North East Nigeria Vulnerability Screening Report Round II

STATE NORTH EAST NIGERIA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT VULNERABILITY SCREENING REPORT AGENCIES MoWASD

ROUND II | JUNE 2016 v

SEVERITY MAP: INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS (IDPs) WITH PROTECTION RISKS AND NEEDS

133,294

IDPs IDENTIFIED WITH PROTECTION RISKS AND NEEDS (WITHIN 50,706 HOUSEHOLDS)

BREAKDOWN PER STATE

Borno 51,474 39%

Adamawa 38,456 29%

Yobe 23,387 18% Taraba 8,071 6%

NUMBER OF VULNERABLE Bauchi 6,038 5% HOUSEHOLDS PER LGA

Gombe 5,868 4%

SNAPSHOT

33% of vulnerable IDPs are children 27% of vulnerable IDPs report a 56% of vulnerable HHs lack legal with specific protection needs, including serious medical condition or disability documentation

7,223 unaccompanied and separated 8% of vulnerable IDPs are elderly with 22% of vulnerable HHs report children protection needs discrimination in access to basic services, based upon IDP status, religion, disability, 25% of vulnerable IDPs are women 3% of vulnerable IDPs report forced ethnicity or gender. and girls with specific protection needs, recruitment by armed groups of vulnerable HHs report imminent 14% including 6,535 SGBV survivors fears for their safety, including fears of (3,823 early/forced marriage, 1,538 3% of vulnerable IDPs report incidents destruction of property, killing of civilians, engaging in survival sex and 1,174 rape of arbitrary arrest or detention abduction, presence of armed actors or other sexual assault) and/or illegal detention 72% of vulnerable households (HHs) lack sufficient livelihood INTRODUCTION 1 Nigeria continues to face a severe protection crisis, with Boko Haram insurgency and counter-insurgency measures in the North East resulting in chronic insecurity and endemic violations of human rights and humanitarian standards, exacerbating the plight of vulnerable civilians and triggering waves of forced displacement. Over 2.15 million people have been internally displaced, including 1.85 million by the insurgency, and over 23,000 are estimated to have been killed in the insurgency. Bauchi and Taraba are also prone to inter-communal violence which has spurred further displacement. From November-December 2015, the first round of the vulnerability screening exercise commenced, with data collection in 64 Local Government Areas (LGAs) across all six North East States from 17,534 vulnerable IDP households comprised of 128,511 individuals to give an assessment of the protection environment in the North East to enable effective humanitarian planning and targeted assistance. Round II of the vulnerability screening took place from March-April 2016, in partnership with State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs), Nigerian Red Cross Society (NRCS), National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), Ministry of Women Affairs and Social Development (MoWASD) and additional humanitarian partners at field level. Round II sought to expand on the profiling of most vulnerable households conducted in Round I and further reach vulnerable households, particularly those in host communities, in most affected areas of the six North East States. This report compiles and analyses data from 50,706 vulnerable displaced households comprised of 327,379 individuals, registering 133,294 household members with specific protection needs and vulnerabilities, to give a comprehensive assessment of the protection environment in the North East to enable effective humanitarian planning and targeted assistance.

KEY VULNERABILITIES AND PROTECTION NEEDS

33% OF VULNERABLE IDPs ARE CHILDREN WITH 27% OF VULNERABLE IDPs REPORT A SERIOUS PROTECTION NEEDS (44,430 INDIVIDUALS) MEDICAL CONDITION OR DISABILITY (35,673 INDIVIDUALS)

Unaccompanied and separated children 7,223 Unable to care for self on a daily basis 5,342

Child-headed households 411 Serious medical condition 18,302

Children with one or both parents killed Physical disability 6,921 due to conflict 34,316

Children engaged in hawking or begging 2,338 Mental disability 5,108

Adolescent parents 553 35,673 reported a serious mental condition or disability, of which 51% (18,302) reported a serious medical condition, 19% (6,921) reported a physical disability, 14% (5,108) reported mental disability. 15% (5,342) of Of the 44,430 children at risk, 77% (34,316) had one or both parents killed those with a serious medical condition or disability and unable to care for in the conflict, 16% (7,223) reported unaccompanied and separated children themselves on a daily basis. (UASC), including 411 child-headed households, 5% (2,338) are engaged

in hawking or begging and 1% (533) are adolescent parents. The geographic breakdown of those with a serious medical condition or disability is: 35% in Borno, 32% in Adamawa, 15% in Yobe, 8% each in The geographic breakdown of vulnerable children is: 49% in Borno, 29% in Taraba and Bauchi and 2% in Gombe. Adamawa , 14% in Yobe, 3% in Taraba and 2% each in Bauchi and Gombe. 7% OF VULNERABLE IDPs HAVE OTHER SPECIFIC 25% OF VULNERABLE IDPs ARE WOMEN AND GIRLS NEEDS (9,704 INDIVIDUALS)

WITH PROTECTION NEEDS (32,708 INDIVIDUALS) PROTECTION NEEDS

Forced recruitment by armed groups (HH) 4,498 Survivors of sexual and gender-based 6,535 violence (SGBV) Arbitrary arrest or detention (HH) 3,980 Rape or other sexual assault 1,174 Released from Abduction 904 Engaging in survival sex 1,538 Trafficked 322 Early/forced marriage 3,823 Of all vulnerable IDPs, 3% (4,498) report forced recruitment by armed Female-headed households 13,586 groups, 3% (3,980) report arbitrary arrest/detention, 0.7% (904) identify

Widowed female-headed themselves as being released from abduction and 0.2% (322) report to have households 6,424 been trafficked. 2 Pregnant or Lactating 12,587 The geographic breakdown of those with other specific needs is: 54% in Borno, 23% in Adamawa, 18% in Yobe, 2% each in Gombe and Bauchi and 1% in Taraba. 32,708 women and girls reported protection needs, of which 20% (6,535)

are survivors of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV) (including ADDITIONAL PROTECTION NEEDS OR RISKS OF 3,823 incidents of early/forced marriage, 1,538 engaging in survival sex and 1,174 reporting rape/sexual assaults), 42% (13,586) are female-headed VULNERABLE DISPLACED HHs households (including 6,424 widowed female-headed households) and 38% PROTECTION NEEDS (12,587) pregnant or lactating. Multiple displacement (HH) 24,511 The geographic breakdown of vulnerable women and girls is: 29% in Borno, 24% in Yobe, 20% in Adamawa, 11% in Gombe, 10% in Taraba and 5% in Witnessed killing/physical violence (HH) 30,645 Bauchi. Witnessed/heard reports of land- 25,701 mines/unexploded devices (HH)

8% OF VULNERABLE IDPs ARE ELDERLY WITH Lacking legal documentation (HH) 28,223 PROTECTION NEEDS (10,779 INDIVIDUALS) Lacking sufficient livelihood (HH) 36,537

Discrimination in access to basic services 11180 Elderly-headed households 2,321 (HH) Safety Risks (HH) 7276 Single elderly 307 Out-of-school children 15879 Elderly unable to care for self on a daily basis 8,151 Nearly all (98%) of the 50,706 vulnerable displaced households reported at least one additional protection risk or need. Of vulnerable displaced 10,779 elderly reported protection needs, of which 76% (8,151) are unable households, 72% (36,537 HH) lack sufficient livelihood, 60% (30,645 HH) to care for themselves on a daily basis, 22% (2,321) are elderly-headed witnessed killing or physical violence, 56% (28,223 HH) lack legal households and 3% (307) single elderly. documentation, 51% (25,701 HH) witnessed/heard reports of land-mines or The geographic breakdown of vulnerable elderly is: 49% in Adamawa, 22% unexploded devices, 48% (24,511 HH) experienced multiple displacement, in Borno, 18% in Yobe, 5% in Taraba, 4% in Bauchi and 2% in Gombe. 31% (15,879 HH) have out-of-school children, 22% (11,180 HH) experienced discrimination in access to basic services and 14% (7,276 HH) reported imminent safety risks.

The geographic breakdown of other protection risks and needs is: 32% HH *Definitions of terms are provided in the following chapters. each in Borno and Adamawa, 18% HH in Yobe, 7% HH in Taraba, 6% HH in Gombe and 5% HH in Bauchi.

VULNERABLE CHILDREN

33% OF VULNERABLE IDPs ARE

CHILDREN WITH PROTECTION NEEDS

on page 3on 44,430 page 3 VULNERABLE DISPLACED CHILDREN

8 BREAKDOWN PER STATE

1 Borno 21,912 49% 0

Adamawa 12,876 29%

SEVERITY MAP: Yobe 6,297 14% VULNERABLE DISPLACED CHILDREN Taraba 1,317 3% NUMBER OF VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS PER LGA Gombe 1,059 2%

Bauchi 969 2%

7,223 Unaccompanied and separated children SUB CATEGORY OF UASC:

411 Child-headed households

Borno 4,517 Borno 145

Adamawa Adamawa 127 1,527

Yobe 727 Yobe 66

Taraba 208 Bauchi 30 3 Bauchi Taraba 25 127

Gombe 117 Gombe 18

16% (7,223) of children at risk are unaccompanied and separated children Of the 7,223 UASC, 411 are child-headed households, comprised of 35% in (UASC) comprised of 63% in Borno, 21% in Adamawa, 10% in Yobe, 3% in Borno, 31% in Adamawa, 16% in Yobe, 7% in Bauchi and 6% in Taraba and Taraba and 2% each in Bauchi and Gombe. 4% in Gombe.

Unaccompanied children are individuals below the age of 18 who have been Child-headed households are those headed by an individual below the age of 18 who separated from both parents and other relatives and are not being cared for by an is left without any adult to care for him/her (i.e. an unaccompanied child) and therefore adult who, by law or custom, is responsible for doing so. assumes responsibility of a head of household.

Separated children are individuals below the age of 18 who are separated from both parents and his/her legal or customary primary caregiver, but not necessarily from other relatives.

34,316 Children with one or both 2,338 Children engaged in hawking 553 Adolescent parents parents killed due to conflict or begging

Borno 17,011 Adamawa 1,794 Borno 251

Adamawa 9,383 Bauchi 164 Adamawa 172

Yobe 5,422 Borno 133 Yobe 62

Taraba 1,010 Gombe 110 Taraba 48

Gombe 821 Yobe 86 Gombe 11

Bauchi 669 Taraba 51 Bauchi 9

77% ( 34,316) of children at risk, had one or both 5% (2,338) of vulnerable children are engaged in 1% (533) of children at risk are adolescent parents killed in the conflict, comprised of 50% in parents, comprised of 45% in Borno, 31% in risky behaviors such as hawking or begging, Borno, 27% in Adamawa, 16% in Yobe, 3% in comprised of 77% in Adamawa, 7% in Bauchi, Adamawa, 11% in Yobe, 9% in Taraba and 2% Taraba, 2% each in Gombe and Bauchi. 6% in Borno, 5% in Gombe, 4% in Yobe and 2% each in Gombe and Bauchi. in Taraba. Patriarchal cultural norms have influenced the common understanding of “orphan” which is interpreted in Hausa or Kanuri to encompass any child who has lost his/her father regardless of whether the mother is still alive. This

category therefore was broadened to account for such responses.

44,430 children at risk were identified, made up of 49% in Borno, 29% in Adamawa, 14% in Yobe, 3% in Taraba and 2% each in Bauchi and Gombe. 77% (34,316) had one or both parents killed

in the conflict, 16% (7,223) reported unaccompanied and separated children (UASC), including 411 child-headed households, 5% (2,338) are engaged in hawking or begging and 1% (533) are adolescent parents.

An extremely high percentage, 77% (34,316) of children at risk report to have one or both of their parents killed in the conflict. Many of these children have experienced severely distressing events stemming from the insurgency and displacement and have a lack access to essential psycho-social support. In the case of 411 child-headed IDPs, unaccompanied children have banded together in small groups to fend for themselves. These children, as well as adolescent parents, have heightened vulnerabilities to a plethora of protection risks, including economic shocks, sexual exploitation and abuse, as well as risky coping mechanisms such as begging/hawking .

Displaced girl in Adamawa State © UNHCR Nigeria

VULNERABLE WOMEN AND GIRLS

25% OF VULNERABLE IDPs ARE WOMEN AND GIRLS WITH PROTECTION NEEDS

32,708 VULNERABLE DISPLACED WOMEN AND GIRLS on page 3on page 3

5 7

BREAKDOWN PER STATE 8 Borno 9,590 29% 1 Yobe 7,950 24% 0

Adamawa 6,649 20% SEVERITY MAP: Gombe 3,512 11% VULNERABLE DISPLACED WOMEN AND GIRLS Taraba 3,288 10% NUMBER OF VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS PER LGA Bauchi 1,719 5%

Sexual & Gender Based Violence (SGBV) encompasses violence that is directed against a person or a group of persons on the basis of their gender of sex. It includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty whether occurring in public or private life.

SUB CATEGORY FOR SURVIVORS OF SGBV 6,535 Survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV)

Rape or other Engaging in Early/forced State sexual assault survival sex marriage Borno 2,556 Borno 590 863 1,103

Yobe 1,544 Yobe 240 321 983

Adamawa 945 Adamawa 199 144 602

Gombe 88 129 600 Gombe 817 Bauchi 30 52 261

Bauchi 343 Taraba 27 29 274 5 Taraba 330 Grand Total 1,174 1,538 3,823

20% ( 6,535) of vulnerable women and girls reported to be survivors of SGBV, broken 6,535 women and girls were reported to be survivors of down to 39% in Borno, 24% in Yobe, 14% in Adamawa, 13% in Gombe and 5% each in Bauchi and Taraba. SGBV, including 3,823 reporting incidents of early/forced marriage, 1,538 engaging in survival sex and 1,174 reporting Due to patriarchal cultural norms, stigmatization and cultural taboos within the North East surrounding rape/sexual assaults. sexual violence and exploitation, under-reporting is to be expected. IDPs were often reluctant to SGBV incidents were reported with greatest frequency in disclose issues surrounding SGBV due to concerns over privacy and confidentiality. Some of the Borno, with 50% of all rape/sexual assault cases, 56% of all screeners were further reluctant to inquire as to SGBV issues for fear of causing offence or building survival sex and 29% of all early/forced marriage. Yobe mistrust. Patriarchal cultural norms often entailed seeking permission from male elders before entering reporting the highest rates of each SGBV incident category a community. At times these elders would then seek to observe interviews with vulnerable households thereafter. inhibiting frank discussion by household members on sensitive issues. Permission from husbands was Survival sex involves engaging in transactional sex in order to obtain sometimes also needed prior to interviewing women. Interviews conducted in the presence of a money or other forms of material assistance to meet basic needs of woman’s husband were likely to result in under reporting of about highly sensitive issues such as rape self or family members. or exploitation. During screening, married women were less likely to open up and express their views Early marriage is a union in which at least one spouse is under 18 to screeners, while unmarried women, widows and girls expressed a greater willingness to report years of age and occurs when full and free consent incidents of sexual abuse. Nevertheless, 6,535 survivors of sexual and gender-based violence came forced marriage forward to report incidents of rape/sexual assault, sexual exploitation and early/forced marriage. of marriage has not been given.

13,586 Female-headed households SUB CATEGORY: 6,424 12,587 Pregnant or lactating

Widowed female-headed households

Borno 4,921 Borno 2,395 Yobe 3,730

SUB CATEGORY: 6,424 Adamawa 4,244 Adamawa 2,116 Taraba 2,444 Widowed female-headed Yobe 2,676 Yobe 1,127 Borno 2,113 13,586 Female-headed households households 12,587 Pregnant or lactating Gombe 887 Gombe 368 Gombe 1,808

Taraba 514 Taraba 279 Adamawa 1,460

Bauchi 344 Bauchi 139 Bauchi 1,032

42% (13,586) are female-headed households 47% (6,424) of female-headed households are 38% (12,587) of vulnerable women and girls are comprised of 36% in Borno, 31% in Adamawa, widows, comprised of 37% in Borno, 33% in pregnant or lactating, comprised of 41% in Borno, 20% in Yobe, 7% in Gombe, 4% in Taraba and Adamawa, 18% in Yobe, 6% in Gombe, 4% in 22% in Adamawa, 20% in Yobe, 6% in Bauchi, 3% in Bauchi. Taraba and 2% in Bauchi. 6% in Gombe and 5% in Taraba. The extremely high percentage of female widows who Maternal health issues were reported as a major are now heading households speaks to the number of concern with a large number of IDP women and girls males that were killed during the conflict and/or are lacking access to pre-natal and ante-natal care. unaccounted for. Widows face challenges in gaining livelihood opportunities within patriarchal roles and norms in traditional societies in the North East and are at risk of resorting to negative coping mechanisms in order to survive.

47% (6,424) of female-headed households are widows, comprised of 37% in Borno, 33% in Adamawa, 18% in Yobe, 6% in Gombe, 4% in Taraba and 2% in Bauchi. Incidents of rape/sexual The extremely high percentage of female widows assault, often being committed who are now heading households speaks to the with impunity, came out number of males that were killed during the particularly strongly in Borno, conflict and/or are unaccounted for. Widows face with Yobe and Adamawa challenges in gaining livelihood opportunities thereafter. within patriarchal roles and norms in traditional societies in the North East and are at risk of A disconcerting trend of women resorting to negative coping mechanisms in order and girls undertaking survival to survive. sex in exchange for money or

assistance was noted, particularly in Borno (56%) and Yobe thereafter (21%).

A significant proportion of girls also reported cases of early/forced marriage, particularly in Borno (29%) and Yobe (26%). This practice perpetuates a cycle of gender discrimination and inequality which endangers physical health and cognitive and emotional development, disrupts access to education and limits future opportunities.

Women and girls in Borno State © UNHCR Nigeria

VULNERABLE ELDERLY

8% OF VULNERABLE IDPs ARE ELDERLY WITH PROTECTION NEEDS

10,779

on page 3on VULNERABLE DISPLACED ELDERLY page 3

BREAKDOWN PER STATE 8

Adamawa 5,272 49% 1 0 Borno 2,332 22%

Yobe 1,948 18% 49% SEVERITY MAP: VULNERABLE DISPLACED Taraba 526 5% 22% ELDERLY Bauchi 435 4 % NUMBER OF VULNERABLE 18% HOUSEHOLDES PER LGA

Gombe 266 2 5%%

4% 7 2%

8,151 Unable to care for self on a 2,321 Elderly‐headed household 307 Single elderly with no family daily basis

Adamawa 162 Adamawa 3,871 Adamawa5,342 Elderly‐headed1,239 household 307 Single elderly with no family Yobe 8,151Borno Unable to care1,703 for self on a Borno 584 57 dailyYobe basis 1,568 Yobe 323 Borno 45 Taraba 433 Taraba 76 Bauchi 20

Bauchi 360 Bauchi 55 Taraba 17 Gombe Gombe 216 44 Gombe 6

76% (8,151 ) of vulnerable elderly reported to be 22% (2,321) of vulnerable elderly are elderly 3% (307) of vulnerable elderly are reported to be unable to care for themselves on a daily basis, heads of households, comprised of 53% in single elderly (60 and above with no family or comprised of 47% in Adamawa, 21% in Borno, Adamawa, 25% in Borno, 14% in Yobe, 3% in subject to neglect by care-givers), comprised of 19% in Yobe, 5% in Taraba, 4% in Bauchi and Taraba, 2% each in Bauchi and 4% in Gombe. 53% in Adamawa, 19% in Yobe, 15% in Borno, 3% in Gombe. 7% in Bauchi, 6% Taraba and 2% in Gombe. This includes elderly (60 and above) who are physically Single elderly have unmet dependency needs and weak, easily disoriented, without opportunity for limited access to any forms of livelihood, requiring economic or income-generating activities and who lack urgent assistance. psychological, physical, economic, social or other support from family members or others.

Vulnerable elderly are individuals 60 years old or above with specific need(s). This includes single older persons and older couples. They may be the sole caregivers for others, suffer from health problems, have difficulty adjusting to their new environment, and/or otherwise lack psychological, physical, economic, social or other support from family members or others. The vast majority of the 10,779 vulnerable elderly individuals encountered are living with serious health complaints, with 76% being unable to take of themselves and lacking access to a care-giver, particularly amongst those living in host communities. Further, 22% of vulnerable elderly are heads of household, with significant challenges in accessing livelihood and providing for dependent children.

Elderly woman in Muna Garage in Borno State © UNHCR Nigeria / S. Goren

SERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITION AND DISABILITY

27% OF VULNERABLE IDPs REPORT A SERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITION OR DISABILITY

35,673

on page 3on DISPLACED WITH A SERIOUS MEDICAL page 3 CONDITION OR DISABILITY 5

BREAKDOWN PER STATE 8

Borno 12,399 35% 1 0 Adamawa 11,440 32 %

Yobe 5,471 15% 35% SEVERITY MAP: DISPLACED WITH A SERIOUS MEDICAL Taraba 2,809 8% 32% CONDITION OR DISABILITY

Bauchi 2,720 8 % NUMBER OF VULNERABLE 15% HOUSEHOLDS PER LGA

Gombe 834 2% 8%

18,302 Serious medical condition 5,108 Mental or intellectual disability

18,302Borno Serious medical condition 7,240 Adamawa5,108 Mental or intellectual 2,896disability

Adamawa 4,394 Borno 1,278

Yobe 3,413 Bauchi 404

Taraba 1,559 Yobe 240 8 Bauchi 1,221 Taraba 233

Gombe 475 Gombe 57

18,302 IDPs reported a serious medical condition which requires assistance 5,108 IDPs reported mental or intellectual disabilities comprised of 57% in (in terms of treatment or provision of nutritional and non-food items) which Adamawa, 25% in Borno, 8% in Bauchi, 5% both in Yobe and Taraba and comprised 40% in Borno, 24% in Adamawa, 19% in Yobe, 9% in Taraba, 1% in Gombe. 7% in Bauchi and 3% in Gombe. A large proportion of vulnerable IDP households have pronounced psychosocial and A number of IDPs sustained injuries in Boko Haram attacks which continue to require mental health needs stemming from traumatic experiences associated with insurgency medical attention, including burn victims and amputees, who often receive emergency and displacement, including incidents where severe distress has manifested into a treatment but lack access to outpatient care. The scarcity of health care facilities in pronounced mental disability. rural host communities and prohibitive financial barriers to access urban treatment facilities was also noted with concern. The uniform absence of adequate WASH facilities and substandard shelters in host communities represents an underlying risk, particularly in the onset of rainy season, with heightened risk of disease outbreaks such as cholera and polio. It was noted that areas which have not been reached by humanitar ian actors previously have a large volume of children and infants facing preventable death from issues ranging from severe acute malnutrition to measles.

6,921 Physical disability 5,342 Unable to care for self and no caregiver available

6Adamawa,921 Physical disability 2,508 5,3Borno42 Unable to care for 1,824self and no caregiver available

Borno 2,057 Adamawa 1,642

Yobe 862 Yobe 956

Bauchi 643 Bauchi 452

Taraba 630 Taraba 387

Gombe 221 Gombe 81

6,921 IDPs reported physical disabilities comprised of 36% in Adamawa, 15% (5,342) of those with a serious medical condition or disability reported 30% in Borno, 12% in Yobe, 9% both in Bauchi and Taraba and 3% in to be unable to take care of themselves and lack access to a care-giver, Gombe . comprised of 34% in Borno, 31% in Adamawa, 18% in Yobe, 8% in Bauchi, 7% in Taraba and 2% in Gombe.

15% (5,342) of those with a serious medical condition or disability reported 9 6,921 IDPs reported physical disabilities comprised of 36% in Adamawa, to be unable to take care of themselves and lack access to a care-giver, 30% in Borno, 12% in Yobe, 9% both in Bauchi and Taraba and 3% in comprised of 34% in Borno, 31% in Adamawa, 18% in Yobe, 8% in Bauchi, Gombe . 7% in Taraba and 2% in Gombe.

35,673 IDPs reported a serious medical condition or disability which comprised 35% in Borno, 32% in Adamawa, 15% in Yobe, 8% each in Taraba and Bauchi and 2% in Gombe. The highest proportion of related vulnerabilities were largely identified in conflict-affected populations in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe.

The high prevalence of IDPs with serious medical conditions and disabilities speaks to the impact of the insurgency and displacement on civilians and the resulting physical and psychological harm.

15% of IDPs having an individual having a serious medical condition / disability reported to be unable to care for themselves with unmet dependency needs.

Findings indicate that IDPs living with disabilities and serious medical conditions are often deprived of the specialized assistance they require in order to live dignified and independent lives and undertake livelihood opportunities.

IDPs living with disabilities in conflict affected regions in the North East are likely to face a heightened vulnerability to discrimination, social exclusion and barriers to accessing essential services.

Displaced man in Bakassi Camp in Borno State © UNHCR Nigeria

OTHER IDPs WITH SPECIFIC NEEDS Forced Recruitment, Arbitrary Arrest/Detention, Release from Abduction & Trafficking

7%OTHER OF VULNERABLE IDPs WITH IDPs HAVE SPECIFIC NEEDS OTHERForced S Recruitment,PECIFIC NEEDS Arbitrary Arrest/Detention, Release from Abduction & Trafficking

9,704

on page 3on DISPLACED INDIVIDUALS WITH OTHER SPECIFIC page 3 NEEDS

8 BREAKDOWN PER STATE

Borno 5,241 54% 1 0 BREAKDO WN PER STATE Adamawa 2,219 23%

SEVERITY MAP: DISPLACED Yobe 1,721 18 % 35% HOUSEHOLDS WITH OTHER PROTECTION RISKS AND Gombe 197 2% 27% NEEDS

Bauchi 195 2% 20% NUMBER OF VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS PER LGA Taraba 131 17 %%

4,498 Forced recruitment by armed groups 3,980 Arbitrarily arrest or detention

Borno 2,670 Borno 2,318 4,498 Forced recruitment by armed groups 3,980 Arbitrarily arrest or detention

Yobe 909 Adamawa 725

Adamawa 710 Yobe 716

Bauchi 94 Gombe 120

Gombe 62 Bauchi 77 10

Taraba 53 Taraba 24

3% (4,498 ) of vulnerable IDPs reported forced recruitment by armed groups, 3% (3,980) of vulnerable IDPs reported incidents of arbitrary arrest or comprised of 59% in Borno, 20% in Yobe, 16% in Adamawa, 2% in Bauchi imprisonment, comprised of 58% in Borno, 18% in both Adamawa and Yobe, and 1% each in Gombe and Taraba. 3% in Gombe, 2% in Bauchi and 1% in Taraba. *These findings are likely to be underreported as some households indicated their Arbitrary detention occurs when an individual is apprehended and imprisoned (i) reluctance to report cases of witnessing of recruitment Boko Haram for fear of without a valid legal basis; (ii) with the intention to deny the detainee the exercise of implicating themselves or being subject to arbitrary arrest. Against this backdrop, the fundamental rights guaranteed by domestic/international law; or (iii) without findings as to forced recruitment came out strongly, particularly in Borno with 2,670 observance of procedural due process. incidents reported. *These figures are likely to reflect underreporting due to risks of reprisals or stigmatization for suspected involvement in armed groups. It has been widely reported that the escalation in counter-insurgency measures in the North East has spurred arbitrary arrests of men and boys across affected states.

904 Released from Abduction 322 Trafficked

Adamawa 621 Adamawa 163

904Borno Released157 from Abduction 322Borno Trafficked96

Yobe 67 Yobe 29

Taraba 42 Bauchi 13

Bauchi 11 Taraba 12

Gombe 6 Gombe 9

0.7% (904) of all vulnerable IDPs report to have been released from 0.4% (258) of vulnerable displaced households experienced trafficking, abduction by Boko Haram, comprised of 69% in Adamawa, 17% in Borno, comprised of 51% in Adamawa, 30% in Borno, 9% in Yobe, 4% each in 7% in Yobe, 5% in Taraba and 1% both in Bauchi and Gombe. Bauchi and Taraba and 3% in Gombe. *Underreporting of the number of civilians released from captivity under Boko Haram Trafficking refers to the use of individuals by force (or threat of force or deception) for is due to difficulties in identifying abductees on an individual basis. Such categorization purposes of exploitation. Examples can include exploitation of house servants, slavery carries with it an implied connection to Boko Haram, leading to, potentially enduring and prostitution. stigmatization and implications for their acceptance back into society. Women and girls abducted by Boko Haram often have particularly pronounced psychosocial needs stemming from SGBV due to the high incidence of rape, sexual abuse and exploitation

and forced marriage in captivity. They are often vulnerable to forced pregnancy and at risk of STI exposure.

Witnessed killing or physical violence to others Lack of food, water, shelter, or other basic needs

ADDITIONAL PROTECTION RISKS AND NEEDS OF VULNERABLE

HOUSEHOLD S

AND NEEDS OF VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS 24,511 Multiple displacement (HH) 30,645 Witnessed killing/physical violence to others (HH)

32Borno,599 Multiple displacement (HH) 9,157 38,Borno379 Witnessed killing/physical violence to others12,516 (HH)

Adamawa 7,246 Adamawa 6,796

Yobe 4,316 Yobe 5,293

Taraba 2,646 Gombe 2,401

Gombe 604 Taraba 1,949

Bauchi 542 Bauchi 1,690

48% (24,511 HH) of vulnerable displaced households reported having been 60% (30,645 HH) of vulnerable displaced households witnessed killing or

displaced multiple times, broken into top incidences in Borno (37% HH), physical violence during the course of the insurgency, comprised of 41% HH Adamawa (30% HH) and Yobe (18% HH). in Borno, 22% HH in Adamawa, 17% HH in Yobe, 8% HH in Gombe and 6% Out of the total vulnerable households in each State, 87% of vulnerable HH in Taraba HH each in Taraba and Bauchi.

report multiple displacement as well as 71% of HH in Adamawa, 65% of HH in both A majority of IDP households indicated that they had witnessed killings or physical Borno and Yobe, 30% of HH in Bauchi and 27% of HH in both Gombe. violence, as well as attacks on civilian structures such as hospitals, schools, places of Multiple displacement occurs when an IDP has been repeatedly displaced due to worship and markets. Enduring such traumatic events speaks to widespread compelling external circumstances. psychosocial needs.

25,701 Witnessed/heard reports of 36,537 Lacking sufficient livelihood 28,223 No legal documentation (HH) land-mines/unexploded devices (HH) (HH)

37,882 No legal documentation (HH) 33Borno,323 Witnessed/heard reports9,558 of Adamawa 12,193 Borno 9,025 land -mines/unexploded devices (HH) Adamawa 8,873 Borno 10,395 Adamawa 8,201 48,461 Lacking sufficient livelihood Yobe (HH)Yobe Yobe 3,506 6,686 5,205

Gombe 2,023 Taraba 2,677 Taraba 2,118

Bauchi 925 Gombe 2,426 Gombe 1,965

12 Taraba 816 Bauchi 2,160 Bauchi 1,709

51% (25,701 HH) witnessed or heard reports of 72% (36,537 HH) of vulnerable displaced 56% (28,223 HH) of vulnerable displaced land-mines or unexploded devices, comprised of households lack sufficient livelihood, comprised households reported the absence of legal 37% HH in Borno, 35% HH in Adamawa, 14% HH of 33% HH in Adamawa, 28% HH in Borno, 18% documentation comprised of 32% HH in Borno, in Yobe, 8% HH in Gombe, 4% HH in Bauchi and HH in Yobe, 7% HH both in Taraba and Gombe 29% HH in Adamawa, 18% HH in Yobe, 8% HH 3% HH in Taraba. and 6% HH in Bauchi. in Taraba, 7% HH in Gombe and 6% HH in Bauchi. The vast majority of vulnerable displaced households reported being unable to provide for themselves due to The majority of IDPs indicated that they had some form the scarcity of livelihood opportunities in host of identification document before their displacement communities. A large proportion of IDP households had which was later destroyed or lost during their flight from no reported source of income and struggled with crisis. Lack of documentation impacts on IDPs finding subsistence living costs such as access to potable water jobs, children attending school and further gives rise to and food. Many IDPs originate from farming risk of statelessness. communities but lack access to arable land and tools necessary to restore livelihoods in agriculture. The *Legal documentation includes national ID cards, birth absence of livelihood opportunities increases the risk of certificates, driver’s licenses, passports, etc. negative coping mechanisms such as child labour,

survival sex and other forms of exploitation. This is further exacerbated by the absence of humanitarian assistance, and underscores the need for scaled up cash assistance and livelihood interventions as protective and preventive mechanisms. 56% (37,882 HH) of vulnerable displaced households reported the absence of legal documentation comprised of 33% HH in Adamawa, 27% HH in Borno, 19% HH in Yobe, 8% HH in Gombe, 7% HH in Taraba and 6% HH in Bauchi. 72% (48,461 HH) of vulnerable displaced

11,180 Discrimination in access to 7,276 Safety Risks (HH) 15,879 HH with out-of-school

basic services (HH) children (43,248 individual children)

Adamawa 4,186 Adamawa 3,752 Borno 4,783

Borno 3,442 9,994Borno Safety Risks2,626 (HH) Adamawa 4,138

14,274 Discrimination in access to 27,406 Out-of-school children (HH) Yobe 2,558 Yobe 495 Yobe 3,024 basic services (HH) (43,248 Individuals) Taraba 381 Bauchi 243 Taraba 1,792

Gombe 381 Taraba 105 Gombe 1,193

Bauchi 232 Gombe 55 Bauchi 949

22% (11,180 HH) of vulnerable displaced 14% (7,276 HH) reported imminent fears for their 31% (15,879 HH) of vulnerable displaced households experienced discrimination in access safety, comprised of 52% HH in Adamawa, 36% households who have out-of-school children, to basic services, comprised of 37% HH in HH in Borno, 7% HH in Yobe, 3% HH in Bauchi comprised of 30% HH in Borno, 26% HH in Adamawa, 31% HH in Borno, 23% HH in Yobe, and 1% HH each in Taraba and Gombe. Adamawa, 19% HH in Yobe, 11% HH in Taraba, 3% HH each in Taraba and Gombe and 2% HH 8% HH in Gombe and 6% HH in Bauchi. in Bauchi. Of the 7,276 households reporting imminent fears for their safety, it is reported to be due to The high incidence of out-of-school children in Discrimination in access to basic services was fears of: 49% (3,561 HH) destruction of property, vulnerable households further exposes them to reported to be due to the following 41% (3,017 HH) killing of civilians, 23% (1,703 increased risk of exploitation, diminishes their long-term characteristics: 45% (5,009 HH) IDP status, 12% HH) the presence of armed actors, 20% (1,474 livelihood opportunities as well as leaves them at heightened susceptibility to future insurgent (1,336 HH) religion, 9% each in (1,002 HH) HH) abduction and 7% (511 HH) illegal detention. indoctrination. disability and (958 HH) ethnicity, and 7% (749 HH) gender. In Borno, the majority of host communities lack access to the safety and security provided in camps such as perimeter fences and screening facilities. A number of IDPs indicated that they were suspicious of Boko Haram infiltration which made them feel insecure and vulnerable. A number of host communities were further suspected by screeners to provide safe passage or refuge to Boko Haram.

Vulnerable displaced households identified a wide-range of additional protection risks and needs including 60% HH who witnessed killing or physical violence, 56% HH who lack legal documentation, 51% HH who witnessed/heard reports of land- mines or unexploded devices, 48% HH who experienced multiple displacement, 31% HH who have out-of -school children, 22% HH who experienced discrimination in access to basic services and 14% HH who reported imminent safety risks.

A uniform scarcity of livelihood opportunities was noted in among the majority of displaced households (72%), especially for households from rural farming communities. This amplifies the risk of negative coping mechanisms such as survival sex and reliance on child labour.

DURABLE SOLUTIONS

17% of HHs asked forcefully to Preferred solution to displacement Barriers to durable solutions (HH) return to their place of origin (HH) DURABLE SOLUTIONS Yes, 8,370 Access To Food 36,317 Return To Place Of Origin 36,573 Acces To Safety And 35,403 Security No Answer 6,716 Barriers to durable solutions (HH) Access To Shelter 25,716 16% of HHs asked forcefully to Preferred solution to displacement No, Access To Health Locally Integrate To Your 22,327 return28,142 to their place of origin (HH) 6,133 Services No Current Location Access To Education Answer, 15,577 14,194 Relocate To Other Place 1,284 Access To Livelihood 13,653

72% (36,573 HH) of vulnerable households A number of conditions were cited by vulnerable 17% (8,370 HH) of vulnerable displaced express that they prefer to return to their place of displaced households as current barriers to households report that they were asked forcefully origin, 12% (6,133 HH) wish to locally integrate in accessing durable solutions, including the need to return to their place of origin. Of those that were asked forcefully to return, the breakdown is: their current location and 3% (1,284 HH) wish to for access to food (72%), access to safety and relocate to another location. security (70%), access to shelter (51%), access 44% HH in Borno, 25% HH in Adamawa, 23% HH in Yobe, 3% HH each in Bauchi and Taraba, and to health services (44%), access to education 2% HH in Gombe. (31%) and access to livelihood (27%). Such conditions were cited in both places of

displacement in the 6 States, as well as in return areas in Adamawa.

PROTECTION DEMOGRAPHICS 14 16% (10,493 HH) of vulnerable displaced households report that they were asked forcefully to return to their place of origin. Of those that Household breakdown by state Household Size AAge number and of sexconditions breakdown were cited by vulnerable were asked forcefully to return, the breakdown is: 40% HH in Borno, 26% HH in Adamawa, 25% HH displaced households as current barriers to PROTECTIONin Yobe, 4% HH both in Gombe DEMOGRAPHICS and Taraba and accessing durable solutions, including the need Borno 16,132 Adamawa 6.5 for access113,382 to food (71%), access to safety and 3% HH in Bauchi. 102,766 Adamawa security (69%), access to shelter (52%), access 16,048 Borno 6.1 Age and sex breakdown to health services (42%), access to education Yobe 9,294 Yobe 6.8 54,844 (30%) and access39,946 to livelihood (29%). Such Househ old breakdown by state Household Size conditions were cited in both places of Taraba 3,656 Taraba 6.8 displacement in the 6 States, as well7,294 as in9,147 return Gombe 3,184 Gombe 7.1 areas in Adamawa. Bauchi 6.3 Boys (0 - Girls (0 - Men (18- Women Elderly Elderly Bauchi 2,392 17) 17) 59) (18-59) Men Wwomen (60+) (60+) The breakdown of vulnerable households profiled The average size of vulnerable households was The report profiled 50,706 vulnerable IDP were as follows: 32% each in Borno and reported as 7.1 in Gombe, 6.8 in Yobe and households comprised of 327,379 individuals, Adamawa, 18% in Yobe, 7% in Taraba, 6% in Taraba, 6.5 in Adamawa, 6.3 in Bauchi and 6.1 registering 133,294 household members. Of the Gombe and 5% in Bauchi. in Borno. vulnerable households, 66% were comprised of children under 18 (216,148), 29% adults ages 18- *The household size appears to largely increase in the 59 (94,790) and 5% ages 60 and above (16,441). most vulnerable households across all six states when compared against the average household composition 55% of the vulnerable households were female cited in the DTM Round IX report. (177,373) and 45% were male (147,006).

The report profiled 67,309 vulnerable IDP Duration of displacement (HH) State of origin (HH) householdsLocation type comprised (HH) of 440,504 individuals, The average size of vulnerable households was registering 123,590 household members. Of the vulnerable households, 65% were comprised of reported Borno as 7 in Gombe, 6.8 in Yobe and22,872 Taraba, Host Community 42,344 More Than 1 Year 43,221 6.6 in Adamawa, 6.5 in Bauchi and 6.1 in Borno. children under 18 (288,723), 30% adults ages 18- 59 (131,992) and 4% ages 60 and above Duration of displacement (HH) LocationInformal Camp type (HH)4,209 Adamawa*The household size appears to16,337 largely increase (19,789).

Less Than 1 Year 6,727 in the most vulnerable households across all six 54% of the vulnerable households were female State of origin (HH) Formal Camp 2,086 states when compared against the average (235,736) and 46% were male (204,768). householYobe d composition7,924 cited in the DTM Round IX report. Others 1,384 More Than 3 Years 514 Taraba 2,880 No Answer 430 More Than 5 Years 244 Others 693 Transit Sites 253

Findings indicate that the vast majority, 85%, of Findings indicate that 45% of vulnerable Of vulnerable households profiled, 84% were in vulnerable households have been displaced for households in the North East originate from host communities, 8% in informal camps, 4% in 1 -3 years, 13% for less than 1 year, 1% displaced Borno, while 32% originate from Adamawa, 16% formal camps and 0.5% in transit sites. for more than 3 years and 0.5% for more than 5 from Yobe and 6% from Taraba. years.

Of vulnerable households profiled, 84% were in

Shelter type (HH) Status of house before/during conflict (HH)

Rented House 21,468 Totally Damaged Shelter type (HH) Status of house before/during conflict (HH) 24,820 Living With Host Family 16,858 Makeshift Shelter 4,014 Partially Damaged 9,379

Emergency Tents 3,339 Others 3,052 Don'T Know 8,701 Abandoned Building 1,547 No Damage 7,806 No Answer 428

Of vulnerable households profiled, 42% are staying in a rented house, 33% Findings indicate that 49% of vulnerable displaced households had their are living with a host family, 8% are in makeshift shelters, 7% are in home completely destroyed during the conflict, while 18% had homes that emergency tents supplied by humanitarians and 3% are in abandoned were partially destroyed and 17% are lacking information as to house status. buildings. 15% of vulnerable households reports no damage to their house. For IDPs in informal sites, access to adequate shelter is an immediate need, as they are living in scrapped-together shelters, which are especially problematic during rainy season. Across IDP locations, large families are crowded into small rooms. IDPs have rented rooms in some locations and worry about upcoming rent payments and facing threats of eviction.

METHODOLOGY 15

Overview: Data collection for Round II of the exercise took place in March and April 2016, carried out by teams of data collectors comprised of UNHCR, OfSEMA, vulnerable NRCS, households NEMA, MoWASD profiled, and 42% supported are staying by additionalin a rented humanitarian house, 33% partners at field-level. Taking into account cultural and religious practices, each areteam living of screeners with a host ensured family, the 8% incl usionare in of makeshift at least one shelters woman, 7% to ensure are in gender sensitivity in interviewing women. All screeners were trained in core emergencyprotection and tents humanitarian supplied by principles humanitarians and profiling and 3% methodology are in abandoned of identification of persons with specific needs. Due to the sensitive nature of the buildings.information collected at household/individual levels, all data collectors, supervisors and clerks were trained on the data collection and protection of sensitive information and signed an oath of confidentiality. For IDPs in informal sites, access to adequate shelter is an immediate need, asGeographic they are scope: living in Round scrapped II of- togetherthe exercise shelt soughters, whichto build are off especiallyof Round I and cover largely areas (sites, wards and Local Government Areas (LGAs)) problematicand vulnerable during households rainy season. that had Across not beenIDP locations,reached by large the familiesprevious areround, mainly targeting host communities and secondarily informal sites in most crowdedaffected LGAs.into small Monitoring rooms. locationsIDPs have were rented selected rooms on in the some basis locations of areas and with a concentration of IDPs (guided by the DTM Round VIII) and areas known to have severe protection risks. worry about upcoming rent payments and facing threats of eviction.

. In Borno, severe continued insecurity dictated that screeners were able to access 48 wards in the 8 LGAs of Jere (15,035), MMC (11,258), Konduga (10,759), Kaga (8,297), Biu (3,190), Hawul (2,085), Kwaya Kusar (589), and Bayo (261) LGAs. The exercise was co-led by UNHCR and NEMA, with key support of screeners from International Rescue Committee (IRC) as well as SEMA, NRCS and other partners. . In Adamawa, screening teams were led by UNHCR and SEMA, with screeners coming from local SEMA emergency management committees in each LGA. Due to opening up of humanitarian access, in Adamawa, screeners were able to profile both Madagali and Michika LGAs during Round II. 7 most affected host communities and return areas with changed circumstances of Madagali (15,166), Mubi North (5,458), Mubi South (5,327), Gombi (4,808), Maiha (3,399), Michika (3,006), and Hong (1,292) LGAs were targeted. . In Yobe, security restrictions for humanitarians constrained movement to the two insecure LGAs of Gujba and Gulani LGAs. Community development officers from each LGA joined in the screening teams, together with key government partners including NEMA, SEMA, MoWASD and Ministry of Youth, Sports & Social Development. 11 LGAs of Nguru (4,836), Damaturu (4,664), Potiskum (3,273), Fika (2,280), Bade (2,058), Fune (1,918), Tarmua (1,834), Geidam (1,127), Jakusko (926), Yusufari (332), and Yunusari (139) were included. . In Taraba, the exercise was co-led with SEMA and NRCS. 8 LGAs of Jalingo (2,807), Gassol (1,257), Bali (1,093), Wukari (747), Donga (671), Ardo- Kola (647), Kurmi (492), and Ibi (357) were covered. . In Gombe, SEMA, NRCS and local MoWASD social welfare officers from each of the LGAs aided in managing the screening teams, together with UNHCR and 11 LGAs of Funakaye (1,378), Gombe (1,180), Akko (1,055), Kwami (664), Nafada (587), Yamaltu (541), Balanga (224), Billiri (142), Kaltungo (46), Dukku (44), and Shomgom (7) were covered. . In Bauchi, screening was conducted in 10 LGAs of Toro (1,231), Tafawa-Balewa (923), Darazo (874), Zaki (820), Bauchi (740), Misau (554), Gamawa (405), Giade (237), Damban (186), and Dass (68) were included in the exercise.

Screening methodology: Upon arrival in a community, a sensitization was first conducted with traditional and IDP leaders to describe the purpose of the exercise and secure their cooperation. Households were then identified for the screening as likely to have heightened vulnerabilities according to the following methodology: (a) screeners involved key informants, including traditional and IDP leaders, asking them to identify the most vulnerable families in their communities according to enumerated criteria; and (b) screeners identified IDPs with visible vulnerabilities (including elderly, disabled, sick, high number of young children, those staying in very poor shelters) in the community. For all households identified to likely have specific vulnerabilities, detailed interviews were conducted with the head of household and separately with female IDPs in the household. Screeners used a vulnerability assessment tool to capture extensive information including details on categories of specific individual vulnerabilities and needs, household protection needs and risks, individual household composition and return intention. While displaced households/individuals were targeted for the monitoring exercise, both IDPs and returnees were profiled in Adamawa.

Vulnerability database: Round II consolidated database of vulnerable individuals forms the basis for the targeting of a range of interventions, including psychosocial support, SGBV intervention, access to justice project and protection-based material assistance. Information on vulnerable individuals will be made available to partners upon request on a bilateral basis to facilitate the targeting of response to the most vulnerable displaced, as well as tracking interventions to households to minimize gaps and overlap, pending agreement to information sharing protocols on confidentiality and data protection.

Contact: Gloria Nyaki, Senior Protection Officer, UNHCR, Borno Sub Office, +234-8090160730, [email protected]