Nigeria DTM Round XVII-V2...Table 1: Change in IDP ﬁgures by state St ate Round XVI Tot al (M y 2017) R ound XV I T t l (June 2017) Change ADAMAWA 143,209 -2,334 BAUCHI 56,916 -557

2017

DISPLACEMENTTRACKING

MATRIX

DTMNigeria

IOM OIM

June

Round XVII Report

DT MDTM Round XV Report - May 2017DTM Round XVII Report - June 2017

Table of Contents

1

DT MDTM Round XVII Report - June 2017

DT M

Execu�ve Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 2

Overview: DTM Round XVI Assess

Key Highlights ............................................................................................................................................ 4

ments ..................... ................................................................................. 2

1. DISPLACEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 5

1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTHEAST NIGERIA ........................................................................ 5

1B: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ............... .......................................................................................................... 7

1C: CAUSE OF DISPLACEMENT ........................................................................................................... 8

1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT .................................................................................................................... 91E: MOBILITY ............. ................................................... ................................................................................................ ................................ 91F: LOCATION AND ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS ................................................................ ................................ 10 1G: DWELLING TYPE OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS .................................................................................. 11

1H: UNMET NEEDS OF IDPs ....................................................................................................................... 11

2. RETURNEES................................................................................................................................................ 12

2A: SHELTER CONDITION OF RETURNEES .................. ............................................................................. 12

3 SITE ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 13

3A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPs .................................................................................................... 13

3B: SECTOR ANALYSIS ......... .................................................................................................................... 15

SHELTER ............................................................................................................................................... 15

Non-Food Items (NFIs) ....................................................................................................... ................. 16

WASH .................................................................................................................................................. 17

FOOD AND NUTRITION ....................................................................................................................... 19

HEALTH ........................................................................... ..................................................................... 20

EDUCATION ......................................................................................................................................... 21

COMMUNICATION .............................................................................................................................. 21

LIVELIHOOD ........................ ................................................................................................................. 22

PROTECTION........................................................................................................................................ 23

4 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... .............. 25

Round XVII of DTM assessments were conducted from 15 May to 25 June 2017 in Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe states, covering 772 wards (an increase from 767 in the previous round and 763 in the round before, a steady increase in coverage owing to the improved security situa�on) in 109 LGAs.

In Borno, the epicentre of the conflict, DTM con�nued to have par�al access to 24 LGAs out of the 27 LGAs in the north-eastern state. DTM was able to assess three addi�onal wards in this round, namely: Mboa Kura and Korongilim in Chibok and Zadawa/Hausari in Askira/Uba. Abadam, Guzamala and Marte LGAs in Borno con�nue to be inaccessible to the humanitarian community due to the ongoing conflict.

This report of the Round XVII Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) assessment by the Interna�onal Organiza�on for Migra�on (IOM) aims to improve understanding of the scope of displacement and the needs of affected popula�ons in conflict-affected states of northeast Nigeria. The report covers the period of 15 May to 25 June 2017 and includes the six most-affected states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe.

The data collected in this report comes from different DTM tools used by enumerators at various administra�ve levels. These administra�ve levels consist of Local Government Areas (LGAs), wards and displacement sites. Data is collected via interviews with key informants such as representa�ves of the administra�on, community leaders, religious leaders and humanitarian aid workers. In addi�on to key informant interviews and to ensure data accuracy, site and loca�on (host community) based assessments were also conducted.

In this round of assessments, 81,383 people were interviewed. These interviews provided informa�on on: demographic profiles, reasons for displacement, changes in the percentages of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) over �me, origin, dwelling types, mobility and unfulfilled needs. This sample represents four per cent of the iden�fied IDP popula�on.

To be�er understand the needs of the affected popula�on, this report includes site assessments carried out in 2,140 sites, involving a popula�on of 1,825,321 individuals or 330,680 households. The sites included 235 camps and camp-like se�ngs and 1,905 loca�ons where IDPs were residing with host communi�es. Site assessments provide informa�on regarding the loca�ons and numbers of IDPs. The 1,825,321 individuals iden�fied represent a decrease of 59,010 persons compared to the displaced popula�on of 1,884,331 iden�fied in Round XVI (15 May 2017).

This report also presents an analysis of sector-wise needs and response including shelter and Non-food Items (NFI), water sanita�on and hygiene (WASH), food and nutri�on, health, educa�on, livelihood, protec�on and communica�on. Lastly, this report includes assessments of returnees and their shelter condi�ons.

Executive Summary

The escala�on of Boko Haram violence in 2014 resulted in mass displacement around north-eastern Nigeria. To be�er understand the scope of displacement and assess the needs of affected popula�ons in northeast Nigeria, IOM began implemen�ng its DTM programme in September 2014 in collabora�on with the Na�onal Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and the State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs). DTM is used in countries around the world to track displacement caused by natural disasters and conflict.

The main objec�ve of DTM programme in north-eastern Nigeria is to support the Nigerian government and humanitarian partners by establishing a comprehensive system to collect, analyse and disseminate data on IDPs in order to provide assistance to the popula�on affected by the insurgency. Staff from IOM, NEMA, SEMAs and the Nigerian Red Cross Society collect data in the field, including baseline informa�on at LGA and ward-levels. Detailed assessments are conducted in displacement sites, such as camps and collec�ve centers, and in host communi�es where IDPs were living during the repor�ng period. IOM’s DTM programme is funded by the office of U.S Foreign Disaster Assistance, the European Commis-sion's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protec�on Office (ECHO), the Swedish Interna�onal Development Coopera�on Agency (SIDA) and the Government of Germany. NEMA also provides financial support.

Background

2

DT M

Overview: DTM Round XVI Assessments

DTM Round XVII Report - June 2017

Figure 1: DTM round and number of states covered

Map 1 : DTM accessibility map

StateRound I

Round II

Round III

Round IV

Round V

Round VI

Round VII

Round VIII

Round IX

Round X

Round XI

Round XII

Round XIII

Round XIV

Round XV

Round XVI

Round XVII

Abuja - - - - - - - -AdamawaBauchiBenue - - - - - - - - - -Borno -GombeKaduna - - - - - - - - -Kano - - - - - - - - - -Nasarawa - - - - - - - -Plateau - - - - - - - - -TarabaYobeZamfara - - - - - - - - - -Total 5 6 6 6 8 10 13 13 13 13 13 6 6 6 6 6

-

-

----

-6

-

-

----

-

3

Bali

Toro

Fune

Ibi

Biu

Gashaka

Ningi

Bama

Gassol

SongAlkaleri

Toungo

Fufore

Kurmi

Konduga

Damboa

Kukawa

Jada

Mafa

Tarmua

Gujba

DukkuGanjuwa

Bauchi

Bursari

Kirfi

Wukari

Kaga

Fika

Marte

Yusufari

Geidam

Hong

Sardauna

Jakusko

Akko

Magumeri

Abadam

Donga

Karim-Lamido

Yunusari

Lau

Zaki

Gubio

GwozaDarazo

Mobbar

Takum

Gamawa

Ganye

Gulani

Hawul

Gombi

Ussa

Dikwa

Nganzai

Shira

Guzamala

Ngala

Kwami

Girei

Zing

Damaturu

Askira/Uba

Nafada

Shani

Ardo-Kola

Jere

Chibok

Bayo

Misau

Funakaye

Tafawa-Balewa

Dass

LamurdeBogoro

Warji

Yorro

Maiha

Demsa

Monguno

Balanga

Kala/Balge

Mayo-Belwa

Machina

Itas/Gadau

Katagum

ShellengBilliri

Yamaltu/Deba

Karasuwa

Damban

Nguru

Giade

Kaltungo

Nangere

Numan

Guyuk

Michika

Bade

Madagali

Yola South

Shomgom

Mubi North

Bade

Potiskum

Kwaya Kusar

Jamaare

Mubi South

Jalingo

Maiduguri

Yola North

Borno

Yobe

Taraba

Bauchi

Adamawa

Gombe

Jigawa

Plateau

Benue

Kano

Nasarawa

Cross River

Kaduna

Katsina

±

AccesibilityFully accessiblePartially accessibleInaccessible0 60 12030 Km

Cameroon

NigerLake Chad

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

Returnee individuals 1,257,911

Returnee households204,443

330,680Displaced households

1,825,321Displaced individuals

• Survey of unmet needs showed that food remains the

predominant need in majority (68%) of IDP sites

May to June 2017

• Total number of iden�fied IDPs idecreased by

59,010 (3%) individuals from last DTM round 3%• The number of iden�fied people who have returned to their places of usual residence increased by

23,017 (2%) individuals from last DTM round

Predominant Need

Returnees

Round XVII Figures

BORNO (79%), ADAMAWA (8%) and YOBE (6%)

93% of the total IDP population

• 96% of displacements were due to the insurgency

Main cause of displacement

IDPs and Returnees Caseload Profiling

• Largest IDP popula�ons are located in

General Overview

56%of the IDP popula�on

are children (0 - 18 Years)

54%of the IDP popula�on

are female

DTM Round XVIIReport

June 2017

Figure 2: DTM Nigeria IDPs and Returnees Caseload

4

DT M

IDPs

Total IDPs & Returnees

Returnees1,257,911

1,825,321 504,016

1,439,940

95,174

Refugee Returnees

Borno

Adamawa

Yobe

Gombe

TarabaBauchi

3,083,2321,943,956

806,952

140,875

666,077

87,818

107,201

195,01956,359

27,985

52,961

±

1.DISPLACEMENT

As of 25 June 2017, the es�mated number of IDPs in Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe was 1,825,321 (330,680 households), represen�ng a decrease of 59,010 persons or three per cent compared to the popula�on of 1,884,331 iden�fied in Round XVI (15 May 2017). The chief drivers of mobility were people returning to their places of origin and IDPs in search of be�er livelihood opportuni�es. Other reasons for the changes in numbers included the reloca�on of Nigerians from neighbouring Cameroon, areas becoming newly accessible areas on account of improved security, and influxes from villages to towns due to con�nuing military ac�on and a�acks by Boko Haram.

Borno con�nued to host the majority of IDPs with 1,439,940 people iden�fied as displaced. This figure represents a reduc�on of 57,055 individuals from the figure of 1,496,995 iden�fied in the previous round. Adamawa hosted the second highest number of IDPs with 140,875 displaced people, a decrease of 2,334 compared to the previous round of assessment. In Yobe, 107,201 IDPs were iden�fied in this round, a decrease of 1,568 individuals.

The only state that witnessed an increase in number of IDPs was Taraba, where an es�mated 52,961 people were iden�fied in this round compared to 50,259 in Round XVI. The increase was a�ributed to recent communal clashes that affected four LGAs (Bali, Donga, Takum and Ussa).

Among all the LGAs in Borno, Maiduguri Metropolitan Council (MMC) con�nued to host the highest number of IDPs. MMC reported 345,759 IDPs, a reduc�on of 39,205 (10 per cent) since the previous round (384,964). The key driver for this decrease was the movement of people to other LGAs including Dikwa, Gwoza, Kukawa, Monguno and Ngala. The LGA with the second largest IDP popula�on was Jere LGA with 273,399 IDPs, down by 32,978 (or 11 per cent) from 306,377 in previous round on account of people moving to Gwoza, Kala Balge, Mafa and Ngala. The LGA with the third highest number of IDPs in Borno was Monguno with 123,277 people, a marginal increase of less than half a per cent from 122,809 in Round XVI.

Figure 3: IDP population per round of DTM assessment

5

DT M1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH-EASTERN NIGERIA

Table 1: Change in IDP figures by state

StateRound XVI Total (May 2017)

Round XVII Total (June 2017) Change

ADAMAWA 143,209 -2,334BAUCHI 56,916 -557BORNO 1,496,995 -57,055GOMBE 28,183 -198TARABA 50,259 +2,702YOBE 108,769 -1,568Total 1,884,331

140,87556,359

1,439,94027,98552,961

107,2011,825,321 -59,010

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Dec-

14

Feb-

15

Apr-

15

Jun-

15

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

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII


Map 2: LGA level displacement severity map

6

In Adamawa, the state with the second highest popula�on of IDPs in Nigeria, the LGA hos�ng the highest number of IDPs was Michika with 26,438 people, marginally down by one per cent from 26,159 in the last round. The LGA with the second highest number of IDPs in the state was Madagali with 18,667 people. Girei LGA recorded the third highest popula�on of IDPs with 16,041 (down seven per cent from 17,551). The reduc�on was on account of IDPs reloca�ng from NYSC Camp to Malkohi Camp.

The state with the third highest popula�on of IDPs was Yobe with 107,201, a minor decrease of one per cent from 108,769 in the previous round. The state capital of Damaturu hosts the highest number of IDPs at 19,825, followed by Gujba (18,995) and Po�skum (14,479).


Bali

Toro

Fune

Ibi

Gashaka

Ningi

Biu

Song

Gassol

Alkaleri

Kaga

Fufore

Mafa

Teungo

Fika

Kurmi

Bama

Jada

Ganjuwa Dukku

Wukari

Geidam

Yusufari

Konduga

GwozaDamboa

Tarmua

Akko

Jakusko

Borsari

Sardauna

Gubio

Gujba

Abadam

Hong

Donga

Bauchi

Kirfi

Karim Lamido

Lau

Magumeri

Yunusari

Darazo

Kukawa

Ngala

Gulani

Nganzai

Guzamala

Hawul

Ganye

Gombi

Kwami

Shani

Dikwa

Zing

Girei

Chibok

Zaki

Monguno

Takum

Mobbar

Ussa

Marte

Gamawa

Kala-Balge

Demsa

Askira-Uba

Bayo

Shira

YorroArdo-Kola

Balanga Maiha

Damaturu

Barde

Nafada

Misau

ShellengTafawa-Balewa

Itas/Gadau

Machina

KatagumNangere

Funakaye

Dass

Mayo-Belwa

Jere

Karasuwa

Billiri

Giade

Damban

Michika

Yamaltu/ Deba

Numan

Bogoro Larmurde

Guyuk

Nguru

Warji

Madagali

Kaltungo

Shomgom

Mubi North

Yola South

Kwaya Kusar

Mubi South

PotiskumJama'Are

Jalingo

Maiduguri

Yola North

Konduga

BornoYobe

Taraba

Bauchi

Adamawa

Plateau

Benue

Kano

Gombe

Nasarawa

Cameroon

NigerLake Chad

Jigawa

Inaccessible areas

IDPs Per LGA

Less than 1,000

1,001 - 5,000

5,001 - 10,000

10,001 - 50,000

More than 50,0000 70 14035 Km

4.03%

8.48%

12.67%

17.00%

3.94%

4.92%

10.76%

14.70%

19.77%

3.73%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%25% 20% 15% 10% 5%

less than 1

1-5

6-17

18-59

60+

FEMALE MALE

% of Population

8.95%

19.24%

27.37%

36.77%

7.67%

Figure 4: IDP population by major age groups and gender

DEM

OG

RA

PHIC

S

45%of children in the IDPpopulation are male

56%of the IDP population are children (0 - 18 years)

55%of children in the IDPpopulation are female

of the IDP population is over 60 years

9%of the IDP population are infants less than 1 year old

of the IDPpopulationis female

54% of the IDPpopulationis male

46%

8%

7

DT M

In order to obtain a detailed and representa�ve sample of age and gender breakdown, 81,383 people were interviewed. This sample represents four per cent of the iden�fied IDP popula�on. The results are depicted in Figure 4. The average household size consisted of six persons.

1B: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA


Map 3: Causes of displacement

8

DT M

Ninety-six per cent of the iden�fied IDPs were displaced by the ongoing conflict, four per cent were displaced due to communal clashes and the remaining due to natural disasters. All the IDPs iden�fied in Borno, Gombe and Yobe were displaced by the insurgency. In Taraba, 74 per cent of interviewed IDPs a�ributed their displacement to communal clashes, 24 per cent to the conflict and two per cent due to natural disasters. In Bauchi, the conflict accounted for the displacement of 62 per cent of all interviewed IDPs and 38 per cent said communal clashes were the reason for their displacement. In Adamawa, 97 per cent of the popula�on was displaced by the Boko Haram conflict and three per cent people were displaced due to communal figh�ng.

1.C CAUSE OF DISPLACEMENT

Borno

Taraba

Bauchi

Yobe

Plateau

Jigawa

Adamawa

Benue

Gombe

Kano

Nassarawa

Cross River

Katsina

Insurgency100%

100%

97%

3%

100%

62%

38%

74%

24%

2%

Insurgency

Communal conflicts

Natural disaster

3.5%

96.4

%

0.1%

C O M M U N I T Y C L A S H E S

I N S U R G E N C Y N A T U R A L D I S A S T E R S

Causes of displacement in northeast Nigeria


1,439,940

107,201

27,985

21,442

34,917

3,943

136,932

12,773

39,081

1,107

Figure 5: Year of arrival of IDPs

9

DT M

Displacement sites: Incidents of mul�ple displacement were found among popula�on assessed in 235 displacement sites and in 1,905 sites where IDPs were residing with host communi�es. In 61 per cent of displacement sites, IDPs had no prior experience of displacement. In 32 per cent of sites, IDPs were displaced twice and in six per cent of sites, IDPs were displaced three �mes. In 98 per cent of sites, all IDPs intended to return to place of origin. In one per cent of sites, IDPs intended to stay where they were. Lack of safety in their place of origin was cited as the main reason preven�ng displaced persons from returning home in 72 per cent of sites. The other key reason cited as a hurdle preven�ng return from 16 per cent of sites was the extent of damage to houses in their place of origin. Accessibility and lack of food, basic infrastructure and livelihood were also preven�ng returns.

Displacement in host communi�es: Among IDPs in 1,905 sites in host communi�es, 28 per cent have been displaced previously. Among those who have been displaced before, 25 per cent said they have been displaced twice and two per cent said they have been displaced three �mes. Ninety-four per cent said they intended to return to their place of origin and six per cent said they want to stay where they were. Forty-three per cent of IDPs cited lack of security as the reason preven�ng them from returning to place of origin. Thirty-nine per cent said their house was destroyed or damaged, preven�ng them from returning.

While most displacements occurred in 2014, 2015 and 2016, 11 per cent displacements have occurred so far in 2017. Only one per cent out of total people displaced were displaced prior to the start of the current conflict in 2014. Thirty per cent were displaced in 2014, 31 per cent in 2015 and 27 per cent in 2016.

In Borno there were no record of people displaced before 2014. This increased to 28 per cent in 2014, 31 per cent in 2015, 29 per cent in 2016 and 12 per cent so far in 2017. In contrast, in Bauchi state 27 per cent of people were displaced before 2014. Following the onset of the conflict 39 per cent of people were displaced in 2014, 29 per cent in 2015, five per cent in 2016 and one per cent so far in 2017.

1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT

1E: MOBILITY

29%


Figure 6: Frequency of displacement

980,762 520,763 323,796

Number of Individuals

Displaced only once Displaced two �mes Displaced three �mes

Figure 7: IDPs originating from the same LGA

47,3

33

516 777,

946

30,9

10

14,9

42

140,

875

56,3

59

1,43

9,94

0

27,9

85

52,9

61

107,

201

Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe

IDPs displaced within the same LGA Total No. of IDPs

Before 20141%

201430%

201531%

201627%

201711%

10


Figure 8: Current location and place of origin of IDPs

Borno was the place of origin for the majority (87 per cent) of iden�fied displaced persons. Almost all (99.8 per cent) displaced people in Borno fled from a loca�on within Borno. Sixty-five per cent of displaced people in Gombe are from Borno, 44 per cent of IDPs in Yobe are from Borno, 39 per cent of IDPs in Bauchi are from Borno and 34 per cent of IDPs in Adamawa also originate from Borno. Adamawa and Yobe states had the largest popula�on of IDPs a�er Borno with 5 per cent and 4 per cent of the total IDP popula�on respec�vely.

1F: LOCATION AND ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS

ADAMAWA B AUCHI B OR NO GOMB E TAR AB A Y OB EADAMAWA

B AUCHIB OR NO

KADUNAKANO

NAS AR AWAPLATE AUTAR AB A

Y OB E

65.51%

34.49% 39.41%

25.53%

16.13%

3.32%9.79%

0.56%

99.87%

0.02%

0.11%

65.22%

27.53%

7.25%

18.29%

78.19%

3.52%

43.82%

56.18%

State of originState of displacement (Current loca�on of IDPs)

Figure 9: % of total IDP population by state of origin

Tota

l IDP

Pop

ula�

on

(1,8

84,3

31)

5.3%

0.3%

87.1% 0.8%2.2%

4.2%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO PLATEAU TARABA YOBE

2.7%

1.8%

1.9%

1.9%

1.8%

66.1

%

68.4

%

69.3

%

69.8

%

67.8

%

7.2%

6.2%

4.7% 5.5%

5.1%

14.9

%

14.6

%

16.1

%

13.3

%

15.3

%

1.2%

1.2%

0.6%

1.2%

1.3%

0.6%

0.7%

0.7%

0.9%

0.9%6.

5%

6.0%

5.7%

6.2% 7.0%

0.9%

1.1%

1.2%

1.1%

0.9%

R O U N D X I I I R O U N D X I V R O U N D X V R O U N D X V I R O U N D X V I I

Drinking water Food Medical services NFI Sanita�on and Hygiene Security Shelter Water for washing and cooking

Figure 10: IDP settlement type Figure 11: IDP settlement type by state

Figure 12: Main needs of IDPs

Figure 13: Trend of main IDP needs

11

DT M

Sixty-three per cent of IDPs (down from 65 per cent in previous round of assessments and 68 per cent in the round before) were living in host communi�es, with friends and rela�ves or in rented/donated houses. Overall, 37 per cent (up from 35 per cent in previous DTM assessment and 32 per cent in the round before) were living in displacement sites like camps and camp-like se�ngs. In Borno, 56 per cent (down from 58 per cent) of displaced people were living in host communi�es and 44 per cent (up from 42 per cent in May) were residing in displacement sites. Borno had the highest percentage of IDPs living in camps and camp-like se�ngs.

A�er Borno, Taraba had the second highest number of IDPs (14 per cent) living in camp-like se�ngs, Yobe had 12 per cent of displaced persons living in camps and Adamawa had seven per cent of displaced people living in camps. All IDPs in Bauchi and Gombe were living with host communi�es.

Food con�nues to be the most immediate need for 68 per cent (up from 62 per cent in the last round) of displaced persons who were interviewed. Non-food items (NFI) like blankets and mosquito nets were the most unfulfilled need for 15 per cent of IDPs. Shelter and medical services were iden�fied as the most unmet needs among seven per cent and five per cent of IDPs, respec�vely. Two per cent of IDPs said drinking water was most needed. Sanita�on and hygiene (one per cent) and security (one per cent) were also cited as unmet needs.

1G: DWELLING TYPE OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS

1H: UNMET NEEDS OF IDPs

Host Community

63%

Camp37%

93%

100%

56%

100%

86%

88%

7%

0%

44%

0%

14%

12%

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Host Community

Camp

1%1%1%2%

5%7%

15%68%

SecurityWater for washing and cooking

Sanita�on and HygieneDrinking water

Medical servicesShelter

NFIFood


12

DT MThe trend of increase in number of returnees con�nued in DTM Round XVII assessment. A marginal increase of two per cent (23,017) was recorded in the number of returnees (from 1,234,894 to 1,257,911) in the report-ing period. The DTM Round XVI assessment had recorded a higher increase of seven per cent in the number of returnees as against the previous round of assessment. This was in keeping with the steadily increasing trend since DTM started recording data in 2015.

Adamawa recorded the highest number of returnees (666,077), followed by Borno at 504,016 and finally Yobe at 87,818. Within Adamawa, the LGA with the highest number of returnees was Hong (166,364), followed by Michika (124,187) and Mubi South (110,540). In Borno, the LGA with the highest number of returnees was Askira/Uba at 164,696 (an increase of three per cent since last round of assessments), followed by Konduga (44,570) and Ngala (37,131).In Yobe, the LGA with highest number of returnees was Gujba (35,195), followed by Geidam (28,970) and Gulani (16,537).

In comparison with the last round of assessment, the LGA with the highest increase in absolute number of returnees was Damboa, followed by Askira/Uba and Mafa.

Borno had the highest percentage of returns by state of displacement (32 per cent), followed by Adamawa at 23 per cent and Kano at eight per cent.

The number of returnees living in makeshi� shelters during the XVII DTM Round of assessment went down marginally by four per cent to (6,707) as compared to the previ-ous round. People living in par�ally burnt houses went up by 10 per cent to 44,014 during this repor�ng period.

Returnees living in houses with no damage went up by five per cent and was recorded at 153,722. In Borno, 56,132 returnees were residing in houses with no damage while 26,967 were residing in par�ally burned houses and 5,126 were living in makeshi� shelters.

In Adamawa, 88,289 returnees were living in houses with no damage, 13,108 were living in par�ally burned houses and 1,576 were residing in makeshi� shelters.

2A: SHELTER CONDITION OF RETURNEES

2. RETURNEES

Figure 14: Trend of population return

Figure 15: Shelter condition in areas of returns

Figure 16: Trend of return shelter condition

Round XVI Total (May 2017)

Round XVII Total (June 2017) Change

Adamawa 664,633 666,077 1,444 Borno 483,558 504,016 20,458 Yobe 86,703 87,818 1,115 Total 1,234,894 1,257,911 23,017

State

262,

324

320,

365

332,

333

389,

224

599,

164

663,

485

910,

955

1,02

6,48

1

1,09

9,50

9

1,15

1,42

7

1,23

4,89

4

1,25

7,91

1

Oct

-15

Dec-

15

Feb-

16

Apr-

16

Jun-

16

Aug-

16

Oct

-16

Dec-

16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jun-

17

VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII

Number

Table 2: Number of returnees by state (Round XV vs Round XVI)

75%

22%

3%

No Damage

Par�ally Burned

Makeshi� Shelter


28,5

19

40,6

46

41,8

95

49,2

85

86,4

99

97,4

55

122,

054

129,

815

135,

048

134,

271

138,

576

145,

964

153,

722

7,65

4

4,60

8

5,38

1

6,64

6

6,72

7

7,89

5

19,9

91

19,8

94

25,7

60

29,4

43

35,9

17

40,1

85

44,0

14

900

286

161

468

809

736

4,72

2

5,38

8

4,61

3

5,20

1

6,50

8

6,97

4

6,70

7

R O U N D V

R O U N D V I

R O U N D V I I

R O U N D V I I I

R O U N D I X

R O U N D X

R O U N D X I

R O U N D X I I

R O U N D X I I I

R O U N D X I V

R O U N D X V

R O U N D X V I

R O U N D X V I I

No Damage Par�ally Burned Makeshi� Shelter

140

13

DT M3 SITE ASSESSMENTS

3A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPs

DTM Round XVII site assessments were conducted in 2,140 sites, involving a popula�on of 1,825,321 individuals or 330,680 households. The sites included 235 camps and camp-like se�ngs and 1,905 loca�ons where IDPs were residing with host communi�es. The assessment in camps and camp-like se�ngs covered 667,372 (up by two per cent as against the last assessment) displaced individuals (124,167 households), while the assessment in sites where IDPs resided with host communi�es covered 1,157,949 individuals (down six per cent as compared to previous round of assessment).

Out of the 235 displacement sites assessed, most (183 or 77 per cent) were in Borno. Twenty-one (nine per cent) were in Adamawa, Taraba had 16 and Yobe had 15. In Borno, the assessment covered 636,647 IDPs (the highest popula�on among all states) living in camp and camp-like se�ngs and 803,293 displaced people residing with host communi�es. The state with second highest assessed popula�on was Yobe with 13,279 living in displacement sites and 93,922 staying with host communi�es. In Adamawa, out of the 140,875 assessed in this round, 9,959 were living in camp and camp-like se�ngs and the majority (130,916) were living with host communi�es.

Seventy-two per cent of displacement sites were collec�ve se�lements or centers. Twenty-seven per cent were camps and one per cent were classified as transi�onal centers. Almost all assessed sites (95 per cent) were classified as spontaneous, only four per cent were planned and one per cent of sites were earmarked as reloca�on sites.

Only 29 per cent of the 235 sites assessed reported the presence of a site management agency, the remaining had none. Government was in-charge of most sites (14 per cent) that did have site management agency. Seven per cent were run by interna�onal non-government organiza�ons (INGOs) and four per cent were managed by individuals or privately.

Figure 17: Classification of IDP locations

Figure 18: Availability of services at displacement sites in camp/camp-like settings

Class of IDP loca�ons assessed

Camps/Camp-like Se�ngs Host Community

235 Sites | 667,372 IDPs 1,905 Loca�ons | 1,157,949 IDPs

Camp63

Collec�ve Se�lement

169Transi�onal Centre

3


6838

70 77

234

22

127

167197

165 158

212231

213

108

0

50

100

150

200

250

SMA Support Food Support Wash Support Health Support Shelter Support LivelihoodSupport

Protec�onSupport

Educa�onSupport

No

Yes

Map 4: Number of IDPs by state

14

DT MSeventy per cent of the assessed sites had provision for water, 90 per cent had shelter/non-food items support, nearly all (98 per cent) had livelihood opportunity, 67 per cent had health support, 84 per cent had food supply, 91 per cent had protec�on support and 46 per cent had educa�on facili�es.

The assessment carried out in 1,905 sites where IDPs were residing with host communi�es covered a popula�on 1,157,949 individuals or 203,040 households. In Borno, the assessment covered 373 sites where IDPs were living with host communi�es and covered 140,040 households or 803,293 individuals .

100% 100%

93%

7%

56%

44%

86%

14%

88%

12%

52,961

56,359

1,439,940

107,201

140,875

27,985

Borno

Taraba

Bauchi

Yobe

Plateau

Jigawa

Adamawa

Benue

Gombe

Kano

Nassarawa

Cross River

Katsina

Lake Chad

Cameroon

Niger

IDPs in Camps and Camp-like se�ngs

IDPs with Host Communi�es

Inaccessible areas

IDPsLess than 30,00030,001 - 60,00090,001 - 120,000More than 120,000

0 80 16040 Km


15

DT M3B: SECTOR ANALYSIS

SHELTER

Camps and camp-like settings

The assessment in camps and camp-like se�ngs shows that 51 per cent of sites were on privately owned land and 47 per cent were owned by the government. The most common form of shelter were self-made tents. This was the case in 32 per cent of sites. The second most common shelter types were tents (26 per cent, up from 20 per cent in last round of assessment) followed by school buildings (11 per cent, down from 14 per cent in previous round of assessment).

In Borno, 36 per cent of IDPs were residing in self-made tents, 31 per cent in tents, 12 per cent in school buildings, nine per cent in individual houses and six per cent in government buildings.

While majority of IDP households had shelter (87 per cent) in displacement sites, in 12 per cent sites less than 25 per cent had no shelter. In 14 per cent of displacement sites in Borno, less than 25 per cent of IDP households were living with no shelter. In 46 per cent of displacement sites assessed, none of the IDP households were living in tents. In 17 per cent of sites, however, more than 75 per cent of IDP households were living in tents, in 20 per cent of sites, less than 25 per cent of IDP households were living in tents, in nine per cent sites less than 50 per cent of IDP households were living in tents and in eight per cent of sites less than 75 per cent of IDP households were living in tents. In 42 per cent of IDP sites in Borno, none of the displaced families were living in tents, in 20 per cent of sites less than 25 per cent of displaced families were living in tents, in 19 per cent of sites more than 75 per cent of IDP households were living in tents and in 10 per cent of sites less than 25 per cent and 50 per cent, respec�vely, of displaced families were living in tents.

In 28 per cent of sites, none of the displaced persons were living in makeshi� shelters but in 16 per cent of sites over 75 per cent of IDP households were living in makeshi� shelters. In 28 per cent of sites, less than 25 per cent of IDP households were living in makeshi� shelters, in 16 per cent of sites less than 75 per cent of displaced families were living in makeshi� shelter and in 13 per cent of sites, less than 50 per cent of IDP households were living in makeshi� shelters. In 20 per cent of displacement sites in Borno, none of the IDP households were living in makeshi� shelters, in 21 per cent of sites, more than 75 per cent of displaced households were living in makeshi� shelters, in 30 per cent of sites, less than 25 per cent of displaced families were living in makeshi� shelter, in 15 per cent of sites less than 50 per cent of families and 75 per cent of displaced families, respec�vely, were living in makeshi� shelters.

In 36 per cent of sites, none of the IDP households were living in structures with solid walls, in 23 per cent of sites, more than 75 per cent of displaced families were living in structures with solid walls, in 19 per cent of sites, less than 25 per cent were living in structures with solid walls, in 13 per cent of sites less than 75 per cent of displaced families were living in structures with solid walls and in nine per cent of sites less than 50 per cent of IDP households were living in structures with solid walls. In 42 per cent of displacement sites in Borno, none of the displaced families were living in structures with solid walls. In 22 per cent of sites in Borno, less than 25 per cent of IDP households were living in structures with solid walls, in 18 per cent of sites more than 75 per cent of displaced families were living in structures with solid walls, in 10 per cent of displacement sites in Borno less than 75 per cent of IDP households were living in structures with solid walls and in eight per cent of sites less than 50 per cent of displaced families were living in structures with solid walls.

Figure 19: Most common forms of shelter in camps and camp-like settings

1%1%1%

4%7%7%

10%11%

26%32%

Open lotHealth facility

Bunk housesCommunity center

Government buildingIndividual house

Host family houseSchool

TentsSelf-made tents


Host Communities

In 1,905 displacement sites where IDPs were residing with host communi�es which were assessed during this round of DTM assessment, the land was owned by private individuals (97 per cent). Mostly IDPs (85 per cent) were living in house of host family, 10 per cent had their own individual houses and four per cent were living in self-made tents.

Among IDPs living with host community, 97 per cent or 1,094,842 had shelter and only three per cent of sites had less than 25 per cent people (1,094,842 people) living with no shelter. In Borno, 98 per cent or 759,185 displaced people have shelter and 63,107 were without shelter.

In assessed sites where IDPs were living with host communi�es, 12 per cent of displaced households or 172,528 people were living in tents and 87 per cent were not living in tents. In Borno sites with people living in host communi�es, 683,933 or 89 per cent were not living in tents while 11 per cent of sites have less than 25 per cent living in tents or 119,100 people.

Twenty-three per cent of sites assessed have less than 25 per cent of displaced people or 418,807 individuals living in makeshi� or self-made shelters, seven per cent sites where less than 50 per cent of displaced people or 142,251 people were living in makeshi� shelters. A rela�vely large number (67 per cent) or 549,736 people in assessed sites were not living in makeshi� shelters.

In 76 per cent of sites assessed, more than 75 per cent of displaced households or 847,218 people were living in structures with solid walls. In 20 per cent of sites, less than 75 per cent or 253,042 people were living in structures with solid walls.

Thirty-one per cent of IDP households residing with host communi�es have no access to electricity, 27 per cent of sites have less than 25 per cent of IDP households with access to electricity, 22 per cent of sites have less than 50 per cent of displaced families with access to electricity.

Figure 20: Most common forms of shelter in host communities

89%

8%

3%

Host family house

Individual house

Self-made tents

Non-Food ItemsCamps/camp-like settings

Blankets/mats were the most needed non-food items (NFIs) by displaced households in 35 per cent of displacement sites assessed. Kitchen sets were the most needed NFIs for 23 per cent of displacement sites assessed. Plas�c sheets were the most needed NFIs for 19 per cent of sites assessed.

Kitchen sets were the second most needed NFIs by displaced households in 34 per cent of assessed displacement sites. Blankets/mats followed at 30 per cent, mosquito nets at 15 per cent. Buckets/jerry cans were the third most needed NFIs in 30 per cent of sites assessed, followed by kitchen sets at 22 per cent and hygiene kits (16 per cent).

Host Communities

Blankets/mats were the most needed NFIs in 35 per cent of assessed sites among IDPs living with host communi�es. Mosquito nets were most needed NFIs for 28 per cent of IDPs, followed by kitchen sets (23 per cent) and plas�c sheets were most needed NFIs for seven per cent. Kitchen sets were the second most needed NFI in 31 per cent of sites assessed, followed by blankets/mats in 25 per cent and mosquito nets in 24 per cent. Kitchen sets were the third most needed NFI in 25 per cent of sites, followed by buckets/jerry cans at 20 per cent and blankets/mats at 19 per cent.


16

Figure 21: Most needed types of NFI in displacement sites

17

DT M

Water sourcesCamps/camp-like settingsIn camps/camp-like se�ngs, piped water was the main source of drinking water in the majority (55 per cent) of the assessed sites, represen�ng a four per cent decrease from the previous DTM round. This was followed by hand pumps (34 per cent). Water trucks were cited as the main source of drinking water at seven per cent of assessed sites, while protected and unprotected wells were the third and fourth most common source of drinking water at these sites.

In 41 per cent of camps/camp-like se�ngs, IDPs had access to 10-15 liters of water per person per day. In 29 per cent of sites, more than 15 liters of water was available per person per day, and in 25 per cent of sites, five to 10 liters of water was available per person per day. In five per cent of sites, five liters of water was available per person per day.

Water was reported to be potable in 79 per cent of sites. Taste was the main issue with the water in 12 per cent of sites, suspended solids were found in water sources in one per cent (down from five per cent in previous round of assessment) of sites and in three per cent of sites odor was the main issue.

Water source was on-site and at less than 10 minutes walking distance in 70 per cent of sites assessed. It was off-site but s�ll less than 10-minutes’ walk in 22 per cent of sites. Water source of off-site and more than 10-minutes’ walk in eight per cent of sites.

In 54 per cent of sites, water points have been improved but in 93 per cent of sites residents do not differen�ate between drinking and non-drinking water.

Host Communities On the other hand, hand pumps con�nued to be the main source of drinking water in 54 per cent of the assessed sites. Piped water was the main source of drinking water in 19 per cent of sites. 13 per cent of sites relied on water from protected and eight per cent from unprotected wells. Water trucks were catering to three per cent of sites where IDPs were living with host community.

WASH

34%

35%

2% 2%3% 3%

23%

23%

18%

28%

19%

7%

1% 2%

C A M P S / C A M P - L I K E S E T T I N G H O S T C O M M U N I T I E S

Blankets/Mats

Bucket/Jerry Can

Hygiene kits

Kitchen sets

Mosquito nets

Plas�c shee�ng

Soap


34%

55%

55%

19%

0% 1%2%

13%

0% 1%2%

8%7%

3%


Hand pumps

Piped water supply

Ponds/canals

Protected well

Spring

Unprotected well

Water truck

Figure 22: Main drinking water sources in displacement sites

41%

29%

25%

5%

10 - 15 ltr

>15 ltr

5 - 10 ltr

<5 ltr

Figure 23: Average amount of water available per person per day in camps and camp-like settings

18

DT M

Hygiene and Sanita�on

Camps/camp-like settingsIn camps/camp-like se�ngs, the condi�on of toilets was reported to be “not so good” in the majority of sites and in fact went up steeply from 83 per cent in previous round of assessment to 96 per cent during this assessment. Three per cent of sites reported that the condi�on of toilets was hygienic and two per cent reported that toilets were non-usable. There were 24,376 func�oning toilets in all camps and camp-like se�ngs that were assessed in this round.

There were no separate toilets for males and females in 94 per cent (up from 75 per cent in last round) of sites, no separate bathing areas were provided in 93 per cent (up from 70 per cent in last round) of sites and toilets/bathrooms did not lock from inside in 85 per cent (up from 60 per cent) of sites.

Handwashing facili�es were available in 90 per cent of camps/camp-like se�ngs but without soap. Handwashing facili�es with soap were available in only nine per cent (down from 36 per cent in previous round) of sites. Evidence of the prac�ced of handwashing was seen in 10 per cent of sites, while no hygiene promo�on ac�vity was reported in 82 per cent of sites.

Solid waste disposal was chiefly through burning (52 per cent), followed by garbage pit (18 per cent). Twenty-nine per cent of sites had no garbage disposal. Majority (60 per cent) of sites stated garbage disposal as a problem.Evidence of open defeca�on was found in 41 per cent of sites. Drainage was found to be working in 12 per cent sites only, making the sites prone to flooding during the ongoing rainy season.

Host Communities In host communi�es, 96 per cent (up from 94 per cent) of toilets were rated as ‘not so good’. Toilets were good in three per cent of sites and unusable in two per cent of sites. 24,376 toilets were func�onal. Separate bathing area were not available in 94 per cent of the assessed sites. There were no separate bathing areas for men and women in 93 per cent of sites and toilets did not lock from inside in 85 per cent of sites.

Burning was the main means of garbage disposal in 52 per cent of sites, garbage pit was available in 18 per cent of sites and there was no disposal mechanism in 29 per cent of sites. In 60 per cent of sites assessed, garbage disposal was cited as a problem.

Figure 24: Condition of toilets in camps/camp-like setting

Figure 25: Condition of toilets in host communities

10%4%

86%

Good(Hygienic)

Non usable

Not so good(Not hygienic)

3% 1%

96%

Good(Hygienic)

Non usable

Not so good(Not hygienic)


Water source was on-site and at less than 10 minutes walking distance in 66 per cent of sites assessed. It was off-site but s�ll less than 10-minutes’ walk in 15 per cent of sites. Water source of off-site and more than 10-minutes’ walk in 10 per cent of sites.

In 50 per cent of sites, water points have been improved but residents do not differen�ate between drinking and non-drinking water in 53 per cent of sites. In host communi�es, water was reported as being potable in 69 per cent of sites, while remaining sites reported that drinking water was not potable. Taste was the main issue at most sites (23 per cent), followed by suspended par�cles in five per cent of sites and odor in three per cent of sites.

In 42 per cent of sites, 10 to 15 liters of water was available to each person per day, in 35 per cent of sites average water available was more than 15 liters, in 20 per cent of sites its was five to 10 liters.

60%

53%

17%

18%

23% 29%


Burning

Garbage pit

No waste disposal system

In host communi�es IDP sites, handwashing sta�ons were available in 90 per cent of sites but without soap. In nine per cent of sites, hand-washing sta�ons had soap. No signs of handwashing prac�ce was visible in 90 per cent of sites. Hygiene promo�on campaigns were not evidenced in 82 per cent of sites. Open defeca�on was found to be prevalent in 41 per cent of sites. In 88 per cent of sites, drainage systems were found to be lacking.

Figure 26: Methods of waste disposal in IDP sites

Camps/camp-like settingsIn 84 per cent (up from 76 per cent in previous round) of camps/camp-like se�ngs, food was available on-site. In 11 per cent (down from 18 per cent in previous round) of sites, IDPs had access to food offsite, while IDPs had no access to food in five per cent of sites assessed. Cash (50 per cent) and food distribu�on (38 per cent) were the main sources of obtaining food in camps/camp-like se�ngs, the frequency of food distribu�on was irregular in 75 per cent of sites. In nine per cent of sites, distribu�on occurred once a month and five per cent said they have never received food or cash vouchers.

Cash con�nues to be the most common way as per 50 per cent people in displacement sites. Thirty-eight per cent relied on distribu�on, seven per cent on dona�ons from host community and five per cent on cul�va�on. Eighty-six per cent of sites had access to market.

In 64 per cent of sites, screening for malnutri�on was reported. No blanket supplementary feeding of children was found in 56 per cent of sites assessed, no distribu�on of micronutrient powers was evidenced in 72 per cent of sites, no supplementary feeding for the elderly was reported in 91 per cent sites and no supplementary feeding for pregnant and lacta�ng women was reported in 70 per cent of sites. In 24 per cent of sites, counselling on infant and young child feeding prac�ces was found.

Host Communities In 60 per cent of sites in host communi�es, IDPs were reported to have access to food on-site. Twenty-six per cent reported access to food off-site, while 14 per cent reported no access to food. Market were accessible in 88 per cent of sites. Frequency of food distribu�on or vouchers was irregular in 72 per cent of sites, six per cent reported that distribu�on occurred once a month and four per cent reported daily distribu�on of food. IDPs in 16 per cent of host communi�es said they have never received food distribu�on or vouchers.

Cul�va�on was the main means of obtaining food in 45 per cent of sites, followed by cash (31 per cent) and host communi�es (13 per cent).

Malnutri�on screening was reported in 28 per cent of assessed sites in host communi�es. Blanket supplementary feeding was not evidenced in 83 per cent of sites, supplementary feeding for lacta�ng and pregnant women was not seen in 88 per cent of sites, counselling on infant and young child feeding prac�ces was not recorded in 88 per cent of sites, micronutrient power distribu�on was not observed in 85 per cent sites and supplementary feeding for the elderly was not found in 97 per cent of sites.

Figure 27: Access to food in displacement sites

FOOD AND NUTRITION

5% 14%

11% 26

%

84%

60%

C A M P S / C A M P - L I K E S E T T I N G

H O S T C O M M U N I T I E S

No Yes, off site Yes, on site


19

20

DT M

Figure 31: Main health providers in camps/camp-like setting

Figure 32: Main health providers in host communities

Figure 30: Most common health problems in displacement sites


Figure 28: Frequency of food distribution in displacement sites Figure 29: Most common sources of obtaining food in displacement sites

2% 3% 4%

75%

72%

5%

16%

9% 6%5% 2%1%


Every 2 weeks EverydayIrregular NeverOnce a month Once a weekTwice a week

50%

31%

5%

45%

38%

11%

7%

13%



Cash Cul�vated

Distribu�on Host community dona�on

Health

Camps/camp-like settingsThe most commonly reported health problem con�nued to be malaria with 52 per cent displacement sites repor�ng it, followed by fever in 20 per cent, cough in 12 per cent and diarrhea by 12 per cent of sites.

Seventy-two per cent of people in displacement sites had regular access to medicine and 97 per cent had regular access to a health facility. Sixty five per cent of sites had access to on-site health facility within three km distance, 25 per cent had access to a facility offsite but within three kms. Six per cent had access to a facility offsite more than three kms away and three per cent had medical facility.

Forty-nine per cent of health facili�es were run by INGOs in assessed displacement sites. 28 per cent by were government run and 15 per cent were run by NGOs. Host Communities Malaria was the most common ailment among 50 per cent of displaced people living with host community, followed by fever (24 per cent), cough (10 per cent) and diarrhea (seven per cent). Fi�y-eight per cent sites where IDPs were living with host communi�es had regular access to medicine and 96 per cent had regular access to health facility. For 49 per cent, the health facility was onsite and within three km. For 28 per cent, it was off-site but within a distance of three km. Four per cent had no access to health facility and three per cent were serviced by mobile clinics.

The government was the main health service provider (60 per cent) in sites where IDPs were residing with host community, followed by local clinics (26 per cent), NGOs (five per cent) and INGO (five per cent).

52%

50%

20% 24

%

12%

10%

11%

7%

2% 1%2%

7%

1% 1%


Malaria Fever Cough Diarrhea

RTI Malnutri�on Skin disease

NGO15%

Local clinic4%None

3%Government28%

INGO49%

Local clinic26%

INGO5%

NGO5%None

4%

Government60%

DT M

Figure 33: Number of sites and percentage of children attending school in camps and camp-like settings

Table 3: Access to education services in displacement sites

Education

Camps/camp-like settingsNinety per cent displacement sites have access to educa�on. For 46 per cent of them, the educa�on facility was off-site and for 44 per cent the facility was on-site. For 54 per cent of children, school was within a distance of one km. For 30 per cent of children, school was within two km.

In 33 per cent of sites, less than 25 per cent children were a�ending school, in 29 per cent less than 50 per cent were a�ending school, in 17 per cent less than 75 per cent were a�ending school, in five per cent of sites more than 75 per cent children were a�ending school and in 16 per cent of sites no child were a�ending school. For 73 per cent (up from 66 per cent in previous round of assessment) of sites, the biggest deterrent to coming to school was the high cost or fee. Host Communities Ninety-seven per cent of sites where IDPs were residing with host community had access to educa�on. In 61 per cent of sites, educa�on facility was off-site, in 37 per cent of sites the educa�on facility was onsite. Schools were within one km for 53 per cent of sites, within two km for 32 per cent of sites and less than five km in 11 per cent of sites. For two per cent of sites, schools were more than 10 km away. In 34 per cent of sites, less than 50 per cent of children a�ended school, in 25 per cent of sites less than 75 per cent a�ended school, in 22 per cent of sites less than 25 per cent a�ended school. High school fee was the reason for children not a�ending school in 71 per cent of sites.

CommunicationCamps/camp-like settingsA high of 83 per cent of displaced households in displacement sites rely on radio as their most preferred means to receive informa�on, followed by word of mouth (eight per cent) and telephone calls (six per cent).

The most trusted source of informa�on were local community leader in 47 per cent of sites, followed by friends and neighbours in 39 per cent of sites and religious leaders in five per cent sites. In 62 per cent of assessed sites, less than 25 per cent of IDP households had func�oning radios, in 31 per cent of sites less than 50 per cent had working radios and in five per cent sites less than 75 per cent of displaced families had access to func�oning radios.

Distribu�on was the main topic of interest in 30 per cent of sites, followed by safety and security (20 per cent) and situa�on in place of origin (15 per cent).

Host Communities Among displaced people living with host community, 75 per cent of sites named radio as their most preferred means to receive informa�on, followed by word of mouth (13%) and telephone calls (nine per cent).

21

78

69

39

11

38

<25%

<50%

<75%

>75%

None


Access to educa�on services Camps/Camp-like se�ng Host Communi�esNo 23 59 Yes 212 1,846

Off-site 104 685 On-site 108 1,158

Don't know 3

Figure 34:Main topics of interests of all IDP households Figure 35: Main sources of information in IDP sites3% 3%

83%

75%

6% 9%8% 13%


Community mee�ngs Radio Telephone voice call Word of Mouth

17% 2% 2%2%

3%19%24%

31%

Other relief assistanceHow to get informa�onRegistra�onAccess to servicesShelterSafety and SecuritySitua�on in areas of originDistribu�on

The most trusted source of informa�on were local community leader in 41 per cent of sites, followed by friends and neighbours in 33 per cent of sites and religious leaders in 15 per cent sites. In 39 per cent of assessed sites, less than 25 per cent of IDP households had func�oning radios, in 36 per cent of sites less than 50 per cent had working radios and in three per cent sites no displaced families had radios.

Distribu�on was the main topic of interest in 30 per cent of sites, followed by situa�on in place of origin (24 per cent), safety and security (19 per cent) and other relief assistant in 17 per cent.

Table 4: Access to livelihood activities in IDP sites

LIVELIHOOD

Camps/camp-like settingsIn majority of displacement sites (98 per cent), IDPs had access to and engage in some form of livelihood/income genera�ng ac�vity. In 39 per cent of camps/camp-like se�ngs assessed, daily labour was reported to be the most common form of livelihood ac�vity. Farming was next at 23 per cent of sites as the main form of livelihood ac�vity engaged in by IDPs, while pe�y trade and the collec�on of fire wood were reported as the most common form of livelihood ac�vity in 22 per cent and 13 per cent of sites, respec�vely.

Host Communities In sites where IDPs are living with host communi�es, 91 per cent have access to income genera�ng ac�vi�es. In 55 per cent sites, farming was reported as the most common form of income genera�ng ac�vity, followed by pe�y trade at 19 per cent and 16 per cent of sites reported daily labour to be the most common form of livelihood ac�vity IDPs engage in.

Camps/Camp-like se�ngAccess to income genera�ng ac�vity Host Communi�esNo 1% 8%Yes 99% 92%

Daily labourer 37% 14%Farming 23% 51%Pe�y trade 22% 17%Collec�ng firewood 13% 4%Agro-pastoralism 2% 4%Fishing 1% 2%Pastoralism 1% 0%

Total 100% 100%


22

DT MPROTECTION

Camps/camp-like settingsIn 91 per cent of displacement sites assessed, security was provided. The majority (48 per cent) of security was self-organized, the military provided security in 26 per cent of sites, local authori�es in seven per cent, police in six per cent sites and there was no security in nine per cent of sites.

No security incidents were reported in 85 per cent of assessed displacement sites. The� incidents were reported in six per cent of sites and fric�on among site residents was the reason for five per cent incidents.

No incident of gender based violence were reported in 92 per cent of sites. Domes�c violence was the leading form of reported gender-based violence at seven per cent of sites. In 97 per cent of sites, no cases of physical violence were reported.

Child physical or emo�onal abuse was reported in five per cent of sites, child separated in three per cent of sites and no incident reported in 91 per cent of sites.

Women said they felt unsafe in three per cent of sites. Children felt unsafe in two per cent of sites and men felt unsafe in less than one per cent of sites.No ligh�ng was reported at communal points in 77 per cent of sites and it was defined as inadequate in 19 per cent sites.

While 56 per cent (down from 65 per cent in last assessment) displacement sites did not report any problems in receiving support, 33 per cent (up from 22 per cent in last round) said that the assistance was not enough for all those en�tled to it. Figh�ng between recipients was reported in six per cent of sites and two per cent of the sites reported that assistance was given to non-affected people.

There were 23 (down from 38 in the last assessment and from 52 in the assessment before) recrea�onal places for children in the sites assessed and out of these 15 (down from 31) were in Borno. There were 14 recrea�onal places for women and all in Borno.

In 40 per cent of sites, IDPs have ID cards and the remaining do not.

Host CommunitiesIn sites where IDPs are residing with host communi�es, 87 per cent had security. In Borno, this figure was 98 per cent. Local authori�es were the security providers in 25 per cent of sites, 20 per cent were self-organized and in 15 per cent community leaders provided security.

No security-related incidents were reported in 78 per cent of sites. The most common type of security incident was the� (nine per cent), followed by fric�on with other residents (five per cent) and crime (four per cent).

23


9% 14%

91%

86%



No

Yes

Figure 36: Availability of security provider on site

Figure 37: Relationship amongst IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

Excellent5%

Good95%

Figure 38: Main security providers in displacement sites

3%

15%

7%

25%

26%

13%

10% 13%

6%

14%

48%

20%


Community Leaders Local Authori�es Military

None Police Self organized

DT MDomes�c violence was the main reason for gender based violence (seven per cent) while no such incident was reported in 90 per cent of sites. Other forms of exploita�on like forced labour/forced begging were reported in six per cent of sites assessed while no form of physical violence was reported in 88 per cent of sites.

In 87 per cent of sites, no child protec�on issue was reported though in forced child labour/forced begging was reported in seven per cent of sites. There were 51 recrea�on places for children and only one in Borno. There were nine recre-a�on places for women but none in Borno.

Five per cent of women, four per cent of men and children, respec�vely, felt unsafe. In 51 per cent of sites, there was ligh�ng by it was not felt to be adequate. In 34 per cent of sites, there was no ligh�ng.

While 36 per cent of sites reported no problem in receiving support, in 45 per cent sites assistance was reported to be not enough, in seven per cent sites assistance was found to be physically inadequate for the most vulnerable, in four per cent of sites figh�ng among recipients was reported and in three per cent of sites assistance was reportedly given to non-affected groups.

In 95 per cent of sites, rela�onship among IDPs was defined as good, while it was excellent in five per cent of sites. The rela�onship between IDPs and host community was defined as poor in one per cent sites, and good in 94 per cent of sites and excellent in five per cent of sites.

In 31 per cent of sites, IDPs had no ID cards. In two per cent of sites some form of travel opportunity was offered.

24

Figure 39: Relationship amongst IDPs and host communities in sites

2

Excellent5% Poor

1%

Good94%


Contacts:IOM: Henry KWENIN, DTM Project [email protected] +234 9038852524

NEMA: Alhassan NUHU, Director, Disaster Risk [email protected] +234 8035925885

http://www.nigeria.iom.int/dtm

Humanitarian AidAnd Civil Protec�on

The data collected in this report comes from different DTM tools used by enumerators at various administra�ve levels. The type of respondent for each tool is different and focuses on different popula�on types:

TOOLS FOR IDPs

Local Government Area Profile-IDP: This is an assessment conducted with key informants at the LGA-level. The type of informa�on collected at this level includes: displaced popula�on es�mates (households and individuals), date of arrival of IDPs, loca�on of origin, reasons for displacement and type of displacement loca�ons. The assessment also records contacts of key informants and organiza�ons assis�ng IDPs in the LGA. The main outcome of this assessment is the list of wards where IDP presence has been iden�fied. This list will be used as a reference to con�nue the assessment at ward level (see Ward-level profile for IDPs).

Ward level Profile-IDP: This is an assessment conducted at ward level. The type of informa�on collected at this level includes: displaced popula�on es�mates (households and individuals), �me of arrival of IDPs, loca�on of origin, reasons of displacement and type of displacement loca�ons. The assessment also includes informa�on on displacement origina�ng from the ward, as well as a demographic calculator based on a sample of IDPs in host communi�es and camp-like se�ngs. The results of the ward level profile are used to verify the informa�on collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all those wards iden�fied as having IDP popula�ons in the LGA list.

Site assessment: This is undertaken in iden�fied IDP loca�ons (camps, camp-like se�ngs and host communi�es) to capture detaileisd informa�on on the key services available. Site assessment forms are u�lized to record the exact loca�on and name of a site, accessibility constraints, size and type of the site, whether registra�ons is available, and if natural hazards put the site at risk. The form also captures details about the IDP popula�on, including their place of origin, and demographic informa�on on the number of households with a breakdown by age and sex, as well as informa�on on IDPs with specific vulnerabili�es. Furthermore, the form captures details on key access to services in different sectors: shelter and NFI, WASH, food, nutri�on, health, educa�on, livelihood, communica�on, and protec�on. The informa�on is captured through interviews with representa�ves of the site and other key informants, including IDP representa�ves.

TOOLS FOR RETURNEES

Local Government Area Profile-Returnees: is an assessment conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of informa�on collected at this level includes: returnee popula�on es�mates (households and individuals), �me of return, loca�on of origin and ini�al reasons of displacement. The main outcome of this assessment is the list of wards where returnee presence has been iden�fied. This list will be used as a reference to con�nue the assessment at ward level (see Ward-level profile for returnees).

Ward level Profile-returnee: is an Assessment conducted at ward level. The type of informa�on collected at this level includes: returnee popula�on es�mates (households and individuals), �me of return, loca�on of origin and reasons for ini�al displacement. The results of this kind of assessment are used to verify the informa�on collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all those wards iden�fied as having returnee popula�ons 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 various key informant. The accuracy of the data also relies on the regularity of the assessments and field visits that are conducted every six weeks.

DT M

25

METHODOLOGY


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.

Documents

Nigeria DTM Round XVII-V2...Table 1: Change in IDP ﬁgures by state St ate Round XVI Tot al (M y 2017) R ound XV I T t l (June 2017) Change ADAMAWA 143,209 -2,334 BAUCHI 56,916 -557