DTMDTM Report NIGERIA Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020) DTM DISPLACEMENT REPORT 31 Nigeria FEBRUARY 2020
1 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Background 3 Overview: DTM Round 31 Assessments 4 1.BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT 6 1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTHEAST NIGERIA 8 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 9 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 16 3B: REASONS FOR INITIAL DISPLACEMENT OF RETURNEES 17 3C: SHELTER CONDITIONS FOR RETURNEES 17 3D: HEALTH FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 17 3E: EDUCATION FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 17 3F: MARKET FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 17 3G: PROFILE OF ASSISTANCE FOR RETURNEES 18 3H: WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 18 3I: LIVELIHOOD FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 18 4. METHODOLOGY 19 Tools for IDPs 19 Tools for Returnees 19
2 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report of the Round 31 Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) assessment by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) aims to improve the understanding about the scope of internal displacements, returns and the needs of affected populations in conflict-affected states of north- eastern Nigeria. The report covers the period 15th January to 15th February 2020 and reflects trends from the six most affected north-eastern states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. For Round 31, 2,046,604 or 420,072 households were recorded as displaced, an increase of 7,512 persons against the last assessment conducted in December 2019 when 2,039,092 internally displaced persons (IDPs) were identified. Also, a total of 1,673,862 returnees were recorded in the DTM Round 31 assessment, an increment of 62,186 or 4 per cent from the 1,611,676 persons that were identified as returnees in the last round of assessment that was conducted in December 2019. The increase in number of IDPs indicates a continued plateauing in numbers of displaced persons in the region over the last couple of rounds. As per the Round 29 assessment that was published in November 2019, 2,035,232 IDPs were recorded. A similar trend was observed in previous rounds of assessment since August 2019. The number of displaced persons in the region is now well above the number recorded in Round 25 (2,026,602), which was conducted before escalating violence was observed in October 2018 even though accessibility remains lower. During Round 25, a higher number of Local Government Areas (LGAs or districts) and wards were accessible. Given that the numbers of IDPs is increasing slowly although accessibility remains low, it can be inferred that the actual displacement figures could be much higher. To gain insights into the profiles of IDPs, interviews were conducted with 4 per cent of the identified IDP population — 86,268 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. Additionally, site assessments were conducted in 2,372 locations (down from 2,375 in the last round of assessment, conducted in December 2019). The purpose was to better understand the gaps in services provided and the needs of the affected population. These sites included 290 (down from 293 in the last round of assessment) camps and camp-like settings and 2,082 locations (no change since the last assessment) where IDPs were residing with host communities. Site assessments included an analysis of sector-wide needs, including shelter and non-food items, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), food and nutrition, health, education, livelihood, security, communication and protection. Lastly, this report includes analyses of the increasing number of returnees, profiles of their initial displacement, shelter conditions of returnees, and health, education, livelihood, market, assistance and WASH facilities available to the returnees. Notably, as that the north-eastern State of Borno is the most affected by conflict-related displacements, this report specifically emphasizes the related analysis and data.
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 programme in September 2014, in collaboration with the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and relevant State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs).
The main objective of initiating 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 for ensuring effective assistance to the affected population. 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 were communities were hosting IDPs at the time of the assessment.
3 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
OVERVIEW: DTM ROUND 31 ASSESSMENTS
DTM Round 31 assessments were carried out from 15 January The marked decrease in accessibility can be gauged from the to 15 February 2020 in 106 LGAs (no change from the last fact that 110 LGAs with 807 wards were accessible during round of assessment) in 790 wards (no change) in the conflict- Round 25 and only two LGAs were inaccessible namely: Abadam affected northeastern Nigerian states of Adamawa, Bauchi, and Marte. But in Round 26, 13 wards were inaccessible and Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. As per the assessments, populous LGAs like Guzamala, Kukawa and Kala/Balge in the 2,046,604 individuals or 420,072 households were recorded most-affected State of Borno were no longer accessible. as displaced, an increase of 7,512 persons against the last Likewise, in Round 28 only 107 LGAs were accessible while assessment conducted in December 2019 when 2,039,092 Guzamala, Kukawa, and Nganzai LGAs and 12 wards were internally displaced persons (IDPs) were identified. inaccessible. Inaccessibility continued during Round 29 with The figure indicates a continued plateauing in numbers 794 wards accessible. of displaced persons in the region over the last couple of In the last two rounds (Round 30 and 31), inaccessibility rounds. As per the Round 29 assessment that was published was lower than that in Round 29. Overall 790 wards were in November 2019, 2,035,232 IDPs were recorded. A similar assessable in the last two rounds. A decrease of one ward in trend was observed in previous rounds of assessment since Geidam LGA in Yobe was made up by an increase in Guyuk LGA August 2019. in Adamawa, leaving the overall number unchanged since last The total number of IDPs recorded is now at par with the round of assessment that was conducted in December 2019. 2,026,602 IDPs that were recorded in Round 25, which was Gubio, Guzamala, Kukawa, Marte and Nganzai LGAs remained carried out before the escalation of violence in October 2018, inaccessible. and during which the number of accessible LGAs was much Before the recent deterioration in overall security situation, the higher (110). This plateauing cannot be interpreted as a calm in number of wards that DTM was assessing had been steadily security situation as there is an increase in the number of LGAs going up over the months. From 797 wards assessed in June and wards that are inaccessible. Accessibility continued to be 2018, a high of 807 wards were assessed in Round 29 that low in Round 31 in-keeping with the decreasing trend over the was published in November 2019. last seven rounds of DTM assessments. The high numbers in spite of limited accessibility are in fact an indication that Also, the number of sites assessed by DTM enumerators in mobility of IDPs has gone up and the situation continues to be DTM Round 31 assessment marginally decreased to 2,372 fluid and unpredictable. from 2,375 locations.
Chad Niger Abadam Yusufari LakeLake Chad Chad Machina Yunusari Mobbar Karasuwa Nguru Guzamala Kukawa Bade Katsina Bursari Gubio Bade Geidam Nganzai Monguno Jakusko Marte Jigawa Yobe Ngala Magumeri Tarmua Zaki Gamawa Mafa Kala/Balge Jere Borno Dikwa Itas/Gadau Nangere Fune Maiduguri Jama'are Potiskum Damaturu Kaga Kano Katagum Damban Konduga Bama Shira Misau Fika Giade Gujba Darazo Gwoza Warji Nafada Damboa Ningi Gulani Chibok Ganjuwa Dukku Biu Madagali Funakaye Askira/Uba Michika Toro Kwami Kirfi Kwaya Kusar Hawul Gombe Mubi North Kaduna Bauchi Bayo Gombe Hong Shani Cameroon Bauchi 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 Partially accessible Sardauna Hard to reach ward 0 195 390 780 Km Cross River Hard to reach LGA Map1: LGA Coverage of DTM Round 31 Assessments 4 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
KEY HIGHLIGHTS
2,046,604 1,673,862 D p a ed nd dua Returned nd dua
54% 46% 28% 85% 54% 46% 18% 82% Fe a e Ma e dren o en and Fe a e Ma e dren o en and under dren under dren
2% from Chad Niger Abadam Lake Chad Niger Lake Chad Abadam 2% from Niger Kukawa Chad Kukawa Lake Chad BornoYobe Yobe Guzamala Guzamala Gubio 9% Gubio 5% Marte Jigawa Nganzai Nganzai Marte 91% 176,942 Borno 7% 133,183 95% Borno 54% 46% 685,630 Bauchi Jigawa Gombe 4% from 3% 1,506,537 93% Cameroon 100% 97% Gombe Adamawa ± Bauchi 64,436 37,028 ± 7% Adamawa
10% Taraba 93% 27% 206,422 811,290 IDPs in Camps & Plateau Camp-like settings Returnee IDPs
IDPs in Host Returnees from Abroad Communities 90% 73% Hard to reach LGA Taraba Cameroon Hard to reach LGA 98,998 IDP Population by State Returnees Total by State Less than 98,500 176,942 98,501 - 134,500 Cameroon 134,501 - 206,500 685,630
1 2 K Above 206,500 Benue 811,290
TO ADAMAWA: 206,422 From ADAMAWA: 154,889 51% Returned t n From ADAMAWA: 461,099 t e tate
89% From BAUCHI: 30,714 D p a ed t n TO ADAMAWA: 811,290 t e tate From OTHER STATES: 265,601 From BORNO: 1,677,191 TO BORNO: 1,506,537 41% Returned ro From TARABA: 75,265 ot er tate 11% From ABROAD: 135,001 D p a ed ro
d erent tate TO BORNO: 685,630 8% From BORNO: 476,121 TO GOMBE: 37,028 F ed to From BAUCHI: 2,989 TO BAUCHI: 64,436 From OTHER STATES: 16,333 ne bour n From GOMBE: 129,097 From TARABA: 91,285 TO TARABA: 98,998 ountr e be ore return TO YOBE: 176,942 From YOBE: 103,917 TO YOBE: 133,183 From YOBE: 100,964
4.0 Millions 3.5
3,720,466
3,654,242 3,661,052 3,650,768 3.0 3,669,298 3,602,944 3,506,404 3,506,841
3,468,138
3,322,297
2.5 3,119,225 3,083,232 3,168,719 3,021,618 3,003,985 3,032,108 2,984,170 3,025,428 0.4% 2,781,090 2,809,711 2,999,339 2.0 2,730,268 3.7% n rea e n 2,754,782 2,630,708 2,560,114 2,484,312 n rea e n return d p a ed 1.5 2,412,775 popu at on ro popu at on ro 1.0 DTM R30 1,491,706 DTM R30 1,385,298 1,188,018 0.5
389,281 0 J u l - 1 9 O c t - 1 7 O c t - 1 8 O c t - 1 5 O c t - 1 6 F e b - 1 8 A p r - 1 8 J a n - 1 9 F e b - 1 5 A p r - 1 5 F e b - 1 6 A p r - 1 6 J a n - 1 7 J u n - 1 7 J u n - 1 8 J u n - 1 5 J u n - 1 6 D e c - 1 7 S e p - 1 9 D e c - 1 4 D e c - 1 5 D e c - 1 6 N o v - 1 9 M a r - 1 7 A u g - 1 7 A u g - 1 8 A u g - 1 5 A u g - 1 6 Feb- 20 M a y - 1 9 M a y - 1 7 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 IDPs Returnees D and Returnee popu at on trend
5 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020) 1.BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT 1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN significantly, mobility in form of population movement within NORTHEAST NIGERIA LGAs was high as per the assessment. The estimated number of IDPs in conflict affected north-eastern It is also notable that the number of displaced persons in Borno states Nigerian states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, has not gone down though populous LGAs of Gubio, Guzamala, Taraba and Yobe was 2,046,604 or 420,072 households. Kukawa and Nganzai continued to remain inaccessible to DTM The number represents an increase of 7,512 persons as enumerators due to insecurity in Round 31. The steady increase against the last assessment conducted in December 2019 in IDP numbers in Borno coupled with the populous LGAs in the when 2,039,092 IDPs were identified. Interestingly the number state being inaccessible can be interpreted as an indication of of households recorded in the last round was 420,994, which continued population displacement and high mobility in north- is higher than the total households identified in Round 31. east Nigeria. The number of IDPs seem to be plateauing over the last Borno’s capital city of Maiduguri Metropolitan Council (MMC), few assessment periods. In Round 30, 2,039,092 IDPs which hosts the highest number of IDPs among all LGAs in were recorded which was 3,860 individuals more than the the region, recorded an increase of 3,396 displaced persons 2,035,232 IDPs that were recorded in Round 29 published in taking its tally to 282,946 on account of influx of new arrivals November 2019. from Gubio, Gajiganna and Tungushe and other LGAs facing growing insecurity. Round 28 had shown an increase of 2 per cent or 44,632 individuals compared with 1,980,036 IDPs that were recorded In fact, among all LGAs, MMC once again recorded the highest in Round 27 published in May 2019. increase in absolute number of IDPs (3,396). The next LGA with high increase was Ngala on account of influx of displaced Prior to the dip recorded in January 2019, the numbers of persons from Rann. Jere LGA also saw notable increase of IDPs had been rising since the beginning of 2018 as can be 2,472 persons bringing its population total to 266,760. noted from Figure 1. Round 25 of assessment had identified 2,026,602 IDPs which was in-keeping with a steady trend of A decrease in IDP numbers was recorded in Ngala (5,767 or increase in number of IDPs over the last few months. 4% decrement) in Monguno LGA of Borno. The reduction was mainly on account of departures to Maiduguri and Jere and use The most-affected State of Borno continues to host the highest of biometric number. number of IDPs at 1,506,537 which is an increment of 9,666 people or less than 1 per cent from the 1,496,871 that were Among all the other states that were assessed, Adamawa recorded in the last round of assessment that was conducted recorded the next highest increase in numbers of IDPs. All in December 2019. Even as the overall numbers did not go up other states witnessed a fall in number of IDPs, with Taraba recording highest decrement of 2 per cent.
2.5
2.0
1.5 4 9 8 9 1 8 4 0 3 4 2 2 1 2 7 5 3 4 7 6 3 6 8 8 , 0 8 , 9 3 6 0 0 9 4 1 1 8 3 0 3 , , 1 , 1 4 7 4 1 6 0 9 0 0 2 3 6 4 , 5 8 3 9 , 0 , 1 , , 4 0 5 , 1 2 0 4 3 , 7 4 5 3 9 , 8 4 3 8 3 1 , 6 , 6 , 7 9 5 7 8 5 , 6 5 3 5 5 8 , , 2 2 4 0 4 9 , 2 , , 8 6 6 6 , 4 8 , 7 3 , 3 6 1 9 2 , 1 1 1 , 4 1 8 , 0 8 2 , , , 5 , 2 4 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 9
1.0 0 0 , 0 7 8 8 , 9 , 3 , 9 , 3 2 2 , 2 2 2 2 9 , 7 9 9 8 , 8 7 8 2 5 8 8 , , 2 , 2 , 1 2 2 2 8 0 , 2 8 8 2 , , 7 1 7 1 , , 7 , , 1 1 1 1 7 , 7 1 , , 1 1 , 0 5 1 , 1 1 9 1 1 , 1 1 8 1 4 8 , 3 1 8 , 1 8 1 1 , 0.5 2 , 1 9 8 3
0 9 7 8 7 6 8 5 7 6 5 9 9 7 6 5 4 9 7 9 8 7 6 5 8 6 5 8 7 6 5 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 1 1 1 1 ------l t t t t r r r r c c c c v n n n n p n n y y g - g - g - g - b b b u c c c c a p p p e e e e e a a a a o u u u u u u u u e e e J J J J J J J O O O O A A A S F F F D D D D A A A A N Feb-20 M 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
Figure 1: IDP population by round of DTM assessment
R30 Total R31 Total State Count of LGAs (November 2019) (January 2020) Status Difference % Change ADAMAWA 21 204,699 206,422 Increase 1,723 0.8% BAUCHI 20 64,791 64,436 Decrease -355 -0.5% BORNO 21 1,496,871 1,506,537 Increase 9,666 0.6% GOMBE 11 37,039 37,028 Decrease -11 -0.03% TARABA 16 101,181 98,998 Decrease -2,183 -2.2% YOBE 17 134,511 133,183 Decrease -1,328 -1.0% GRAND TOTAL 106 2,039,092 2,046,604 Increase 7,512 0.4% Table 1: Change in internally displaced population by State 6 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
Chad
Abadam Lake Chad Niger Yusufari Machina Yunusari Karasuwa Mobbar Kukawa Nguru Guzamala Bade Katsina Bursari Bade Geidam Gubio Monguno Nganzai Jakusko Marte Jigawa Tarmua Magumeri Ngala
Zaki Gamawa Kala/Balge Yobe Borno Jere Mafa Itas/Gadau Dikwa Nangere Damaturu Maiduguri Jama'are Potiskum Fune Kano Katagum Damban Kaga Konduga Bama Shira Fika Misau Gujba Giade Warji Darazo Nafada Gwoza Damboa Ningi Gulani Gombe Chibok Biu Madagali Ganjuwa Funakaye Dukku Askira/Uba Michika Bauchi Kwami Kwaya Kusar Hawul Cameroon Kirfi Mubi North Toro Gombe Bayo Bauchi Hong Yamaltu/Deba Shani Gombi Mubi South Akko Dass Song Kaltungo Shelleng Alkaleri Balanga Maiha Tafawa-Balewa Billiri Guyuk Adamawa Bogoro Shomgom Lamurde Fufore ± Girei Numan Demsa Yola South Karim-Lamido Yola North Lau Plateau Mayo-Belwa Yorro Jalingo Zing Ardo-Kola Jada
Gassol Taraba Ganye Nasarawa Ibi Bali Hard to reach LGA Wukari Toungo IDP Population by LGA Donga Gashaka Less than 12,584 Takum 12584 - 40,500 Benue Kurmi
Ussa 40,501 - 98,500 98,501 - 154,500 Sardauna More than 154,500 Cross River 1 32 K
Map 2: IDP distribution by LGA
7 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
1B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE main reason for displacement (91% - no change since the last A detailed and representative overview of age and sex assessment), followed by communal clashes for 8 per cent of breakdown was obtained by interviewing a sample of 86,268 IDPs and natural disasters in 1 per cent of cases. persons, representing 4 per cent of the recorded IDP population Map 3 provides an overview of the reasons for displacement in the six most affected states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, by state. Once again, the State of Taraba showed the highest Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. The results are depicted in Figures number of displacements due to communal clashes during the 2 and 3 below. Round 31 assessments. 60+ 3% 3% 1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT
18-59 18% 20% 91% 6-17 13% 15%
1-5 8% 11%
less than 1 4% 5%
Male 46% Female 54% Figure 2: Age and demographic dreakdown of IDPs 8% 1% Elderly (60+ years) 4% Insurgency Communal Clashes Natural Disaster Figure 4: Percentage of IDPs by reason of displacement Adults (18 - 59 years) 40%
Children Nine per cent of displacements took place in 2019 on account of (0 - 17 years) 56% increased insecurity, communal clashes and natural disasters. The year with the highest percentage of displacements remains Figure 3: Proportion of IDP population by age groups 2015 (27% - no change since last round of assessment) followed by 2016 (20%). 16 per cent of IDPs were displaced in 2017 (down by 1%) and 12 per cent in 2018 (Figure 5 ). 1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT
Reasons for displacement remained unchanged since the 30% 27.23% last round of assessment conducted in December 2019. The 25% 19.52% ongoing conflict in north-eastern Nigeria continued to be the 20% 16.49% 15.82%
15% 11.67% 9.27% 10% 5% 0% 1)Before 2)2015 3)2016 4)2017 5)2018 6)2019 State 2015 Grand Total 96% 4% ADAMAWA 1.87% 2.47% 1.46% 1.38% 1.57% 1.33% 10.09% 100% BAUCHI 1.91% 0.61% 0.29% 0.09% 0.17% 0.08% 3.15% 7% BORNO 8.56% 22.07% 15.92% 13.55% 7.79% 5.72% 73.61% GOMBE 0.79% 0.35% 0.31% 0.20% 0.10% 0.06% 1.81% TARABA 1.13% 0.63% 0.46% 0.53% 1.01% 1.07% 4.84% YOBE 1.56% 1.10% 1.07% 0.74% 1.02% 1.01% 6.51% 73% Grand Total 15.82% 27.23% 19.52% 16.49% 11.67% 9.27% 100.0% 0.2% 34.4% 87% Figure 5: Year of displacement by State 65.4% 13% 3% 2% 1E: MOBILITY 71% 8% Most IDPs have been displaced two times and often three 21% times. Fifty-four per cent (down from 57%) of IDPs have been 10% displaced two times in the six most affected north-eastern 1.6% ± states. In Borno, 66 per cent (down from 68%) of displaced 15.7%
82.7% persons said they have been displaced before.
5% Also, this most-affected state has the lowest percentage (4%
Banditry/Kidnapping - down from 7%) of IDPs who say they have been displaced Natural Disaster only once. Adamawa, which has historically been affected by Insurgency
Communal clashes communal clashes, has the highest percentage of people (61%) 0 30 60 120 Km XX% Number of IDPs by State who say they have been displaced more than three times. Map 3: Cause of displacement and percentage of IDp population by State 8 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
After Borno, Adamawa is the place of origin for the second YOBE 41.3% 22.4% 31.1% 5.2% largest number of IDPs (8%), followed by Yobe at 5 per cent. TARABA 14.0% 22.5% 61.0% 2.5%
GOMBE 78.6% 21.4% 1G: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF DISPLACED BORNO 4.5% 65.8% 26.0% 3.7% POPULATIONS
BAUCHI 85.5% 14.5% In keeping with the trend observed in the last few rounds, 58 per cent (no change since the last round of assessment) of ADAMAWA 64.3% 25.4% 4.9% 5.4% all IDPs were living with host communities (Figure 8) during 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Round 31 assessments with the remainder (42%) residing in IDPs only displaced once IDPs displaced twice IDPs displaced thrice IDPs displaced more than thrice camps and camp-like settings. Figure 6: Frequency of displacement of IDPs per State Out of all the six states, Borno continues to be the only state where the number of people residing in camps and camp-like 1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS settings (54%) is higher than that of individuals living with host communities. In all other states, people living with host Eighty-two per cent of IDPs cited the most-affected state of communities far outnumbered those in camps and camp-like Borno as their place of origin (no change from the last two settings. rounds of assessments).
8% From ADAMAWA: 154,889 TO ADAMAWA: 206,422 10%
42% Types of Settlements 58%
TO BORNO: 1,506,537 82% From BORNO: 1,677,191
73% TOTAL IDPs: 2,046,604 Host Community Camp
Grand Total 58% 42%
YOBE 91% 9%
TARABA 73% 27%
TO GOMBE: 37,028 2% GOMBE 100% 0.2% From BAUCHI: 2,989 TO BAUCHI: 64,436 3% 0.8% From OTHERS: 16,333 BORNO 46% 54% TO TARABA: 98,998 5% From TARABA: 91,285 4% BAUCHI 97% 3%
5% From YOBE: 103,917 TO YOBE: 133,183 7% ADAMAWA 93% 7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% State of origin State of displacement Total IDPs Host Community Camp Figure 7: State of origin, State of Displacement and Percentage per State of Origin/Displacement Figure 8: IDP settlement type by state
± 1H: UNMET NEEDS IN IDP SETTLEMENTS 80% Katsina 9% The percentage of people in need for food has continued to 0.9% Jigawa 10% 0.1% 3% remain at a high and unchanged figure of 73 per cent over the 100% 90% Kano 2% last few assessments. In Round 31, 61 per cent (12 % down 1% 3% from the last round of assessment) of surveyed IDPs cited food 1% as their main unmet need. Gombe 100% 100% Non-food items (NFIs) were cited as the other second most unfulfilled need by 21 per cent (an increase of 7 per cent since 0.4% Displacement the last round of assessment) and 10 per cent cited shelter as 2.2% pattern 0.4% 96% IDP population, by State of origin their main unmet need. These results are somewhat consistent FCT 2% 100% 1% 100% Less than 17,000 with the trend observed in previous assessments. Greater than 17,000 . 98% More than 150,000 Kogi Benue
Edo Enugu Ebonyi Cross River Anambra
Abia Map 4: Origin of IDPs and location of displacement 9 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
1% 1% 3% Food 3% NFI 10% Shelter
Drinking water
21% Medical services 61% Water for washing and cooking
Security
Figure 9: Main unfulfilled needs of IDPs 2. SITE ASSESSMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS
2A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPS
DTM Round 31 site assessments were conducted in 2,372 These sites included 290 (down from 293 in the last round locations (down from 2,375 in the last round of assessment, of assessment) camps and camp-like settings and 2,082 conducted in December 2019). The purpose was to better locations (no change since the last assessment) where IDPs understand the gaps in services provided and the needs of the were residing with host communities. affected population. Chad Niger Abadam Kukawa Lake Chad Yobe Guzamala
9% Gubio Marte Nganzai 91% Borno 133,183 54% 46% Bauchi 3% Gombe 1,506,537 100% 97% Adamawa 64,436 37,028 ± 7%
Taraba 93% 27% 206,422 IDPs in Camps & Camp-like settings IDPs in Host Communities 73% Hard to reach LGA Cameroon 98,998 IDP Population by State Less than 98,500 98,501 - 134,500 134,501 - 206,500
1 2 K Above 206,500
Map 5: IDPs distribution by state and major site type 10 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020) The state wise break up of IDP population is presented in the table below.
Camps/Camp-like settings Host Communities State # IDPs # Sites % Sites # IDPs # Sites % Sites Total Number of IDPs Total Number of Sites ADAMAWA 15,056 25 9% 1 91,366 4 62 22% 2 06,422 4 87 BAUCHI 1 ,691 6 2% 62,745 3 71 18% 6 4,436 377 BORNO 807,467 2 28 79% 6 99,070 4 47 21% 1,506,537 6 75 GOMBE 0% 3 7,028 2 02 10% 3 7,028 2 02 TARABA 26,828 13 4% 72,170 2 08 10% 98,998 2 21 YOBE 8,085 18 6% 1 25,098 392 19% 1 33,183 4 10 Total 859,127 2 90 100% 1,187,477 2,082 100% 2,046,604 2,372
Table 2: Change in IDP figures by State
ownership in camps and camp-like settings were classified 2B: SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATION as private (57% - up from 54%), followed by 42 per cent A total of 859,127 IDPs resided in 290 camps and camp-like categorized as government or public buildings and 1 per cent settlements, with majority (228) in Borno. Eighty-six per cent of as ancestral property. sites are informal while the remaining 14 per cent are formal, and 96 per cent (1% down since last round of assessment) of them are spontaneous. Collective settlements continued to be the most common type of sites with 59 per cent (no change from last round of assessment), followed by camps at 40 per cent. The land IDP Population by Settlement Type
Camp/Camp-like settings Host Community 42% 58%
Land ownership
Site Type Site Classi cation 0.4% 0.4%
4.1% Ancestral 3%
40.3% 59.3% Public/Government 7% 95.5%
Private Building 90% Collec�ve Se�lement/Centre Spontaneous Camp Planned Transi�onal Centre For Reloca�on
Land ownership
Ancestral 1%
Public/Government 42%
Private Building 57%
Figure 10: IDP settlement type by State
11 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
.2C: SECTOR ANALYSIS School 0.1%
CAMP COORDINATION AND CAMP MANAGEMENT Community center 0.1%
In the Round 31 DTM assessment, out of the 290 camps Health facility 0.1% and camp-like sites assessed, 86 per cent were informal (no change since the last round of assessment) and the remaining Government building 0.2%
14 per cent were formal. Emergency shelter 0.2%
1% Government Self-made/makeshift shelter 1.5%
INGO Individual house 9.1% 62 14% Religious entity Host family house 88.7% 38 64% 5% UN Figure 13: Types of shelter in host community sites None 1% 15% For more analysis, click here. Local NGO NON-FOOD ITEMS (NFI) 100% 86 90% Camps and camp-like settings 80% Blankets/mats continued to remain the most needed kind of 70% non-food items (NFI) in camps and camp-like settings (54% 60% up from 50%). 50%
40% Solar lamp 2.1%
30% Bucket/Jerry Can 2.4% 20% 14
10% Soap 2.4% 0% Hygiene kits 5.5% Figure 11: Presence and type of camp management agency Mosquito nets 7.9%
SHELTER Kitchen sets 11.0% Camps and camp-like settings Mattress 14.2% Camps and camp-like settings presented a variety of shelter Blankets/Mats 54.5% conditions, with the most common type of shelter being emergency shelters in 40 per cent (up from 38% in last round Figure 14: Number of camp sites with most needed type of NFI of assessments) of sites and self-made/makeshift shelters For more analysis, click here. (31%). Other types were host family houses (12% - up 1%), government buildings (7%), individual houses (7%) and schools Host Communities (3%). In sites where IDPs were residing with host community, 87 per cent living in the house of the host and 11 per cent in individual Community center 0.4% houses. Only 1per cent were living in self-made or makeshift
School 3% shelter.
Government building 6.6% None 0.05%
Individual house 7% Bucket/Jerry Can 2.02%
Host family house 12% Solar lamp 2.83%
Self-made/makeshift 31% Hygiene kits 2.88% shelter
Soap 3.99% Emergency shelter 40%
Kitchen sets 11.14% Figure 12: Types of shelter in camps/camp-like settings Mattress 16.19% For more analysis, click here. Mosquito nets 21.13%
Blankets/Mats 39.77% Host Communities Figure 15: Number of host community sites with most needed type of NFI This round of assessments recorded 1,187,477 or 58 per cent of all IDPs living with host communities. Eighty-nine per For more analysis, click here. cent were living in a host family’s house (up from 86%). This is followed by individual houses in 9 per cent (down from 11%) and self-made/makeshift shelters in 1 per cent of sites.
12 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020) 5%) and unusable in 1 per cent of sites. In both Bauchi and WASH: WATER RESOURCES Yobe, all toilets were described as not hygienic in this round of assessment as well. In Borno, 96 per cent of sites were Camp and camp-like settings: reported as not hygienic (up from 4%). Piped water was the main source of water in 70 per cent (up from Grand Total 3.1% 68%) of sites where IDPs are residing in camps and camp-like 1.4% 95.5% settings. In 19 per cent of sites (down from 20%), hand pumps YOBE 100.0%
were the main source of drinking water, followed by water TARABA 15.4% 84.6%
trucks (6%). Only 1 per cent of sites mentioned unprotected 2.6% BORNO 96.5% wells as main source of water which is a marked improvement 0.9% since the last round of assessment when unprotected wells BAUCHI 100.00%
were main source of water in 8 per cent of sites. ADAMAWA 12.0% 88.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Spring 0.3% Good (Hygienic) Non usable Not so good (Not hygienic)
Unprotected well 1.4% Figure 18: Condition of toilets in camps/camp-like settings by state
Protected well 3.8% For more analysis, click here. Water truck 5.5% Host communities
Hand pumps 19.0% In 97 per cent of host community sites (no change from the last round of assessment), toilets were described as not hygienic. Piped water supply 70.0% Two per cent of sites (down from 3%) are in good (hygenic) condition and not usable in 1 per cent of sites. In Borno 5 per cent (no change since the last round of assessment) of the Figure 16: Main drinking water sources in camps/camp-like settings toilets were hygienic.
100.0%
For more analysis, click here. 80.0%
60.0%
Host Communities 40.0%
In contrast to camps and camp-like settings, hand pumps were 20.0%
the main source of water in 53 per cent (down from 54%) of 0.0% Grand ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE sites where IDPs are residing with host communities. Total Good (Hygienic) 2.4% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 1.9% 0.5% 1.8% In 26 per cent of sites (up from 25%), piped water was the Non usable 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 3.6% 0.9% main source of drinking water, followed by protected wells (8% Not so good (Not hygienic) 97.4% 99.7% 95.3% 99.5% 97.6% 95.9% 97.3% - down from 9%) and unprotected wells (7% - up from 6%). Figure 19: Condition of toilets in host communities by state Other common water sources include water trucks (5%) and For more analysis, click here. surface water (1%).
Bottled/sachet water 0.1% FOOD AND NUTRITION
Ponds/canals 0.2% Camps and camp-like settings
Spring 0.4% In Round 31 assessments, access to food was offsite in 43 per
Lake/dam 0.5% cent, no change from the last round of assessment conducted in December 2019. Food was onsite in 41 per cent of sites Surface water 0.6% (up from 39%). However, there were no food provisions in 17 Water truck 4.8% per cent (no chance since last round of assessment) of sites
Unprotected well 6.8% assessed.
100.0% Protected well 7.9%
35.5% Piped water supply 25.6% 80.0% 40.7% 50.0% 46.2% 56.0%
Hand pumps 53.1% 60.0% 77.8%
Figure 17: Main drinking water sources in host communities 40.0% 8.0% 49.6% 30.8% 42.8%
For more analysis, click here. 50.0% 20.0% 36.0% 11.1% 23.1% 16.6% 14.9% 11.1% PERSONAL HYGIENE FACILITIES 0.0% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total
Camps and camp-like settings No Yes, off site Yes, on site In 96 per cent of displacement sites (up by 1%), toilets were Figure 20: Access to food in camps/camp-like settings described as ‘not hygienic’, while toilets were reported to be For more analysis, click here. in hygienic conditions in only 3 per cent of sites (down from 13 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
Host Communities 80.0% 70.0%
Access to food was on-site in 59 per cent (up from 57%) of 60.0% sites where IDPs were residing with host community. Twenty- 50.0% one per cent (down from 22%) of sites had access to food 40.0% 30.0% off-site and 20 per cent had no access to food. Similarly, in 20.0% Borno access to food was on-site in 48 per cent (down from 10.0% 0.0% 50%) of site ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total Cough 13.4% 10.2% 20.4% 21.3% 17.3% 21.4% 17.0% Diarrhea 3.5% 1.3% 1.3% 4.0% 6.3% 3.3% 2.9% 100.0% Fever 22.7% 12.1% 15.9% 11.9% 22.6% 17.6% 17.3% 15.9% Hepatitis 7.1% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.2%
80.0% Malaria 52.2% 74.1% 61.7% 48.5% 42.3% 51.5% 56.7% 47.2% 48.3% 18.3% 59.3% Malnutrition 0.2% 1.6% 0.4% 12.9% 9.1% 2.3% 3.0% 73.3% RTI 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.2% 60.0% 75.0% 87.6% Skin disease 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.4%
15.4% Wound infection 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 40.0% 28.6% 65.9% 19.6% Figure 23: Common health problems in host communities 20.0% 37.4% 19.9% 24.8% 11.6% 23.0% 21.1% For more details, click here. 0.8% 5.1% 0.0% 2.0% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total
No Yes, off site Yes, on site Figure 21: Access to food in host communities EDUCATION For more analysis, click here. Camps and camp-like settings Access to schools stayed up at 100 per cent in all accessed HEALTH States, including the most-affected State of Borno. Camps and camp-like settings Host communities For more details, click here.
In a significant reduction, 57 per cent of sites (down from 68%) Host Communities cited malaria as the most common health problem in DTM Round 31 assessment. Cough was cited in 24 per cent of sites In sites where IDPs were residing with host communities, (up from 16%) and fever in 18 per cent (up from 12%). access to education services was 100 per cent as well and this represents no change since last round of assessment. 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% Grand Total 0.3% 99.7% 50.0% 40.0% YOBE 0.3% 99.7% 30.0% 20.0% TARABA 100% 10.0% 0.0% 100.0% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total GOMBE Cough 20.0% 16.7% 26.3% 0.0% 16.7% 23.8% BORNO 100.0% Fever 28.0% 16.7% 14.9% 30.8% 27.8% 17.6% Malaria 48.0% 66.7% 58.3% 69.2% 44.4% 57.2% BAUCHI 100.0% Malnutrition 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.7% Skin disease 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% ADAMAWA 1.3% 98.7% Wound infection 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% No Yes Figure 22: Common health problems in camps/camp-like settings Figure 24: Access to formal/informal education services in Host communities For more analysis, click here. For more details, click here. Host Communities Mirroring the situation in displacement sites, malaria was most prevalent health ailment among IDPs residing with host community in 58 per cent of sites (down from 59%). The situation in Borno was worse with malaria cited as the most prevalent health issue in 62 per cent (up from 60%) of sites.
14 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
COMMUNICATION Host communities Camps and camp-like settings In contrast to IDPs living in displacement camps, the majority of Friends and neighbors were cited as the most-trusted source IDPs living with host communities engaged in farming. In a high of information in 56 per cent of sites (down from 60% in the of 63 per cent (up by 1%) of sites, IDPs engaged in farming. last round of assessment conducted in December 2019). Local and community leaders were cited as the second most trusted source of information in 28 per cent of sites (down from 30%). Collecting firewood 0.7%
2.8% 2.1% 0.7% Friends, neighbors and Pastoralism 1.3% 3.4% family Local leader/Community Fishing 1.5% leader 7.2% Religious leader Agro-pastoralism 6.0%
Government official Petty trade 12.6% 27.6% 56.2% Military official
Daily labourer 14.4% Aid worker
Farming 63.5% Traditional Leader Figure 25: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in camps/camp-like Figure 28: Livelihood activities of IDPs in host communities settings For more details, click here. For more details, click here. PROTECTION Host communities Camps/camp-like settings In sites where IDPs are residing with host community, Some form of security was provided in 81 per cent (down from friends, neighbors and family were the most trusted source of 87%) of evaluated sites. In the most-affected State of Borno, information in 42 per cent of sites (up from 40%), followed by security was provided in 86 per cent of sites (down from 93%). local/community leader in 37 per cent of sites (notably down from 40%). Grand Total 19% 81% 1.0% 2.8% 2.2% Friends, neighbors and family
3.5% YOBE 50% 50% Local leader/Community leader
11.4% Religious leader TARABA 100% 42.0% Aid worker BORNO 14% 86% Government official
37.1% Traditional Leader BAUCHI 100%
Military official ADAMAWA 56% 44% Figure 26: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in host communities 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% For more details, click here. No Yes Figure 29: Security provided in camps/camp-like settings For more details, click here. LIVELIHOODS Camps and camp-like settings Host Communities Petty trade was the main livelihood activity for displaced Amongst the sites where IDPs lived with host communities, 89 persons in 35 per cent (down by 1%), followed by daily wage per cent (no change since last round of assessment conducted laborer (32% - up from 25%) and farming (25% - down 2%). in December 2019) had some form of security.
Grand Total 11% 89%
Fishing 0.3% YOBE 17% 83%
Pastoralism 0.7% TARABA 4% 96%
Collecting firewood 3.1% GOMBE 3% 97%
Agro-pastoralism 4.5% BORNO 7% 93%
Farming 24.5% BAUCHI 3% 97%
Daily labourer 31.7% ADAMAWA 23% 77%
Petty trade 35.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 27: Livelihood activities of IDPs in camps/camp-like settings No Yes Figure 30: Security provided in host communities For more details, click here.
15 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
3. RETURNEES Return R30 R31 R30 Total IND R31 Total IND Population In State Accessed Accessed (December Status Difference (January 2020) Percentages A total of 1,673,862 returnees were recorded in the DTM LGA's LGA's 2019) Per State Round 31 assessment, an increment of 62,186 or 4 per cent Adamawa 16 16 803,753 811,290 Increase 7 , 5 3 7 48%
from the 1,611,676 persons that were identified as returnees in Borno 17 17 631,722 685,630 Increase 5 3 , 9 08 41% the last round of assessment that was conducted in December Yobe 6 6 176,201 176,942 Increase 741 11% 2019. The number of returnees is showing stabilization after Grand Total 39 39 1,611,676 1,673,862 Increase 62,186 100% many rounds of assessment when it had been increasing Table 3: Change in returnee population by State successively. Within the total number returnees, 135,001 (or 8% of all Thirty-nine LGAs were assessed for returnees in Adamawa, returnees) were classified as return refugees as they travelled Borno and Yobe during this round of assessment which is back from neighboring countries which is a negligible decrease same as the number assessed in DTM Round 30. All three since the last round of assessment when 127,823 return states showed an increment in returnee numbers. In the refugees were recorded from Cameroon (65,814 individuals), most-affected State of Borno which hosts 41 per cent (up Chad (28,682 individuals) and Niger Republic (40,505 from 39%) of all returnees, the number of returnees increased individuals). from 631,722 to 685,630 (9% increase since Round 30 assessment).
1.8 1,673,862 1,642,696 1,622,908 1,642,539
Millions 1,611,676 1,558,058 1.6 1,549,630 1,619,010 1,441,099 1,580,093 1,386,229 1.4 1,307,847 1,234,894 1,268,140 1,329,428 1.2 1,151,427 1,257,911 1,099,509
958,549 1.0 910,955 1,039,267
0.8 663,485 599,164 0.6
389,224 0.4 320,365 332,333 262,324 247,470 209,940 0.2 108,531 80,718 83,467 64,850 58,041 56,891 64,321 47,594 60,242 39,707 56,801 62,603 62,186 23,017 21,581 30,463 19,631 11,968 (23,529) (7,334) - 51,918 54,870 10,229 (84,638)
(0.2) AUG-15 OCT-15 DEC-15 FEB-16 APR-16 JUN-16 AUG-16 OCT-16 DEC-16 FEB-17 APR-17 JUN-17 AUG-17 OCT-17 DEC-17 FEB-18 APR-18 JUN-18 AUG-18 OCT-18 DEC-18 FEB-19 APR-19 JUN-19 SEP-19 DEC-19 JAN-20 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
Returnee population change from previous DTM assessment Total returnees Figure 31: Returnee population trend
2% from Niger Abadam Lake Chad 3A: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT FOR Niger Lake Chad 2% from RETURNEES Borno Kukawa Chad Yobe Guzamala 5% Gubio Thirty-eight per cent of returnees (up 1%) stated 2016 as their Jigawa Nganzai Marte year of displacement. Thirty per cent of returnees said they 176,942 were displaced in the year 2015. 7%
95% Borno 700,000 685,630 627,835 Jigawa 600,000 4% from 93% 506,033 Cameroon 500,000 Gombe Bauchi 400,000 Adamawa ± Returned individuals 300,000 10% 227,834
200,000 151,986 811,290 145,504 Plateau 100,000 Returnee IDPs 14,670 90% Returnees from Abroad 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Taraba Hard to reach LGA Year of Displacement Returnees Total by State Figure 32: Year of displacement of returnees Cameroon 176,942 685,630 Benue 811,290
Map 6: Returnee population by State 16 Return Assessments are not conducted in Bauchi, Taraba & Gombe DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020) 3B: REASONS FOR INITIAL DISPLACEMENT 3D: HEALTH FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES OF RETURNEES Unlike the situation in locations hosting IDPs, 63 per cent of Ninety-one per cent (down from 93%) attributed their areas of returns assessed do not have access to health services displacement to the ongoing conflict in north-eastern Nigeria, (no change since the last round of assessment conducted in 8 per cent (up by 2%) returnees said they were displaced due December 2019). This figure is the highest for Yobe at 68 per to communal clashes and 1 per cent due to natural disasters. cent, followed by Adamawa at 67 per cent and Borno at 54 per Futhermore, 15 per cent of returnees assessed in Adamawa cent. In areas that do have access to health services, the most were displaced due to communal clashes in the state. common type were primary health centers (27%) followed by general hospital (5% - down by 2%).
Grand Total 91% 8% 1%
Clinic 2%
YOBE 100%
Mobile Clinic 4%
BORNO 100% General Hospital 4%
ADAMAWA 84% 15% 1% Primary Health Care Center (PHCC) 27% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Insurgency Communal clashes Natural Disasters No Health Facility 63% Figure 33:Reasons for initial Displacement of returnee Figure 36: Type of medical services in areas of return 3C: SHELTER CONDITIONS FOR RETURNEES
Seventy-six per cent of returnees resided in households with 3E: EDUCATION FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES walls. This percentage was 81 per cent in Borno. Seventeen per cent were residing in traditional shelters and 7 per cent in Educational facilities were present in 50 per cent (down by 1%) emergency/makeshift shelters. of locations with returnees. This figure was 56 per cent for Borno, 54 per cent in Yobe and 47 per cent in Adamawa Ten per cent of returnees in Borno are living in emergency/ makeshift shelters while 9 per cent living in traditional shelters. Grand Total 50% 50%
Grand Total 76% 7% 17%
YOBE 46% 54%
YOBE 72% 5% 24%
BORNO 44% 56%
BORNO 81% 10% 9%
ADAMAWA 53% 47%
ADAMAWA 72% 5% 23% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
No Yes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Wall Building (HHs) Emergency/makeshift shelters(HHs) Traditional shelters (HHs) Figure 37: Availability of education services in areas of return Figure 34: Shelters type of the returned households in areas of return 3F: MARKET FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES
Twenty-six per cent of households are either fully or partially Twenty-four per cent (down by 2%) of sites where returnees damaged and 74 per cent are not damaged. have settled had markets nearby. Twenty-three per cent (down by 3%) of markets were functional.
Grand Total 74% 21% 5% Grand Total 76% 24%
YOBE 58% 30% 12% YOBE 80% 20%
BORNO 63% 31% 6% BORNO 73% 27%
ADAMAWA 87% 11% 2% ADAMAWA 77% 23%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No Damage (HH) Partially Damaged (HH) Fully Damaged (HH) No Yes Figure 35: Shelters conditions of the returnee households Figure 38: Availability of market services in areas of return
17 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
3G: PROFILE OF ASSISTANCE FOR 3I: LIVELIHOOD FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES RETURNEES Out of 668 sites assessed, food support was the most common The most common livelihood activity was farming and access type of assistance provided, with 23 per cent (down from 25%) to farmland was universal. of sites reporting this kind of assistance. This was followed by NFIs in 22 per cent (up by 1%) and WASH in 11 per cent (up from 8%) of locations. Grand Total 6% 94%
YOBE 100% Protection 0.5%
Education 1.2% BORNO 16% 84% Livelihood 4.0%
Shelter 4.2% ADAMAWA 2% 98%
Health 8.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Wash 11.2% No Yes
NFI 21.7% Figure 41: State-wise breakdown of farmers with access to farmland
Food 22.5%
None 26.2% Fishing 0.2% Figure 39: Percentage of sites received by type of assistance Trading 0.3%
3H: WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE Petty Trading 0.9% FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES Communal boreholes were the most common WASH facility Petty Jobs 1.3% available in areas of returns, at 35 per cent. The next most common WASH facility were hand pumps in 25 per cent of Cattle rearing 2.5% sites. Farming 94.8% Refuse Dump 0.3% Figure 42: Means of Livelihood Public Toilet 1.6%
River 2.0%
communal Well 11.4%
Hand Pump 24.7%
No WASH Facilities 25.3%
Communal Borehole 34.7%
Figure 40: Percentage of WASH facilities provided
18 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 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 Local Government Area Profile - Returnees: This is an each tool was different as each focuses on different population assessment conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The types: 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 of displacement. The main outcome of this assessment is a list Local Government Area Profile ‐ IDP: This is an assessment of wards where returnee presence has been identified. This list conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of will be used as a reference to continue the assessment at ward information collected at this level focuses on IDPs and includes: level (see “ward level profile for returnees”). displaced population estimates (households and individuals), date of arrival, location of origin, reason(s) for displacement and type of displacement locations (host communities, camps, Ward level Profile ‐ Returnees: The ward level profile is camp-like settings, etc.). The assessment also records the an assessment that is conducted at the ward level. The type contact information of key informants and organizations of information collected at this level focuses on returnees assisting IDPs in the LGA. The main outcome of this assessment and includes information on: returnee population estimates is a list of wards where IDP presence has been identified. This (households and individuals), date of return, location of origin list will be used as a reference to continue the assessment at and reasons for initial displacement. The results of this type of ward level (see “ward-level profile for IDPs”). assessment are used to verify the information collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all wards that had been identified as having returnee populations in the LGA list. Ward level Profile ‐ IDP: This is an assessment conducted at the ward level. The type of information collected at this level includes: displaced population estimates (households Data is collected via interviews with key informants such as and individuals), time of arrival, location of origin, reason(s) representatives of the administration, community leaders, for displacement and type of displacement locations. The religious leaders and humanitarian aid workers. To ensure data assessment also includes information on displacement accuracy, assessments are conducted and cross-checked with originating from the ward, as well as a demographic calculator a number of key informants. The accuracy of the data also based on a sample of assessed IDPs in host communities, relies on the regularity and continuity of the assessments and camps and camp-like settings. The results of the ward level field visits that are conducted every six weeks. profile are used to verify the information collected at LGA 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.
19 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 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.
Contacts: NEMA: Alhassan Nuhu, Director, Disaster Risk Reduction, [email protected] +234 8035925885
IOM: Henry Kwenin, Project Officer, [email protected] +234 9038852524 http://nigeria.iom.int/dtm https://displacement.iom.int/nigeria
20 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
DTM Nigeria | Sectoral Analysis - Round 31 (January 2020) DTM Nigeria NFI SHELTER NFI
Camp/Camp-like Settings Host Communities
School 0.1% Community center 0.4%
Community center 0.1% School 3% Health facility 0.1%
Government building 6.6% Government building 0.2%
Individual house 7% Emergency shelter 0.2%
Host family house 12% Self-made/makeshift shelter 1.5%
Self-made/makeshift 31% Individual house 9.1% shelter
Host family house 88.7% Emergency shelter 40%
F ure 12 Type o e ter F ure 13 Type o e ter
Rope 1.0% Thatches 0.2% Tools 0.3% Tools 1.0% Rope 0.6% Nails 2.4% Nails 5.7%
Roofing sheets 4.1% No need for 15.3% Shelter Material Block/bricks 4.5% Roofing sheets 17.7%
No need for Block/bricks 18.3% 9.0% Shelter Material Timber/wood 20.0% Timber/wood 15.5% Tarpaulin 21.9% Tarpaulin 62.5%
F ure 12a Mo t needed e ter ater a F ure 13a Mo t needed e ter ater a
Grand Total 99.23% 9% 98.67% 15.32% No No
Yes Yes
91% 84.68% 0.77% 1.03%
Yes No Yes No ADAMAWA F ure 12b eed or e ter Mater a F ure 1 a te a e b e by tru or F ure 13b eed or e ter Mater a F ure 15a te a e b e by tru or F D tr but on F D tr but on
Individual / Private 0.34% Religious Organization 4.66%
Religious Organization 1.72% Individual / Private 5.43%
Government 6.55% UN 10.71%
None 16.90% None 15.85%
UN 36.21% INGO 23.20%
INGO 38.28% Government 40.15%
F ure 1 b Mo t uport n r an at on n a p a p- e ett n F ure 15b Mo t uport n r an at on n o t o un t e
Go back. 21 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
DTM WASH Nigeria
W F Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities
Bottled/sachet water 0.1%
Ponds/canals 0.2%
Spring 0.3% Spring 0.4%
Lake/dam 0.5% Unprotected well 1.4%
Surface water 0.6% Protected well 3.8% Water truck 4.8%
Water truck 5.5% Unprotected well 6.8%
Protected well 7.9% Hand pumps 19.0% Piped water supply 25.6%
Piped water supply 70.0% Hand pumps 53.1%
F ure 1 Ma n dr n n ater our e F ure 1 Ma n dr n n ater our e
Grand Total 64.5% 25.5% 6.2% 3.8% Grand Total 81.5% 7.9% 4.7% 5.9%
0.3% 96.7% 2.3% YOBE 88.9% 5.6% 5.6% YOBE 0.7%
TARABA 12.9% 50.0% 31.3% 5.8% TARABA 61.5% 15.4% 15.4% 7.7%
GOMBE 84.2% 0.9% 14.9% BORNO 61.4% 29.8% 5.7% 3.1% 91.3% 2.5% 5.6% BORNO 0.6% BAUCHI 100.0% BAUCHI 96.5% 0.8% 2.7% ADAMAWA 68.0% 12.0% 12.0% 8.0% ADAMAWA 76.6% 8.2% 5.4% 9.8% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
On-site (<10 mn) Off-site (<10 mn) Off-site (>10 mn) On-site (>10 mn) On-site (<10 mn) Off-site (<10 mn) Off-site (>10 mn) On-site (>10 mn)
F ure 1 a D tan e to a n ater our e F ure 1 a D tan e to a n ater our e
Grand Total 0.4% 31.4% 60.3% 7.9% Grand Total 0.8% 36.9% 52.0% 10.3%
YOBE 0.3% 54.8% 40.8% 4.1% YOBE 55.6% 44.4%
TARABA 2.4% 37.0% 56.3% 4.3% TARABA 92.3% 7.7% GOMBE 1.0% 33.2% 40.1% 25.7% BORNO 0.5% 22.8% 67.5% 9.2% BORNO 1.1% 26.0% 59.7% 13.2%
BAUCHI 50.0% 50.0% BAUCHI 0.3% 49.3% 36.9% 13.5%
ADAMAWA 56.0% 36.0% 8.0% ADAMAWA 0.4% 23.8% 69.7% 6.1%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
<5 ltr >15 ltr 10 - 15 ltr 5 - 10 ltr <5 ltr >15 ltr 10 - 15 ltr 5 - 10 ltr
F ure 1 b era e a ount o ater a a ab e per per on per day F ure 1 b era e a ount o ater a a ab e per per on per day
None 93.1% None 82.1%
Taste 5.5% Taste 13.6%
Suspended solids 1.0% Suspended solids 3.1%
Odor/smell 0.4% Odor/smell 1.2%
F ure 1 Ma n prob e t ater F ure 1 Ma n prob e t ater Go back. 22 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities
Grand Total 90% 10% Grand Total 51% 49%
YOBE 71% 29% YOBE 100%
TARABA 55% 45% TARABA 46% 54% GOMBE 49% 51%
BORNO 96% 4% BORNO 83% 17%
BAUCHI 50% 50% BAUCHI 20% 80%
ADAMAWA 56% 44% ADAMAWA 29% 71%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% No Yes No Yes Figure 16d: Differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water Figure 17d: Differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water in in camps/camp-like settings Host Communities
Grand Total 60% 40% Grand Total 64% 36%
YOBE YOBE 44% 56% 57% 43%
TARABA 77% 23% TARABA 15% 85%
GOMBE 79% 21% BORNO 64% 36% BORNO 66% 34%
BAUCHI 33% 67% BAUCHI 47% 53%
ADAMAWA 56% 44% ADAMAWA 67% 33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% No Yes No Yes Figure 16e: Have Water Points been Improved in Camp and Camp-like settings? Figure 17e: Have Water Points been Improved in Host Communities
P H F
1.4% Grand Total 95.5% 100.00% 3.1%
80.00% YOBE 100.0%
60.00% TARABA 15.4% 84.6%
40.00% 0.9% BORNO 2.6% 96.5% 20.00%
BAUCHI 100.0% 0.00% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total
ADAMAWA 12.0% 88.0% Good (Hygienic) 2.4% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 1.9% 0.5% 1.8%
Non usable 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 3.6% 0.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Not so good (Not hygienic) 97.4% 99.7% 95.3% 99.5% 97.6% 95.9% 97.3% Good (Hygienic) Non usable Not so good (Not hygienic)
Figure 18a: Condition of toilets in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 19a: Condition of toilets in host communities
Yes No
8% 10% No 26% 9% Yes 33% 21% 69% 74%
83% 67%
Burning No waste disposal system Garbage pit Burning No waste disposal system Garbage pit Figure 18c: Targeted hygiene promotion Figure 19c: Targeted hygiene promotion Figure 18b: Main garbage disposal Figure 19b: Main garbage disposal campaign in camps/camp-like settings campaign in Host Communities mechanism in camps/camp-like settings mechanism in Host Communities
Go back. 23 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
DTM FOOD NUTRITION Nigeria
100.0% 100.0% 15.9% 35.5% 80.0% 40.6% 80.0% 50.0% 46.2% 47.2% 48.3% 18.3% 56.0% 59.3% 73.3% 60.0% 75.0% 60.0% 77.8% 87.6%
15.4% 40.0% 28.6% 8.0% 49.6% 40.0% 30.8% 42.8% 65.9% 19.6%
20.0% 37.4% 19.9% 50.0% 24.8% 20.0% 11.6% 23.0% 21.1% 36.0% 11.1% 23.1% 0.8% 2.0% 5.1% 16.6% 0.0% 14.9% 11.1% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total 0.0% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total No Yes, off site Yes, on site No Yes, off site Yes, on site
F ure 20 e to ood n a p a p- e ett n F ure 21 e to ood n o t o un t e
100.0% 100.0%
80.0% 80.0%
60.0% 60.0%
40.0% 40.0%
20.0% 20.0%
0.0% 0.0% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total Irregular 55.0% 98.9% 56.2% 98.0% 31.7% 75.3% 68.7% Irregular 64.0% 100.0% 44.3% 69.2% 83.3% 50.7% Never 37.9% 0.8% 23.5% 2.0% 68.3% 5.6% 21.7% Never 36.0% 0.0% 14.9% 23.1% 11.1% 16.6% Once a month 5.6% 0.3% 18.6% 0.0% 0.0% 16.3% 8.4% Once a month 0.0% 0.0% 37.7% 0.0% 5.6% 30.0% Once a week 1.5% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 1.2% Once a week 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 7.7% 0.0% 2.8% Twice a week 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%
F ure 20a Fre uen y o ood or a d tr but on n a p a p- e ett n F ure 21a Fre uen y o ood or a d tr but on n o t o un t e
Grand Total 31.7% 57.0% 7.3% 4.0% Grand Total 51.7% 11.7% 35.9% 0.7%
YOBE 32.4% 47.4% 18.1% 2.0% YOBE 38.9% 33.3% 22.2% 5.6% TARABA 39.9% 50.0% 10.1% TARABA 76.9% 23.1%
GOMBE 30.2% 68.3% 1.5% BORNO 51.8% 5.3% 43.0% BORNO 50.1% 33.5% 15.7% 0.7% BAUCHI 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% BAUCHI 20.5% 74.1% 1.6% 3.8% ADAMAWA 48.0% 44.0% 8.0% ADAMAWA 19.5% 71.6% 0.6% 8.2% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Cash (personal money) Cultivated Distribution Host community donation Cash (personal money) Cultivated Distribution Host community donation
F ure 20b Mo t o on our e o obta n n ood n a p a p- e ett n F ure 21b Mo t o on our e o obta n n ood n o t o un t e
60.00% 80.00%
50.00% 70.00%
60.00% 40.00% 50.00%
30.00% 40.00%
20.00% 30.00%
20.00% 10.00% 10.00%
0.00% 0.00% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total 10-12months 8.00% 0.00% 1.75% 0.00% 0.00% 2.07% 10-12months 3.90% 7.82% 2.46% 12.38% 0.00% 7.14% 5.33% 1-3months 8.00% 50.00% 53.07% 15.38% 55.56% 47.59% 1-3months 19.05% 43.40% 28.64% 67.82% 1.44% 58.42% 35.83% 1year and above 32.00% 16.67% 9.21% 46.15% 11.11% 13.10% 1year and above 30.52% 5.66% 29.53% 9.41% 31.25% 2.30% 18.59% 4-6months 8.00% 33.33% 10.53% 15.38% 22.22% 11.72% 4-6months 2.81% 33.96% 10.29% 2.97% 1.44% 13.01% 11.77% 6-9months 8.00% 0.00% 10.53% 0.00% 0.00% 8.97% 6-9months 6.28% 8.36% 6.04% 5.45% 0.00% 14.03% 7.35% Never received Support 36.00% 0.00% 14.91% 23.08% 11.11% 16.55% Never received Support 37.45% 0.81% 23.04% 1.98% 65.87% 5.10% 21.13%
F ure 20 Durat on o a t re e ed ood upport n a p a p- e ett n F ure 21 Durat on o a t re e ed ood upport n o t o un t e
Go back. 24 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
DTM HEALTH Nigeria
90.0% 90.0%
80.0% 80.0%
70.0% 70.0%
60.0% 60.0%
50.0% 50.0%
40.0% 40.0%
30.0% 30.0%
20.0% 20.0%
10.0% 10.0%
0.0% 0.0% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total Mobile clinic 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% Mobile clinic 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% None 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 0.3% None 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.6% Off-site (<3 km) 28.0% 83.3% 60.5% 53.8% 16.7% 55.2% Off-site (<3 km) 13.9% 9.4% 37.1% 6.9% 73.6% 16.8% 23.9% Off-site (>3 km) 4.0% 16.7% 6.1% 15.4% 16.7% 7.2% Off-site (>3 km) 6.9% 4.6% 5.4% 4.5% 12.5% 4.3% 6.0% On-site (<3 km) 56.0% 0.0% 28.9% 30.8% 55.6% 32.4% On-site (<3 km) 67.7% 83.8% 50.8% 83.2% 13.0% 73.5% 64.1% On-site (>3 km) 12.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 5.6% 3.1% On-site (>3 km) 11.3% 2.2% 3.1% 5.4% 1.0% 2.3% 4.6%
Figure 22a: Location of health facilities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 23a: Location of health facilities in Host Communities
80.0%
80.0% 70.0%
70.0% 60.0%
60.0% 50.0%
50.0% 40.0%
40.0% 30.0%
30.0% 20.0%
20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total Cough 13.4% 10.2% 20.4% 21.3% 17.3% 21.4% 17.0% Cough 20.0% 16.7% 26.3% 0.0% 16.7% 23.8% Diarrhea 3.5% 1.3% 1.3% 4.0% 6.3% 3.3% 2.9% Fever 22.7% 12.1% 15.9% 11.9% 22.6% 17.6% 17.3% Fever 28.0% 16.7% 14.9% 30.8% 27.8% 17.6% Hepatitis 7.1% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.2% Malaria 48.0% 66.7% 58.3% 69.2% 44.4% 57.2% Malaria 52.2% 74.1% 61.7% 48.5% 42.3% 51.5% 56.7% Malnutrition 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.7% Malnutrition 0.2% 1.6% 0.4% 12.9% 9.1% 2.3% 3.0% RTI 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.2% Skin disease 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% Skin disease 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.4% Wound infection 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% Wound infection 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2%
Figure 22b: Common health problems in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 23b: Common health problems in Host Communities
3.8% Grand Total 35.9% 56.2% 3.1% 1.0% Grand Total 16.8% 1.6% 74.4% 1.1% 6.1%
1.8% YOBE 8.9% 0.3% 86.0% YOBE 55.6% 5.6% 16.7% 11.1% 11.1% 3.1%
0.5% TARABA 50.5% 48.6% TARABA 84.6% 15.4% 0.5%
GOMBE 18.3% 81.7% BORNO 27.2% 69.7% 0.4% 2.6%
BORNO 6.7% 1.8% 66.0% 0.2% 25.3% BAUCHI 100.0%
BAUCHI 22.1% 0.5% 77.1% 0.3%
ADAMAWA 60.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 4.0% 1.1% ADAMAWA 13.2% 4.8% 79.0% 1.9% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Government INGO Local clinic NGO None Government Local clinic INGO None NGO
Figure 22c: Main provider of health facilities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 23c: Main provider of health facilities in Host Communities
Go back. 25 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
DTM EDUCATION Nigeria
100% Grand Total 0.3% 99.7%
80% YOBE 0.3% 99.7%
60% TARABA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100.0% 100% GOMBE 100.0% 40%
BORNO 100.0% 20% BAUCHI 100.0%
0% ADAMAWA 1.3% 98.7% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total YOBE Grand Total
Yes No Yes F ure 2 e to or a n or a edu at on er e n a p a p- e ett n F ure 2 e to or a n or a edu at on er e n o t o un t e
100.0% 100.0% 1.3% 2.0% 0.3% 0.3% 16.7% 12.9% 12.5% 26.4% 25.6% 80.0% 38.9% 27.3% 44.0% 80.0%
65.8% 62.1% 60.0% 84.6% 60.0% 90.9% 98.0% 83.3% 87.1% 87.2% 40.0% 40.0% 71.4% 73.6% 74.0% 61.1% 56.0% 20.0% 34.2% 37.9% 20.0% 15.4% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total
On-site Off-site On-site Off-site None F ure 2 (a) o at on o or a n or a edu at on a t e n a p a p- e ett n F ure 2 (a) o at on o or a n or a edu at on a t e n o t o un t e 70% 60.0%
60% 50.0%
50% 40.0%
40% 30.0% 30% 20.0% 20% 10.0% 10% 0.0% 0% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total <25% 19.5% 3.8% 10.3% 8.4% 36.5% 5.1% 12.6% <25% 44% 0% 14% 46% 17% 18% <50% 31.4% 33.4% 50.8% 25.2% 38.0% 34.2% 36.5% <50% 12% 33% 52% 0% 56% 46% <75% 37.4% 52.3% 32.0% 45.0% 19.7% 50.3% 40.3% <75% 16% 67% 32% 54% 28% 32% >75% 10.4% 10.5% 6.9% 21.3% 5.8% 10.2% 10.2% >75% 28% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% None 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% F ure 2 (b) er enta e o dren attend n oo n a p a p- e ett n F ure 2 (b) er enta e o dren attend n oo n o t o un t e
90.00% 90.0%
80.00% 80.0%
70.00% 70.0%
60.00% 60.0%
50.00% 50.0%
40.00% 40.0%
30.00% 30.0%
20.00% 20.0%
10.00% 10.0%
0.00% 0.0% ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total <1 km 60.00% 66.67% 77.63% 38.46% 61.11% 73.10% <1 km 49.8% 61.5% 78.1% 81.2% 38.9% 79.1% 65.4% <2 km 20.00% 16.67% 17.11% 61.54% 33.33% 20.34% <2 km 41.6% 31.3% 18.8% 18.3% 45.7% 17.3% 28.4% <5 km 16.00% 16.67% 4.82% 0.00% 5.56% 5.86% <5 km 8.7% 7.3% 3.1% 0.5% 12.5% 3.3% 5.8% <10 km 4.00% 0.00% 0.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.69% <10 km 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.3% 0.3%
F ure 2 ( ) D tan e to neare t edu at on a t e n a p a p- e ett n F ure 2 ( ) D tan e to neare t edu at on a t e n o t o un t e
Go back. 26 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
DTM COMMUNICATION Nigeria
2.8% 2.1% 0.7% Friends, neighbors and 1.0% 2.2% Friends, neighbors and family 3.4% family 2.8%
Local leader/Community 3.5% leader Local leader/Community leader 7.2% Religious leader 11.4% Religious leader
42.0% Government official Aid worker
27.6% 56.2% Military official Government official
37.1% Aid worker Traditional Leader
Traditional Leader Military official
Figure 25: Most trusted source of information for IDPs Figure 26: Most trusted source of information for IDPs
How to contact aid providers 0.2% How to contact aid providers 0.3% None 0.2% How to get inforamtion 1.4% How to get information 1.1% Registration 2.8% Shelter 1.2%
Situation in areas of origin 7.9% Registration 2.5%
Safety and Security 10.0% Access to services 10.4%
Other relief assistance 13.4% Safety and Security 11.4%
Other relief assistance 12.3% Access to services 15.5% Situation in areas of origin 18.3% Distribution 48.6% Distribution 42.3%
Figure 25a: Most important topic for IDPs Figure 26a: Most important topic for IDPs
2% 0.8% 1.49% 2% 8.97% 10% 5.5% 9.94%
15.9%
91.03%
86% 77.8% 88.57%
Feedback (positive or Almost all Few Most None Feedback (positive or Information about Almost all Few Most None negative) about the negative) about the services in the site needs in the community services in the site Figure 25b: Access to functioning radio Figure 26b: Access to functioning radio Information about needs Information about your in the community experience Figure 25c: Type of Information willing Figure 26c: Type of Information willing to share with Aid Organizations to share with Aid Organizations
Radio 47.59% Radio 53.65%
Word of Mouth 36.90% Word of Mouth 32.42%
Community meetings 7.59% Telephone voice call 9.37%
Telephone voice call 7.24% Community meetings 3.75%
TV 0.34% Loudspeakers 0.77%
TV 0.05% Loudspeakers 0.34%
Figure 25d: Most Preferred channel of communication Figure26d: Most Preferred channel of communication in Camps/Camp-like settings in Host Communities Go back. 27 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
DTM LIVELIHOOD Nigeria
Collecting firewood 0.7% Fishing 0.3%
Pastoralism 1.3% Pastoralism 0.7%
Fishing 1.5% Collecting firewood 3.1%
Agro-pastoralism 6.0% Agro-pastoralism 4.5%
Petty trade 12.6% Farming 24.5%
Daily labourer 14.4% Daily labourer 31.7%
Petty trade 35.2% Farming 63.5%
Figure 27: Livelihood activities of IDPs Figure 28: Livelihood activities of IDPs
11%
47%
53%
89%
No Yes No Yes Figure 27a: Access to Land for Cultivation Figure 28a: Access to Land for Cultivation
5% 7%
93%
93% 95%
No Yes No Yes Figure 27b: Livestock on site Figure 28b: Livestock on site
1% 3%
99% 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. 28 DTM Report Round 31 (15 January - 15 Febuary 2020)
DTM PROTECTION Nigeria
Grand Total 19% 81% Grand Total 11% 89%
YOBE 50% 50% YOBE 17% 83%
TARABA 4% 96% TARABA 100%
GOMBE 3% 97% BORNO 14% 86% BORNO 7% 93%
BAUCHI 100% BAUCHI 3% 97%
ADAMAWA 56% 44% ADAMAWA 23% 77%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
No Yes No Yes
Figure 29: Security provided on-site Figure 30: Security provided on-site
Community Leaders 0.7% Religious Leaders 0.1%
Religious Leaders 1.7% Military 10.0%
Local Authorities 3.8% None 11.1%
Police 6.6% Community Leaders 16.2%
Military 16.9% Self organized 18.5%
None 18.6% Police 20.5%
Self organized 51.7% Local Authorities 23.5%
Figure 29a: Main security providers Figure 30a: Main security providers
Armed conflict 0.58%
Friction with host community 0.69% Alcohol/drug-related 1.34% disturbance
Friction with host 1.73% community Theft 3.45% Friction anmong site 4.13% residents
Crime 4.27% Friction anmong site residents 4.83%
Theft 14.17%
None 91.03% None 73.78%
Figure 29b: Most common type of security incidents Figure 30b: Most common type of security incidents
Go back. 29