IOM NIGERIA DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX (DTM)

IOM NIGERIADISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX (DTM)

NORTH EAST NIGERIA

DISPLACEMENT REPORT 34 | NOVEMBER 2020

DTMNigeria

2

Nigeria North East Zone | Displacement Report Round 34 (November 2020)

CONTENTS

Executive Summary 3

Background 3

Overview: DTM Round 34 Assessments 4

Key highlights 5

1. BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT 6

1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH EAST NIGERIA 8

1B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 8

1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT 8

1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT 8

1E: MOBILITY 8

1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS 9

1G: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF THE DISPLACED POPULATIONS 9

1H: UNMET NEEDS IN IDP SETTLEMENTS 9

2. SITE ASSESSMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS 10

2A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPs 10

2B: SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATION 11

2C: SECTOR ANALYSIS 12

3. RETURNEES 16

3A: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT FOR RETURNEES16

3B: REASONS FOR INITIAL DISPLACEMENT OF RETURNEES 17

3C: SHELTER CONDITIONS FOR RETURNEES 17

3D: HEALTH FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 17

3E: EDUCATION FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 17

3F: MARKET FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 17

3G: PROFILE OF ASSISTANCE FOR RETURNEES 18

3H: WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 18

3I: LIVELIHOOD FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 18

4. METHODOLOGY 20

Tools for IDPs 20

Tools for Returnees 20

3


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report, which presents results from Round 34 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 Nigeria’ North East Geopolitical Zone. The report covers the period from 21 September to 10 October 2020 and reflects trends from the six most affected north-eastern states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe.

In Round 34, 2,144,135 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) or 441,361 households were recorded as displaced, an increase of 25,585 individuals (1%) against the last assessment (Round 33) published in September 2020 when 2,118,550 IDPs were recorded as displaced. The Round 33 numbers were also 2 per cent higher than IDPs identified in Round 32 which was conductedin June 2020. The number is also marginally higher than the figure reported in Round 31 which was conducted in February 2020when 2,046,604 IDPs were identified, confirming a plateauing in displacement trends. Prior to Round 31, the December 2019 assessment had recorded 2,039,092 IDPs.

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 than it had been for Rounds 25 and prior. 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 — 116,018displaced persons — during this round of assessments. The information collated and analysed in this report includes the reasonsfor displacement, places of origin and shelter types, mobility patterns, and unfulfilled needs of the displaced populations. Additionally, site assessments were conducted in 2,391 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 2,388 in the last Round33 of assessment that was conducted in August 2020). The purpose was to better understand the gaps in services provided andthe needs of the affected population. These locations included 306 (up from 300 in Round 33) camps and camp-like settings hosting IDPs and 2,085 sites where the displaced persons were residing with host communities (slight decrement since last round of assessment when 2,088 such host community sites were assessed). Site assessments included an analysis of sectorwide needs, including shelter and non- food items, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), food and nutrition, health, education, livelihood, security, communication and protection.

Also, a total of 1,736,849 returnees were recorded in the DTM Round 34 assessment, an increment of 22,167 (1%) as againstthe 1,714,682 returnees that were recorded in the last assessment (Round 33) conducted in August 2020. The number confirmsan increasing trend in numbers of returnees that has continued throughout 2020. This report includes analyses of the increasing number of returnees, profiles, time and reasons 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 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 34 assessments were carried out from 16 October to 6 November 2020 in 107 LGAs (no change from the last round of assessment). Within the 107 accessible LGAs, the assessments were conducted in 791 wards (no change since 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, 2,144,135 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) or 441,361 households were recorded as displaced, an increase of 25,585 persons (1%) against the last assessment (Round 33) conducted in August 2020 when 2,118,550 IDPs were recorded.

The number is also marginally higher than the figures reported in Round 32 and Round 31 which were conducted in June and February 2020, respectively, when 2,088,124 and 2,046,604 IDPs were identified, indicating an increasing trend since a dip was noted 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.

The number of wards assessed by DTM remained unchanged in this Round 34 at 791. Borno’s Guzamala, Kukawa and Nganzia LGAs continue to remain completely inaccessible. For this reason, the continuous high numbers of IDPs despite limited accessibility are an indication that actual displacement numbers could be higher.

Before the decrement in accessibility, only two LGAs namely, Abadam and Marte were inaccessible during the 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. While it went down by one ward in the last two rounds of assessments.

Before the reduction in accessibility due to the 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.

BornoYobe

Taraba

Bauchi

AdamawaPlateau

Jigawa

Benue

Gombe

Kano

Nasarawa

Cross River

Katsina

Bali

Toro

Fune

Ibi

Biu

Gashaka

Bama

Ningi

Gassol

AlkaleriSong

Toungo

Fufore

Kurmi

Damboa

Konduga

Kukawa

Tarmua

Gujba

Dukku

Mafa

Ganjuwa

Jada

Wukari

Fika

Bauchi

Kirfi

Bursari

Kaga

Marte

Geidam

Hong

Akko

Abadam

Sardauna

Yusufari

Magumeri

Donga

Zaki

Karim-LamidoLau

GwozaDarazo

Yunusari

Jakusko

Takum

Mobbar

Gamawa

Ganye

Gulani

Gombi

Hawul

Dikwa

Ussa

Nganzai

Shira

Guzamala

Ngala

Girei

Damaturu

Zing

Nafada

Ardo-Kola

Chibok

ShaniBayo

Tafawa-Balewa

Misau

Dass

Warji

Bogoro

Kwami

Yorro

Askira/Uba

Demsa

Balanga

Monguno

JereKala/Balge

Mayo-Belwa

Funakaye

Itas/Gadau

Machina

Katagum

Billiri

Yamaltu/DebaGombe

Shelleng

Karasuwa

Damban

Nguru

Giade

Kaltungo

Nangere

LamurdeNuman

Guyuk

Bade

Yola SouthYola North

Shomgom

Bade

Potiskum

Kwaya Kusar

Jama'are

Jalingo

Maiduguri

±

DTM Accessibility

AccessiblePartially accessibleHard to reach ward Hard to reach LGA

Cameroon

Niger Chad

Lake Chad

0 390 780195 Km

Michika

Mubi North

Mubi South

Maiha

Madagali

Lake Chad

Gubio

OVERVIEW: DTM ROUND 34 ASSESSMENTS

Map1: LGA Coverage of DTM Round 34 Assessments

The names and boundaries shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official

endorsement or acceptance by IOM | Data source: DTM, HDX, ESRI

5


±

Taraba

Bauchi

Gombe

Plateau

Jigawa

Benue

Chad

1% from

Cameroon1% from

94%

6%

191,126

93%

7%

726,454

89%

11%

819,269

Abadam

1% from Niger 1% from Niger

Chad

Niger

Cameroon

Chad

Chad1% from

Lake Chad

0 70 14035 Km

Hard to reach LGA

Returnees from abroad

Returnee IDPs

Returnees Total by State

176,201

631,722

803,753

GuzamalaKukawa

Nganzai

Marte

Yobe

Borno

Adamawa

53%Female

Displaced Individuals Returned Individuals

47%Male

23%Childrenunder 6 Y

80%Women and Children

54%Female

46%Male

17%Childrenunder 6 Y

71%Women and Children

52%Returned within

the States

40%Returned from

other States

1%decrease in return population from DTM R33

8%Fled to

neighbouring countries before

return

1%increase in

displaced population from

DTM R33

89%Displaced within the States

IDP and Returnee population trend

11%Displaced from different States

2,144,135 1,736,849

From ADAMAWA: 150,540


From BAUCHI: 40,042

From OTHER STATES: 262,126

From ABROAD: 144,314

From TARABA: 78,973

From BORNO: 515,163

From GOMBE: 138,369

From YOBE: 104,941

From BORNO: 1,772,407

TO ADAMAWA: 209,125

TO ADAMAWA: 819,269

TO BORNO: 726,454

TO YOBE: 191,126

TO GOMBE: 39,266

TO TARABA: 91,525

TO BAUCHI: 64,985

TO YOBE: 143,417

TO BORNO: 1,595,817

From BAUCHI: 3,079From OTHER STATES: 16,661

From TARABA: 82,224

From YOBE: 114,350

Jigawa

Katsina

Kano

Plateau

Nasarawa

Benue

Cross River

Niger

Chad

Cameroon

Lake Chad

Nganzai

Marte

Abadam

KukawaGuzamala

±

91%

9%

Yobe

143,417

Borno

55%

45%

92%8%

Adamawa

Taraba

18%

82%

100%

Gombe

97%3%

Bauchi

64,985

1,595,817

209,125

91,525

39,266

Lake Chad

0 140 200Km70

Hard to reach LGA

Less than 101,000101,001 - 135,000135,001 - 205,000Above 205,000

IDPs in Camps &Camp-like settings

CommunitiesIDPs in Host

Water bodies

IDP Population by State

Milli

ons

1,188,018 1,491,706

1,385,298

2,150,451

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-

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

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

Nov-

20

R34

IDPs RETURNEES

389,281

332,333

320,365

389,224 59

9,164

663,485 91

0,955

958,549

1,039,267

1,151,427

1,099,509

1,234,894

1,268,140

1,257,911

1,307,847

1,329,428

1,386,229

1,441,099

1,549,630

1,580,093

1,642,696

1,558,058

1,642,539

1,622,908

1,619,010

1,611,676

1,611,676

1,705,567

1,714,682

2,144,135

1,736,849

262,324

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

The names and boundaries shown and the designations used on the map shown on this page do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by IOM | Data source: DTM, HDX, ESRI

6


1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH EAST NIGERIA

The estimated number of IDPs identified during Round 34 of DTM assessments in conflict-affected North-eastern states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe was 2,144,135 or 44,361 households.

The number represents an increase of 25,585 persons (1%) vis-à-vis the last assessment (Round 33) conducted in August 2020 when 2,118,550 IDPs were recorded as displaced. The Round 33 number was only 1 per cent more than the number recorded in Round 32.

The assessment is in-line with a recent trend of total IDPs slowly inching up over the last few assessments. In Round 32 conducted in June 2020, 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.

The analysis shows that IDPs oftentimes travel across LGA borders. Seventy per cent of IDPs were displaced to an LGA other than their LGA of origin. Thirty per cent of IDPs were displaced within their LGA of origin.

The most conflict-affected State of Borno continued to host the highest number of IDPs at 1,595,817, an increment of 29,806 persons or less than 2 per cent from the 1,566,011, displaced persons that were recorded in the last round of assessment. It is now home to 74 per cent of all IDPs in northeast Nigeria. The fact that the number of displaced persons in Borno has plateaued instead of decreasing, all while the States’s most populous LGAs of Guzamala, Kukawa and Nganzai were not accessible, is an indicator of continued insecurity and mobility in the region.

During this round of assessment, Jere LGA of Borno recorded an increase in the number of IDPs from 275,430 to 288,114, i.e., 12,684 individuals (up 5%). The increment was a result of influx of IDPs and discovery of a new camp that was hitherto not accessed.

Maiduguri Metropolitan Council, Borno’s capital city, continued to host the highest number of IDPs among all LGAs in the State. It also saw the second highest increase in IDP numbers among all LGAs with the numbers going up from 297,465 to 304,501 (an increase of 7,036 IDPs) due to new arrivals from Gajiganna, Gubio and Tungushe axis and some other LGAs due to poor living conditions in locations of origin and fear of attacks. The third highest increase in IDP numbers was in Magumeri where 29,953 (up by 2,404) IDPs were recorded due to an influx of IDPs from Titiwa, Furram, Felo and Borno Yeso wards of Magumeri LGA. On the other hand, frequent attacks led to reduction in the number of IDPs in Konduga (down by 2% to 139,317) during this round of assessment.

Among the other five states that were assessed, only Adamawa recorded a notable change in the number of IDPs with a 2 per cent or 4,342 decrease to 209,125. But the decrement did not change its status as the State with the second highest number of IDPs. It continues to be home to 10 per cent of all IDPs. The reduction in the number of displaced persons in Adamawa was largely on account of people moving back to their place of origin, and closure of a camp and some sites in Guyuk LGA of Adamawa.

The changes in IDP numbers in other states were not significant. Yobe which has the third highest number of IDPs (7% of all IDPs), recorded an increase of less than a per cent or 992 persons, bringing the number of IDPs in the state to 143,417. The change was largely because of increase in the number of IDPs in Gujba LGA on account of movement to access land for farming as the rainy season began as well as an influx from Konduga LGA of Borno due to insecurity.

Taraba which has the fourth highest population of IDPs at 91,525 or 4 per cent, saw a decrease in number of IDPs by 1 per cent. The change was largely on account of displaced persons returning to their place of origin for the purpose of farming activities.

1.BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT

Figure 1: IDP population by round of DTM assessment

1,49

1,70

61,

385,

298

2,23

9,74

9

2,15

1,97

9

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

1,88

4,33

11,

825,

321

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

62,

018,

513

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

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

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

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

Nov-

20

R34

Mill

ion

389,

281

1,18

8,01

8

2,15

0,45

1

2,14

4,13

5

7


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

Hong

Sardauna

Yusufari

Magumeri

Zaki

Donga

Karim-LamidoLau

Gubio

GwozaDarazo

Yunusari

Jakusko

Takum

Mobbar

Gamawa

Gulani

Ganye

Gombi

Hawul

Dikwa

Ussa

Shira

Ngala

Girei

Damaturu

Zing

Nafada

Ardo-Kola

Chibok

Shani

Jere

Bayo

Funakaye

Tafawa-Balewa

Misau

Dass

Damban

Warji

Bogoro

KwamiAskira/Uba

Yorro

Demsa

MaihaBalanga

Kala/Balge

Mayo-Belwa

Itas/Gadau

Machina

Katagum

Billiri

Yamaltu/Deba

Shelleng

Karasuwa

Giade

Nguru

Kaltungo

Nangere

LamurdeNuman

Guyuk

Bade

Michika

Madagali

Yola South

Shomgom

Mubi North

Bade

Potiskum

Kwaya Kusar

Mubi South

Jama'are

Jalingo

Maiduguri

Gombe

Yobe

Borno

Adamawa

Gombe

Bauchi

Jigawa

Katsina

Kano

Plateau

Nasarawa

Benue

Cross River

Taraba

Niger

Chad

Cameroon

Lake Chad

Nganzai Monguno

Marte

Abadam

KukawaGuzamala

Hard to reach LGA

Water Bodies

IDP Population by LGALess than 6,743

6,743 - 19,363

19,364 - 39,143

39,144 - 158,362

More than 158,3630 100 20050 Km

±

Lake Chad

Map 2: IDP distribution by LGA

Table 1: Change in internally displaced population by State

State Count of LGAs R33 Total (July 2020)

R34 Total

Status Difference

ADAMAWA 21 213,467 209,125 Decrease -4,342

BAUCHI 20 64,632 64,985 Increase 353

BORNO 22 1,566,011 1,595,817 Increase 29,806

GOMBE 11 39,205 39,266 Increase 61

TARABA 16 92,810 91,525 Decrease -1,285

YOBE 17 142,425 143,417 Increase 992

GRAND TOTAL 107 2,118,550 2,144,135 Increase 25,585

R34 Total (September 2020)

The names and boundaries shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by IOM | Data source: DTM, HDX, ESRI

8


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 August 2020. The ongoing conflict in north-eastern Nigeria continued to be the main reason for displacement (92% - same as in the last

two Rounds of assessments), 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 34 assessment.

1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT

The year during which the highest percentage of IDPs were displaced remained 2015, (25% - 1% decrease since the 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). Eight per cent (down by 1%) of displacements took place in 2019 on account of increased insecurity, communal clashes, and natural disasters (no change since the last round of assessment) and 5 per cent so far in 2020.

1E: MOBILITY Among IDPs living in camps and camp-like settings, 61 per cent of respondents said they were displaced once, 29 per cent said they were displaced two times, 8 per cent said they were displaced three times and 1 per cent said they were displaced four times. In the most affected State of Borno, 64 per cent of displaced person living in camp and camp-like settings were displaced once, 29 per cent were displaced two times and 7 per cent were displaced three times.

Seventy-two per cent of displaced persons residing with host communities said that they were displaced once, 24 per cent said they were displaced two times, 3 per cent said they were displaced three times and 1 per cent said they were displaced four times. The corresponding percentages for Borno were 54, 38, 7 and 1 per cent, respectively.

Figure 4: Percentage of IDPs by reason of displacement

92%

7%1%

Insurgency Communal Clashes Natural Disaster

Figure 5: Year of displacement by State

17%

25%

18%16%

11%8%

5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Before 2015 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020State Grand Total

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

2%

2%

9%

1%

1%

2%

17%

2%

1%

20%

0%

1%

1%

25%

2%

0%

15%

0%

0%

1%

18%

2%

0%

13%

0%

0%

1%

16%

1%

0%

8%

0%

1%

1%

11%

1%

0%

5%

0%

1%

1%

8%

0%

0%

4%

0%

0%

1%

5%

10%

3%

74%

2%

4%

7%

100%

Figure 3: Proportion of IDP population by age groups

Children(0 - 17 years)

Adults(18 - 59 years)

Elderly(60+ years)

56%

35%

9%

Figure 2: Age and demographic dreakdown of IDPs

4%

7%

16%

17%

4%

5%

8%

18 %

18%

3%

Female 53%Male 47%

less than 1

1-5

6-17

18-59

60+

Borno

Yobe

Taraba

Bauchi

Adamawa

Gombe

97%3%

87%

13%35%

65%

24%

7%69%

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


9


1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS

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

After Borno, Adamawa is the place of origin for the second largest number of IDPs (7%), followed by Yobe at 5 per cent. But as has been the trend, most displaced persons remain within their State or LGA. Only 3 per cent of IDPs in Adamawa said their place of origin was Borno. Likewise, 2 per cent of IDPs in Yobe said they belonged to Borno.

1G: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS

The majority of IDPs (57%) were living with host communities (Figure 8) during the Round 34 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 (55%) is higher than that of individuals living with host communities. This percentage is a slight increase since the last round of assessment when 54 per cent of displaced persons in Borno were living in camps and camp-like settings. 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 two rounds of assessments).

Non-food items (NFIs) were cited as the second highest unfulfilled need by 12 per cent (same as the last two rounds of assessments). 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

92%

97%

45%

100%

82%

91%

57%

8%

3%

55%

18%

9%

43%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

Host Community Camp/Camp-like settings

Figure 8: IDP settlement type by State

76%

12%

5%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

Food

NFI

Shelter

Medical services

Drinking water

Water for washing and cooking

Security

Sanitation and Hygiene

83%

74%

10%

2%

3%

7%

4%

7%

0.2%0.8%

5%

4%

State of displacementState of origin Total IDPs

TOTAL IDPs: 2,144,135

TO BORNO: 1,595,817

TO ADAMAWA: 209,125

TO GOMBE: 39,266

TO BAUCHI: 64,985

TO YOBE: 143,417

TO TARABA: 91,525


From BORNO: 1,777,281

From BAUCHI: 3,079

From OTHERS: 16,661

From TARABA: 82,224

From YOBE: 114,350

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

48%

87%

9%

80%

32%

49%

20%

34%

13%

58%

20%

16%

16%

49%

5%

30%

48%

31%

27%

13%

3%

4%

4%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

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

IDP population,by State of origin

Displacementpattern

Less than 18,000

Greater than 18,000

More than 140,000

Borno

Taraba

Bauchi

Kogi

Kaduna

Edo

Zamfara

Kano

Adamawa

Jigawa

Plateau

Nasarawa

Benue

Katsina

Gombe

Cross River

Enugu

Abia

Ebonyi

Anambra

FCT

Nigeria

95%

98%

90%

81%

1%2%

1%

1%

2%

2%1%

1%

3%

1%

7%

3%11%

100%100%

100%

100%100%

Yobe

Map 4: Origin of IDPs and location of displacement


10


2. SITE ASSESSMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS

Jigawa

Katsina

Kano

Plateau

Nasarawa

Benue

Cross River

Niger

Chad

Cameroon

Lake Chad

Nganzai

Marte

Abadam

KukawaGuzamala

±

91%

9%

Yobe

143,417

Borno

55%

45%

92%8%

Adamawa

Taraba

18%

82%

100%

Gombe

97%3%

Bauchi

64,985

1,595,817

209,125

91,525

39,266

Lake Chad

0 140 200Km70

Hard to reach LGA

Less than 101,000101,001 - 135,000135,001 - 205,000Above 205,000

IDPs in Camps &Camp-like settings

CommunitiesIDPs in Host

Water bodies

IDP Population by State

Map 5: IDPs distribution by state and major site type

2A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPS

DTM Round 34 site assessments were conducted in 2,392 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 2,388 in the last Round 33 of assessment that was conducted in August 2020).

The purpose was to better understand the gaps in services provided and the needs of the affected population. These assessed locations included 307 (up from 300 and 293 in the last two rounds of assessments, respectively) camps and camp-like settings and 2,085 sites (slight increase from 2,082 sites that were assessed in the last round of assessment) where IDPs were residing with host communities.


11


2B: SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATION

Nearly all sites were classified as spontaneous and less than 2 per cent were planned. Most sites were classified as collective settlement/centers (58%) and rest were camps (42%).

Most IDPs living with host communities resided in private buildings (90%). Five per cent were dwelling in in public

structures and 4 per cent in ancestral homes. Camps were located on publicly owned land (50%), followed by private buildings in 49 per cent of sites and ancestral in less than 1 per cent.

IDP Population by Settlement Type

Site Type Site Classi�cation

Camp/Camp-like settings Host Community

Land ownership

Land ownership

43% 57%

2%

98%

PlannedSpontaneous

58%

CampCollective Settlement/Centre

Transitional Centre

41%

1%

90%

5%

5%

PrivateBuilding

PublicGovernment

Ancestral

50%

49%

1%

Public Government

Private Building

Ancestral

Figure 9: IDP settlement type by state

# IDPs # Sites % Sites # IDPs # SitesAdamawa 16,251 26 8% 192,874 460 22% 209,125 486Bauchi 1,646 5 2% 63,339 370 18% 64,985 375Borno 874,626 241

O O79% 721,191 459 22% 1,595,817 700

Gombe 0% 39,266 202 10% 39,266 202Taraba 16,036 14 5% 75,489 205 10% 91,525 219Yobe 13,280 21 7% 130,137 389 19% 143,417 410Grand Total 921,839 307 100% 1,222,296 2,085 100% 2,144,135 2,392

StateCamps/Camp-like settings Host Communities

Total Number of IDPs% Sites

Table 3: Number of sites by settlement type and distribution of IDPs by settlement type, by State

12


2C: SECTOR ANALYSISCAMP COORDINATION AND CAMP MANAGEMENTIn the Round 34 DTM assessment, out of the 307 camps and camp-like sites assessed, a high of 89 per cent (up from 84%) were informal sites while the remaining were formal. Furthermore, 56 per cent of sites do not have a site management agency (SMA, up from 43%).

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 38 per cent (up by 1%), followed by emergency shelters at 34 per cent (down by 1 since the last round of assessment).

For more analysis, click here.

Host Communities

Sixty-three per cent of all IDPs living with host communities were living in a host family’s house (increase from 62% reported in the last round of assessment). This was followed by rented houses at 21 per cent (down from 25%), and individual houses at 12 per cent (up from 10% since the last round of assessment).


NON-FOOD ITEMS (NFIS)

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 56 per cent which is 3 per cent more than the last round of assessment.


Host Communities

Likewise in host communities, blankets/mats were the most needed NFI at 40 per cent (up from 37%) followed by mosquito nets (22%, up from 19%), mattress at 16 per cent (down by 1%) and kitchen sets (12% - down by 2% from the last round of assessment).


Figure 10: Presence and type of camp management agency

89%

11%

Informal

Formal

56%

44%

no SMA SMA presence SMA types

56%

16%

13%

10%4%

1%

None

ingo

un

government

local ngo

religious_entity

Figure 11: Types of shelter in camps/camp-like settings

38%

34%

7%

7%

5%

4%

3%

1%

1%

Self-made/makeshiftshelter

Emergency Shelter

GovernmentBuidling

Host family house

school building

individual house

rented house

Community Center

school_building Figure 13: Number of camp sites with most needed type of NFI

56%

18%

10%

9%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

Blankets/Mats

Mosquito nets

Kitchen sets

Mattress

Hygiene kits

Soap

Solar lamps

Bucket/Jerry Can

Others

Figure 12: Types of shelter in host community sites

63%

22%

12%

3%

Host family house

Rented house

Individual house

Others

Figure 14: Number of host community sites with most needed type of NFI

40%

22%

16%

12%

4%

3%

2%

1%

Blankets/Mats

Mosquito nets

Mattress

Kitchen sets

Hygiene kits

Soap

Bucket/Jerry Can

Solar lamps

13


WASH: WATER RESOURCES

Camp and camp-like settings:

Piped water was the main source of water in 68 per cent (down from 71%) of sites where IDPs are residing in camps and camp-like settings. In 19 per cent of sites (up from 17% from the last round of assessment), hand pumps were the main source of drinking water, followed by water trucks (8% - up by 2%). Use of unprotected wells was the main source of water in 2 per cent of sites.


Host Communities

In sites where IDPs were residing with host communities,hand pumps was the main source of water in 52 per cent (up from 51%) of sites followed by 27 per cent of sites (similar to last round of assessment) and protected well (7% - down from 8%). Other common water sources include water trucks (5%) and surface water (2%). Use of unprotected wells as main source of water in 7 per cent of sites (similar to last round of assessment).


PERSONAL HYGIENE FACILITIES

Camps and camp-like settings

In 92 per cent of displacement sites, toilets were described as not hygienic, while toilets were reported to be in hygienic conditions in 7 per cent of sites. In the State of Borno, respondents said 95 per cent of sites had unhygienic toilets

and 5 per cent had hygienic toilets. In Bauchi, all toilets were reportedly unhygienic.


Host communities

In 93 per cent of displacement sites (up from 88%), toilets were described as not hygienic, while toilets were reported to be in hygienic conditions in 4 per cent of sites (down from 11% in the last round of assessment). In the State of Borno, respondents said 91 per cent of sites had unhygienic toilets (up by 1%) and 6 per cent had hygienic (down from 9%). In Bauchi, nearly all toilets were reportedly unhygienic at 99 per cent.


FOOD AND NUTRITION Camps and camp-like settings

In Round 34 assessments, access to food was on-site in 44 per cent. At the same time, food was off-site in 37 per cent of sites. There was, however, no food provisions in 17 per cent (up by 1% since the last round of assessment) of sites assessed.

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total

not so good (not hygienic) 88% 100% 95% 64% 90% 92%

good (hygienic) 12% 0% 5% 29% 0% 7%

non usable 0% 0% 0% 7% 10% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 17: Condition of toilets in camps/camp-like settings by state

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba YobeGrandTotal

not so good (not hygienic) 88% 99% 91% 97% 94% 92% 93%

good (hygienic) 8% 0% 6% 2% 4% 1% 4%

non usable 4% 1% 3% 1% 2% 7% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 18: Condition of toilets in host communities by state

Figure 19: Access to food in camps/camp-like settings

16%

80%

40%50%

9%

37%

65%

20%

41%14%

81%

44%

19% 19%

36%

10%19%


Yes, off site Yes, on site no

Figure 15: Main drinking water sources in camps/camp-like settings

68%

19%

7%

2%

2%

1%

1%

Piped water supply

Hand pumps

Water truck

Unprotected well

Protected well

None

Others

Figure 16: Main drinking water sources in host communities

52%

27%

7%

6%

5%

2%

1%

Hand pumps

Piped water supply

Protected well

Unprotected well

Water truck

Surface water

Others


14


Host Communities

Access to food was on-site in 50 per cent (no change since the last round of assessment) of sites where IDPs were residing with host communities. Twenty-five per cent of sites had access to food off-site and 24 per cent (up from 22%) had no access to food. Similarly, in Borno access to food was on-site in 42 per cent (down from 46%) of sites.


HEALTHCamps and camp-like settings

In 69 per cent of sites assessed during Round 34 of DTM assessments (up from 67%) cited malaria as the most common health problem. Fever was next most common health issue in 16 per cent (down from 20%) of sites and cough was cited as third most common health issue in 10 per cent of sites (no

change since the 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 70 per cent of sites (up from 64%). In Borno malaria was cited as the most prevalent health issue in 68 per cent (up from 63%) of sites.

EDUCATION Camps and camp-like settings

In camps and camp-like settings, no children were attending school in 6 per cent of sites (up from 4% in the last round of assessment), 51 to 75 per cent of children were attending school in 37 per cent of sites (up from 24%), 25 to 50 per cent of children were attending school in 29 per cent of sites (down from 39%), less than 25 per cent of children were attending school in 25 per cent of sites (down from 30%), and in 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, access to education services was recorded in 96 per cent of sites (down from 99%), no children were attending school in 4 per cent of sites (up from 3% that was recorded in the last round of assessment).


39%

74%

42%

64%

6%

67%

50%

37%

2%

29%

6%

72%

14%

25%

24% 24% 29% 30%22% 19% 25%

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Gombe Grand Total

Yes, on site no Yes, off site

Figure 20: Access to food in host communities

Figure 21: Common health problems in camps/camp-like settings

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Totalmalaria 73% 80% 71% 36% 62% 69%fever 15% 0% 17% 36% 5% 16%cough 12% 20% 10% 21% 9% 11%diarrhea 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2%malnutrition 0% 0% 0% 7% 19% 2%skin disease 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Figure 22: Common health problems in host communities

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total

malaria 71% 80% 68% 54% 59% 77% 70%

fever 11% 14% 20% 20% 21% 10% 15%

cough 5% 4% 9% 4% 5% 7% 6%

diarrhea 5% 1% 2% 7% 6% 2% 4%

hepatitis 8% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2%

malnutrition 0% 1% 1% 12% 7% 1% 2%

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

wound infection 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%

skin disease 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

none 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

73%

80%

99%

100%

90%

96%

27%

20%

1%

10%

4%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

yes no

Figure 23: Access to formal/informal education services in camps/camp-like settings

93%

95%

98%

100%

99%

97%

96%

7%

5%

2%

1%

3%

4%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Gombe

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

yes no

Figure 24: Access to formal/informal education services in Host communities


15


COMMUNICATION Camps and camp-like settingsFriends and neighbours were cited as the most-trusted source of information in 54 per cent of sites (down by 2% since the last round of assessment). Local and community leaders were cited as the second most trusted source of information in 34 per cent of sites (up from 29%).


Host communities

In sites where IDPs are residing with host communities, friends, neighbours and family were the most trusted source of information in 41 per cent of sites (up from 39% cited in Round 33), followed by local/community leader in 32 per cent of sites (down by 2%).


LIVELIHOODSCamps and camp-like settings

In a sign of the start of farming season, 46 per percent of respondents said farming was their main (up from 25%). Petty trade was the next main livelihood activity for displaced persons in 25 per cent (down from 38%) and daily wage labourer (21% - down from 26%).


Host communitiesFarming continued to be the main livelihood for majority of IDPs living with host communities at 59 per cent (down 1%).


PROTECTIONCamps/camp-like settings

Some form of security was provided in 89 per cent (up from 84% in the round of assessment) of sites. In the most-affected State of Borno, security was provided in 95 per cent (up from 89 %) of sites.


Host Communities

In 90 per cent of sites (up from 87%) some form of security was present. This figure was higher in the most affected State of Borno at 97 per cent (up from 91%).


Figure 26: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in host communities

41%

32%

13%

6%4% 3%

1%

friends, neighbors and family

local leader/community leader

religious leader

traditional leader

aid worker

government official

military official

46%

25%

21%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

Farming

Petty trade

Daily labourer

pastoralism

Collecting firewood

Agro-pastoralism

Fishing

none occupation

Figure 27: Livelihood activities of IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 28: Livelihood activities of IDPs in host communities

59%

16%

16%

5%

2%

1%

1%

0%

farming

daily labourer

petty trade

agro-pastoralism

pastoralism

collecting firewood

Fishing

none_occupation

65%

5%

29%

11%

35%

100%

95%

100%

71%

89%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

no yes

Figure 29: Security provided in camps/camp-like settings

16%

9%

3%

7%

7%

15%

10%

84%

91%

97%

93%

93%

85%

90%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Gombe

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

no yes

Figure 30: Security provided in host communities

Figure 25: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

54%34%

4%4%

2%1%

1%

friends, neighbors and family

local leader/community leader

religious leader

traditional leader

aid worker

government official

military official

16


The continuing trend of increasing returns continued in this round of assessment with 1,736,849 returnees (280,980 households) recorded in the DTM Round 34 assessment, an increment of 22,167 (1%) as against the 1,714,682 returnees that were recorded in the last assessment (Round 33) conducted in August 2020. The increment confirms an increasing trend in the numbers of returnees that has continued throughout 2020. In Round 33, 1,714,682 returnees were recorded which was an increment of 9,115 (less than 1%) from the number (1,705,567) recorded in Round 32 assessment that was conducted in June 2020. The June 2020 numbers were a 2 per cent increment from was recorded in Round 31 (conducted in February 2020).

Forty LGAs (672 sites, 2 more than last assessment) 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. All three states assessed, i.e., Adamawa, Borno and Yobe, witnessed an increment in returnee numbers. Adamawa continued to be home to the largest proportion of returnees with the State accounting for 47 per cent of all returnees. Borno had 42 per cent and Yobe hosted 11 per cent of all returnees as per the assessment.The highest increment was noted in Borno where returnees’ figures increased by 17,927 or 3 per cent to 726,454. The increase was largely on account of improved access to Borno’s Gubio LGA. The next highest increase in returnees figures was

Figure 31: Returnee population trend

R 5 R 6 R 7 R 8 R 9 R 10 R 11 R 12 R 13 R 14 R 15 R 16 R 17 R 18 R 19 R 20 R 21 R 22 R 23 R 24 R 25 R 26 R 27 R 28 R 29 R 30 R 31 R 32 R 33 R 34

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 22,167

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 1,736,849

Aug-

15

Oct

-15

Dec

-15

Feb-

16

Apr-

16

Jun-

16

Aug-

16

Oct

-16

Dec

-16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jun-

17

Aug-

17

Oct

-17

Dec

-17

Jan-

18

Mar

-18

May

-18

Jul-1

8

Sep-

18

Jan-

19

Apr-

19

Jul-1

9

Sep-

19

Nov

-19

Feb-

20

May

-20

Jul-2

0

Nov

-20

Mill

ions

0.50

0.75

1.0

1.50

1.25

1.75

2.0

0.25

0

(0.25)

Returnee population change from previous DTM assessment Total returnees

Table 4: Change in returnee population by State

StateR33 Accessed

LGA'sR34 Accessed

LGA'sR33 Total IND

(May 2020)R34 Total IND

(July 2020)Status Difference

Return Population In Percentages Per State

ADAMAWA 16 16 819,148 819,269 Increase 121 47%

BORNO 18 18 708,527 726,454 Increase 17,927 42%

YOBE 6 6 187,007 191,126 Increase 4,119 11%

GRAND TOTAL 40 40 1,714,682 1,736,849 Increase 22,167 100%

R34 Total (September 2020)

3. RETURNEES

Return Assessments are not conducted in Bauchi, Taraba & Gombe

±

Taraba

Bauchi

Gombe

Plateau

Jigawa

Benue

Chad

1% from

Cameroon1% from

94%

6%

191,126

93%

7%

726,454

89%

11%

819,269

Abadam

1% from Niger 1% from Niger

Chad

Niger

Cameroon

Chad

Chad1% from

Lake Chad

0 70 14035 Km

Hard to reach LGA

Returnees from abroad

Returnee IDPs

Returnees Total by State

176,201

631,722

803,753

GuzamalaKukawa

Nganzai

Marte

Yobe

Borno

Adamawa

Map 6: Returned population by State

The names and boundaries shown and the designations used on this map do not

imply official endorsement or acceptance by IOM | Data source: DTM, HDX, ESRI

in Yobe where the numbers went up by 4,119 or 2 per cent to 191,126. In Adamawa, only 121 more returnees were recorded in this round of assessment bringing the total to 819,269.

The number of returnees has continously been on the increase between November 2019 and November 2020. Seventy-two per cent of people who were initially displaced have returned. Seventy-one per cent (down from 82%) 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, 1,592,535 (92% of all returnees) were classified as IDP returnees, while 144,314 (or 8% of all returnees) were classified as returned refugees as they travelled back from neighboring countries. The percentage of returned refugees is unchanged since the last three rounds of assessment. Among the returned refugees, the latest number included 85,630 from Cameroon, 34,197 from The Republic of Niger and 24,487 from Chad.

3A: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT FOR RETURNEESThirty-seven per cent of returnees (same as previous rounds) 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 two rounds of assessments).

17


3B: REASONS FOR INITIAL DISPLACEMENT OF RETURNEES

Ninety-one per cent (up 1% since the last round of assessment) attributed their displacement to the ongoing conflict in north-eastern Nigeria, 8 per cent (down 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.

Eight per cent of returnees assessed in Adamawa were displaced due to communal clashes in the State.

3D: HEALTH FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

Unlike the situation in locations hosting IDPs, 68 per cent (up by 3%) of areas of returns assessed did not have access to health services. Lack of access to medical services was highest in Yobe at 69 per cent (down by 1%), followed by Adamawa at 67 per cent and Borno at 62 per cent (up by 2%). In areas that did have access to health services, the most common type were primary health centers (27%) followed by general hospital and mobile clinics at 3 per cent, respectively.

3E: EDUCATION FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

In contrast with facilities at locations hosting displaced persons, educational facilities were present in 48 per cent (down by 1%) of locations where returnees were residing. Fifty-two per cent of locations had no education facilities. Availability of education services was 50 per cent (down by 1%) for Borno, 54 per cent (up by 1%) in Adamawa and 51 per cent (up from 46%) in Yobe.

Figure 36: Type of medical services in areas of return

68%

26%

3%

3%

No Health Facility

Primary HealthCare Centre

General Hospital

Mobile Clinic

3C: SHELTER CONDITIONS FOR RETURNEESSeventy-six per cent (down by 15%) of returnees resided in shelters with walls. This percentage was 82 per cent in Borno. Eighteen per cent were residing in traditional shelters and 6 per cent (up by 1%) were living in emergency/makeshift shelters. Nine per cent (no change since the last round of assessment) of returnees in Borno were living in emergency/makeshift shelters and 10 per cent dwelling in traditional shelters.

Twenty-seven per cent (up by 1%) of households were either fully or partially damaged and 73 per cent (down by 1%) were not damaged.

91%

8%

1%

Insurgency

Communal clashes

Natural Disasters

Figure 33:Reasons for initial Displacement of returnee

Figure 35: Shelters type of the returned households in areas of return

72%

82%

76%

3%

4%

6%

25%

10%

26%

18%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

Grand Total

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

70%

8%

Figure 34: Shelters conditions of the returnee households

87%

64%

57%

73%

9%

31%

28%

21%

4%

5%

15%

6%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

Grand Total

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

Figure 32: Year of displacement for returnees

Retu

rned

indi

vidu

als

Year of Displacement

154,704

522,376

634,579

226,472

162,876

20,868 14,974 -

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 37: Availability of medical services in areas of return

67%

62%

69%

66%

33%

38%

31%

34%

Adamawa

Borno

Yobe

Grand Total

no yes

18


3G: LIVELIHOOD FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

The most common livelihood activity was farming at 98 per cent of sites (up by 1%), with petty trade coming in second at 8 per and 4 per cent of respondents engaging in trading.

Access to farmland showed a drop and was 93 per cent (down by 1% from the last round of assessment).

3H: MARKET FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

Twenty-two per cent (down by 1%) of sites where returnees have settled had markets nearby while 78 per cent had no market facilities. Twenty-one per cent (down by 1%) of markets were functional.

3F: WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH) FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

WASH facilities were provided in 73 per cent of sites where returnees were residing (down 1% since the last round of assessment). No WASH facilities were present in 27 per cent of sites (up by 1%). Hand pumps were the most common WASH facility in areas of returns at 31 per cent (no change since the last round of assessment), followed by communal boreholes at 29 per cent. The next most common WASH facility were communal wells at 11 per cent of sites.

Figure 40: Percentage of WASH facilities provided

31%

29%

25%

11%

2%

1%

1%

Hand pump

Communal boreholes

No Wash Facilities

Communal wells

Public toilets

River

Refuse dump

100%100%100%100%

Grand Total

Figure 41: Availability of WASH facilities in areas of return

38%

10%

25%

27%

62%

90%

75%

73%

Adamawa

Borno

Yobe

Grand Total

No yes

Figure 39: Availability of education services in areas of return

54%

50%

51%

52%

46%

50%

49%

48%

Adamawa

Borno

Yobe

Grand Total

no yes

Figure 38: Percentage of education types in areas of return

52%

33%

13%

1%

No Education Facilities

Primary School

Secondary School

Religious School

Figure 42: State-wise breakdown of farmers with access to farmland

4%

15%

7%

96%

85%

100%

93%

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

Grand Total

no yes

Figure 43: Means of Livelihood

98%

1%

1%

Farming

Petty Trading

Trading

19


3I: PROFILE OF ASSISTANCE FOR RETURNEES

No assistance was reported in 30 per cent of sites (no change since the last round of assessment). NFI support was the most common type of assistance provided, with 22 per cent (down by 1%) of sites reporting this kind of assistance.

Figure 39: Percentage of sites received by type of assistance

30%

22%

21%

12%

8%

3%

2%

2%

None

NFI

Food

Wash

Health

Shelter

Education

Livelihood

Figure 44: Availability of market services in areas of return

77%

79%

81%

78%

23%

21%

19%

22%

Adamawa

Borno

Yobe

Grand Total

no yes

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 focus 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 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.

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: A Cross-section of newly arrived internally displaced persons (IDPs) from Bording School Camp, Konduga LGA of Borno State.

© IOM-DTM/2020

The depiction and use of boundaries, geographic names, and related data shown on maps and included in this report are not warranted to be error free nor do they imply judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries by IOM.

“When quoting, paraphrasing, or in any other way using the information mentioned in this report, the source needs to be stated appropriately as follows: “Source: Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), August 2020.”

Contacts:

NEMA: Alhassan Nuhu, Director, Disaster Risk Reduction,

[email protected]

+234 8035925885

IOM: Henry Kwenin, Project Officer,

[email protected]

+234 9038852524

22


Shelter / NFI Sector DTMNigeria

DTM Nigeria | Sectoral Analysis - Round 34 (December 2020)

Figure 11a: Number of Camp sites with the most needed Shelter material Figure 12a: Number of Host community sites with the most needed Shelter material

Figure 11b: Need for shelter materials Figure 12b: Most needed shelter materials

Figure 11e: Most suporting Organization in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 12e: Most suporting Organization in Host Communities

Figure 12c: Sites assesible by trucks for NFI Distribution

Figure 11c: Sites assesible by trucks for NFI Distribution

Host CommunitiesCamp/Camp-like Settings

ADAMAWA

Grand Total

61%

16%

7%

6%

3%

3%

1%

1%

1%

1%

tarpaulin

timber_wood

n/a

roofing

nails

block_bricks

None

Timber/wood

rope

Others

98%

2%

yes no

47%

27%

17%

8%

1%

1%

ingo

un

none

government

individual private

religious entity

91%

9%

yes no

19%

81%

no yes

23%

19%

19%

19%

15%

4%

1%

timber_wood

None

tarpaulin

Roofing sheets

Block_bricks

nails

Others

95%

5%

yes no

39%

25%

18%

9%

4%

3%

2%

government

ingo

none

un

individual private

religious entity

Others

Go back.

23


WASH Sector DTMNigeria

Figure 15a: Distance to main water sources Figure 16a: Distance to main water sources

Figure 15b: Main non drinking water sources in camps/camp-like settings Figure 16b: Main non drinking water sources

Camps/camp-like settings Host CommunitiesWater Facilities

Figure 16c: Differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water in Host Communities

Figure 15c: Differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 16d: Have Water Points been Improved in Host CommunitiesFigure 15d: Have Water Points been Improved in Camp and Camp-like settings?

69%

80%

63%

79%

85%

66%

12%

20%

32%

14%

26%

11%

2%

7%

10%

4%

8%

4%

5%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

on-site (<10 minutes) off-site (<10 minutes) on-site (>10 minutes) off-site (>10 minutes)

65%

19%

6%

5%

2%

1%

1%

1%

piped water supply

hand pumps

water truck

unprotected well

none

surface water

protected well

Others

62%

60%

89%

93%

86%

86%

38%

40%

11%

7%

14%

14%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

58%

40%

40%

21%

48%

42%

42%

60%

60%

79%

52%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

no yes

28%

25%

20%

13%

5%

4%

2%

2%

1%

unprotected well

hand pumps

piped water supply

protected well

surface water

water truck

ponds/canals

spring

lake/dam

no yesno yes

22%

21%

82%

41%

51%

66%

48%

78%

79%

18%

59%

49%

34%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Gombe

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

34%

49%

50%

83%

59%

26%

46%

66%

51%

50%

17%

41%

74%

54%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Gombe

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

no yes

76%

97%

92%

69%

13%

96%

80%

10%

1%

2%

59%

3%

9%

8%

2%

5%

30%

11%

1%

7%

6%

2%

1%

17%

1%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Gombe

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

on-site (<10 minutes) off-site (<10 minutes) on-site (>10 minutes) off-site (>10 minutes)

Go back.

24


Figure 15f: Main problem with water in camps/camp-like settings Figure 16f: Main problem with water in Host Communities

Figure 15e: Average amount of water available per person per day in camps/camp-like settings Figure 16e: Average amount of water available per person per day in Host Communities

Figure 15g: Main garbage disposal mechanism in camps/camp-like settings

Personal Hygiene Facilities

Figure 15h: Targeted hygiene promotion/main garbage disposal mechanism in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 16g: Main garbage disposal mechanism in Host Communities

Figure 16h: Targeted hygiene promotion/main garbage disposal mechanism in Host Communities

50%

60%

63%

43%

62%

61%

46%

20%

26%

50%

28%

29%

4%

20%

10%

7%

10%

9%

1%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

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

15%

20%

43%

4%

85%

80%

100%

57%

100%

96%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

no yes

No , 27%

Yes , 73

Burning, 75%

No waste disposal system, 14%

Garbage pit ,

11%

67%

46%

48%

46%

54%

20%

47%

27%

41%

26%

30%

38%

46%

34%

6%

12%

21%

19%

7%

4%

11%

4%

5%

1%

1%

30%

7%

1%

1%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Gombe

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

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

14%

5%

12%

17%

30%

2%

12%

86%

95%

88%

83%

70%

98%

88%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Gombe

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

no yes

No, 60%

Yes , 40%

Burning, 66%No waste disposal

system, 21%

Garbage pit , 13%

Go back.

25


Food and Nutrition Sector DTMNigeria

Figure 19a: Frequency of food or cash distribution in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 20a: Frequency of food or cash distribution in Host Communities

Host CommunitiesCamps/camp-like settings

Figure 19b: Most common source of obtaining food in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 20b: Most common source of obtaining food in Host Communities

Figure 19c: Duration of last received food support in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 20c: Duration of last received food support in Host Communities

Figure 20d:Access to markert near the sites in Host CommunitiesFigure 19d: Access to markert near the sites in Camps/Camp-like settings

81%

100%

32%

57%

48%

40%

3%

48%

48%

42%

12%

19%

43%

4%

18%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

irregular once a month never every 2 weeks

38%

60%

63%

86%

33%

60%

8%

36%

14%

30%

50%

20%

1%

7%

43%

8%

4%

20%

7%

10%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

cash (personal money) distribution cultivated host community donation

31%

40%

27%

14%

19%

27%

54%

40%

24%

43%

10%

27%

3%

20%

23%

7%

33%

21%

4%

12%

36%

5%

12%

4%

7%

29%

7%

4%

7%

5%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

1-3_months 1yr_and_above None 4-6_months 10-12_months 6-9_months

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Totalirregular 70% 91% 55% 95% 38% 68% 69%never 25% 1% 27% 5% 62% 8% 20%Once a month 5% 0% 18% 0% 0% 24% 9%everyday 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

71%

52%

31%

66%

42%

43%

50%

19%

40%

53%

31%

45%

36%

37%

4%

1%

16%

2%

1%

17%

8%

9%

4%

1%

12%

4%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Gombe

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

cultivated cash (personal money) distribution host community donation

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand TotalNone 43% 3% 32% 5% 60% 34% 30%1yr_and_above 32% 8% 45% 27% 31% 12% 26%4-6_months 5% 42% 9% 34% 2% 12% 16%1-3_months 4% 33% 4% 9% 0% 19% 12%10-12_months 12% 4% 5% 8% 5% 17% 9%6-9_months 4% 10% 5% 17% 2% 6% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

95%

5%

yes

no

95%

5%

yes

no

Go back.

26


Health Sector DTMNigeria

Figure 21b: Location of health facilities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 22b: Location of health facilities in Host Communities

Figure 21a: Access to health facilities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 22a: Access to health facilities in Host Communities

Figure 22c: Main provider of health facilities in Host Communities Figure 21c: Main provider of health facilities in Camps/Camp-like settings


12%

20%

2%

24%

4%

88%

80%

98%

100%

76%

96%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Taraba

Yobe

Grand Total

no yes

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Totaloff-site (< 3 km) 19% 80% 57% 36% 24% 51%on-site (< 3 km) 54% 0% 28% 50% 62% 33%off-site (> 3 km) 8% 20% 13% 7% 14% 12%on-site (> 3 km) 19% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%mobile clinic 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2%none 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Totalingo 8% 0% 55% 0% 29% 46%government 69% 100% 38% 86% 67% 46%ngo 8% 0% 6% 0% 0% 4%local clinic 15% 0% 1% 7% 6% 3%None 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

5%

1%

1%

4%

4%

95%

99%

100%

99%

96%

96%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Adamawa

Bauchi

Borno

Gombe

Taraba

Yobe

no yes


on-site (< 3 km) 64% 79% 48% 74% 9% 72% 60%

off-site (< 3 km) 17% 10% 36% 8% 66% 17% 24%

on-site (> 3 km) 15% 8% 4% 11% 6% 3% 8%

off-site (> 3 km) 3% 2% 11% 7% 19% 8% 8%

none 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

mobile clinic 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


government 80% 88% 78% 89% 68% 88% 82%

ingo 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 8% 5%

local clinic 14% 12% 2% 11% 32% 4% 11%

ngo 4% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 2%

no health provider 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Go back.

27


Education Sector DTMNigeria

Figure 23a: Location of formal/informal education faciliities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 24a: Location of formal/informal education facilities in Host Communities

Figure 23d: Reasons for not attending schools in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 24d:Reasons for not attending schools in Host Communities

Figure 23b: Distance to nearest education faciliities in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 24b: Distance to nearest education facilities in Host Communities

Figure 23c: Percentage of children attending school in Camps/Camp-like settings Figure 24c: Percentage of children attending school in Host Communities

Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities

12%

47%

100%

19%

44%

77% 100%

52%

81%

54%

11%1% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Off-site On-site none

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total25% -50% 23% 20% 30% 43% 19% 29%<25% 35% 0% 26% 36% 10% 25%51% - 75% 23% 60% 39% 21% 38% 37%none 15% 20% 5% 0% 0% 6%>75% 4% 0% 0% 0% 33% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

58%

22%

8%

4%

4%

1%

1%

1%

1%

covid_19

fees_or_costs

lack_of_teachers

lack_of_school_supplies

lack_of_parental/care_givers_support

work_at_the_house

work_in_the_fields

distance_to_the_school_(too_far)

Other

66%

89%

74%64%

56%63%

70%

28%

10%

25%36%

42%35%

28%

6% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


On-site Off-site none

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe GrandTotal

25% -50% 32% 31% 43% 23% 26% 41% 35%51% - 75% 41% 49% 34% 41% 37% 28% 38%<25% 16% 7% 18% 21% 31% 23% 18%>75% 8% 11% 2% 7% 6% 4% 6%none 3% 2% 3% 6% 0% 4% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

68%

18%

4%

4%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

covid_19

fees_or_costs

lack_of_teachers

lack_of_school_supplies

work_in_the_fields

lack_of_parental/care_givers_support

disease/illness

fear_of_violence

Other

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total<1km 46% 68% 78% 85% 60% 71% 67%<2km 49% 30% 20% 13% 31% 22% 29%<5km 5% 2% 2% 2% 9% 2% 3%>10km 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1%<10km 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total<1km 77% 80% 80% 21% 57% 75%<2km 23% 20% 15% 72% 43% 20%<5km 0% 0% 5% 7% 0% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Go back.

28


Communication Sector DTMNigeria

Figure 25a: Most important topic for IDPs Figure 26a: Most important topic for IDPs

Figure 25c: Most Preferred channel of communication in Camps/Camp-like settings

Figure26c: Most Preferred channel of communication in Host Communities

Figure 26b: Access to functioning radio Figure 25b: Access to functioning radio

87%

10%

2%

1%

few

most

None

almost all

43%

20%

13%

8%

7%

6%

1%

1%

1%

distribution

access to services

situation in areas of origin

other relief assistance

safety and security

registration

few

shelter

none


19%

32%

5%

8%

2%

2%

2%

91%

100%

80%

50%

100%

74%

100%

79%

9%

4%

8%

6%

4%

5%

8%

13%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

community meetings

loudspeakers

radio

telephone voice call

tv

word of mouth

no

Grand Total

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe

74%

19%

5%

2%

few

most

almost all

None

45%

16%

13%

12%

10%

1%

1%

1%

1%

distribution

situation in areas of origin

safety and security

other relief assistance

access to services

registration

shelter

how to get information

how to contact aid providers

26%

20%

33%

20%

22%

5%

19%

14%

7%

17%

27%

18%

8%

62%

24%

8%

23%

22%

17%

8%

28%

7%

100%

10%

65%

19%

21%

19%

50%

10%

19%

5%

7%

18%

13%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

community meetings

loudspeakers

radio

telephone voice call

tv

word of mouth

sms message

Grand Total

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Gombe

Go back.

29


Livelihood Sector DTMNigeria

Figure 27a: Access to Land for Cultivation Figure 28a: Access to Land for Cultivation

Figure 27b: Livestock on site Figure 28b: Livestock on site

Figure 27c: Sites with access to income generating activities Figure 28c: Sites with access to income generating activities

Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities

41%

59%

no yes

4%

96%

no yes

6%

94%

no yes

3%

97%

no yes

18%

82%

no yes

5%

95%

no yes

Go back.

30


Protection Sector DTMNigeria

Figure 29a: Main security providers

Figure 29b: Most common type of security incidents Figure 30b: Most common type of security incidents

Figure 30a: Main security providers


40%

15%

15%

14%

8%

6%

1%

1%

self organized

military

police

None

local authorities

communityleaders

no

religious leaders

78%

15%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

None

theft

abduction

friction with host community

friction among site residents

crime

Others

25%

23%

17%

13%

11%

10%

1%

local authorities

police

self organized

None

community leaders

military

religious leaders

75%

13%

5%

4%

2%

1%

None

theft

crime

friction with host community

friction among site residents

Others

Go back.

IOM NIGERIA DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX (DTM)

Documents