - up from
Rented house 4% 12% since Round 34).
Blankets/Mats 38% Other 1%
Mosquito nets 22% Figure 12: Types of shelter in camps/camp-like settings
Mattress 16% For more analysis, click here.
Kitchen sets 15% Host Communities Sixty-two per cent of all IDPs living with host communities were Hygiene kits 4% living in a host family’s house (down from 63% reported in the Solar lamps 2% last round of assessment). This was followed by rented houses at 23 per cent (up from 21%), and individual houses at 11 per Bucket/Jerry Can 2% cent (down from 12% since the last round of assessment). Soap 1%
Figure 15: Number of host community sites with most needed type of NFI For more analysis, click here.
12 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
WASH: WATER RESOURCES Grand Total 89% 10% 1% Camp and camp-like settings: Yobe 95% 5% For 68 per cent (similar to Round 34) of the camps or camp-like settings, piped water was the main source of drinking water. In Taraba 57% 36% 7%
18 per cent (down by 1%) of the camps or camp-like settings, Borno 90% 9% 1% hand pumps were the main source of drinking water, followed by water trucks (7% - down by 1%), protected wells (3%) and Bauchi 100%
unprotected wells (2%). Adamawa 81% 19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Piped water supply 68% not so good (not hygienic) good (hygienic) non usable Figure 18: Condition of toilets in camps/camp-like settings by state Hand pumps 18% For more analysis, click here.
Water truck 7% Host communities
Protected well 3% In 94 per cent of displacement sites (up from 93%), toilets were described as not hygienic, while toilets were reported to Unprotected well 2% be in hygienic conditions in 3 per cent of sites (down from 4%). In 2 per cent of the locations assessed, toilets were reported Lake/dam 1% not usable at all. In the state of Borno, respondents said that 94 per cent of sites had unhygienic toilets (up by 3%), and 5 Other 1% per cent of the toilets were hygienic (down from 6%). In Bauchi, Figure 16: Main drinking water sources in camps/camp-like settings nearly all toilets were reported unhygienic at 99 per cent. 100%
For more analysis, click here. 90%
80% Host Communities 70% 60% In contrast to camps and camp-like settings, hand pumps were 50% the main source of drinking water in locations where IDPs were 40% living among host communities (52% - similar to Round 34). 30% Hand pumps were followed by piped water supplies (in 26% of 20% 10%
locations – down by 1%), protected wells (in 8% of locations – 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total up by 1%) and unprotected well and water trucks (both at 6%). not so good (not hygienic) 92% 99% 94% 97% 92% 93% 94% Surface water was the main source of drinking water in 1 per good (hygienic) 4% 1% 5% 2% 7% 1% 4% cent of the locations assessed. non usable 4% 0% 1% 1% 1% 6% 2% Figure 19: Condition of toilets in host communities by state Hand pumps 52% For more analysis, click here.
Piped water supply 26% FOOD AND NUTRITION
Protected well 7% Camps and camp-like settings In Round 35 assessments, food support was available on-site Unprotected well 6% in 40 per cent of camps or camp-like settings. At the same time, food support was available off-site in 39 per cent of Water truck 6% camps or camp-like settings. There was, however, no food
Surface water 1% support available in 21 per cent (up by 4% since the last round of assessment) of the camps and camp-like settings assessed.
Lake/dam 1% 100% 10% 19% 20% 21% 21% Other 1% 80% 43% Figure 17: Main drinking water sources in host communities 60% 38% For more analysis, click here. 67% 40% 62% 21% PERSONAL HYGIENE FACILITIES 40% 80% Camps and camp-like settings 20% 41% 36% 39% 23% In 89 per cent of camps and camp-like settings, toilets were 19%
described as not hygienic, while toilets were reported to be in 0% hygienic condition in 10 per cent of the locations assessed. Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total In the state of Borno, respondents reported that 91 per cent Yes, off site Yes, on site no of the sites had unhygienic toilets. In Bauchi, all toilets were Figure 20: Access to food in camps/camp-like settings reportedly unhygienic. For more analysis, click here.
13 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
Host Communities 80% 70%
For IDPs living among host communities, food support was 60% available on-site in 50 per cent of the locations assessed (down 50% by 2% compared to Round 34). At the same time, food support was available off-site for 26 per cent of the locations assessed 40% (up by 1% compared to Round 34), and in 24 per cent of 30% locations where IDPs were living among host communities, no 20% food support was available at all. 10% 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total In Borno, food support was available on-site in 43 per cent, malaria 65% 79% 71% 62% 58% 80% 71% and off-site in 39 per cent of locations assessed. In Yobe, food fever 16% 13% 13% 17% 22% 14% 15% cough 8% 4% 11% 8% 6% 2% 6% support was not available at all in 68 per cent of locations diarrhea 3% 1% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3% where IDPs were living among host communities. hepatitis 8% 1% 0% 2% 0% 2% 2% malnutrition 1% 1% 0% 8% 9% 0% 2% 100% other 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%
24% 23% 27% 25% 29% 28% 26% Figure 23: Common health problems in host communities 80% 4% 4% 15% For more details, click here. 60% 24% 35% 28% EDUCATION 40% 68% 71% 72% 62% Camps and camp-like settings 50% 20% 38% 43% In 9 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, no children were attending school at all (up from 6% in the Round 34 of 0% 4% assessments). In 39 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, less Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Gombe Grand Total than 25 per cent of the children were attending school (up from Yes, on site no Yes, off site 25%) and in 28 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, between Figure 21: Access to food in host communities 25 and 50 per cent of children were attending school (down For more analysis, click here. from 29%). In only 3 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, more than 75 per cent of children were attending school. 100% HEALTH 2% 5% 3% 10% 9% 19%
Camps and camp-like settings 36% 80% 8% 22% 21%
During Round 35, malaria was cited as the most common 52% 15% health problem in 63 per cent of camps or camp-like settings. 60% 80% This number decreased by 6 per cent compared to Round 34. 39% 36% 39% Malaria was followed by fever (in 22% of camps/camp-like 40% 35% settings – up by 6%) and cough (in 12% of camps/camp-like settings – up by 2%). 20% 43% 80% 27% 28% 28% 23% 20% 70% 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total 60% 25% -50% <25% 51% - 75% none >75% 50% Figure 24: Percentage of children attending school in camps/camp-like 40%
30% For more details, click here.
20%
10% Host Communities
0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total In 2 per cent of the locations where IDPs were residing with malaria 42% 60% 65% 71% 62% 63% host communities, no children were attending school at all fever 39% 20% 21% 15% 29% 22% cough 19% 20% 11% 7% 9% 12% (down from 3%). In 36 per cent of the locations where IDPs diarrhea 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 2% were residing with host communities, between 51 and 75 per malnutrition 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 1% cent of children were attending school (up by 2%). In 18 per Figure 22: Common health problems in camps/camp-like settings cent of the locations, less than 25 per cent of children were attending school (similar to Round 34) and in 8 per cent of For more analysis, click here. locations, over 75 per cent of children were attending school (up by 2%). Host Communities Mirroring the situation in displacement sites, malaria was the most prevalent health ailment among IDPs residing among host communities in 71 per cent of the locations assessed (up from 70%). Malaria was followed by fever (in 15% of locations) and cough (in 6% of locations). Similar numbers were reported for the state of Borno.
14 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
60% LIVELIHOODS Camps and camp-like settings 50% In 36 per cent of camps/camp-like settings assessed, petty 40% trade was cited as the main occupation of IDPs (up from 25% during Round 34), followed by jobs as a daily wage labourer 30% which were cited in 30 per cent of camps/camp-like settings as the main occupation of IDPs (up from 21%). In 24 per cent 20% of camps/camp-like settings, farming was cited as the main
10% occupation of IDPs (down from 46% in Round 34). The steep decrease of farming as the main occupation of IDPs can be 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total explained by the fact that the Round 34 assessment coincided 25% -50% 29% 35% 41% 31% 40% 39% 36% with the start of the farming season. 51% - 75% 43% 51% 27% 52% 17% 28% 36% <25% 18% 4% 26% 10% 39% 14% 18% >75% 10% 9% 5% 6% 3% 13% 8% Petty trade 36% none 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 6% 2%
Daily labourer 30% Figure 25: Percentage of children attending school in Host communities
Farming 24% COMMUNICATION Camps and camp-like settings Collecting firewood 3% Friends and neighbours were cited as the most-trusted source Fishing of information in 54 per cent of camps/camp-like settings 2%
(similar to the last round of assessment), followed by local and Agro-pastoralism 2% community leaders in 29 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (down by 5%) and aid workers in 7 per cent of camps/camp- Pastoralism 2% like settings. None 1% 2% 1%
3% 4% Figure 28: Livelihood activities of IDPs in camps/camp-like settings friends, neighbors and family 7% For more details, click here. local leader/community leader
aid worker Host communities religious leader 54% For IDPs living among host communities, farming was reported government official 29% the main occupation in 63 per cent of the locations assessed traditional leader (up by 4% compared to Round 34). Farming was followed by
military official petty trade cited in 14% of the locations assessed (down by 2%) and jobs as daily labourer cited in 13% of the locations assessed (down by 3%). Figure 26: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in camps/camp-like settings Farming 63% For more details, click here. Petty trade 14% Host communities In sites where IDPs were residing with host communities, Daily labourer 13% friends, neighbours and family were the most trusted source of information in 39 per cent of locations (down from 41% in Agro-pastoralism 5% Round 34), followed by local/community leaders in 32 per cent of locations (similar to Round 34) and religious leaders in 15 Pastoralism 2% per cent of locations. Fishing 2% 2% 1%
4% Collecting firewood 1% 8% friends, neighbors and family
local leader/community leader Figure 29: Livelihood activities of IDPs in host communities 39% religious leader For more details, click here. 14%
traditional leader
aid worker
government official
military official 32%
Figure 27: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in host communities For more details, click here. 15 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
PROTECTION Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities Security was provided in 85 per cent (down from 89% in In 90 per cent of sites (up from 87%) some form of security Round 34) of camps/camp-like settings. A similar number was was present. This figure was higher in the most affected state reported for camps/camp-like settings in most-affected state of Borno at 97 per cent (up from 91%). of Borno (89%). Grand Total 90% 10%
Grand Total 85% 15% Yobe 78% 22%
Yobe 81% 19% Taraba 94% 6%
Taraba 93% 7% Gombe 100% 0%
Borno 89% 11% Borno 95% 5%
Bauchi 99% 1% Bauchi 100%
Adamawa 81% 19% Adamawa 50% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% yes no yes no Figure 31: Security provided in host communities Figure 30: Security provided in camps/camp-like settings For more details, click here. For more details, click here.
3. RETURNEES
A total of 1,742,907 returnees were recorded during the When comparing with the Round 34 of assessments, Borno Round 35 of DTM assessments in North East Nigeria. This was the only state where a decrease in returnee numbers was signifies an increase of 6,058 individuals or less than 1 per recorded (2,191 individuals or less than 1%). The decrease in cent compared to Round 34 when 1,736,849 returnees were returnee numbers in Borno State can be mainly assigned to a identified (October 2020). This number confirms the increasing considerable decrease in the presence of returnees in Ngala trend in returnee numbers in the BAY states (Borno, Adamawa LGA. and Yobe) that was noticed throughout the year 2020. Yobe witnessed an increase in returnees with 6,784 individuals During the Round 35, 40 LGAs with a total of 675 sites (3 or almost 4 per cent. This increase can be explained by the more than the Round 34 assessment) were assessed in improved security situation in the state allowing IDPs to Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states. In Borno state, Nganzai LGA return to locations of origin and engage in farming activities remained inaccessible. Adamawa continued to host the largest which coincided with the period of the assessments. Also, the caseload of returnees with 820,734 individuals or 47 per cent humanitarian interventions and ongoing support in the area of all returnees in North East Nigeria. Borno hosted 724,263 facilitated the return movements of many IDPs. In Adamawa, returnees or 42 per cent of the total caseload and was followed an increase of 1,465 individuals was recorded compared to by Yobe with 197,910 individuals or 11 per cent of the total Round 34, or less than 1 per cent. estimated returnee population in North East Nigeria.
2.0
1,742,907 Millions 1,736,849 1,705,567 1,714,682 1.75 1,673,862 1,642,696 1,642,539 1,622,908 1,619,010 1,611,676 1,580,093 1,549,630 1,558,058
1.50 1,441,099 1,386,229 1,329,428 1,234,894 1,307,847 1,257,911 1,268,140 1.25 1,151,427 1,099,509 1,039,267 958,549 1.0 910,955
0.75 663,485 599,164
0.50 389,224 320,365 332,333 262,324 247,470 0.25 209,940 108,531 64,321 80,718 83,467 64,850 58,041 56,891 47,594 60,242 51,918 39,707 56,801 54,870 62,603 62,186 11,968 23,017 10,229 21,581 30,463 19,631 31,705 9,115 22,167 6,058 (23,529) (7,334) 0
(84,638) (0.25) 0 0 7 0 8 8 7 7 9 5 6 7 5 6 8 9 7 6 8 6 7 9 0 6 9 7 5 6 0 8 9 2 2 1 1 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 l l l t t t r - 1 r - 1 r - 1 r - 1 y y y v c c c g g g p p n n n b n n b c c c a a u u u p p a a a e e e o e e a e a a e u u u u u J J J O O O J F J J F A A J Dec - J D D D Nov - S S M M A N A A M M M
R 5 R 6 R 7 R 8 R 9 R 10 R 11 R 12 R 13 R 14 R 15 R 16 R 17 R 18 R 19 R 20 R 21 R 22 R 23 R 24 R 25 R 26 R 27 R 28 R 29 R 30 R 31 R 32 R 33 R 34 R 35 Returnee population change from previous DTM assessment Total returnees Figure 32: Returnee population trend
Return Assessments are not conducted in Bauchi, Taraba & Gombe 16 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
R34 Accessed R35 Accessed R34 Total IND R35 Total IND Return Population In State Status Difference LGA's LGA's (September 2020) (November 2020) Percentages Per State Adamawa 16 16 819,269 820,734 Increase 1,465 47%
Borno 18 18 726,454 724,263 Decrease -2,191 42%
Yobe 6 6 191,126 197,910 Increase 6,058 11% Grand Total 40 40 1,736,849 1,742,907 Increase 9,934 100%
Table 4: Change in returnee population by State
40% Seventy-one per cent of the entire return population were 37% women and children (below the age of 12) while 54 perR3 cent4 T oofta l 35% the return population were female and 46 per cent were male. (September 2020) 30% The average household size for returnee families in North East 30% Nigeria is 6 persons. 25% Out of the total number of returnees, 1,596,959 individuals or 92 per cent of all returnees were classified as IDP returnees, 20% while 145,948 individuals or 8 per cent of all returnees were Returned individuals 15% classified as returned refugees as they travelled back from 13% 9% 9% neighbouring countries. 10%
The percentage of returned refugees did not change since the 5% last rounds of assessments. Among the returned refugees, 1% 1% 0% 86,228 individuals returned from Cameroon (59% of refugee 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 returnees), 37,492 individuals from Niger Republic (26% of Year of Displacement refugee returnees) and 22,228 individuals from Chad (15% of Figure 33: Year of displacement for returnees refugee returnees). 3B: YEAR OF RETURN FOR RETURNEES 1% from Niger 1% from Chad Niger Niger Abadam ake had The majority or 38 per cent of returnees (or 657,042 1% from individuals) stated that they have returned to their locations of Kukawa Chad Guzamala origin in 2016. Twenty-nine per cent of returnees (or 506,658 individuals) returned in 2015 while 17 per cent (or 290,409 Jigawa 7% Nganzai Marte individuals) returned in the year 2017.
197,910 While important returns occurred during 2015 and 2016, it 6% B is noteworthy that areas of return shifted from one year to 93% Bauchi the next. In 2015, the great majority or 85 per cent of returns recorded were towards or within Adamawa State, while 2016 724,263 1% from and 2017 witnessed the majority of returns towards or within Cameroon 94% Borno State (55% and 74% respectively). Gombe This can be explained by the fact that in 2015, Borno State was ± still embroiled in the conflict with Non-State Armed Groups, 11% 1% which controlled large swaths of the territory. Adamawa State from Chad Chad was enjoying a relatively more stable and secure situation, which was reflecting in a significant number of IDPs returning Plateau 820,734 to this state. In turn, the increased number of returns between 2016 and 2017 to Borno can be attributed to the improved Returnee IDPs Taraba security in the sate at that time, following significant military 89% Returnees from abroad Cameroon Hard to reach LGA operations resulting in subsequent loss of territory by the Non- Returnees Total by State State Armed Groups. 197,910 40%
Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries 724,263 38% in this map do not imply of cial endorsement or acceptance by IOM Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXV), HDX, ESRI Benue 820,734 35% 0 35 70 140 Km 29% Map 6: Returned population by state 30%
25% 3A: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT FOR 20% RETURNEES 17% 15% 13% The majority or 37 per cent of returnees stated that they were Returned individuals forced to flee their locations of origin in 2016. Thirty per cent 10% of returnees said they were displaced in the year 2015, 13 per 5% cent were displaced in 2017. When comparing the numbers 1% 1% 2% 0% with the Round 34 of assessments, no changes were recorded. 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year of Return Figure 34: Year of return for returnees
Return Assessments are not conducted in Bauchi, Taraba & Gombe 17 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
3C: REASONS FOR INITIAL DISPLACEMENT 3E: HEALTH FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES OF RETURNEES Unlike the situation in locations hosting IDPs, 65 per cent Ninety-one per cent (up by 1%) attributed their displacement of locations hosting returnees did not have access to health to the ongoing conflict in North East Nigeria, 8 per cent (similar services. Lack of access to medical services was highest in to Round 34) of returnees said they were displaced due to Yobe at 68 per cent (up by 1%), followed by Adamawa at 67 per communal clashes and 1 per cent due to natural disasters. In cent and Borno at 62 per cent (similar to Round 34). In areas Borno and Yobe, respectively 100 per cent and 99 per cent of that did have access to health services, the most common all displacements occurred due to the insurgency. In Adamawa, type were primary health centres or PHCC (27%) followed by 84 per cent of returnees cited the conflict as their reason for general hospitals and mobile clinics, both at 3 per cent. displacement, followed by communal clashes (14%) and natural disasters (2%). No Health Facility 67% 1%
8%
Primary Health 27% Care Centre
General Hospital 3% Insurgency
91% Communal clashes Mobile Clinic 3% Natural Disasters Figure 35:Reasons for initial Displacement of returnee Figure 38: Type of medical services in areas of return
3D: SHELTER CONDITIONS FOR RETURNEES Grand Total 32% 68% Seventy-six per cent of returnees resided in shelters with walls. Eighteen per cent of returnees were residing in traditional YOBE 28% 72% shelters and 6 per cent were living in emergency/makeshift shelters. In Borno, 82 per cent of returnees lived in shelters BORNO 34% 66% with walls while 9 per cent were living in emergency/makeshift shelters and 10 per cent were dwelling in traditional shelters. No changes were recorded compared to Round 34.Twenty-six ADAMAWA 31% 69% per cent of returnee households found their houses in their locations of origin either fully or partially damaged. Seventy- 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% four per cent of the houses of returnees were not damaged functioning not functioning upon their return. Figure 39: Availability of medical services in areas of return
Grand Total 74% 20% 6% 3F: EDUCATION FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES YOBE 56% 29% 15% In contrast with facilities in locations hosting IDPs, educational facilities were present in only 49 per cent of locations where BORNO 64% 29% 7% returnees were residing. Education facilities were not available in 51 per cent of the locations hosting returnees. When consid- ADAMAWA 86% 10% 4% ering the information per state, education facilities were avail-
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% able in 48 per cent of the locations in Borno (down by 2%), in No Damage (HH) Partially Damaged (HH) Fully Damaged (HH) 54 per cent of the locations in Adamawa and 51 per cent of the Figure 36: Shelters conditions of the returnee households locations in Yobe.
No Education Facilities 51% Grand Total 76% 6% 18%
Primary School 35% YOBE 69% 4% 27% Secondary School 12%
BORNO 82% 8% 10% Religious School 1%
ADAMAWA 72% 3% 25% Other 1%
Figure 40: Percentage of education types in areas of return 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Vocational Center 0% Wall Building (HHs) Emergency/makeshift shelters(HHs) Traditional shelters (HHs) Figure 37: Shelters type of the returned households in areas of return
18 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
Yobe 100% Grand Total 51% 49%
Yobe 51% 49% Borno 14% 86%
Borno 48% 52% Adamawa 3% 97%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% no yes Adamawa 54% 46% Figure 44: State-wise breakdown of farmers with access to farmland 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% no yes Trading Figure 41: Availability of education services in areas of return 98% 3G: WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH) FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES Petty Trading 1% WASH facilities were provided in 74 per cent of sites where returnees were residing (up by 1% compared to Round 34). No WASH facilities were present in 26 per cent of sites (down Farming 1% by 1%). Hand pumps were the most common type of WASH facility, present in 30 per cent of locations where returnees Figure 45: Means of Livelihood were residing (similar to Round 34). Hand pumps were followed by communal boreholes, present in 30 per cent of locations 3I: MARKET FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES (up by 1%), and communal wells, present in 11 per cent of Twenty-one per cent (down by 1%) of locations where locations assessed. returnees have settled had markets nearby while 79 per cent had no market facilities. Twenty-one per cent of markets were Hand pump 30% functional.
Grand Total 79% 21% Communal boreholes 30%
No WASH facilities 26% Yobe 79% 21%
Communal wells 11% Borno 80% 20%
River 2% Adamawa 78% 22% Public toilets 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No yes Figure 42:Ref uPercentagese dump of0% WASH facilities provided Figure 46: Availability of market services in areas of return
Toilet 0% Grand Total 26% 74% 3J: PROFILE OF ASSISTANCE FOR RETURNEES In 28 per cent (down by 1%) of locations hosting returnees, no Yobe 20% 80% assistance was provided. Food and NFI support were reported as the most common types of assistance provided in 22 per Borno 11% 89% cent of the locations hosting returnees, followed by WASH in 11 per cent of the sites. Adamawa 37% 63% None 28% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No yes Food 22%
Figure 43: Availability of WASH facilities in areas of return NFI 22%
Wash 11% 3H: LIVELIHOOD FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES Health 8% The most common livelihood activity in locations of return was farming, recorded at 98 per cent of the sites assessed (similar Shelter 4% to Round 34). Other livelihood activities reported were petty trade and fishing activities, both cited in 1 per cent of the return Education 3% locations as the most common livelihood activity for returnees. Livelihood 1% Access to farmland was available in 93 per cent of the locations assessed (similar to Round 34). Protection 1% Figure 47: Percentage of sites received by type of assistance
19 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
METHODOLOGY The data collected in this report was obtained through the TOOLS FOR RETURNEES implementation of different DTM tools used by enumerators at various administrative levels. The type of respondent for each Local Government Area Profile - Returnees: This is an tool was different as each focus on different population types: assessment conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of information collected at this level focuses on returnees TOOLS FOR IDPS and includes returnee population estimates (households and individuals), date of return, location of origin and initial reasons Local Government Area Profile ‐ IDP: This is an assessment of displacement. The main outcome of this assessment is a list conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of of wards where returnee presence has been identified. This list information collected at this level focuses on IDPs and includes: will be used as a reference to continue the assessment at ward displaced population estimates (households and individuals), level (see “ward level profile for returnees”). date of arrival, location of origin, reason(s) for displacement and type of displacement locations (host communities, camps, camp-like settings, etc.). The assessment also records the Ward level Profile ‐ Returnees: The ward level profile is contact information of key informants and organizations an assessment that is conducted at the ward level. The type assisting IDPs in the LGA. The main outcome of this assessment of information collected at this level focuses on returnees is a list of wards where IDP presence has been identified. This and includes information on: returnee population estimates list will be used as a reference to continue the assessment at (households and individuals), date of return, location of origin ward level (see “ward-level profile for IDPs”). and reasons for initial displacement. The results of this type of assessment are used to verify the information collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all wards that had Ward level Profile ‐ IDP: This is an assessment conducted been identified as having returnee populations in the LGA list. at the ward level. The type of information collected at this level includes: displaced population estimates (households and individuals), time of arrival, location of origin, reason(s) Data is collected via interviews with key informants such as for displacement and type of displacement locations. The representatives of the administration, community leaders, assessment also includes information on displacement religious leaders and humanitarian aid workers. To ensure data originating from the ward, as well as a demographic calculator accuracy, assessments are conducted and cross-checked with based on a sample of assessed IDPs in host communities, several key informants. The accuracy of the data also relies on camps and camp-like settings. The results of the ward level the regularity and continuity of the assessments and field visits profile are used to verify the information collected at LGA that are conducted every six weeks. level. The ward assessment is carried out in all wards that had previously been identified as having IDP populations in the LGA list.
Site assessment: This is undertaken in identified IDP locations (camps, camp-like settings and host communities) to capture detailed information on the key services available. Site assessment forms are used to record the exact location and name of a site, accessibility constraints, size and type of the site, availability of registrations, and the likelihood of natural hazards putting the site at risk. The form also captures details about the IDP population, including their place of origin, and demographic information on the number of households disaggregated by age and sex, as well as information on IDPs with specific vulnerabilities. In addition, the form captures details on access to services in different sectors: shelter and NFI, WASH, food, nutrition, health, education, livelihood, communication, and protection. The information is captured through interviews with representatives of the site and other key informants, including IDP representatives.
20 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
Cover Page Picture: An internally displaced persons (IDPs) waiting for Biometric Registration in Gubio camp, Gubio LGA of Borno State. © IOM-DTM/2020
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.
“When quoting, paraphrasing, or in any other way using the information mentioned in this report, the source needs to be stated appropriately as follows: “Source: Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), December 2020.”
Contacts: NEMA: Alhassan Nuhu, Director, Disaster Risk Reduction, [email protected] +234 8035925885
IOM: Henry Kwenin, Project Officer, [email protected] +234 9038852524
21 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
DTM Nigeria | Sectoral Analysis - Round 35 (December 2020)
DTM S NFI S Nigeria
C C C
tarpaulin 65% Block/bricks 37%
Timber/wood 14% tarpaulin 21%
Block/bricks 11% Timber/wood 20%
roofing 4% roofing 17%
nails 3% nails 3%
rope 2% tools 1%
tools 1% Other 1%
Figure 11a: Number of Camp sites with the most needed Shelter material Figure 12a: Number of Host community sites with the most needed Shelter material
2%
9% 7%
22%
91% 98% 78% 93%
Grand Total
yes no yes no no yes yes no
Figure 11b: Need for shelter materials Figure 11c: Sites assesible by trucks Figure 12b: Most needed shelter materials Figure 12c: Sites assesible by trucks for for NFI Distribution NFI Distribution
government 38% ingo 38%
ADAMAWA ingo 29% un 32%
none 18%
none 20%
un 7%
government 8% individual private 4%
individual private 1% Religious 3% Organization
Religious 1% Organization other 1%
Figure 11e: Most suporting Organization in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 12e: Most suporting Organization in Host Communities
Go back.
22 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
DTM WASH S Nigeria
W F C C C 100% 90% Grand Total 65% 26% 4% 5% 80% 70% Yobe 81% 9% 10% 60% 50% Taraba 72% 14% 14% 40% 30% Borno 64% 29% 3% 4% 20% 10% Bauchi 100% 0% Grand Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Total Adamawa 58% 15% 12% 15% on-site (<10 minutes) 65% 93% 92% 74% 7% 94% 76% off-site (<10 minutes) 10% 0% 3% 0% 62% 2% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% on-site (>10 minutes) 19% 6% 4% 25% 12% 4% 11% on-site (<10 minutes) off-site (<10 minutes) on-site (>10 minutes) off-site (>10 minutes) off-site (>10 minutes) 6% 1% 1% 1% 19% 0% 4% Figure 15a: Distance to main water sources Figure 16a: Distance to main water sources
piped water supply 65% unprotected well 30%
hand pumps 18% hand pumps 23% piped water supply 19% water truck 6% protected well 13% unprotected well 5% water truck 5% protected well 2% surface water 4%
surface water 1% ponds/canals 2%
none 1% lake/dam 2%
lake/dam 1% spring 1% none 1% bottled/sachet water 1%
Figure 15b: Main non drinking water sources in camps/camp-like settings Figure 16b: Main non drinking water sources
Grand Total 88% 12% Yobe 64% 36%
Yobe 95% 5% Taraba 51% 49%
Taraba 64% 36% Gombe 38% 62%
Borno 93% 7% Borno 82% 18%
Bauchi 40% 60% Bauchi 25% 75%
Adamawa 62% 38% Adamawa 23% 77%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% no yes no yes Figure 15c: Differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water Figure 16c: Differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water in in camps/camp-like settings Host Communities
Grand Total 38% 62% Yobe 23% 77%
Yobe 38% 62% Taraba 60% 40%
Gombe Taraba 21% 79% 81% 19%
Borno 53% 47% Borno 36% 64% Bauchi 42% 58% Bauchi 40% 60% Adamawa 31% 69% Adamawa 62% 38% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% no yes no yes Figure 15d: Have Water Points been Improved in Camp and Camp-like settings? Figure 16d: Have Water Points been Improved in Host Communities
Go back. 23 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
90% 80% Grand Total 47% 34% 11% 8% 70% Yobe 15% 48% 5% 32% 60% 50% Taraba 51% 38% 11% 40% 30% Gombe 63% 24% 7% 5% 1% 20% Borno 48% 25% 22% 4% 1% 10% 0% Bauchi Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total 42% 49% 8% 1% 10-15ltr 35% 60% 58% 14% 43% 53% Adamawa 70% 22% 8% >15ltr 58% 20% 25% 86% 43% 32% 5-10ltr 7% 20% 15% 0% 0% 12% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% <5ltr 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% unknown 0% 0% 1% 0% 14% 2% 10-15ltr >15ltr 5-10ltr unknown <5ltr Figure 15e: Average amount of water available per person per day Figure 16e: Average amount of water available per person per day
None 88% None 96% taste 9%
taste 3% color 1%
suspended_solids 1% other 1%
odor/smell 1%
Figure 15f: Main problem with water Figure 16f: Main problem with water
P H F
No waste disposal system, Garbage pit , 14% 16% Garbage pit 12% No waste disposal system, 20% Burning, 64%
Burning 74%,
,
Figure 16g: Main garbage disposal mechanism in Host Communities Figure 15g: Main garbage disposal mechanism in camps/camp-like settings
No, 26% Yes, 37%
No, 63%
Yes , 74
Figure 15h: Targeted hygiene promotion/main garbage disposal mechanism in Figure 16h: Targeted hygiene promotion/main garbage disposal mechanism Host Communities in Host Communities
Go back.
24 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
DTM F N S Nigeria
Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities
100% 100%
90% 80% 80%
60% 70%
60%
40% 50%
40% 20% 30%
20% 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total 10% irregular 85% 100% 29% 71% 67% 39% 0% once a month 0% 0% 53% 0% 24% 43% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total never 12% 0% 17% 29% 9% 17% irregular 67% 92% 60% 95% 40% 69% 71% never 26% 0% 24% 4% 59% 9% 19% once a week 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Once a month 7% 0% 16% 0% 0% 21% 9% everyday 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% everyday 0% 8% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Figure 19a: Frequency of food or cash distribution in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 20a: Frequency of food or cash distribution in Host Communities
70% 80%
70% 60%
60% 50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total cultivated 70% 53% 31% 62% 42% 44% 50% cash (personal money) 42% 60% 53% 64% 29% 51% cash (personal money) 18% 35% 52% 33% 40% 33% 35% distribution 8% 0% 44% 15% 19% 37% distribution 2% 7% 16% 3% 4% 18% 9% cultivated 46% 20% 2% 7% 48% 9% host community donation 8% 3% 0% 2% 8% 4% 4% host community donation 4% 20% 1% 7% 4% 2% none 2% 2% 1% 0% 6% 1% 2% none 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 1%
Figure 19b: Most common source of obtaining food in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 20b: Most common source of obtaining food in Host Communities
60%
Yobe 24% 24% 10% 19% 10% 14% 50%
40% Taraba 36% 14% 14% 21% 14%
30%
Borno 23% 29% 26% 11% 7% 4% 20%
10%
Bauchi 40% 0% 20% 40% 0% 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total 1yr and above 34% 9% 47% 21% 41% 19% 29% None 32% 3% 33% 0% 53% 32% 26% Adamawa 54% 12% 12% 15% 4% 4% 4-6 months 12% 42% 8% 28% 1% 6% 16% 1-3 months 5% 16% 3% 30% 0% 30% 13% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 6-9 months 6% 23% 4% 11% 4% 6% 9%
1yr and above 1-3 months None 4-6 months 6-9 months 10-12 months 11% 7% 5% 10% 1% 7% 7%
Figure 19c: Duration of last received food support in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 20c: Duration of last received food support in Host Communities
yes 94% yes 95%
no 6% no 5%
Figure 19d: Access to markert near the sites in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 20d:Access to markert near the sites in Host Communities
Go back.
25 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
DTM H S Nigeria
Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities
Grand Total 2% 98% Yobe 4% 96%
Yobe 14% 86% Taraba 2% 98%
Taraba 100% Gombe 1% 99%
Borno 100% Borno 100%
Bauchi 100% Bauchi 1% 99%
Adamawa Adamawa 12% 88% 5% 95%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% no yes no yes
Figure 21a: Access to health facilities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 22a: Access to health facilities in Host Communities
90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30%
30% 20%
20% 10%
10% 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total 0% on-site (< 3 km) 65% 79% 49% 76% 7% 74% 61% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total off-site (< 3 km) 19% 80% 60% 36% 31% 54% off-site (< 3 km) 17% 11% 36% 7% 71% 11% 24% on-site (< 3 km) 54% 0% 26% 29% 48% 30% on-site (> 3 km) 16% 7% 5% 9% 3% 5% 8% off-site (> 3 km) 8% 20% 9% 29% 10% 10% off-site (> 3 km) 2% 3% 9% 7% 18% 9% 7% on-site (> 3 km) 19% 0% 3% 6% 10% 5% none 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% mobile clinic 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% mobile clinic 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%
Figure 21b: Location of health facilities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 22b: Location of health facilities in Host Communities
90%
100% 80%
70% 80% 60%
50% 60% 40%
40% 30%
20% 20% 10%
0% 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total ingo 4% 0% 55% 0% 29% 45% government 81% 87% 77% 87% 74% 90% 83% government 69% 100% 37% 86% 61% 45% local clinic 14% 9% 2% 13% 25% 2% 9% ngo 12% 0% 7% 0% 0% 7% INGO 1% 1% 19% 0% 1% 7% 6% local clinic 15% 0% 1% 14% 10% 3% ngo 4% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 2%
Figure 21c: Main provider of health facilities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 22c: Main provider of health facilities in Host Communities
Go back.
26 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
DTM E S Nigeria
Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities
100% 1% 7% 100%
32% 80% 36% 80% 36% 54% 60% 62% 60% 60%
40% 40% 68% 63% 57% 20% 46% 20% 40% 38%
0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total On-site 74% 93% 68% 96% 4% 89% 74% 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total Off-site 25% 6% 32% 4% 95% 10% 25%
Off-site On-site none none 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Figure 23a: Location of formal/informal education faciliities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 24a: Location of formal/informal education facilities in Host Communities
100% 100% 4% 4% 8% 7% 90% 80% 18% 23% 80% 70% 43% 34% 36% 60% 60% 50% 60% 40%
30%
20% 40% 78% 73% 10% 58% 57% 57% 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total 20% 40% <1km 48% 68% 76% 78% 39% 86% 67% <2km 48% 31% 20% 16% 42% 13% 28% <5km 4% 1% 4% 5% 12% 1% 4% 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total >10km 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1% <10km 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% <1km <2km <5km Figure 23b: Distance to nearest education faciliities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 24b: Distance to nearest education facilities in Host Communities
60% 100% 2% 5% 3% 10% 9% 19% 50%
36% 80% 8% 22% 21% 40%
52% 15% 30% 60% 80%
20% 39% 36% 39% 40% 35% 10%
20% 43% 0% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total 27% 28% 28% 25% -50% 29% 35% 41% 31% 40% 39% 36% 23% 20% 51% - 75% 43% 51% 27% 52% 17% 28% 36% 0% <25% 18% 4% 26% 10% 39% 14% 18% Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total >75% 10% 9% 5% 6% 3% 13% 8% 25% -50% <25% 51% - 75% none >75% none 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 6% 2% Figure 23c: Percentage of children attending school in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 24c: Percentage of children attending school in Host Communities covid 19 69%
covid 19 74% fees or costs 13%
fees or costs 15% lack of school supplies 5%
lack of parental/care givers support 5% work in the fields 3%
lack of teachers 2% lack of teachers 2%
distance to the school (too far) 2% lack of school supplies 2%
violence/risks at the school or to/from the school 1% lack of parental/care givers support 1%
work in the fields 1% school is damaged or destroyed 1%
work at the house 1% work at the house 1%
fear of violence 1% other 1% Figure 23d: Reasons for not attending schools in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 24d:Reasons for not attending schools in Host Communities
Go back. 27 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
DTM C S Nigeria
Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities
distribution 43% distribution 46%
situation in areas of origin 15% access to services 27%
safety and security 12% situation in 10% areas of origin other relief assistance 12%
10% other relief assistance access to services 10%
safety and security 7% registration 1%
none 1% how to contact 1% aid providers how to get information 1%
registration 1% shelter 1%
1% shelter how to contact aid providers 1%
Figure 26a: Most important topic for IDPs Figure 25a: Most important topic for IDPs
few few 84% 71%
most 22% most 10%
almost all 5% None 5%
None 2% almost all 1%
Figure 25b: Access to functioning radio Figure 26b: Access to functioning radio
Grand Total 8% 2% 79% 4% 7% Grand Total 22% 18% 22% 9% 19% 10%
newspaper/magazine 100% internet 100%
They received their newspaper/magazine 100% information from people 100% in the host communities word of mouth 22% 30% 15% 3% 14% 16% word of mouth 1% 4% 89% 1% 6% tv 25% 24% 13% 13% 25% telephone voice call 10% 43% 23% 24% telephone voice call 20% 6% 7% 29% 7% 31%
radio 15% 1% 76% 1% 7% radio 25% 13% 30% 9% 21% 2%
loudspeakers 100% loudspeakers 3% 7% 48% 42%
community meetings 1% 9% 9% 51% 24% 6% community meetings 57% 43%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Gombe
Figure 25c: Most Preferred channel of communication Figure26c: Most Preferred channel of communication in Camps/Camp-like settings in Host Communities
Go back.
28 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
L S DTM Nigeria
Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities
17%
37%
63% 83%
no yes no yes
Figure 27a: Access to Land for Cultivation Figure 28a: Access to Land for Cultivation
5% 4%
96% 95%
no yes no yes
Figure 27b: Livestock on site Figure 28b: Livestock on site
3% 6%
94% 97%
no yes no yes
Figure 27c: Sites with access to income generating activities Figure 28c: Sites with access to income generating activities
Go back.
29 Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 35 (December 2020)
P S DTM Nigeria
Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities
self organized 55% local authorities 25%
military 14% police 23%
none 14% self organized 18%
police 8% military 11%
local authorities 5% community 11%
community 2% none 10%
religious leaders 1% community leaders 1%
community leaders 1% religious leaders 1%
Figure 29a: Main security providers Figure 30a: Main security providers
none 76% none 90%
theft 14%
friction among site residents 4% crime 4%
theft 4% friction with host community 2%
friction among site residents 2%
armed conflict 1%
alcohol/drug-related disturbance 1%
friction with host community 1% others 1%
Figure 29b: Most common type of security incidents Figure 30b: Most common type of security incidents
Go back.
30