DISPLACEMENT REPORT 33: North East Nigeria

1

DTMNigeria

DISPLACEMENT REPORT 33: North East NigeriaAUGUST 2020

ASSESSMENT ON DISPLACEMENT TRENDS IN SIX CONFLICT-AFFECTED STATES

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION (IOM)

DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX (DTM)

2

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

BACKGROUND 3

OVERVIEW: DTM ROUND 33 ASSESSMENTS 4

1. BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT 7

1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH EAST NIGERIA 7

1B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 9

1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT 9

1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT 9

1E: MOBILITY 9

1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS 10

1G: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF THE DISPLACED POPULATIONS 10

1H: UNMET NEEDS IN IDP SETTLEMENTS 10

2. SITE ASSESSMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS 11

2A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPs 11

2B: sETTLEMENT CLAssIFICATION 12

2C: sECTOR ANALYsIs 13

3. RETURNEEs 17

3A: YEAR OF DIsPLACEMENT FOR RETURNEEs 17

3B: REAsONs FOR INITIAL DIsPLACEMENT OF RETURNEEs 18

3C: sHELTER CONDITIONs FOR RETURNEEs 18

3D: HEALTH FACILITIEs FOR RETURNEEs 18

3E: EDUCATION FACILITIEs FOR RETURNEEs 18

3F: MARKET FACILITIEs FOR RETURNEEs 18

3G: PROFILE OF AssIsTANCE FOR RETURNEEs 19

3H: WATER, sANITATION AND HYGIENE FACILITIEs FOR RETURNEEs 19

3I: LIVELIHOOD FACILITIEs FOR RETURNEEs 19

4. METHODOLOGY 20

TOOLs FOR IDPs 20

TOOLs FOR RETURNEEs 20

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis report, which presents results from Round 33 of Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) assessments carried out by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) aims to improve understanding of the scope of internal displacements, returns and the needs of affected populations in conflict-affected states of north east Nigeria. The report covers the period 27 July to 15 August 2020 and reflects trends from the six most affected north-eastern states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe.

In Round 33, 2,118,550 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) or 436,058 households were recorded as displaced, an increase of 30,426 individuals (2%) against the last assessment (Round 32) conducted in June 2020 when 2,088,124 were recorded as displaced. The number is also marginally higher than the figure reported in Round 31 which was conducted in February 2020 when 2,046,604 IDPs were identified. Prior to Round 31, the December 2019 assessment had recorded 2,039,092 IDPs.

Also, a total of 1,714,682 returnees were recorded in the DTM Round 33 assessment, an increment of 9,115 (1%) as against the 1,705,567 returnees that were identified in the last round of assessment that was conducted in June 2020. In Round 31 which was conducted in February 2020, 1,673,862 returnees were identified.

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 (807) 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 — 85,047 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 2,388 locations which included sites where IDPs were residing in camps and camp-like settings as well as sites where displaced persons were living with host communities (up from 2,387 in the last round of assessment that was conducted in June 2020). The purpose was to better understand the gaps in services provided and the needs of the affected population. These locations included 300 (up from 293 in the last round of assessment) camps and camp-like settings hosting IDPs and 2,088 sites where the displaced persons were residing with host communities (slight decrement since last round of assessment when 2,094 such host community sites were assessed). 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, health, education, livelihood, market, assistance and WASH facilities available to the returnees. Notably, as 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 (DTM) programme in September 2014, in collaboration with the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and relevant State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs). In recent times, escalation of conflict has been noted with the security situation remaining unpredictable and leading to fluid mobility. Most notably, accessibility was reduced markedly following a spurt in violence in October 2018. Some access has been restored since then.

The main objective of 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 where communities were hosting IDPs at the time of the assessment.

4

DTM Round 33 assessments were carried out from 27 July to 15 August 2020 in 107 LGAs (no change from the last round of assessment). Within the 107 accessibly LGAs, the assessments were conducted in 791 wards (down from 792 in the last round of assessment) in the conflict-affected north-eastern Nigerian states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. As per the assessments, 2,118,550 IDPs or 436,058 households were recorded as displaced, an increase of 30,426 persons (2%) against the last assessment (Round 32) conducted in June 2020 when 2,088,124 IDPs were assessed.

The number is also marginally higher than the figure reported in Round 31 which was conducted in February 2020 when 2,046,604 IDPs were identified. The figures indicates a continued inching up of numbers of displaced persons in the region since the dip in January 2019. To illustrate, as per Round 30 assessment that was published in November 2019, 2,035,232 IDPs were recorded and a similar trend was observed in previous rounds of assessment conducted in 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 an escalation of violence was observed in October 2018 even though accessibility remains lower. During Round 25, a higher number of LGAs and wards (807) 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.

While overall the number of wards assessed by DTM decreased by one ward in Round 33 going from 792 to 791, the decrement was not due to decrease in accessibility but because of IDP movement to return to place of origin. A ward in Takum LGA of Taraba was not assessed as it no longer hosted any displaced persons. Similarly, two wards in Gulani and Potiskum LGAs of Yobe were not assessed. An increase in accessibility was noted in Gombe where two wards in Kaltungo LGA that were not assessed in Round 32 due to logistical reasons were assessed in this round.

Borno’s Guzamala, Kukawa and Nganzia continue to remain completely inaccessible even in this round of assessment. For this reason, the continuous high numbers of IDPs despite limited accessibility are an indication that actual displacement numbers could be higher. Indeed, the figures show that mobility has gone up and the situation remains fluid and unpredictable. COVID-19 related disruptions could also be playing a part in the current situation.

Before the decrement in accessibility, only two LGAs — Abadam and Marte — were inaccessible during Round 25 assessment in October 2018. But in Round 26, 13 wards were inaccessible and populous LGAs like Guzamala, Kukawa and Kala/Balge in the most-affected State of Borno were no longer accessible.

Likewise, in Round 28 only 107 LGAs were accessible while Guzamala, Kukawa, and Nganzai LGAs and 12 wards were inaccessible. Inaccessibility continued during Round 29 with 794 wards accessible.

In Rounds 30 and 31, accessibility was lower than that in Round 29 with 790 wards accessible. Accessibility, however, improved marginally in Round 32 when 792 wards were accessible.

Before the recent deterioration in overall security situation, the number of wards that DTM was assessing had been steadily going up over the months. From 797 wards assessed in June 2018, a high of 807 wards were assessed in Round 25 that was conducted before a spurt in violence in October 2018.

OVERVIEW: DTM ROUND 33 ASSESSMENTS

5

Map1: LGA coverage of DTM Round 33 assessment

Bali

Toro

Ibi

Fune

BIU

Bama

Gashaka

Ningi

Song

Damboa

Gassol

Kurmi

Toungo

Alkaleri

Konduga

Kukawa

Fufore

Tarmua

Dukku

Mafa

Gujba

Jada

Ganjuwa

Geidam

Wukari

Fika

Bauchi

Abadam

Kaga

Karim-Lamido

Kirfi

Hong

Akko

Bursari

Magumeri

Marte

Lau

Donga

Gubio

Sardauna

Gwoza

Jakusko

Yunusari

DARAZO

Gombi

Mobbar

Ganye

Dikwa

Gulani

HAWUL

Ussa

Kwami

Shira

Girei

Ngala

Zing

SHANI

Chibok

Zaki

Takum

Gamawa

Nganzai

Guzamala

Demsa

Maiha

Damaturu

Askira/Uba

Nafada

Ardo-Kola

Monguno

BAYO

Yorro

Balanga

Jere

Mayo-Belwa

Misau

Kala/Balge

Funakaye

Tafawa-Balewa

Machina

Katagum

Itas/Gadau

Yamaltu/Deba

Damban

Dass

Giade

Karasuwa

Billiri

Numan

Shelleng

Lamurde

Nguru

Warji

Kaltungo

Nangere

Bogoro

Michika

Guyuk

Bade

Madagali

Shomgom

Yola South

Mubi North

Bade

Potiskum

KWAYA KUSAR

Mubi South

Jama'are

Jalingo

Maiduguri

Yola North

Yusufari

Yobe

Katsina

Kaduna

Plateau

Benue

Cross River

Nasarawa

Jigawa

KanoBorno

Bauchi Gombe

Adamawa

Taraba

±

DTM Accessibility

AccessiblePartially accessibleInaccessible ward Inaccessible LGA

0 390 780195 Km

Cameroon

Niger Chad

Lake Chad

Gombe

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.

6

53%Female

Displaced Individuals Returned Individuals

47%Male

28%Childrenunder 6 Y

78%Women and Children

54%Female

46%Male

18%Childrenunder 6 Y

82%Women and Children

62%Returned within

the States

30%Returned from

other States

2%increase in return population from DTM R32

8%Fled to

neighbouring countries before

return

1%increase in

displaced population from

DTM R32

89%Displaced within the States

IDP and Returnee population trend

11%Displaced from different States

2,118,550 1,714,682

From ADAMAWA: 153,751


From BAUCHI: 39,945

From OTHER STATES: 258,933

From ABROAD: 138,366

From TARABA: 78,891

From BORNO: 500,154

From GOMBE: 134,074

From YOBE: 105,043

From BORNO: 1,747,913

TO ADAMAWA: 213,467

TO ADAMAWA: 819,148

TO BORNO: 708,527

TO YOBE: 187,007

TO GOMBE: 39,205

TO TARABA: 92,810

TO BAUCHI: 64,632

TO YOBE: 142,425

TO BORNO: 1,566,011

From BAUCHI: 3,055From OTHER STATES: 16,645

From TARABA: 83,469

From YOBE: 113,717

0 140 28070 Km

Guzamala

Abadam

±

Borno

100%Gombe

64,63297%

3%Bauchi

89%

11%

Niger

Chad

1,566,011

213,467

54% 46%

CameroonInaccessible LGA

Less than 92,50092,501 - 142,500142,501 - 213,500Above 213,500

IDPs in Camps &Camp-like settings

CommunitiesIDPs in Host

IDP Population by State

Nganzai

Kukawa

Marte

Taraba19%

81%

Adamawa

92,810

142,425

39,205

91%

9%Yobe

Lake Chad

IDPs by Site Type and States

Borno

Borno

Taraba

BauchiAdamawa

Gombe

Plateau

Jigawa

Jigawa

Benue

Inaccessible LGA

Cameroon

Niger Lake Chad

Returnees from Abroad

Returnee IDPs

Returnees Total by State

187,007

708,527

819,148

Chad1% from

Niger2% from

Cameroon5% from

Lake Chad

95%

5%

±

187,007

708,527

819,148

90%

Abadam

Guzamala

NganzaiMarte

Kukawa

Yobe

10%

6%

94%

Returnees per State


389,

281

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Mill

ions

Dec-

14

Feb-

15

Apr-

15

Jun-

15

Aug-

15

Oct-1

5

Dec-

15

Feb-

16

Apr-

16

Jun-

16

Aug-

16

Oct-1

6

Dec-

16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jun-

17

Aug-

17

Oct-1

7

Dec-

17

Feb-

18

Apr-

18

Jun-

18

Aug-

18

Oct-1

8

Jan-

19

May

-19

Jul-1

9

Sep-

19

Nov-

19

Dec-

19

Mar

-20

Jul-2

0

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33

IDPs Returnees

1,88

4,33

1

1,82

5,32

1

1,75

7,28

8

1,71

3,77

1

1,70

2,68

0

1,78

2,49

0

1,88

1,19

8

1,91

8,50

8

1,92

6,74

8

2,02

6,60

2

1,94

8,34

6

1,98

0,03

6

2,01

8,51

3

2,03

5,23

2

2,03

9,09

2

2,04

6,60

4

2,08

8,12

4

2,11

8,55

0

2,24

1,48

4

2,15

5,61

8

2,06

6,78

3

2,09

3,03

0

1,82

2,54

1

1,77

0,44

4 1,89

9,83

0

1,83

2,74

3

1,18

8,01

8

1,49

1,70

6

1,38

5,29

8

2,15

0,45

1

2,23

9,74

9

2,15

1,97

9

262,

324

320,

365

332,

333

389,

224

599,

164

663,

485

910,

955

958,

549

1,03

9,26

71,

099,

509

1,15

1,42

71,

234,

894

1,25

7,91

11,

268,

140

1,30

7,84

71,

329,

428

1,38

6,22

91,

441,

099

1,54

9,63

01,

580,

093

1,64

2,69

61,

558,

058

1,62

2,90

81,

642,

539

1,61

9,01

01,

611,

676

1,67

3,86

21,

705,

567

1,71

4,68

2

Displacement Area vs Place of Origin Displacement Area vs Place of Return

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

7

1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTHEAST NIGERIA

The estimated number of IDPs identified during Round 33 of DTM assessments in conflict-affected north-eastern states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe was 2,118,550 IDPs or 436,058 households.

The number represents an increase of 30,426 persons (2%) against the last assessment (Round 32) conducted in June 2020 when 2,088,124 were recorded as displaced.

The findings confirm a recent trend of number of IDPs plateauing over the last few assessments. In Round 32, 2,088,124 IDPs were recorded. This number was marginally higher than the figure reported in Round 31 which was conducted in February 2020 when 2,046,604 IDPs were identified. But even as the overall numbers did not go up by a high percentage, mobility in the form of population movement within LGAs was high.

The most conflict-affected State of Borno continues to host the highest number of IDPs at 1,566,011, an increment of 1 per cent (18,998 persons) from 1,547,013 who were recorded in the last round of assessment. The mobility was triggered by range of reasons including insecurity and poor living conditions. Borno accounted for 62 per cent of the total increase of 30,426 in number of IDPs recorded in this round of assessment. It is also notable that the number of displaced persons in Borno has

not gone down though populous LGAs of Guzamala, Kukawa and Nganzai continued to remain fully inaccessible to DTM enumerators due to insecurity in this round of assessment much like the last three rounds of assessments.

The steady increase in IDP numbers in Borno coupled with the populous LGAs in the state being inaccessible can be interpreted as an indication of a continuously deteriorating humanitarian situation and continued population mobility in north-eastern Nigeria.

During this round of assessment, Gwoza witnessed the highest increase in number of IDPs from 142,954 to 146,504 (2% increment). Similarly, the IDP population in Jere went from 271,921 to 275,430 (up 1%). Borno’s capital city of Maiduguri Metropolitan Council (MMC), which hosts the highest number of IDPs among all LGAs in the entire conflict-affected region, recorded a nominal increase of 1,493 IDPs to take its total tally from 295,972 to 297,465, a negligible increment.

The LGAs that witnessed nominal reduction in number of IDPs included Kaga (down by 692 persons), Shani (down by 543 IDPs) and Chibok (down by 470 persons). Movement due to security-related incidents continued to occur like in Hawul and Biu. Noticeably, the State of Adamawa recorded the highest increase (3%) in the number of IDPs since the last round of assessment.

1.BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT

Figure 1: IDP population by round of DTM assessment

389,2

81 1,188

,018

1,491

,706

1,385

,298 2,1

50,45

1

2,239

,749

2,151

,979

2,241

,484

2,155

,618

2,066

,783

2,093

,030

1,822

,541

1,770

,444

1,899

,830

1,832

,743

1,884

,331

1,825

,321

1,757

,288

1,713

,771

1,702

,680

1,782

,490

1,881

,198

1,918

,508

1,926

,748

2,026

,602

1,948

,346

1,980

,036

2,018

,513

2,035

,232

2,039

,092

2,046

,604

2,088

,124

2,118

,550

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Dec-

14

Feb-

15

Apr-1

5

Jun-

15

Aug-

15

Oct-1

5

Dec-

15

Feb-

16

Apr-1

6

Jun-

16

Aug-

16

Oct-1

6

Dec-

16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jun-

17

Aug-

17

Oct-1

7

Dec-

17

Feb-

18

Apr-1

8

Jun-

18

Aug-

18

Oct-1

8

Jan-

19

May

-19

Jul-1

9

Sep-

19

Nov-1

9

Feb-

20

May

-20

Aug-

20

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33

Table 1: Change in internally displaced population by State

State

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNOGOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

GRAND TOTAL

Count of LGAs R32 Total

(June 2020)R33 Total

(August 2020) Status Difference % Change

21 206,969 213,467 Increase 6,498 3.1%

1.5%2.2%

1.2%

1.8%

1.1%

-0.2%20 64,777 64,632 Decrease -145

22 1,547,013 1,566,011 Increase 18,998

11 38,793 39,205 Increase 412

16 91,179 92,810 Increase 1,631

17 139,393 142,425 Increase 3,032

107 2,088,124 2,118,550 Increase 30,426

8

Bali

Toro

Fune

Ibi

Biu

Gashaka

Ningi

Bama

Alkaleri

Gassol

Song

Toungo

Fufore

Kurmi

Damboa

Konduga

Tarmua

Gujba

Dukku

Mafa

Ganjuwa

Jada

Wukari

Kirfi

Fika

Bauchi

Bursari

Kaga

Geidam

Akko

Gombe Hong

Sardauna

Yusufari

Magumeri

Zaki

Donga

Karim-LamidoLau

GwozaDarazo

Yunusari

Jakusko

Mobbar

Gamawa

Gulani

Ganye

Gombi

Hawul

Dikwa

Ussa

Shira

Ngala

Girei

Kwami

Damaturu

Zing

Chibok

Shani

Warji

Bogoro

Takum

Askira/Uba

Yorro

Nafada

Demsa

Ardo-Kola

MaihaBalanga

Jere

Monguno

Bayo

Kala/Balge

Funakaye

Mayo-Belwa

Tafawa-Balewa

Misau

Itas/Gadau

Machina

Katagum

Billiri

Yamaltu/Deba

ShellengDass

Karasuwa

Giade

Nguru

Damban

Kaltungo

Nangere

LamurdeNuman

Guyuk

Bade

Michika

Madagali

Yola SouthYola North

Shomgom

Mubi North

Bade

Potiskum

Kwaya Kusar

Mubi South

Jama'are

Jalingo

Maiduguri

Niger

Chad

Cameroon

Plateau

Jigawa

Benue

Kano

Nasarawa

Cross River

Katsina

BornoYobe

Taraba

Bauchi

Adamawa

Gombe

Inaccessible LGA

IDP Population by LGALess than 12,711

12,711 - 39,500

39,501 - 82,500

82,501 - 158,500

More than 158,500

±

Lake Chad

0 160 32080 Km

Gubio

Guzamala

NganzaiMarte

Kukawa

Abadam

Map 2: IDP distribution by LGA


9

1B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

A detailed and representative overview of age and sex breakdown was obtained by interviewing a sample of 85,047 persons, representing 4 per cent of the recorded IDP population in the six most affected states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. The results are depicted in Figures 2 and 3 below.

1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT

Reasons for displacement remained unchanged since the last round of assessment conducted in June 2020. The ongoing conflict in north-eastern Nigeria continued to be the main reason for displacement (92% - same as in the last

assessment), followed by communal clashes for 7 per cent of IDPs and natural disasters in 1 per cent of cases.

Map 3 provides an overview of the reasons for displacement by state. Once again, the State of Taraba showed the highest number of displacements due to communal clashes during the Round 33 assessments.

1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT

The year with the highest percentage of displacements remains 2015 (26% - 1% decrease since last round of assessment) followed by 2016 (18%). In line with the last round of assessment, 16 per cent of IDPs were displaced in 2017 and 11 per cent in 2018 (Figure 5). Nine per cent of displacements took place in 2019 on account of increased insecurity, communal clashes and natural disasters (no change since last round of assessment).

1E: MOBILITY

Most IDPs have been displaced twice (48%), while 27 per cent have been displaced three times, 21 per cent have been displaced once and 4 per cent have been displaced more than three times.

In Borno, 91 per cent of displaced persons said they have been displaced more than once. Nine per cent of IDPs in the most affected State of Borno said they were displaced only once.

Figure 4: Reasons for displacement of IDPs

92%

7%1%

Insurgency Communal Clashes Natural Disaster

Figure 5: Year of displacement by State

16%

26%

18%16%

11%9%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

State Before 2015 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TotalADAMAWA 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 10%

BAUCHI 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

BORNO 9% 21% 15% 13% 8% 6% 2% 74%

GOMBE 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2%TARABA 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 4%YOBE 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 7%

Grand Total 16% 26% 18% 16% 11% 9% 4% 100%

Figure 3: Proportion of IDP population by age groups

Children(0 - 17 years)

Adults(18 - 59 years)

Elderly(60+ years)

55%

38%

7%

Borno

Yobe

Taraba

Bauchi

Adamawa

Gombe

97% 3%

87%

13%65%

35%

26%

7%67%

81%

2%

17%

4%

10%

2%3%

7%

74%

100%

0 60 12030 Km

Natural Disaster

Insurgency

Communal clashes

Number of IDPs by StateXX%

±

Map 3: Cause of displacement and percentage of IDP population by State

Figure 2: Age and demographic dreakdown of IDPs

Male 47% Female 53%

less than 1

1-5

6-17

18-59

60+

18% 20%

4% 3%

13% 15%

8% 11%

4% 4%

18%

10

1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS

Eighty-two per cent of IDPs cited the most-affected state of Borno as their place of origin (up 1% from the last two rounds of assessments).

After Borno, Adamawa is the place of origin for the second

largest number of IDPs (7%), followed by Yobe at 5 per cent.

1G: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS

In keeping with the trend observed in the last few rounds, 57 per cent (no change from the last round of assessment) of all IDPs were living with host communities (Figure 8) during Round 33 assessments with the remainder (43%) residing in camps and camp-like settings.

Out of all the six states, Borno continues to be the only state where the number of people residing in camps and camp-like settings (54%) is higher than that of individuals living with host communities. In all other states, people living with host communities far outnumbered those in camps and camp-like settings.

1H: UNMET NEEDS IN IDP SETTLEMENTS

Once again, the percentage of people who were in need for food remained high. Seventy-six per cent of IDPs cited food as their main unmet need (no change from the last round of assessment).

Non-food items (NFIs) were cited as the second highest unfulfilled need by 12 per cent (same as the last round of assessment). Six per cent cited shelter as their main unmet need. The results were consistent with the trend observed in previous assessments.

Figure 8: IDP settlement type by State

57%

43%

Types ofSettlements

89%

97%

46%

100%

81%

91%

57%

11%

3%

54%

19%

9%

43%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

Host Community Camp

IDP population,by State of origin

Displacementpattern

Less than 15,000

15,000 - 154,000

More than 154,000

±Borno

Taraba

Bauchi

Kogi

Kaduna

Edo

Zamfara

Kano

Adamawa

Jigawa

Plateau

Nasarawa

Benue

Katsina

Gombe

Cross River

Enugu

Abia

Ebonyi

Anambra

FCT

Nigeria

96%

98%

89%

80%

1%2%

1%

1%

2%

2.2%0.5%

0.3%

4%

3%11%

0.1%

8%0.9%

100%100%

100%

100%100%

Yobe

Map 4: Origin of IDPs and location of displacement

83%

74%

10%

2%

3%

4%

7%

0.2%

4%

5%

State of displacementState of origin Total IDPs

TOTAL IDPs: 2,118,550

TO BORNO: 1,566,011

TO ADAMAWA: 213,467

TO GOMBE: 39,205

TO BAUCHI: 64,632

TO YOBE: 142,425

TO TARABA: 92,810


From BORNO: 1,747,913

From BAUCHI: 3,055

From OTHERS: 16,645

From YOBE: 113,717

From TARABA: 83,469

7%

0.8%

Figure 7: State of origin, State of Displacement and Percentage per State of Origin/Displacement

50%

87%

9%

80%

32%

49%

21%

34%

13%

57%

20%

16%

16%

48%

5%

30%

49%

30%

27%

11%

4%

3%

5%

4%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

IDPs only displaced once IDPs displaced twice IDPs displaced thrice IDPs displaced more than thrice

Figure 6: Frequency of displacement of IDPs per State

76%

12%

6%

3%2% 1%

Food

NFI

Shelter

Medical services

Drinking water

Water for washing andcooking

Figure 9: Main unfulfilled needs of IDPs

11

2. SITE ASSESSMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS

0 140 28070 Km

Guzamala

Abadam

±

Borno

100%Gombe

64,63297%

3%Bauchi

89%

11%

Niger

Chad

1,566,011

213,467

54% 46%

CameroonInaccessible LGA

Less than 92,50092,501 - 142,500142,501 - 213,500Above 213,500

IDPs in Camps &Camp-like settings

CommunitiesIDPs in Host

IDP Population by State

Nganzai

Kukawa

Marte

Taraba19%

81%

Adamawa

92,810

142,425

39,205

91%

9%Yobe

Lake Chad

Map 5: IDP distribution by settlement type per State

2A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPS

DTM Round 33 site assessments were conducted in 2,388 locations (up from 2,387 in the last round of assessment, conducted in June 2020). The purpose was to better understand the gaps in services provided and the needs of the affected population.

These assessed locations included 300 (up from 293 in the last round of assessment) camps and camp-like settings and 2,082 sites (slight decrement since last round of assessment when 2,094 sites were assessed) where IDPs were residing with host communities.


12

2B: SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATION

A high of 57 per cent (or 1,211,116) IDPs were residing with host communities while the remaining 43 per cent (907,434) were living in 300 camps and camp-like settlements, with majority or 234 (up from 229 sites in the last round of assessment) in the worst affected State of Borno. Out of the 300 camps and camp-like settlements, 95 per cent were spontaneous, 4 per cent were planned and less than 1 per cent were designated

for relocation.

Collective settlements continued to be the most common type of sites with 60 per cent, followed by camps at 40 per cent. The land ownership in camps and camp-like settings were classified as private (54% - down from 55%) and 46 per cent were categorized as government or public buildings.

# IDPs # Sites % Sites # IDPs # Sites % Sites

ADAMAWA 21,670 27 9% 191,797 462 22% 213,467 489

BAUCHI 1,648 5 2% 62,984 371 18% 64,632 376

BORNO 853,201 234 78% 712,810 460 22% 1,566,011 694

GOMBE 0% 39,205 202 10% 39,205 202

TARABA 18,046 14 4% 74,764 204 10% 92,810 218

YOBE 12,869 20 7% 129,556 389 19% 142,425 409

Total 907,434 300 100% 1,211,116 2,088 100% 2,118,550 2,388

State

Camps/Camp-like settings Host Communities

Total Number of IDPs Total Number of Sites

Table 2: Distribution of IDPs and sites by State and settlement type

The State-wise break up of IDP population is presented in the table below.

Figure 10: IDP settlement type by State

Transi�onal CentreCamp

Collec�ve Se�lement/Centre

For Reloca�onPlanned

Spontaneous

Site Classi�cation

IDP Population by Settlement Type

Site Type

Camp/Camp-like settings Host Communities

Land Ownership

43% 57%

Land Ownership

95%

4%

1%

60%

39.7%

0.3%

54%

45%

1%

Private Building

Public/Government

Ancestral

88%

8%

4%

private building

Public/Government

Ancestral

13

2C: SECTOR ANALYSISCAMP STATUS AND CAMP MANAGEMENTIn the Round 33 DTM assessment, out of the 300 camps and camp-like sites assessed, a high of 84 per cent (down from 85%) were informal sites while the remaining 16 per cent (up 1%) were formal. Furthermore, 43 per cent of sites do not have a camp management agency.

SHELTERCamps and camp-like settings

Camps and camp-like settings presented a variety of shelter conditions, with the most common type of shelter being self-made/makeshift shelters at 37 per cent, followed by emergency shelters at 35 per cent (down from 38% in the last round of assessment).

For more analysis, click here.

Host Communities

Sixty-one per cent of all IDPs living with host communities were living in a host family’s house (sharp increase from 54% reported in the last round of assessment). This was followed by rented houses (25%), and individual houses at 10 per cent (down 1% since the last round of assessment).


NON-FOOD ITEMS (NFI)

Camps and camp-like settingsBlankets/mats continued to remain the most needed kind of non-food item (NFI) in camps and camp-like settings at 53% which is 1 per cent less than the last round of assessment.


Host Communities

Likewise in host communities, blankets/mats were the most needed non-food item (NFI) at 37 per cent (down from 42%) followed by mosquito nets (19% - no change since the last round of assessment), mattress at 17 per cent (represents a 3% increase) and kitchen sets (14% - down 1% from the last round of assessment).


Figure 11: Camp status/presence and type of camp management agency

16%

84%

Formal Informal

43%

57%

No Yes

36%

28%

24%

10%

2%

UNINGOGovernmentLocal NGOReligious entity

Figure 12: Types of shelter in camps/camp-like settings

37%

35%

7%

6%

5%

5%

3%

1%

1%

Self-made/makeshift shelter

Emergency shelter

Host family house

Government building

Individual house

School building

Rented house

Health facility

Community center

Figure 14: Most needed NFI in camp sites

53%

15%

14%

10%

4%

2%

1%

1%

Blankets/mats

Kitchen sets

Mosquito nets

Mattress

Hygiene kits

Soap

Bucket/Jerry Can

Solar lamps

Figure 13: Types of shelter in host community sites

61%

25%

10%

3%

1%

Host family house

Rented house

Individual house


Government building

Figure 15: Most needed NFI in host community sites

37%

19%

17%

14%

5%

3%

3%

2%

Blankets/Mats

Mosquito nets

Mattress

Kitchen sets

hHygiene kits

Soap

Bucket/Jerry Can

Solar lamps

14

WASH: WATER RESOURCES

Camp and camp-like settings:

Piped water was the main source of water in 71 per cent (up from 68%) of sites where IDPs are residing in camps and camp-like settings. In 17 per cent of sites (down from 19% from the last round of assessment), hand pumps were the main source of drinking water, followed by water trucks (6% - down by 1%). Use of unprotected wells as main source of water in 2 per cent of sites (represents 1% decrease from what was recorded in the last round of assessment).


Host Communities

In contrast to camps and camp-like settings, hand pumps were the main source of water in 51 per cent (down from 55%) of sites where IDPs are residing with host communities.

In 27 per cent of sites (up from 26% since the last round of assessment), piped water was the main source of drinking water, followed by protected wells (8% - up by 1%) and unprotected wells (6% - up by 1%). Other common water sources included water trucks (5%) and surface water (1%).


PERSONAL HYGIENE FACILITIES

Camps and camp-like settings

In 88 per cent of displacement sites (down from 91%), toilets were described as not hygienic, while toilets were reported to be in hygienic conditions in 11 per cent of sites (up from 8% in the last round of assessment and this figure was only 3% in the previous round of assessment). In the State of Borno, respondents said 90 per cent of sites had unhygienic toilets (down from 93%) and 9 per cent had hygienic (up from 6%). In Bauchi, all toilets were reportedly unhygienic.


Host communities

In 95 per cent of host community sites (down from 97%), toilets were described as not hygienic. In 4 per cent of sites, toilets were in good (hygienic) condition (up from 2%) and not usable in 1 per cent of sites. In Borno 5 per cent (up by 1%) of the toilets were hygienic.


FOOD AND NUTRITION Camps and camp-like settings

In Round 33 assessments, access to food was offsite in 42 per cent (up by 1% since the last round of assessment conducted in June 2020). At the same time, food was onsite in 40 per cent of sites (down by 1%) as well. There was, however, no food provisions in 18 per cent (no change since Round 32) of sites assessed.

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBEGrandTotal

Non usable 0% 0% 1% 14% 5% 1%

Good (Hygienic) 22% 0% 9% 29% 0% 11%

Not so good (Not hygienic) 78% 100% 90% 57% 95% 88%

Figure 18: Condition of toilets in camps/camp-like settings by State

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBEGrandTotal

Non usable 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 1%Good (Hygienic) 8% 0% 5% 0% 6% 1% 4%Not so good (Not hygienic) 90% 100% 95% 100% 93% 96% 95%

Figure 19: Condition of toilets in host communities by State

Figure 20: Access to food in camps/camp-like settings

67%60%

34%21%

85%

40%

11%40%

47%

43%

15%

42%

22% 19%

36%

18%

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total

Yes, on site Yes, off site No

Figure 16: Main drinking water sources in camps/camp-like settings

71%

17%

6%

3%

3%

Piped water supply

Hand pumps

Water truck

Protected well

Unprotected well

Figure 17: Main drinking water sources in host communities

51%

27%

8%

6%

5%

1%

1%

1%

Hand pumps

Piped water supply

Protected well

Unprotected well

Water truck

Surface water

Spring

Lake/dam


15

Host Communities

Access to food was on-site in 54 per cent (down from 58%) of sites where IDPs were residing with host communities. Twenty-three per cent (up by 3%) of sites had access to food off-site and 23 per cent (up from 22%) had no access to food. Similarly, in Borno access to food was on-site in 46 per cent (down from 47%) of sites.


HEALTHCamps and camp-like settings

In a significant increase, 67 per cent of sites assessed during Round 33 of DTM assessments (up from 53%) cited malaria as the most common health problem. Fever was next most common health issue in 20 per cent (up from 17%) of sites and cough was cited as third most common health issue in 10 per cent of sites (down from 26% from last round of assessment).


Host Communities

Mirroring the situation in displacement sites, malaria was most prevalent health ailment among IDPs residing with host communities in 64 per cent of sites (up from 59%). The situation in Borno was worse with malaria cited as the most prevalent health issue in 63 per cent (down from 64%) of sites.

EDUCATION Camps and camp-like settings

In camps and camp-like settings, no children were attending school in 4 per cent of sites, 25 to 50 per cent of children were attending school in 39 per cent of sites, less than 25 per cent of children were attending school in 30 per cent of sites, in 24 per cent of sites 51 to 75 per cent of children were attending school and in only 3 per cent of sites more than 75 per cent of children were attending school.

For more details, click here.Host Communities In sites where IDPs were residing with host communities, no children were attending school in 1 per cent of sites, in 38 per cent of sites 25 to 50 per cent of children were attending school, in 38 per cent of sites 51 to 75 per cent of children were attending school, in 17 per cent of sites less than 25 per cent of children were attending school and in 6 per cent of sites more than 75 per cent of children were attending school.

For more details, click here.

46%

83%

46%

6%

65% 67%54%

19%

16%

29%

24%

23%29%

23%

35%

1%

25%

70%

12%4%

23%

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total


Figure 21: Access to food in host communities

Figure 22: Common health problems in camps/camp-like settings


Skin disease 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0%

Malnutrition 0% 0% 1% 7% 0% 1%

Diarrhea 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2%

Cough 11% 20% 11% 0% 10% 10%

Fever 22% 0% 18% 36% 30% 20%

Malaria 67% 80% 68% 50% 60% 67%

Figure 23: Common health problems in host communities


RTI 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%

Malnutrition 0% 1% 0% 5% 9% 1% 2%

Hepatitis 9% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%

Diarrhea 3% 3% 4% 9% 4% 7% 5%

Cough 9% 4% 15% 9% 7% 6% 9%

Fever 19% 20% 17% 17% 27% 13% 18%

Malaria 60% 72% 63% 58% 52% 71% 64%

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand TotalNone 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 1%

>75% 10% 8% 0% 10% 3% 5% 6%

<25% 21% 5% 16% 8% 39% 17% 17%

51% - 75% 41% 57% 35% 29% 22% 35% 38%

25% -50% 27% 30% 48% 53% 34% 41% 38%

Figure 25: Access to formal/informal education services in Host communities



>75% 18% 0% 0% 14% 0% 3%

None 11% 0% 3% 7% 5% 4%

51% - 75% 15% 100% 26% 14% 0% 24%

<25% 37% 0% 28% 29% 50% 30%

25% -50% 19% 0% 43% 36% 45% 39%

Figure 24: Access to formal/informal education services in camps & camp-like settings

16

COMMUNICATION Camps and camp-like settingsFriends and neighbors were cited as the most-trusted source of information in 56 per cent of sites (up by 1% since the last round of assessment conducted in June 2020). Local and community leaders were cited as the second most trusted source of information in 29 per cent of sites (up by 2%).


Host communities

In sites where IDPs are residing with host communities, friends, neighbors and family were the most trusted source of information in 39 per cent of sites (notable decrease from 43% cited in Round 32), followed by local/community leader in 34 per cent of sites (down by 1%).


LIVELIHOODSCamps and camp-like settings

Petty trade was the main livelihood activity for displaced persons in 38 per cent (down by 1%), followed by daily wage labourer (26% - down by 1%) and farming (25% - up by 1%).


Host communities

In sharp contrast to IDPs living in displacement camps, the majority of IDPs living with host communities engaged in farming. In a high of 60 per cent (down by 1% since the last round of assessment) of sites, IDPs engaged in farming.


PROTECTIONCamps/camp-like settings

Some form of security was provided in 84 per cent (no change since the last round of assessment) of sites. In the most-affected State of Borno, security was provided in 89 per cent (down 1%) of sites.


Host Communities

Eighty-seven per cent of sites (up by 1%) assessed had some form of security. This figure was higher in the most affected State of Borno at 91 per cent (no change from Round 32).


Figure 27: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in host communities

39%

34%

15%

5%5%

2%

Friends, neighbors and family

Local leader/Communityleader

Religious leader

Aid worker

Traditional leader

Government official

38%

26%

25%

5%

4%

1%

1%

Petty trade

Daily labourer

Farming

Agro-pastorialism

Collecting firewood

Pastorialism

Fishing

Figure 28: Livelihood activities of IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 29: Livelihood activities of IDPs in host communities

60%

15%

14%

5%

2%

2%

2%

Farming

Petty trade

Daily labourer

Agro-pastoralism

Pastorialism

Fishing

Collecting firewood

56%

11%

14%

30%

16%

44%

100%

89%

86%

70%

84%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

No Yes

Figure 30: Security provided in camps/camp-like settings

22%

4%

9%

1%

14%

24%

13%

78%

96%

91%

99%

86%

76%

87%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

No Yes

Figure 31: Security provided in host communities

Figure 26: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

56%29%

6%4% 3%

1% 1%


Local leader/Community leader

Aid worker

Religious leader

Government official

Traditional leader

Military official

17

The continuing trend of increasing returns continued in this round of assessment with 1,714,682 (276,479 households) returnees recorded in the DTM Round 33 assessment, an increment of 9,115 (less than 1%) from the number (1,705,567) recorded in the last round of assessment that was conducted in June 2020.

The increase is lower than the 31,705 or 2 per cent increment that was recorded between Round 31 (conducted in February 2020) and Round 32 assessments.

Forty LGAs (670 sites) were assessed for returnees in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe during this round of assessment which is same as the number assessed in the last three rounds of assessments. In Borno, Nganzai remained inaccessible.

Adamawa and Yobe State witnessed an increment in returnee numbers. The highest increment was noted in Adamawa where returnees’ figures increased by less than 1 per cent (0.8%) to 819,148, followed by Yobe with an increment of 2 per cent to bring its returnees population to 187,007.

The number of returnees has started to stabilize since April

2019, after witnessing large fluctuations and notably increasing continuously until August 2018. Seventy-two per cent of people who were initially displaced have returned. Eighty-two per cent of the entire return population were women and children while 54 per cent of the return population were female and 46 per cent were male.

Out of the total number of returnees, 1,576,316 (92% of all returnees) were classified as IDP returnees, while 138,366 (or 8% of all returnees) were classified as returned refugees as they travelled back from neighboring countries. The percentage of return refugees is unchanged since the last two rounds of assessment. In Round 32, 137,123 returnees were return refugees. The latest number included 82,689 from Cameroon, 33,413 from Niger and 22,264 from Chad.

3A: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT FOR RETURNEES

Thirty-seven per cent of returnees (same as previous round) stated 2016 as their year of displacement. Thirty per cent of returnees said they were displaced in the year 2015 (no change from the findings of the last round of assessment).

Table 3: Change in returnee population by State

11%

Grand Total 40 40 1,705,567 1,714,682 Increase 9,115 0.5% 100%

-0.1% 41%

Yobe 6 6 183,719 187,007 Increase 3,288 1.8%

6,800 0.8% 48%

Borno 18 18 709,500 708,527 Decrease -973

Adamawa 16 16 812,348 819,148 Increase

State R32 Accessed LGAs

R33 Accessed LGAs

R32 Total IND (June 2020)

R33 Total IND (August 2020)

Status Difference % DifferenceReturn Population in Percentages Per State3. RETURNEES

Return Assessments are not conducted in Bauchi, Taraba & Gombe

Borno

Borno

Taraba

BauchiAdamawa

Gombe

Plateau

Jigawa

Jigawa

Benue

Inaccessible LGA

Cameroon

Niger Lake Chad

Returnees from Abroad

Returnee IDPs

Returnees Total by State

187,007

708,527

819,148

Chad1% from

Niger2% from

Cameroon5% from

Lake Chad

95%

5%

±

187,007

708,527

819,148

90%

Abadam

Guzamala

NganzaiMarte

Kukawa

Yobe

10%

6%

94%

Map 6: Returnee population by State


Figure 32: Returnee population trend

Mill

ions

58,041 11,968

56,891

209,940

64,321

247,470

47,594 80,718 60,242

51,918

83,467 23,017

10,229

39,707 21,581 56,801

54,870

108,531

30,463 62,603

(84,638)

64,850 19,631

(23,529) (7,334)62,186 31,705

9,115

262,324 320,365 332,333

389,224

599,164 663,485

910,955 958,549

1,039,267

1,099,509 1,151,427

1,234,894

1,257,911

1,268,140 1,307,847

1,329,428

1,386,229

1,441,099 1,549,630

1,580,093

1,642,696

1,558,058

1,622,908 1,642,539

1,619,010

1,611,676

1,673,862

1,705,567 1,714,682

(0.2)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

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 FEB-20

Returnee population change from previous DTM assessment Total returnees

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

MAY-20 JUL-20

R 32 R 33

Figure 33: Year of displacement of returnees

YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT

RETU

RNED

INDI

VIDU

ALS

151,219

515,425

633,413

223,029

158,675

19,276 13,645

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

(9%) (9%)

(1%) (1%)

(30%)

(37%)

(13%)

18

3D: HEALTH FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

Unlike the situation in locations hosting IDPs, 65 per cent (up by 1%) of areas of returns assessed do not have access to health services. Lack of access to medical services is highest in Yobe at 70 per cent (same as last round), followed by Adamawa at 67 per cent and Borno at 60 per cent. In areas that do have access to health services, the most common type were primary health centers (77%) followed by mobile clinics (12%) and lastly general hospitals (11%).

3E: EDUCATION FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

In contrast with facilities at locations hosting displaced persons, educational facilities were present in 49 per cent (down from 51%) of locations where returnees were residing. Fifty-one per cent of locations had no education facilities. Availability of education services was 51 per cent (down by 4%) for Borno, 53 per cent (down by 3%) in Yobe and 46 per cent (down by 1%) in Adamawa.

3F: MARKET FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

Twenty-three per cent (no change since the last round of assessment) of sites where returnees have settled had markets nearby while 77 per cent had no market facilities. Twenty-two per cent (down by 1%) of markets were functional

3B: REASONS FOR INITIAL DISPLACEMENT OF RETURNEES

Ninety per cent (down 1% since the last round of assessment) attributed their displacement to the ongoing conflict in north-eastern Nigeria, 9 per cent (up by 1% from the last round of assessment) of returnees said they were displaced due to communal clashes and 1 per cent due to natural disasters.

Fifteen per cent (up from 14%) of returnees assessed in Adamawa were displaced due to communal clashes in the State. It would be interesting to note that Adamawa and Yobe are the States hosting returnees who were displaced by communal clashes and natural disasters. In Borno State, returnees were exclusively displaced by the conflict.

3C: SHELTER CONDITIONS FOR RETURNEES

Seventy-seven per cent (no change since the last round of assessment) of returnees resided in households with walls. This percentage was 82 per cent in Borno. Eighteen per cent were residing in traditional shelters and 5 per cent (no change) in emergency/makeshift shelters. Nine per cent (no change) of returnees in Borno were living in emergency/makeshift shelters and another 9 per cent living in traditional shelters.

Twenty-six per cent (down by 1%) of households were either fully or partially damaged and 74 per cent (up by 1%) were not damaged.

Figure 35: Shelter type of returned households in areas of return

73%

82%

71%

77%

3%

9%

4%

5%

25%

9%

25%

18%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

Grand Total

Wall Building (HHs) Emergency/makeshift shelters(HHs) Traditional shelters (HHs)

Figure 36: Shelter conditions of returned households

87%

63%

56%

74%

10%

30%

28%

20%

3%

7%

16%

6%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

Grand Total

No Damage (HH) Partially Damaged (HH) Fully Damaged (HH)

83%

100%

95%

90%

15%

4%

9%

2%

1%

1%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

Grand Total

Insurgency Communal Clashes Natural Disasters

Figure 34:Reasons for initial displacement of returnee

Figure 37: Availability of medical services in areas of return

67%

60%

70%

65%

33%40%

30%35%

ADAMAWA BORNO YOBE Grand Total

No Yes

Figure 38: Availability of education services in areas of return

46%

51%

53%

49%

54%

49%

47%

51%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

Grand Total

No Yes

Figure 39: Availability of market services in areas of return

77%

77%

79%

77%

23%

23%

21%

23%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

Grand Total

No Yes

19

The most common livelihood activity was farming at 97 per cent of sites, with only 1 per cent engaging in cattle rearing, fishing and petty trade, respectively.

Access to farmland showed a drop and was 94 per cent (down from 95% in the last round of assessment).

3G: PROFILE OF ASSISTANCE FOR RETURNEES

Out of 670 sites assessed, no assistance was reported in 29 per cent of sites (down by 1%). NFI support was the most common type of assistance provided, with 23 per cent (down from 25%) of sites reporting this kind of assistance.

3H: WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

WASH facilities were provided in 74 per cent of sites where returnees were residing (down 1% since the last round of assessment). No WASH facilities were present in 26 per cent of sites. Hand pumps were the most common WASH facility in areas of returns at 31 per cent (up from 27% in the last round of assessment), followed by communal boreholes at 29 per cent (down from 32%). The next most common WASH facility were communal wells at 11 per cent of sites.

Figure 41: Percentage of WASH facilities provided

31%

29%

26%

11%

2%

1%

Hand pump

Communal boreholes

No Wash Facilities

Communal wells

Public toilets

River

Figure 43: State-wise breakdown of returnees with access to farmland

3%

14%

6%

97%

86%

100%

94%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

Grand Total

No Yes

Figure 42: Means of livelihood of returnee population

97%

1% 1% 1%

Farming Petty Trading Fishing Cattle rearing

Figure 40: Percentage of assistance type received in areas of return

29%

23%

19%

11%

8%

4%

3%

3%

None

NFI

Food

Wash

Health

Shelter

Livelihood

Education

3I: LIVELIHOOD MEANS FOR RETURNEES

20

METHODOLOGYThe data collected in this report was obtained through the implementation of different DTM tools used by enumerators at various administrative levels. The type of respondent for each tool was different as each focuses on different population types:

TOOLS FOR IDPS

Local Government Area Profile ‐ IDP: This is an assessment conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of information collected at this level focuses on IDPs and includes: displaced population estimates (households and individuals), date of arrival, location of origin, reason(s) for displacement and type of displacement locations (host communities, camps, camp-like settings, etc.). The assessment also records the contact information of key informants and organizations assisting IDPs in the LGA. The main outcome of this assessment is a list of wards where IDP presence has been identified. This list will be used as a reference to continue the assessment at ward level (see “ward-level profile for IDPs”).

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 and individuals), time of arrival, location of origin, reason(s) for displacement and type of displacement locations. The assessment also includes information on displacement originating from the ward, as well as a demographic calculator based on a sample of assessed IDPs in host communities, camps and camp-like settings. The results of the ward level 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.

TOOLS FOR RETURNEES

Local Government Area Profile - Returnees: This is an assessment conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of information collected at this level focuses on returnees 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 of wards where returnee presence has been identified. This list will be used as a reference to continue the assessment at ward level (see “ward level profile for returnees”).

Ward level Profile ‐ Returnees: The ward level profile is an assessment that is conducted at the ward level. The type of information collected at this level focuses on returnees and includes information on: returnee population estimates (households and individuals), date of return, location of origin and reasons for initial displacement. The results of this type of assessment are used to verify the information collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all wards that had been identified as having returnee populations in the LGA list.

Data is collected via interviews with key informants such as representatives of the administration, community leaders, religious leaders and humanitarian aid workers. To ensure data accuracy, assessments are conducted and cross-checked with several key informants. The accuracy of the data also relies on the regularity and continuity of the assessments and field visits that are conducted every six weeks.

21

Cover Page Picture: Cross-section of female internally displaced persons (IDPs) at Boarding School Camp, Konduga LGA of Borno State.


“When quoting, paraphrasing, or in any other way using the information mentioned in this report, the source needs to be stated appropriately as follows: “Source: The International Organization for Migration [Month, Year], Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM).”

Contacts:

NEMA: Alhassan Nuhu, Director, Disaster Risk Reduction,[email protected]+234 803 5925 885

IOM: Henry Kwenin, Project Officer,

[email protected]

+234 903 8852 524

http://nigeria.iom.int/dtm

http://displacement.iom.int/nigeria

© IOM-DTM/2020

22

DTM Nigeria | Sectoral Analysis - Round 33 (August 2020)

Figure 12: Types of shelter Figure 13: Types of shelter

Figure 12a: Most needed shelter materials Figure 13a: Most needed shelter materials

Figure 12b: Need for Shelter Materials

Figure 14b: Most suporting Organization in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 15b: Most suporting Organization in Host Communities

Figure 13b: Need for Shelter MaterialsFigure 15a: Sites assesible by trucks for NFI Distribution

Figure 14a: Sites assesible by trucks for NFI Distribution

Host CommunitiesCamp/Camp-like Settings

SHELTER / NFIDTM

Nigeria

NFI

No

Yes

No

Yes

37%

35%

7%

6%

5%

5%

3%

1%

1%


Emergency shelter

Host family house

Government building

Individual house

School building

Rented house

Health facility

Community center

61%

25%

10%

3%

1%

Host family house

Rented house

Individual house


Government building

67%

14%

10%

4%

3%

1%

1%

1%

Tarpaulin

Timber/wood

None

Roofing sheets

Nails

Block/bricks

Thatches

Rope

25%

19%

19%

17%

15%

3%

1%

1%

Timber/wood

None

Tarpaulin

Roofing sheets

Block/bricks

Nails

Rope

Tools

10%

90%

97%

3%

Yes No

96%

4%

Yes No

19%

81%

42%

32%

18%

5%

2%

1%

INGO

UN

None

Government

Religious entity

Individual/Private

40%

25%

17%

9%

4%

4%

1%

Government

INGO

None

UN

Religious entity

Individual/Private

Local NGO

Go back.

23

Figure 16: Main drinking water sources

Figure 16a: Distance to main water sources Figure 17a: Distance to main water sources

Figure 17: Main drinking water sources

Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities

Figure 16c: Main problem with water Figure 17c: Main problem with water

Figure 16b: Average amount of water available per person per day Figure 17b: Average amount of water available per person per day

WASH DTMNigeria

51%

27%

8%

6%

5%

1%

1%

1%

Hand pumps

Piped water supply

Protected well

Unprotected well

Water truck

Surface water

Spring

Lake/dam

71%

17%

6%

3%

3%

Piped water supply

Hand pumps

Water truck

Protected well

Unprotected well

67%

80%

61%

72%

70%

63%

15%

20%

35%

14%

10%

30%

11%

2%

7%

10%

4%

7%

2%

7%

10%

3%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

On-site (<10 mn) Off-site (<10 mn) On-site (>10 mn) Off-site (>10 mn)

76%

96%

90%

71%

16%

94%

80%

5%

1%

4%

4%

55%

4%

8%

12%

3%

6%

24%

8%

1%

8%

7%

1%

21%

1%

4%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

On-site (<10 mn) Off-site (<10 mn) On-site (>10 mn) Off-site (>10 mn)

45%

60%

60%

29%

35%

55%

48%

20%

26%

64%

45%

31%

7%

20%

13%

7%

5%

12%

1%

15%

2%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

10-15 ltr >15 ltr 5-10 ltr <5 ltr

67%

40%

38%

60%

54%

17%

44%

28%

47%

29%

30%

35%

55%

37%

5%

9%

29%

10%

11%

21%

15%

3%

4%

2%

2%

1%

5%

1%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

10-15ltr >15ltr 5-10ltr >15 ltr <5ltr

96%

3%

1%

None

Taste

Color

87%

10%

2%

1%

None

Taste

Suspended solids

Odor/smell

Go back.

24


Figure 18b: Main garbage disposal mechanism in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 19a: Condition of toilets in host communities Figure 18a: Condition of toilets in Camps/Camp-like settings

Figure 17d: Differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water in Host Communities

Figure 16d: Differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 17e: Have Water Points been Improved in Host CommunitiesFigure 16e: Have Water Points been Improved in Camp and Camp-like settings?

Personal Hygiene Facilities

Figure 18c: Targeted hygiene promotioncampaign in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 19b: Main garbage disposal mechanism in Host Communities

Figure 19c: Targeted hygiene promotioncampaign in Host Communities

Burning No waste disposal system Garbage pitBurning No waste disposal system Garbage pit

Yes

No

Yes

No

67%

60%

90%

79%

100%

87%

33%

40%

10%

21%

13%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

No Yes

22%

22%

82%

41%

51%

68%

49%

78%

78%

18%

59%

49%

32%

51%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

No Yes

56%

60%

43%

21%

45%

44%

44%

40%

57%

79%

55%

56%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

No Yes

35%

44%

55%

75%

50%

22%

44%

65%

56%

45%

25%

50%

78%

56%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

No Yes

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBEGrandTotal

Non usable 0% 0% 1% 14% 5% 1%

Good (Hygienic) 22% 0% 9% 29% 0% 11%

Not so good (Not hygienic) 78% 100% 90% 57% 95% 88%

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBEGrandTotal

Non usable 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 1%Good (Hygienic) 8% 0% 5% 0% 6% 1% 4%Not so good (Not hygienic) 90% 100% 95% 100% 93% 96% 95%

72%

15%

13%

70%

30%

40%

60%

66%

21%

13%

Go back.

25

Figure 20: Access to food in Camps/Camp-like settings

Figure 20a: Frequency of food or cash distribution in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 21a: Frequency of food or cash distribution in Host Communities

Figure 21: Access to food in Host Communities

Host CommunitiesCamps/camp-like settings

Figure 20b: Most common source of obtaining food in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 21b: Most common source of obtaining food in Host Communities

Figure 20c: Duration of last received food support in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 21c: Duration of last received food support in Host Communities

DTMNigeriaFOOD / NUTRITION

67%60%

34%21%

85%

40%

11%40%

47%

43%

15%

42%

22% 19%

36%

18%



46%

83%

46%

6%

65% 67%54%

19%

16%

29%

24%

23%29%

23%

35%

1%

25%

70%

12%4%

23%




Everyday 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Once a week 4% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2%

Never 11% 0% 18% 36% 0% 16%

Once a month 0% 0% 45% 0% 30% 37%

Irregular 78% 100% 35% 64% 70% 44%

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand TotalOnce a week 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Everyday 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Once a month 6% 0% 20% 0% 0% 18% 9%

Never 28% 1% 23% 4% 68% 5% 19%

Irregular 66% 94% 55% 96% 32% 77% 70%

37%

60%

58%

57%

35%

55%

4%

40%

22%

25%

34%

48%

40%

2%

7%

30%

8%

7%

7%

10%

2%

4%

7%

1%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

Cash (personal money) Distribution Cultivated Host community donation None

71%

56%

27%

63%

40%

39%

49%

20%

38%

57%

32%

45%

38%

38%

1%

1%

16%

2%

1%

17%

8%

7%

5%

3%

12%

5%

5%

1%

2%

1%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

Cultivated Cash (personal money) Distribution Host community donation None


6-9 months 5% 5% 3% 18% 1% 5% 6%

10-12 months 10% 2% 3% 6% 0% 14% 6%

4-6months 10% 25% 10% 33% 1% 12% 15%

1yr and above 32% 1% 29% 29% 27% 12% 21%

None 35% 1% 25% 4% 70% 12% 23%

1-3 months 8% 66% 30% 10% 1% 45% 29%


10-12 months 15% 0% 4% 0% 10% 5%

6-9 months 11% 20% 4% 0% 10% 6%

4-6months 4% 20% 7% 29% 5% 8%

1yr and above 30% 0% 12% 14% 20% 14%

None 22% 0% 19% 36% 0% 18%

1-3 months 18% 60% 54% 21% 55% 49%

Go back.

26

Figure 22a: Location of health facilities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 23a: Location of health facilities in Host Communities

Figure 22b: Common health problems in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 23b: Common health problems in Host Communities

Figure 23c: Main provider of health facilities in Host Communities Figure 22c: Main provider of health facilities in Camps/Camp-like settings

DTMNigeriaHEALTH



Mobile clinic 4% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2%

On-site (> 3 km) 11% 40% 2% 14% 10% 5%

Off-site (> 3 km) 0% 0% 5% 14% 10% 5%

On-site (< 3 km) 59% 0% 26% 36% 35% 30%

Off-site (< 3 km) 26% 60% 65% 36% 45% 58%


Mobile clinic 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

None 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%

Off-site (> 3 km) 4% 2% 6% 9% 21% 8% 7%

On-site (> 3 km) 16% 7% 4% 4% 4% 4% 7%

Off-site (< 3 km) 12% 11% 39% 10% 67% 15% 23%

On-site (< 3 km) 66% 80% 50% 77% 7% 72% 62%


Skin disease 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0%

Malnutrition 0% 0% 1% 7% 0% 1%

Diarrhea 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2%

Cough 11% 20% 11% 0% 10% 10%

Fever 22% 0% 18% 36% 30% 20%

Malaria 67% 80% 68% 50% 60% 67%


RTI 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%

Malnutrition 0% 1% 0% 5% 9% 1% 2%

Hepatitis 9% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%

Diarrhea 3% 3% 4% 9% 4% 7% 5%

Cough 9% 4% 15% 9% 7% 6% 9%

Fever 19% 20% 17% 17% 27% 13% 18%

Malaria 60% 72% 63% 58% 52% 71% 64%

11%

57%

30%

47%

63%

100%

35%

79%

50%

41%

11%

7%

7%

15%

1%

21%

15%

4%

5%

1%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

INGO Government NGO Local clinic None

80%

93%

73%

89%

59%

87%

81%

15%

7%

3%

10%

40%

6%

11%

2%

21%

1%

4%

6%

3%

3%

1%

2%

2%

1%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

Government Local clinic INGO NGO None

Go back.

27

Figure 24a: Access to formal/informal education services in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 25a: Access to formal/informal education services in Host Communities

Figure 24c: Distance to nearest education faciliities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 25c:Distance to nearest education facilities in Host Communities

Figure 24b: Location of formal/informal education facilities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 25b: Location of formal/informal education facilities in Host Communities


Figure 24: Percentage of children attending school in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 25: Percentage of children attending school in Host Communities

DTMNigeriaEDUCATION


>75% 18% 0% 0% 14% 0% 3%

None 11% 0% 3% 7% 5% 4%

51% - 75% 15% 100% 26% 14% 0% 24%

<25% 37% 0% 28% 29% 50% 30%

25% -50% 19% 0% 43% 36% 45% 39%

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand TotalNone 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 1%

>75% 10% 8% 0% 10% 3% 5% 6%

<25% 21% 5% 16% 8% 39% 17% 17%

51% - 75% 41% 57% 35% 29% 22% 35% 38%

25% -50% 27% 30% 48% 53% 34% 41% 38%


No 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Yes 96% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


No 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Yes 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100%


None 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1%

On-site 55% 60% 28% 43% 65% 34%

Off-site 41% 40% 71% 57% 35% 65%


None 6% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2%

Off-site 17% 6% 37% 5% 91% 12% 25%

On-site 77% 94% 62% 95% 8% 87% 73%


<5km 11% 0% 3% 0% 15% 4%

<2km 26% 80% 21% 21% 25% 23%

<1km 63% 20% 76% 79% 60% 73%

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total<10km 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

>10km 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1%

<5km 3% 2% 3% 0% 9% 3% 3%

<2km 48% 30% 20% 14% 45% 19% 29%

<1km 48% 68% 77% 86% 41% 78% 67%

Go back.

28

Figure 27a: Most important topic for IDPs

Figure 26d: Most Preferred channel of communication Figure27d: Most Preferred channel of communication

DTMNigeriaCOMMUNICATION

Figure 27: Most trusted source of information for IDPsFigure 26: Most trusted source of information for IDPs

Figure 26a: Most important topic for IDPs

Feedback (positive ornegative) about theservices in the site

Information aboutneeds in the community

Information about yourexperience

Figure 27b: Access to functioning radio Figure 26b: Access to functioning radio

Figure 27c: Type of Information willing to share with Aid Organizations

Figure 26c: Type of Information willing to share with Aid Organizations

Feedback (positive ornegative) about theservices in the site

Information about needsin the community


Few Most None Almost all Few Most Almost all None

5%

95%76%

18%

5% 1%1%

8%

91%

56%29%

6%4% 3%

1% 1%


Local leader/Community leader

Aid worker

Religious leader

Government official

Traditional leader

Military official

39%

34%

15%

5%5%

2%


Local leader/Communityleader

Religious leader

Aid worker

Traditional leader

Government official

48%

23%

11%

10%

7%

1%

Distribution

Access to services

Situation in areas of origin

Other relief assistance

Safety and security

None

40%

16%

15%

13%

12%

2%

1%

1%

Distribution

Situation in areas of origin

Safety and security

Other relief assistance

Access to services

Registration

Shelter

How to get information

86%

12%

1% 1%

51%

34%

6%

5%

4%

Radio

Word of mouth

Telephone voice call

Community meetings

Loudspeakers

55%

32%

9%

4%

Radio

Word of mouth

Telephone voice call

Community meetings

Go back.

29

Figure 28: Livelihood activities of IDPs Figure 29: Livelihood activities of IDPs

Figure 28a: Access to Land for Cultivation Figure 29a: Access to Land for Cultivation

Figure 28b: Livestock on site Figure 29b: Livestock on site

Figure 28c: Sites with access to income generating activities Figure 29c: Sites with access to income generating activities


DTMNigeriaLIVELIHOOD

38%

26%

25%

5%

4%

1%

1%

Petty trade

Daily labourer

Farming

Agro-pastorialism

Collecting firewood

Pastorialism

Fishing

60%

15%

14%

5%

2%

2%

2%

Farming

Petty trade

Daily labourer

Agro-pastoralism

Pastorialism

Fishing

Collecting firewood

57%

43%No

Yes

No

Yes

No

YesNo

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

3%

97%

13%

87%

4%

96%

4%

96%

16%

84%

Go back.

30

Figure 30: Security provided on-site

Figure 30a: Main security providers

Figure 30b: Most common type of security incidents Figure 31b: Most common type of security incidents

Figure 31a: Main security providers

Figure 31: Security provided on-site


DTMNigeriaPROTECTION

51%

17%

16%

8%

5%

2%

1%

Self organized

Military

None

Police

Local Authorities

Community Leaders

Religious Leaders

26%

23%

16%

13%

12%

10%

Local Authorities

Police

Self organized

None

Community Leaders

Military

91%

4%

3%

1%

1%

None

Theft

Friction among site residents

Armed conflict

Friction with host community

56%

11%

14%

30%

16%

44%

100%

89%

86%

70%

84%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

No Yes

22%

4%

9%

1%

14%

24%

13%

78%

96%

91%

99%

86%

76%

87%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

No Yes

75%

14%

5%

3%

2%

1%

None

Theft

Friction with host community

Crime

Friction among site residents

Alcohol/drug-related disturbance

Go back.

DISPLACEMENT REPORT 33: North East Nigeria

Documents