IOM NIGERIA DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX (DTM) - NORTH-EAST NIGERIA | DISPLACEMENT REPORT 36
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DTM
Nigeria
IOM NIGERIA
DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX (DTM)
NORTH-EAST NIGERIA | DISPLACEMENT REPORT 36
MAY 2021
Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
CONTENTS
Methodology 3
Executive Summary 4
Background4
Overview: DTM Round 36 Assessments 5
Key highlights 6
1. BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT 7
1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH EAST-NIGERIA 7
1B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 9
1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT 9
1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT 9
1E: MOBILITY 10
1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS 10
1G: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF THE DISPLACED POPULATIONS 10
1H: UNMET NEEDS IN IDP SETTLEMENTS 11
2. SITE ASSESSMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS 11
2A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPs 11
2B: SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATION 13
2C: SECTOR ANALYSIS 14
3. RETURNEES 18
3A: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT FOR RETURNEES 19
3B: YEAR OF RETURN FOR RETURNEES 19
3C: REASONS FOR INITIAL DISPLACEMENT OF RETURNEES 20
3D: SHELTER CONDITIONS FOR RETURNEES 20
3E: HEALTH FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 20
3F: EDUCATION FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 20
3G: WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 21
3H: LIVELIHOOD FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 21
3I: MARKERT FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES 21
3J: PROFILE OF ASSISTANCE FOR RETURNEES 21
2
Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
METHODOLOGY
The 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 assessmentis is the identification of wards where the presence of IDPs is reported. This list will be
used as a reference to continue the assessment at ward level (see “ward-level profile for IDPs”).
Ward level Profile ‐ IDP: This is an assessment conducted at the ward level. The type of information collected at this level
includes: displaced population estimates (households and individuals), time of arrival, location of origin, reason(s) for displacement
and type of displacement locations. The assessment also includes information on displacement originating from the ward, as well
as a demographic calculator based on a sample of assessed IDPs in host communities, camps and camp-like settings. The results
of the ward level profile are used to verify the information collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all wards
that had previously been identified as having IDP populations in the LGA list.
Site assessment: This is undertaken in identified IDP locations (camps, camp-like settings and host communities) to capture
detailed information on the key services available. Site assessment forms are used to record the exact location and name of a site,
accessibility constraints, size and type of the site, availability of registrations, and the likelihood of natural hazards putting the site
at risk. The form also captures details about the IDP population, including their place of origin, and demographic information on
the number of households disaggregated by age and sex, as well as information on IDPs with specific vulnerabilities. In addition,
the form captures details on access to services in different sectors: shelter and NFI, WASH, food, nutrition, health, education,
livelihood, communication, and protection. The information is captured through interviews with representatives of the site and
other key informants, including IDP representatives.
TOOLS FOR RETURNEES
Local Government Area Profile - Returnees: This is an assessment conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The
type of information collected at this level focuses on returnees and includes returnee population estimates (households and
individuals), date of return, location of origin and initial reasons of displacement. The main outcome of this assessment is a list of
wards where returnee presence has been identified. This list will be used as a reference to continue the assessment at ward level
(see “ward level profile for returnees”).
Ward level Profile ‐ Returnees: The ward level profile is an assessment that is conducted at the ward level. The type of
information collected at this level focuses on returnees and includes information on: returnee population estimates (households
and individuals), date of return, location of origin and reasons for initial displacement. The results of this type of assessment are
used to verify the information collected at LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all wards that had been identified as
having returnee populations in the LGA list.
Data is collected via interviews with key informants such as representatives of the administration, community leaders, religious
leaders and humanitarian aid workers. To ensure data accuracy, assessments are conducted and cross-checked with several
key informants. The accuracy of the data also relies on the regularity and continuity of the assessments and field visits that are
conducted every six weeks.
3
Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report, which presents the results from the Round 36 of Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) assessments carried out by the
International Organization for Migration (IOM), aims to improve the understanding of the scope of internal displacement, the plight
of returnees and the needs of the displacement affected populations in north-east Nigeria. The report covers the period from 08 to
24 February 2021 and reflects the trends from the 6 states in Nigeria’s north-east geopolitical zone. This zone is the most affected
by the conflict and consist of the following states: Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe.
In Round 36, a total of 2,184,254 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) were identified in 447,628 households. This signifies a 1.6
per cent increase (or 34,011 individuals) compared to the Round 35 of DTM assessments when 2,150,243 IDPs were recorded
(December 2020). The number of IDPs recorded during Round 35 increased with 0.3 per cent compared to Round 34 when
2,144,135 IDPs were identified (November 2020). When comparing the Round 36 number of IDPs to Round 31 (2,046,604 IDPs
- February 2020), the number of IDPs in north-east Nigeria has increased by 6.6 per cent during the past year.
The number of IDPs in the region is now well above (increase by 7.8%) the number recorded in Round 25 (2,026,602 individuals),
which was conducted before the escalating violence was observed in October 2018. The increase in IDPs was noted despite the
fact that accessibility remains lower than it was during the Round 25 and prior. Since the Round 25 of assessments, the LGAs
Kukawa, Kala/Balge and Guzamala in Borno State have been largely inaccessible due to increased hostilities in those districts.
In Round 29, the ward Rann in Kala/Balge LGA became accessible again and remains so currently. Given that the number of
IDPs is increasing, although accessibility currently remains low, it can be inferred that the actual displacement figures could be
considerably higher.
To gain insights into the profiles of IDPs, interviews were conducted with 5.4 per cent of the identified IDP population — 117,529
displaced persons — during this round of assessments. The information collated and analysed in this report includes the reasons
for displacement, places of origin and shelter types, mobility patterns, and unfulfilled needs of the displaced populations.
During Round 36, IDP assessments were conducted in 2,397 locations (up from 2,396 locations compared to Round 35 of
assessments). Assessed locations included 308 camps and camp-like settlements (similar to Round 35) as well as 2,089
locations where internally displaced persons were living among host communities (up from 2,088 in Round 35). The purpose
was to better understand the gaps in services provided and the needs of the affected population. Site assessments included an
analysis of sector-wide needs, including shelter and non- food items, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), food and nutrition,
health, education, livelihood, security, communication and protection.
Furthermore, a total of 1,763,377 returnees were recorded in the DTM Round 36 assessment. This signifies an increment of
20,470 individuals or less than 1 per cent compared to Round 35 when 1,742,907 returnees were recorded (December 2020).
The number confirms an increasing trend in numbers of returnees that has continued throughout 2020 and into 2021.
This report includes analyses of the increasing number of returnees, their displacement profiles, shelter conditions, health,
education, livelihood, market, assistance and WASH facilities available to the returnees. Notably, as Borno is the most affected by
conflict-related displacements in north-east Nigeria, this report specifically concentrates on the related data and analysis.
BACKGROUND
Eleven years into the crisis in north-east Nigeria, there is no sign of abating. To the contrary, the protracted character of the
crisis has a devastating impact on the region is adding to a long history of marginalisation, under-development and poverty. The
escalation of the violence in 2014 resulted in widespread displacement and great deprivation. To better understand the scope of
displacement and assess the needs of the 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, various escalations of the conflict have been noted with the security situation remaining unpredictable and leading
to fluid mobility. Some of the most brutal attacks were recorded in the last months of 2020, against both IDPs and aid workers.
At present, the humanitarian situation is rapidly approaching famine levels and is characterised by high levels of food insecurity,
malnutrition and exposure to diseases. Frequent attacks against farmers and fishermen have been reported, at a time when food
security is rapidly deteriorating, especially across the BAY states (Borno, Adamawa and Yobe).
The main objective of the DTM programme is to provide support to the Government and humanitarian partners by establishing a
comprehensive system that collects, analyses and disseminates data on IDPs and returnees in order to ensure timely and effective
assistance to the affected populations. In each round of DTM assessments, 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 centres, as well as in locations where IDPs are residing
among host communities.
4
Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
OVERVIEW: DTM ROUND 36 ASSESSMENTS
DTM Round 36 assessments were carried out from 8 to 24 February 2021 in 107 LGAs (no change from the last round of
assessments). Within the 107 accessible LGAs, the assessments were conducted in 791 wards (similar to the Round 34) in the
conflict-affected states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe in north-east Nigeria. As per the assessments,
2,184,254 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) or 447,628 households were recorded as displaced, an increase of 34,011
persons (or 1.6%) compared to the last assessment (Round 35) conducted in December 2020 when 2,150,243 IDPs were
recorded.
The number of IDPs recorded during Round 36 is also higher compared the figures reported in Round 33 and Round 34,
respectively conducted in August 2020 and November 2020, when 2,188,550 and 2,144,135 IDPs were identified. Since the
dip recorded in January 2019, IDP numbers in north-east Nigeria have been increasing gradually, demonstrating a slight upward
trend. As per Round 31 of DTM assessments, conducted in February 2020, 2,046,604 IDPs were recorded, confirming a 6.6 per
cent increase in the number of IDPs during the past year.
Since the escalation of the violence in October 2018, humanitarian access to certain areas in north-east Nigeria has been highly
constraint. This is important to take into consideration as actual displacement figures could be considerably higher. The populous
LGAs Guzamala, Kukawa and Nganzia in Borno State, who were accessible before October 2018, continue to remain completely
inaccessible for DTM enumerators until today.
Ahead of the reduction in accessibility due to the deterioration in overall security situation, the number of wards assessed by
DTM had been growing steadily over the months. From 797 wards assessed in June 2018, to a high of 807 assessed wards in
the Round 25 that was conducted before a spurt in violence was recorded in October 2018. For this Round 36, similarly to the
previous rounds, 791 wards in six states were assessed by DTM enumerators.
Chad
Niger Lake Chad
Tulotulo Abadam
Mayori Sumbar
Yusufari Yunusari/Ngirabo
Asaga
Yusufari Bogum
Machina Gumshi Bulatura Yunusari Daratoshia
Duji Gashigar
Lamisu Kumagannam
Konkomma Karauswa Dilala Zajibiri/Dumbal
Afunori Maimalari Damasak Zari
Machina Bulanguwa
Garu Guna Jebuwa
Mairari Kukawa
Falimaram Maskandare Guya Dekwa Chamba
Kukayasku
Nguru Yajiri Fajiganari
Kafiya Degaltura Zulum
Umarti
Damai
Dabule
Karasuwa Bukarti
Waro Bultuwa Mobbar
Dole Karasuwa Garin Gasma Juluri Asheikri 1
Nglaiwa Jaji Maji Masaba Kaliyari Mozogun
Maja Kura Galu Gawo Sabon Gari Asheikri 2 Fukurti Layi
Damnawa
Bogo Taganama
Ngarbi Dumsai
Dagona Dawayo
Katuzu Zango
Bursari Jororo
Kareto Gazabure
Guzamala
Katsina
Bulabulin Wachakal
Sarkin Hausawa
Bade Jawur
Jawa G Dole
Balle
Tsugum Katamma Bayamari Guji Metalari
Ma'Anna Futchimiram Gubio Ngurno
Tagali Zabudum Dachia Kurnawa Guba Dapso Felo
Zowo
Yobe
Ngetra Kumalia
Gorgoram Bade Geidam
Dabira
Danani Borko Monguno Kaguram
Gamawu
Gwio-Kura Kusur Kingowa
Jigawa
Gumsa Gubio 2 Wulo
Dumbari Mandala
Ardimini
Dapchi
Nganzai Zulum Monguno Wulgo
Gidgid Bayam
Jaba
Jumbam Gubio 1
Yele Marte Shehuri
Jakusko Kupti Sure
Tunokalia
Jakusko
Manda Da'A Mafa Ngamma Gamboru C Gamboru B
Muguram Lantaiwa Mofio Ngala Rann
Furram
Koriyel Damakuli Fuye
Ndufu Sigal
Buduwa
Marmari Gudugurka
Borno Kiji Tarmua Borno Yesu
Ardoram Titiwa
Gajigana
Lege Logumane
Ngala Moholo
Goduram
Lafiya Loi Loi Shekau Babangida
Magumeri Kararam
Masu
Kala
K Kumaga
Daima
Gajibo
Magumeri Mafa Ma'Afa Mujigine
Biriri
Sungul Koka
Hoyo Chingowa
Tuba Dikwa
Ngudoram
Warshele
Kala/Balge
Zaki Gamawa Kayeri Jajere
Yajiwa Jere Koshebe
Zangebe
Chukuriya
Damaturu Kalizoram
Gongulong
Mafa
Ufaye
M. Kaza K Kaudi
Dawasa Ayi Yasku Limanti Boboshe Afuye Jilbe
Kukuri Dudduye
Kollere Kafaje Fune Alagarno
Kalallawa Gabai
Kukareta Warsala
Karagawaru
Ngubala Bamma Old Khadammari
Bolori II Maiduguri Ajiri Gawa
Dikwa
M. Maja Jarawa
Mada
Nangere Nangere Bolori I Margata
Kano
Dusuma
Itas/Gadau Sasawa Kabaru
Mainok Auno Maiduguri Loskuri
Watinani Mashio Njiwaji Gwange Ngamdu Benisheikh Maisandari Mairi Tamsu Ngamdua Muliye
Tikau Jakana
Damakasu
Dazigau Dogon Nini Mamudo Damagum B
Nayinawa
Maisandari Wi Kaga Marguba Dala
Galtimari
Alau
Dalori Yabal
Bama
Yerimaram Wajiro
Jama'are Chilariye Bare
Potiskum Damagum A Daura B Ngelzarma A Gambir Moduri Konduga Abbaram
Borno
Gulumba
Katagum Degubi Bari Ngojin
Murfakalam
Wassaram Guwo
Borgozo
Ajiri Yale Malari
Damban Langawa Darin Ngurbuwa
Dongo
Kawuri
Kasugula Zageri
Tobolo
Dadingel Gotala
Gujba Galangi
Janga Ngelzarma B
Goniri Shettimari Dogoma Goniri Bogomari Shehuri
Garu Daura A Dalwa Kumshe Amchaka
Shira Mandunari
Fika Gujba Soye Yabiri
Misau Gudi Dozi Gadaka Turmi Malori Kafa Mafi
Fai
Konduga Buduwa/Bula
Andara
Giade Shoye Fika Anze Mutai
Wagir
Buni Yadi
Bita Izge Darajamal
Chirabe
(Banki)
Zangaya Mazawaun Ajigin B Wala Warabe Pulka Kirawa
Mubi Fussami Damboa
Central
Bego Gwoza Bokko
Darazo Wawa Korode
Warji Nafada
Ngalda Gabai Buni Gari
Nzuda Mulgo Kopchi
Bulabulin
Ngoshe Ashigashiya
Gava Agapalawa
Bularafa Ajigin A Wuyaram
Damboa Guduf A&B
Ningi Gulani Dokshi
Gumsuri
Hambagda
Hausari
Chikide
Kuranabasa
Njibulwa Bumsa
Mbokura
Bara Buratai Azir Multe
Waga-chakawa
Likama Kuburmbula
Ganjuwa Gagure Whuntaku
Garu Gulak
Madagali
Hyambula Bebel
Gunda Chibok Kautikari
Dille
Ngurthlavu
Sukur
Kopa Kirchinga
Garin Tuwo
Biu Miringa
Gur
Korongilum Shirarkir Mbalala
Pemi Huyim
Duhu Wula Madagali
Kushimaga Gatamarwa Mussa
Funakaye Gulani Teteba Garubula Mandaragirau
Lassa Tumbara/Ngabili
Pallam
Dukku
Zara Zarawuyaku Askira/Uba
Bauchi
Ngulde Askira Madzi Michika 2 Garta
Ruhu
Numan
Dugja Sulumthla Hausari East
Ngohi Rumirgu Chul Jigalambu Michika 2
Balbaya
Kwami Fikhayel Limanti Kwaya Guwal
Grim
Damchoba
Galdimari Yawi
Kidda
Hizhibwala
Zadawa
Wamdeo Giwi
Hausari Tampul Ninkisi/Wuro Ngiki
Futuless Michika
Kusar Gwandi Tsukumu/Tilijo Vih/Boka
Gombe
Toro Bayo Wawa Kwayabura
Sakwa Hema Shaffa Kwajaffa Sina Kamale
Kwaya Kusar
Bilingwi Uvu Uda Uba Betso
Jigawa
Telli Zah
Cameroon
Kurba Kubuku Bila
Marama
Hawul Garaha Gaya-sikalmi
Mayo
Bani Mijilu
Kirfi Wuyo Gayi Wada Gusi
Kidang
Pama
Muchalla
Briyel Gwangang Whitambaya Puba Vidau
Hong Hildi
Digil
Gamadadi
Yimirdalang
Peta Walama
Chata
Garkida
Guyaku
Bangshika
Kwarhi Vimtim Mubi North
Mayo Lope Yelwa Lokuwa
Gombe Jara-Gol Jara-Dali Shani Buma
Gwaskara Gabon Hong
Shangui
Lamurde
Bahuli
Mujara
Lakundum Shani
Bauchi Gasi Gombi Tawa Gombi North Thilbang Hoserezum Mugulbu
Gude
Dirbishi
Gella
Yamaltu/Deba Bargu
Kubo
Gwalasho
Yang
Boga
Gaanda
Gombi South Humbutudi Nduku
Kwaja
Duvu
Accessible
Gwapopolok Pakka
Akko Kombo
Gora
Duwa
Daksiri
Manjekin Mayo Nguli Mubi South
Gwapopolok
Dass Bobini
Bodeno Bodwai Sigire Tambajam
Maiha Gari
Adamawa
Ketembere Kilange
Shelleng
Partially accessible
Gudu Mboi Funa
Guyuk Shelleng
Dirma Sorau A
Alkaleri Dukul Purakayo Bakta
Billiri Kaltungo Balanga Lokoro Jumbul Zumo Maiha
Tafawa-Balewa Guyuk
Hard to reach ward
Banjiram Waltandi
Talum Dumne Song Gari
Chikila Sorau B
Song
±
Gundo Libbo Kilange Hirna
Dumna Kola
Kiri
Lafiya
Bogoro Shomgom Ngbebogun Lamurde Gwamba
Suktu Song Waje
Konkol Bebel
Gyawana Bare Farang
Suwa Dubange
Rigange
Lamurde Ngbakawo Opalo Imburu
Dilli Borrong
Mbula
Tambo Jera Bonyo Wuro Dole
Waduku
Kodomti
Numan 2 Gereng Jera Bakari Wuro Bokki
Sabon Pegi
Girei
Demsa Pariya
Gamadiyo Vulpi Girei 2
Dong Ngurore
Bwalki
Numan Dwam
Namtari
Dakri Girei 1
Damare
Nassarawo Demsa Yolde Kohi
Modire Ribadu
Yola South Jambutu
Yola North
Karim-Lamido
Kpasham
Bille
Demsa Karewa Gwadabawa
Lau
Makama A Fufore
Gengle Mbamba
Fufore
Plateau
Gorobi Bole Yolde Pate
Ndikong
Ribadu Mayo Inne
Bajama Gurin
Yoffo Mbilla Uki Tuki
Beti
Mayo-Belwa
Jalingo Zing Jereng
Mayo Farang
Mayo Kalaye
Yadim
Karlahi
Ardo-Kola Yorro Tola Jada 2
Koma 2
Binyeri Mapeo
Mbullo Jada 1
Nyibago
Jada Koma 1
Gang Fada Leko
Leko
Bakari Goso
Yebbi
Danaba
Yeli
Timdore
Gassol
Jaggu
Ganye 2
Sangassumi
Gurumpawo
Nasarawa Ganye Sugu
Dawo 1
Ibi
Gamu
Kiri 2 Toungo 3
Bali Kiri 1
Toungo 1
Dawo 2
Wukari
Toungo 2
Taraba
Kogin Baba 2
Toungo
Kogin Baba 1
Gumti
Donga
Gashaka
Benue DTM Accessibility
Takum
Kurmi
Accessible
Ussa
Partially accessible
Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and
Sardauna
boundaries in this map do not imply official endorsement or
acceptance by IOM
Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXVI), HDX, ESRI
Hard to reach ward
Cross River Hard to reach LGA
0 50 100 200 Km
Map1: LGA Coverage of DTM Round 36 Assessments
5Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
KEY HIGHLIGHTS
2,184,254 1,763,377
Displaced Individuals Returned Individuals
23% 20% 31% 26% 22% 18% 32% 28%
Women Men Girls (Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
1.BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT
1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH-EAST NIGERIA
The estimated number of IDPs identified during the Round 36 of The LGA that recorded the steepest increase in north-east
DTM assessments in the conflict-affected states of Adamawa, Nigeria compared to Round 35 was Tarmuwa LGA in Yobe
Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe was 2,184,254 state where an increase of 98 per cent or 2,616 individuals
individuals, divided in 447,628 households. was identified. This was as a result of multiple attacks by
The number of IDPs represents an increase of 34,011 NSAG in and around villages of the LGAs Geidam and Kaga
individuals or 1.6 per cent vis à-vis the last assessment (Round in Yobe and Borno States. Tarmuwa was followed by Geidam
35) conducted in December 2020 when 2,150,243 IDPs LGA, also in Yobe State, where an increase by 57 per cent or
were identified. The Round 36 number increased with 1.9 per 5,830 individuals was recorded. Many displacements occurred
cent compared to the number of IDPs identified in Round 34 because of the recent attacks in the inaccessible areas within
(October 2020). The Round 36 assessment is in-line with the Geidam LGA. Additionally, an influx from Yunusari LGA was
recent trend of total IDP numbers steadily inching up during the reported as a result of increased threats of abductions, attacks
last 10 rounds of assessments (since Round 26). and the forceful confiscation of livestock and other valuables by
NSAGs. Also Kaltungo LGA in Gombe State noted an increase
Analysis of the Round 36 data demonstrated that the majority of 27 per cent or 948 individuals. This because of a surge in
or 89 per cent of IDPs are displaced within their state of origin. communal clashes in neighbouring Billiri LGA which has led to
Eleven per cent of IDPs did travel between different states in the arrival of numerous IDPs into Kaltungo LGA.
search for safety and security. When considering the same
data at LGA level, 56 per cent of IDPs were residing in an LGA Maiduguri Metropolitan Council, Borno’s capital city, continued
other than their LGA of origin. Furthermore, in 93 per cent of to host the highest number of IDPs among all LGAs in the state
the wards assessed, the presence of IDPs originating from a with 305,153 individuals or 19 per cent of IDPs in Borno. A
different ward was reported. small increase in IDPs was recorded in this LGA compared
to Round 35 (1,511 individuals or less than 1%). Maiduguri
The most conflict-affected state of Borno continued to host the Metropolitan Council was closely followed by Jere as the LGA
highest number of IDPs with 1,630,284 individuals, an increase hosting the second highest number of IDPs in Borno State with
of 27,240 persons or 1.7 per cent compared to Round 35. 297,610 individuals or 18 per cent of IDPs in Borno. Jere LGA
Similar to the previous rounds of assessments, Borno is home witnessed a considerable increase of 10,025 individuals or 3.5
to 75 per cent of all IDPs in north-east Nigeria. The fact that per cent compared to Round 35. The influx of IDPs in Jere LGA
the number of IDPs in Borno has increased with over 25,000 was largely due to arrivals from the LGAs Gubio, Konduga and
individuals in the course of only two months, combined with Magumeri LGAs as a result of renewed levels of insecurity in
the most populous LGAs Guzamala, Kukawa and Nganzai being those LGAs and the fear of attacks in the near future. Monguno
inaccessible, could be an indicator of continued insecurity and was the LGA hosting the third highest number of IDPs in Borno
increased mobility in the state. State with 151,813 individuals or 9 per cent of displaced
During this round of assessments, some specific LGAs in individuals in the state.
Borno recorded an increase in IDPs of more than 5 per cent. Among the other five states in north-east Nigeria, Yobe recorded
The steepest increase was recorded in Ngala LGA with almost a notable change in the number of IDPs with an increase
10 per cent or 7,704 individuals compared to Round 35. The of almost 9 per cent (or 12,678 individuals), from 143,759
increase of IDP numbers in Ngala LGA was mainly a result of persons in Round 35 to 156,437 individuals in Round 36.
a considerable influx of individuals from IDP camps in Rann, Adamawa remained the state with the second highest number
Kala/Balge LGA, caused by poor living conditions in the camps. of IDPs with 208,334 individuals or just under 10 per cent of
Additionally, newly displaced IDPs were escorted to camps in the total amount of IDPs in north-east Nigeria. Remarkably, in
Ngala LGA following military operations in neighbouring LGAs. Taraba, IDP numbers decreased with just under 7 per cent (or
Also the LGAs Bayo and Magumeri recorded increasing IDP 5,933 individuals) compared to Round 35. This was as a result
numbers of 7.5 per cent and 7 per cent respectively. The of IDPs moving back to their locations of origin for farming
increase in Magumeri LGA was the result of a combination of activities.
a number of petty attacks in some villages within the LGA, and
the arrival of IDPs from the neighbouring LGA Nganzai following
recent activities of the NSAG in that area.
2.5
Million
4
3
2,184,25
2.0
2,150,24
5
4
2,144,13
2,241,48
0
9
2,118,55
9
8
2,239,74
1
4
2,151,97
2,155,61
4
2
2,150,45
2,088,12
3
0
2
2,046,60
2,039,09
2,066,78
2,093,03
3
2,035,23
2,018,51
1.5
6
2
1,980,03
8
2,026,60
6
0
1
1
8
1,918,50
8
1,948,34
1,899,83
1,884,33
1,822,54
3
4
1,926,74
1
6
1,881,19
1,832,74
8
1,770,44
1,825,32
0
1,491,70
1
0
1,757,28
1,782,49
8
1,713,77
1,702,68
1,385,29
1.0
8
1,188,01
0.5
1
389,28
0
Oct-15
Oct-16
Oct-17
Oct-18
Jul-19
Jun-16
Feb-15
Apr-15
Jun-15
Aug-15
Feb-16
Apr-16
Aug-16
Jun-17
Jan-17
Mar-17
Aug-17
Apr-18
Jun-18
Feb-18
Aug-18
Jan-19
Nov-19
Mar-20
Aug-20
Dec-14
Dec-15
Dec-16
May-17
Dec-17
May-19
Sep-19
Dec-19
Nov-20
Dec-20
Feb-21
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 R34 R35 R36
Figure 1: IDP population by round of DTM assessment
7Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
R35 (December 2020) R36 (February 2021) Population Percentage
State Count of LGAs Total population Total population (%) Total population Total population (%) Status difference difference
Adamawa 21 209,252 10% 208,334 9% Decrease -918 -0.4% A
Bauchi 20 66,062 3% 65,595 3% Decrease -467 -1%
Borno 22 1,603,044 74% 1,630,284 75% Increase 27,240 2%
Gombe 11 39,532 2% 40,943 2% Increase 1,411 4%
Taraba 16 88,594 4% 82,661 4% Decrease 5,933 -7%
Yobe 17 143,759 7% 156,437 7% Increase 12,678 9%
Grand Total 107 2,150,243 100% 2,184,254 100% Increase 34,011 1% GR
Table 1: Change in internally displaced population by state
Chad
Abadam
Lake Chad
Niger Yusufari
Machina Yunusari Mobbar
Nguru Karasuwa Guzamala Kukawa
Katsina Bade
Bursari
Geidam Gubio
Bade
Nganzai
Monguno
Jakusko
Jigawa Yobe Marte
Tarmua Ngala
Magumeri Mafa
Zaki Gamawa Kala/Balge
Jere
Itas/Gadau Fune Damaturu Maiduguri
Borno Dikwa
Nangere
Jama'are Potiskum
Kano Katagum Damban Kaga
Konduga Bama
Shira Fika
Misau Gujba
Giade
Darazo Gwoza
Warji Nafada Damboa Z
Ningi
Gombe Gulani
Chibok
Biu Madagali
Ganjuwa Dukku Funakaye
Bauchi Askira/Uba
Michika
Toro Kirfi
Kwami
Kwaya Kusar Hawul
Cameroon
Bayo Mubi North
Gombe Hong
Bauchi Yamaltu/Deba Shani Gombi Mubi South
Akko
Dass Song
Alkaleri Shelleng Maiha
Tafawa-Balewa Billiri Kaltungo Balanga
Guyuk Adamawa
±
Bogoro Shomgom
Lamurde
Numan Girei
Demsa
Karim-Lamido Fufore
Lau Yola South
Plateau Mayo-Belwa
JalingoYorro Zing
Ardo-Kola
Jada
Gassol
Taraba Ganye
Nasarawa Ibi
Bali
Wukari Toungo Water Bodies
Hard to reach LGA
Donga
IDP Population by LGA
Gashaka
Less than 6,743
Benue Takum
Kurmi
6,744 - 19,363
Ussa
19,364 - 39,143
Sardauna Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and
boundaries in this map do not imply official endorsement or
acceptance by IOM
39,144 - 158,362
Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXVI), HDX, ESRI
More than 158,363
Cross River 0 50 100 200 Km
Map 2: IDP distribution by LGA
8Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
1B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
Borno
A detailed and representative overview of age and sex
breakdown was obtained by interviewing a sample of 117,529 Yobe
persons, representing 5.4 per cent of the recorded IDP
population in the six most conflict-affected states of Adamawa, 97%
3%
Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. Fifty-three percent 7%
100%
of the internally displaced population is female while 47 per
cent of IDPs is male. Fifty-eight per cent of IDPs are minors
(under 18 years old) and 6 per cent are above 60 years old. The 75%
Bauchi Gombe
results are depicted in Figures 2 and 3 below. 66%
14%
Male 47% Female 53% 34%
86% Adamawa
3% 60+y 3% 3% 2%
6%
24%
17% 18-59y 19%
Taraba 70%
16%
7%
6-17y
1-5y 8%
19%
2%
19%
9%
±
79%
4%Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
1E: MOBILITY
7% From ADAMAWA: 150,320 TO ADAMAWA: 208,334 9%
Among IDPs living in camps and camp-like settings, 55 per
cent of respondents said they were displaced once, 30 per
cent mentioned that they were displaced twice, 12 per cent
said they were displaced three times and 3 per cent said they
were displaced four times or more. In the most affected state
of Borno, similar figures were record. Fifty-five per cent of
displaced persons living in camps and camp-like settings were
displaced once, 33 per cent were displaced twice and 12 per 83% From BORNO: 1,815,112 TO BORNO: 1,630,254 75% TOTAL IDPs: 2,184,254
cent were displaced three times or more.
100%
80%
60%
40% TO GOMBE: 40,943 2%
0.2% From BAUCHI: 3,075
20%
TO BAUCHI: 65,595 3%
0.8% From OTHERS: 16,607
0% 7%
6% From YOBE: 125,714 TO YOBE: 156,437
Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total
Once 44% 100% 55% 60% 57% 55%
3% From TARABA: 73,426 TO TARABA: 82,661 4%
Twice 30% 0% 33% 30% 13% 30%
Three times 15% 0% 11% 10% 17% 12% State of origin State of displacement Total IDPs
Four times 11% 0% 1% 0% 4% 2%
More than Four times 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 1%
Figure 7: Origin of displaced populations
Figure 6: Frequency of displacement of IDPs per state
Seventy-three per cent of displaced persons residing with Sokoto
host communities said that they were displaced once, 23 per Katsina 34% Yobe Borno
cent said they were displaced twice, 3 per cent said they were Zamfara
Jigawa
66%
0.1%
displaced three times and 1 per cent said they were displaced Kano 99.8%
13%
four times. In Borno state, 54 per cent of IDPs residing among
host communities were were displaced once, 39 per cent were Kaduna 31% 0.1%
displaced twice and 6 per cent were displaced thrice. Bauchi
0.2%
1%
5% 54% Gombe 31%
100% 2.3% Displacement from
1% 59% other states
22% 2.5%
Niger 9% Adamawa XX%
Displacement within
states of Origin
80%
IDP population,by State of
Plateau origin
60% 69% Less than 70,000
FCT 11% Greater than 70,000
40% Taraba More than 200,000
Nasarawa 2%
20% 87%
Kogi Benue
Edo
0%
Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only.
Names and boundaries in this map do not imply official
Once 74% 96% 54% 98% 58% 66% 73% endorsement or acceptance by IOM.
Twice 23% 4% 39% 2% 34% 26% 23% Edo Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXVI), HDX, ESRI
Ebonyi
Cross River
Three times 2% 0% 6% 0% 8% 4% 3%
Map 4:Anambra
Origin of IDPs and location of displacement
Four times 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 1%
More than Four times 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Imo Abia
Delta
Figure 6: Frequency of displacement of IDPs per state
1G: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF IDPS
Bayelsa Rivers
Akwa Ibom
Most of IDPs in north-east Nigeria (57%) were living among
1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS host communities (Figure 8) during Round 36 assessments,
with the remainder (43%) residing in camps and camp-like
Eighty-three per cent of IDPs cited Borno, the most conflict settings.
affected state in north-east Nigeria, as their state of origin.
After Borno, Adamawa is the state of origin of 7 per cent of 100%
IDPs, followed by Yobe (6%) and Taraba (3%). Plateau was cited
80%
as the state of origin by 1 per cent of the IDPs. 45%
57%
As has been the trend, most displaced persons remain within 60%
87%
92% 90%
their state of origin. In Borno, 100 per cent of IDPs originated 97% 100%
from the state of Borno. In Adamawa, 69 per cent of IDPs were 40%
originally from Adamawa while 31 per cent were displaced 55%
43%
from Borno State. In Yobe, 66 per cent of IDPs originated from 20%
Yobe State while 34 per cent fled their locations of origin in 8% 3%
13% 10%
0%
Borno State. Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total
Camp Host Community
Figure 8: IDP settlement type by state
10Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
Out of all six states, Borno continued to be the only state where 1H: UNMET NEEDS IN IDP SETTLEMENTS
the number of people residing in camps or camp-like settings
Similar to the previous rounds, the percentage of IDPs who
exceeded the number of IDPs living in host communities.
were in need of food remained high. In 79 per cent of the
Fifty-five per cent of IDPs in Borno lived in camps or camp-
locations assessed, food was cited as the main unfulfilled need
like settings while 45 per cent of IDPs lived among host
(up by 4% compared to Round 35). Non-food items (NFIs) were
communities.
cited as the main unfulfilled need in 9 per cent of the locations
As Borno state can be considered the epicentre of the (down by 2%) followed by shelter in 3 per cent of the locations
insurgency in north-east Nigeria, many fled their rural areas of (down by 1%) and medical services (3%).
origin to urban centres in search of security and humanitarian
assistance. Hence, the IDP population in urban centres Food 79%
increased significantly and camps were established, mainly
NFI 9%
in the LGAs Maiduguri, Jere and Konduga. As the insurgency
intensified over time, more IDPs relocated to the camps around Shelter 3%
the urban centres of Borno State. Medical services 3%
In the five other states in north-east Nigeria, IDPs living among Portable drinking water 2%
host communities far outnumbered IDPs living in camps and Sanitation and Hygiene 1%
camp-like settings. In Gombe, 100 per cent of IDPs were None 1%
hosted within local host communities.
security 1%
Livelihoods support 1%
Water for washing and cooking
Fig 9: Main needs 0%
of IDPs
Education Support 0%
2. SITE ASSESMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS
2A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPS
The DTM Round 36 site assessments were conducted in These assessed locations included 308 (similar to Round 35)
2,397 locations (up from 2,396 locations in Round 35). camps/camp-like settings and 2,089 locations where IDPs
These locations included camps/camp-like settings and were residing with host communities (up from 2,088 during
locations where displaced persons were living with local host Round 35).
communities. The purpose of the site assessments was to
better understand the gaps in services provided and the needs
of the affected population.
Camps/Camp-like settings Host Communities Total Number of Total Number of
State # IDPs # Sites % Sites # IDPs # Sites % Sites IDPs Sites
Adamawa 17,263 27 9% 191,071 460 22% 208,334 487
Bauchi 1,640 5 2% 63,955 370 18% 65,595 375
Borno 895,785 243 79% 734,499 459 22% 1,630,284 702
Gombe 0% 40,943 202 10% 40,943 202
Taraba 10,617 10 3% 72,044 204 10% 82,661 214
Yobe 16,246 23 7% 140,191 394 19% 156,437 417
Grand Total 941,551 308 100% 1,242,703 2,089 100% 2,184,254 2,397
Table 3: Number of IDPs and sites assessed per settlement type
NFI 28% 72% Education 20% 80%
WASH 29% 71% Protection 21% 79%
Shelter 34% 66% Food 27% 73%
Protection 40% 60% Health 27% 73%
Food 41% 59% NFI 32% 68%
Education 53% 47% Livelihood 44% 56%
Health 56% 44% Shelter 46% 54%
Livelihood 59% 41% Wash 61% 39%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
no yes no yes
Fig 10: Percentage of sectoral support in camps/camp-like settings Fig 11: Percentage of sectoral support in host communities
11Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
Chad
Abadam
LakeChad
Lake Chad
Grand Total Niger
Yobe Guzamala Kukawa
Katsina
10% Nganzai
Jigawa Marte
90% Borno
Kano 156,437 55%
Bauchi Gombe 45%
3% 1,630,284
Cameroon
97%
100%
65,595 Adamawa
40,943
8%
92%
±
Plateau
Taraba 208,334
Nasarawa 13%
Water bodies
IDPs in camps & camp-like
settings
87% IDPs in host communities
Hard to reach LGA
82,661
Benue IDP Population by State
Less than 101,000
Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and 101,001 - 135,000
boundaries in this map do not imply official endorsement or
acceptance by IOM
Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXVI), HDX, ESRI 135,001 - 205,000
Cross River 0 50 100 200 Km
Above 205,000
Map 5: IDPs distribution by state and major site type
12Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
2B: SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATION
Seventy-two per cent of the camps/camp-like settings were The majority of camps and camp-like settings were located
classified as spontaneous while 28 per cent were planned. on private property (58%), followed by publicly owned land
Most of them were categorised as collective settlement/centres (41%) and ancestral ground (1%). Most IDPs living with host
(57%) and the rest were camps (43%). Only El-Miskin camp II in communities resided in private buildings (89%). Six per cent
Old Maiduguri, Jere LGA was considered a transitional centre. were dwelling in public structures and 5 per cent in ancestral
homes.
IDP Population by Settlement Type
Camp/Camp-like settings Host Community
43% 57%
Site Type Site Classification Land ownership
1%
Private
89%
28% Building
43% 56%
Public
72% 6%
Government
Collective Settlement/Centre Spontaneous Ancestral 5%
Camp Planned
Transitional Centre
Land ownership
Private
58%
Building
Public
41%
Government
Ancestral 1%
Figure 12: IDP population by settlement type
13Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
2C: SECTOR ANALYSIS Host family house 59%
CAMP COORDINATION AND CAMP MANAGEMENT
Rented house 23%
In the Round 36 DTM assessments, out of the 308 camps and
camp-like settings assessed, a high of 79 per cent (down by Individual house 14%
10% compared to Round 35) were informal sites while the
remaining 21 per cent were formal. Furthermore, 56 per cent Self shelter 3%
of sites did not have a camp management agency (similar to
Round 34). Others 1%
1%
9% Figure 15: Types 0%
government building
of shelter in host community sites
56% For more analysis, click here.
44% 43% 23% religious entity emergency shelter 0%
local ngo
NON-FOOD ITEMS (NFIS)
un health facility 0%
government
Camps and camp-like settings
no SMA SMA presence
24%
ingo Blankets and 0%
community center mats continued to remain the most needed type
of non-food item (NFI) in camps and camp-like settings as
reported in 56 per cent of the locations assessed (up from 51%
Informal 79% in Round 35). Blankets and mats were followed by kitchen sets
(18% - up from 14%) and mosquito nets (12% - down from
17%).
Blankets/Mats 56%
Formal 21%
Kitchen sets 18%
Figure 13: Presence and type of site management agency
Mosquito nets 12%
SHELTER Mattress 5%
Camps and camp-like settings
Soap 4%
Camps and camp-like settings presented a variety of shelter
conditions, with the most common type of shelter being self- Bucket/Jerry Can 2%
made/makeshift shelters at 36 per cent (similar to Round 35),
Hygiene kits 2%
followed by emergency shelters at 35 per cent (up by 2% since
Round 35). Solar lamps 1%
Self-made/makeshift
36% Figure 16: Number of camp sites with most needed type of NFI
shelter
Emergency shelter
For more analysis, click here.
35%
Host family house 9%
Host Communities
Similar to IDPs in camps/camp-like settings, blankets and mats
School building 6% were the most needed NFI for IDPs hosted by local communities
as reported in 40 per cent of the locations assessed (up from
Government building 5%
38%). Blankets and mats were followed by kitchen sets (18% -
Individual house 4%
up from 15%), mattresses (17% - up from 16%) and mosquito
nets (16% - down from 22%).
Rented house 3%
Blankets/Mats 40%
Open lot 2%
Kitchen sets 18%
Figure 14: Types of shelter in camps/camp-like settings
Mattress 17%
For more analysis, click here.
Mosquito nets 16%
Host Communities Bucket/Jerry Can 3%
Fifty-nine per cent of all IDPs living with host communities were
living in a host family’s house (down from 62% reported in the Hygiene kits 3%
last round of assessment). This was followed by rented houses
Soap 2%
at 23 per cent (similar to Round 35), and individual houses at
14 per cent (up from 11% since the last round of assessment). Solar lamps 1%
Figure 17: Number of host community sites with most needed type of NFI
For more analysis, click here.
14Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH)
100%
WATER RESOURCES 80%
Camp and camp-like settings: 60%
For 72 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, piped water 40%
was the main source of drinking water (down from 68% in
Round 35). In 17 per cent (down by 1%) of the camps/camp- 20%
like settings, hand pumps were the main source of drinking
water, followed by water trucks (7% - similar to Round 35), 0%
Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total
protected wells (2%) and unprotected wells (1%). Not so good (not hygienic)
Good (hygienic)
78%
15%
100%
0%
89%
10%
80%
10%
87%
0%
88%
10%
Unknown 7% 0% 1% 0% 4% 1%
Non usable 0% 0% 0% 10% 9% 1%
Piped water supply 72%
Figure 20: Condition of toilets in camps/camp-like settings by state
Hand pumps 17% For more analysis, click here.
Water truck 7% Host communities
In 92 per cent of displacement sites (down from 94%), toilets
Protected well 2%
were described as not hygienic, while in only 5 per cent of the
Unprotected well 1%
locations, toilets were considered hygienic (up from 3%). In 2
per cent of the locations assessed, toilets were reported not
Other 1%
usable at all. In the state of Borno, respondents said that 90
per cent of locations had unhygienic toilets (down by 4%), and
Figure 18:spring
Main drinking
0% water sources in camps/camp-like settings 8 per cent of the toilets were hygienic (up from 5%). In Bauchi,
For more analysis, click here. nearly all toilets were reported unhygienic at 99 per cent.
bottled/sachet water 0% 100%
Host Communities
80%
In contrast to camps and camp-like settings, hand pumps were
the main source of drinking water in locations where IDPs were 60%
living among host communities (49% of assessed locations –
down from 52%). Hand pumps were followed by piped water 40%
supplies (in 27% of assessed locations – up by 1%), protected
wells (in 8% of assessed locations – up by 1%) and water 20%
trucks (in 7% of assessed locations – up by 1%). Surface water
0%
was the main source of drinking water in 1 per cent of the Not so good (not hygienic)
Adamawa
87%
Bauchi
99%
Borno
90%
Gombe
87%
Taraba
94%
Yobe
98%
Grand Total
92%
locations assessed. Good (hygienic)
Non usable
8%
4%
0%
0%
8%
1%
8%
5%
1%
3%
1%
1%
5%
2%
Unknown 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 1%
Hand pumps 49%
Figure 21: Condition of toilets in host communities by state
Piped water supply 27% For more analysis, click here.
Protected well 8%
FOOD AND NUTRITION
Water truck 7%
Camps and camp-like settings
Unprotected well 6%
In the Round 36 assessments, food support was available both
Surface water 1% on-site (in 42% of camps/camp-like settings) and off site (in
38% of camps/camp-like settings). However, no food support
Lake/dam 1%
was available in 20 per cent (down from 21% since the last
Others 1%
round of assessment) of the camps and camp-like settings
100%
15%
19%
Figure 19: Main0%drinking water sources in host communities
Spring 22% 20%
80%
For more analysis,
bottled/sachet water
0% click here. 26% 60%
26%
60% 80% 39% 38%
PERSONAL HYGIENE FACILITIES
none 0%
Camps and camp-like settings 40%
59%
In 88 per cent of camps and camp-like settings (down by 20% 42% 40%
52%
42%
1%), toilets were described as not hygienic, while toilets were 20%
reported to be in hygienic condition in 10 per cent of the 0%
locations assessed. In the state of Borno, respondents reported Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total
that 89 per cent of the sites had unhygienic toilets. In Bauchi, yes onsite yes offsite no
all toilets were reportedly unhygienic. Figure 22: Access to food in camps/camp-like settings
For more analysis, click here.
15Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
Host Communities locations – up from 6%). Similar numbers were reported for
the state of Borno.
For IDPs living among host communities, food support was 70%
available on-site in 49 per cent of the locations assessed (down
by 1% compared to Round 35), and off-site in 24 per cent of 60%
the locations assessed (down by 2% compared to Round 35). 50%
In 27 per cent of locations where IDPs were living among host 40%
communities, no food support was available at all (up by 3%). 30%
In Borno, food support was available on-site in 45 per cent, and
off-site in 27 per cent of locations assessed. In Taraba, no food 20%
support was available at all in 79 per cent of locations where 10%
IDPs were living among host communities. 0%
Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total
100%
malaria 53% 70% 58% 43% 42% 41% 53%
18% 15% fever 22% 22% 24% 32% 23% 20% 23%
25% 24% 24% 24%
27% cough 13% 5% 13% 13% 21% 21% 14%
4%
80% diarrhea 4% 2% 3% 3% 5% 3% 4%
1% malnutrition 1% 1% 0% 7% 2% 14% 3%
hepatitis 7% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2%
26% 27% rti 0% 0% 0% 1% 6% 0% 1%
60% 28%
35%
Figure 25: Common health problems in host communities
40%
75%
79%
81% For more details, click here.
50% 49%
45%
20% 40%
EDUCATION
0% 3% Camps and camp-like settings
Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Gombe Grand Total
yes onsite no yes offsite In 2 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, no children were
Figure 23: Access to food in host communities attending school at all (down from 9% in the Round 35 of
assessments). In 25 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, less
For more analysis, click here.
than 25 per cent of the children were attending school (down
from 39%) and in 46 per cent of camps/camp-like settings,
HEALTH between 25 and 50 per cent of children were attending school
(up from 28%). In only 3 per cent of camps/camp-like settings,
Camps and camp-like settings
more than 75 per cent of children were attending school.
During Round 36, similar to the previous rounds, malaria was 100%
cited as the most common health problem as reported in
59 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (down from 63%). 80%
Malaria was followed by fever (in 20% of camps/camp-like
settings – down by 2%) and cough (in 17% of camps/camp- 60%
like settings – up by 5%). 40%
70%
60% 20%
50%
0%
Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total
40% 25% -50% 26% 0% 49% 50% 39% 46%
51% - 75% 15% 100% 27% 10% 5% 25%
30%
75% 18% 0% 1% 0% 4% 2%
20%
none 4% 0% 1% 10% 13% 2%
10%
Figure 26: Percentage of children attending school in camps/camp-like
0%
Adamawa Bauchi Borno Taraba Yobe Grand Total For more details, click here.
malaria 59% 60% 61% 40% 48% 59%
fever 33% 20% 18% 50% 26% 20%
cough 4% 20% 19% 10% 13% 17% Host Communities
diarrhea 4% 0% 1% 0% 9% 2%
hepatitis 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1%
In 2 per cent of the locations where IDPs were residing with
malnutrition 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1% host communities, no children were attending school at all
Figure 24: Common health problems in camps/camp-like settings
(similar to Round 35). In 37 per cent of the locations where
IDPs were residing with host communities, between 51 and 75
For more analysis, click here. per cent of children were attending school (up by 1%). In 14
per cent of the locations, less than 25 per cent of children were
Host Communities attending school (down by 4%) and in 11 per cent of locations,
Mirroring the situation in camps/camp-like settings, malaria over 75 per cent of children were attending school (up by 3%).
was the most prevalent health ailment among IDPs residing
among host communities in 53 per cent of the locations
assessed (down from 71%). Malaria was followed by fever
(in 23% of locations – up from 15%) and cough (in 14% of
16Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
60%
LIVELIHOODS
50% Camps and camp-like settings
40% In 37 per cent of camps/camp-like settings assessed, petty
trade was cited as the main occupation of IDPs (up from 36%
30% during Round 35), followed by jobs as a daily wage labourer
which were cited in 30 per cent of camps/camp-like settings
20%
as the main occupation of IDPs (similar to Round 35). In 24 per
10% cent of camps/camp-like settings, farming was cited as the
main occupation of IDPs (similar to Round 35).
0%
Adamawa Bauchi Borno Gombe Taraba Yobe Grand Total
51% - 75% 37% 48% 35% 19% 29% 58% 37%
25% -50% 28% 30% 47% 39% 40% 27% 36% Petty trade 37%
75% 13% 17% 4% 2% 19% 6% 11% Daily labourer 30%
none 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2%
Figure 27: Percentage of children attending school in Host communities Farming 24%
For more details, click here. Collecting firewood 3%
Agro-pastoralism 3%
COMMUNICATION
Camps and camp-like settings Pastoralism 1%
Friends, neighbours and family were cited as the most-trusted None occupation 1%
source of information in 52 per cent of camps/camp-like
settings (down by 2%)), followed by local and community Fishing 1%
leaders in 34 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (up by 5%)
Figure 30: Livelihood activities of IDPs in camps/camp-like settings
and aid workers in 7 per cent of camps/camplike settings.
Friends, neighbors and family 52% For more details, click here.
Local leader/community leader 34% Host communities
Aid worker 7% For IDPs living among host communities, farming was reported
the main occupation in 62 per cent of the locations assessed
Religious leader 3%
(down by 1% compared to Round 35). Farming was followed
Government official 2%
by jobs as daily labourer, cited in 14 per cent of the locations
assessed (up by 1%) and petty trade, cited in 14 per cent of the
Military official 1% locations assessed (similar to Round 35).
Traditional leader 1%
Farming 62%
Figure 28: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in camps/camp-like
settings Petty trade 14%
For more details, click here.
Daily labourer 14%
Host communities
Agro-pastoralism 4%
In sites where IDPs were residing with host communities,
friends, neighbours and family were the most trusted source Pastoralism 3%
of information in 38 per cent of locations (down from 39% in
Round 35), followed by local and community leaders in 32 per Fishing 1%
cent of locations (similar to Round 35) and religious leaders in
15 per cent of locations (similar to Round 35). Collecting firewood 1%
Friends, neighbors None occupation 1%
38%
and family
Local leader
/community leader
32% Figure 31: Livelihood activities of IDPs in host communities
Religious leader 15%
For more details, click here.
Traditional leader 7%
Aid worker 4%
Government official 3%
Military official 1%
Figure 29: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in host communities
For more details, click here.
17Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
PROTECTION
Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities
Security was provided in 86 per cent (up from 85% in Round In 91 per cent of the locations (up from 90%) some form of
35) of camps/camp-like settings. Similar to the last round of security was present. Similar to the last round of assessments,
assessments, this number was reported at 92 per cent in the this figure was reported at 97 per cent in the most affected
camps/camp-like settings in the most-affected state of Borno. state of Borno.
Grand Total 14% 86% Grand Total 9% 91%
Yobe 100%
Yobe 35% 65%
Taraba 19% 81%
Taraba 20% 80%
Gombe 12% 88%
Borno 8% 92%
Borno 3% 97%
Bauchi 100%
Bauchi 1% 99%
Adamawa 48% 52% Adamawa 18% 82%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
no yes
no yes
Figure 32: Security provided in camps/camp-like settings Figure 33: Security provided in host communities
For more details, click here. For more details, click here.
3. RETURNEES
A total of 1,763,377 returnees were recorded during the north-east Nigeria.
Round 36 of DTM assessments in north-east Nigeria. This When comparing current numbers with the Round 35 of
signifies an increase of 20,470 individuals or just over 1 per assessments, all of the BAY States witnessed an increase in
cent compared to Round 35 when 1,742,907 returnees were returnee numbers since December 2020. The most prominent
identified (November 2020). This number confirms that the increase was noted in Borno State where the returnee
increasing trend in returnee numbers in the BAY states (Borno, population grew by 12,081 individuals. The LGAs that noted
Adamawa and Yobe) that was noticed in the year 2020, has considerable increases in returnee numbers in Borno State
continued throughout the first months of 2021. were Gwoza LGA (5,154 returnees) and Bama LGA (1,363
During the Round 36, 40 LGAs with a total of 677 sites (2 more returnees). The relatively calm security situation in Bama LGA
than the Round 35 assessment) were assessed in Adamawa, has resulted in the return of numerous IDPs. In Gwoza LGA
Borno and Yobe states. The newly assessed location were R.E.B however, the increase in returnee population can be clarified by
Bayanbank in the ward Gwoza Wakane/Bulabulin and Anguwan the assessment of a new location in Limankara ward hosting
T.C. in the ward Hambagda/Liman Kara/ New Settlement. Both an estimated 5,000 returnees. Borno State was followed by
locations were situated in Gwoza LGA of Borno State. In Borno Adamawa where an increase of 8,107 returnee individuals was
state, Nganzai LGA remained inaccessible. Adamawa continued reported. In Adamawa State, Gombi LGA recorded the steepest
to host the largest caseload of returnees with 828,841 increase with 3,651 returnee individuals compared to Round
individuals or 47 per cent of all returnees in north-east Nigeria. 35. Also the LGAs Michika and Shelleng witnessed considerable
Borno hosted 736,344 returnees or 42 per cent of the total growing returnee numbers with increases of 1,292 individuals
caseload and was followed by Yobe with 198,192 individuals and 1,080 individuals. In Yobe State, the returnee population
or 11 per cent of the total estimated returnee population in grew by 282 individuals.
2.0
Millions
1,763,377
1,736,849 1,742,907
1.75 1,705,567 1,714,682
1,673,862
1,642,696 1,622,908 1,642,539 1,619,010 1,611,676
1,580,093 1,558,058
1,549,630
1.50 1,441,099
1,386,229
1,234,894 1,307,847 1,329,428
1,257,911 1,268,140
1.25 1,151,427
1,099,509
1,039,267
958,549
1.0 910,955
0.75 663,485
599,164
0.50
389,224
320,365 332,333
262,324 247,470
0.25 209,940
108,531
64,321 80,718 60,242 83,467 62,603 64,850 62,186
58,041 56,891 47,594 51,918 39,707 56,801 54,870
11,968 23,017 10,229 21,581 30,463 19,631 31,705 9,115 22,167 6,058 20,470
(23,529) (7,334)
0
(84,638)
(0.25)
Nov-20
Dec-20
May-17
May-18
May-20
Aug-15
Aug-16
Mar-17
Aug-17
Mar-18
Nov-19
Dec-15
Dec-16
Dec-17
Sep-18
Sep-19
Jun-16
Jun-17
Feb-16
Jan-18
Apr-16
Jan-17
Jan-19
Apr-19
Feb-20
Oct-15
Oct-16
Oct-17
Jul-18
Jul-19
Jul-20
Feb-21
R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 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 R 35 R 36
Returnee population change from previous DTM assessment Total returnees
Figure 34: Returnee population trend
Return Assessments are not conducted in Bauchi, Taraba & Gombe
18Nigeria North-East Zone | Displacement Report Round 36 (May 2021)
R 35 Accessed R 36 Accessed R 35 Total IND R 36 Total IND R eturn Population In
State Status Difference
LGA's LGA's (November 2020) (March 2021) Percentages Per State
R34 Total
ADAMAWA 16 16 820,734
828,841 Increase 8,107 47%
(September 2020)
BORNO 18 18 724,263 736,344 Increase 12,081 42%
YOBE 6 6 197,910 198,192 Increase 282 11%
GR AND TOTAL 40 40 1,742,907 1,763,377 Increase 20,470 100%
Table 4: Change in returnee population by State
Fifty-four per cent of the entire return population were female 700,000
650,194
while 46 per cent were male. Sixty per cent of the return
population were minors (under 18 years old) and 4 per cent 600,000
531,662
were above 60 years old. The average household size for
500,000
returnee families in north-east Nigeria was 6 persons.
Out of the total number of returnees, 1,614,062 individuals or
Returned individuals
400,000
92 per cent of all returnees were classified as IDP returnees,
while 149,315 individuals or 8 per cent of all returnees were 300,000
classified as returned refugees as they travelled back from 223,279
neighbouring countries. 200,000
165,408
156,312
The percentage of returned refugees did not change since the 100,000
last rounds of assessments. Among the returned refugees, 21,082 15,440
84,073 individuals returned from Cameroon (56% of refugee 0
returnees), 35,248 individuals from Niger Republic (24% of 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year of Displacement
refugee returnees) and 29,994 individuals from Chad (20% of
refugee returnees). Figure 35: Year of displacement for returnees
1% from Niger 1% from
Niger
Chad
Lake Chad
3B: YEAR OF RETURN FOR RETURNEES
Niger
Abadam
1% from The majority or 37 per cent of returnees (or 656,496
Chad
individuals) stated that they have returned to their locations of
Kukawa
Yobe Guzamala
origin in 2016. Twenty-nine per cent of returnees (or 512,996
Jigawa
individuals) returned in 2015 while 17 per cent (or 299,027
Nganzai
5%
Marte
individuals) returned in the year 2017. While important returns
198,192
7% occurred during 2015 and 2016, it is noteworthy that areas
Borno
Bauchi
95% of return shifted from one year to the next. In 2015, the great
majority or 85 per cent of returns recorded were towards or
736,344
1% from within Adamawa State, while 2016 and 2017 witnessed the
Cameroon
majority of returns towards or within Borno State (55% and
93%
74% respectively).
Gombe
11%
Adamawa
± This can be explained by the fact that in 2015, Borno State was
still embroiled in the conflict with Non-State Armed Groups,
Chad
0.4% from
Chad
which controlled large swaths of the territory. Adamawa State
was in a relatively more stable and secure situation, which was
Plateau
828,841
reflecting in a significant number of IDPs returning to this state.
In turn, the increased number of returns between 2016 and
Taraba
Returnee IDPs 2017 to Borno can be attributed to the improved security in
89%
Cameroon
Returnees from abroad
the state at that time, following significant military operations
4% from
Hard to reach LGA
Returnees Total by State
resulting in subsequent loss of territory by the Non-State Armed
Cameroon
198,192 Groups.
Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries 736,344 700,000
in this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by IOM
Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXVI), HDX, ESRI 656,496
Benue 828,841
0 35 70 140 Km
600,000
Map 6: Returned population by state 512,996
500,000
3A: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT FOR RETURNEES
Returned individuals
400,000
The majority or 37 per cent of returnees stated that they were
299,027
forced to flee their locations of origin in 2016. Thirty per cent 300,000
230,959
of returnees said they were displaced in the year 2015, 13 per
cent were displaced in 2017. When comparing the numbers 200,000
with the Round 35 of assessments, no changes were recorded. 100,000
12,148 22,493 29,230
28
-
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Year of Return
Return Assessments are not conducted in Bauchi, Taraba & Gombe Figure 36: Year of return for returnees 19You can also read
