IOM NIGERIA DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

1

Nigeria North-Central and North-West Zones | Displacement Report Round 6 (May 2021)

IOM NIGERIA DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX NORTH-CENTRAL AND NORTH-WEST ZONES

DISPLACEMENT REPORT 6 | MAY 2021

DTMNigeria

2


The opinions expressed in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IOM concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries.

IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an intergovernmental organization, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration, advance understanding of migration issues, encourage social and economic development through migration and uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants. The maps included in this report are illustrative. The representations and the use of borders and geographic names may include errors and do not imply judgment on legal status of territories nor acknowledgement of borders by the Organization.

International Organization for Migration

Nigeria Mission

Maiduguri Sub-Office

Tel.: +237 222 20 32 78

E-mail: [email protected]

Websites: https://displacement.iom.int/nigeria

www.globaldtm.info/nigeria

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher.

3


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. 4

BACKGROUND............................................................................................................ 4

METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................... 5

LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................... 5

DISPLACEMENT OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 6

KEY HIGHLIGHTS......................................................................................................... 7

1. DISPLACEMENT HIGHLIGHTED BY STATE................................................................ 8

1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH-CENTRAL AND NORTH-WEST NIGERIA......... 8

2. DISPLACEMENT DETAILS....................................................................................... 9

2A: LOCATION AND ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS............................................. 9

2B. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE...................................................................................... 10

2C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT.............................................................................10

2D: DISPLACEMENT PERIODS.................................................................................... 11

2E: FREQUENCY OF DISPLACEMENT........................................................................... 11

2F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS................................................................... 11

2G: SETTLEMENT AND ACCOMMODATION TYPE..........................................................12

2H: PRIMARY NEEDS.................................................................................................. 12

2I: SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATION...............................................................................14

3: LIVELIHOODS AND LIVING CONDITIONS...................................................................15

3A: CAMP COORDINATION AND CAMP MANAGEMENT (CCCM).....................................15

3B. SHELTER AND NFI.................................................................................................15

3C: LIVELIHOOD.........................................................................................................16

3D: WATER SANITATION AND HYGIENE........................................................................ 17

3E: FOOD AND NUTRITION......................................................................................... 20

3F: HEALTH............................................................................................................... 22

3G: EDUCATION.........................................................................................................23

3H: PROTECTION....................................................................................................... 25

3I:COMMUNICATION.................................................................................................. 25

4.CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................. 28

4


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To better understand the scope of displacement and assess the needs of affected populations, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) is implementing its Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) programme in Nigeria’s north-central and north-west geopolitical zones, in collaboration with the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs).

DTM aims to track and monitor displacement and population mobility in the aforementioned regions. In addition, DTM collects data on the living conditions, access to basic services and multisectoral needs of IDPs. This report is an analysis of Round 6 of data collected at a variety of levels, including information on displacement locations, reasons for displacement, the length of displacement, the intentions and conditions of migrants as well as internally displaced persons.

This report presents information on the numbers, living conditions and needs of displaced populations in the north-central and north-west zones affected by the crisis. The data was collected through key informants in 828 wards located in 174 Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Benue, Nasarawa, Plateau and Kaduna (north-central) and Kano, Sokoto, Katsina and Zamfara (north-west) States between 8 and 24 February 2021.

The main objective of the DTM programme is to support to the Government and humanitarian partners by establishing a comprehensive system to collect, analyze and disseminate data on displaced populations (IDPs, returnees and refugees) in order to provide effective assistance to the affected population.

BACKGROUND The geopolitical zones of north-central and north-west in Nigeria have been affected by a multidimensional crisis — one that is rooted in historic ethno-social cleavages — that rekindled in 2013 following the degradation of socioeconomic and environmental conditions. The crisis accelerated by January 2018 with the intensification of attacks, resulting in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of individuals. At the end of 2018, one million individuals had been displaced. While many of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) have been able to return, hundreds of thousands remain displaced due to lack of security and fear of being attacked en route or upon their return to locations of origin. In 2020, the crisis spread to Niger’s Maradi Region, resulting in the displacement of thousands of IDP in that regio as well.

The crisis in north-central and north-west Nigeria is multifaceted and multidimensional. It includes long-standing conflicts between ethnic and linguistic groups, tensions between nomadic pastoralists (transhumance), sedentary farmers, attacks by criminal groups on local populations and banditry/hirabah (kidnapping and grand larceny along major highways). These tensions cross-cut religious cleavages especially in the state of Plateau (north-central). The crisis continues to displace populations regularly in the states of Benue, Nasarawa and Plateau (north-central), as well as Kaduna, Kano, Sokoto, Katsina and Zamfara (north-west).

Disputes between herders and farmers are one of the key phenomena in this crisis. Nomadic pastoralists (transhumance) and sedentary farmers historically cohabitated in the region, with herders accompanying cattle along transhumance corridors. These corridors cut through farmland in search of water points and grazing lands. In recent years, due to the reduced availability of water sources and pasture lands, transhumance routes have increasingly encroached onto farmland. This resource competition raises tensions between herders and farmers, which often leads to violent clashes.

Another major phenomenon in the affected regions are communal conflicts between ethnic and language-based communities. These tensions date back to the division of the country into states, which separated ethnic and linguistic groups by administrative boundaries. These resulted in the forced cohabitation of often antagonistic groups. Tensions over resources and land, exacerbated by climate change, have escalated into communal conflicts that displace significant numbers of people.

IOM’s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) was first implemented in Nasarawa and Abuja in August 2015. After the crisis in north-west and north-central Nigeria escalated in early 2018, providing support to affected populations became paramount. As a result, IOM broadened the reach of DTM to the entire affected area to assess the numbers and trends of displacement, and gain insight into the profiles, needs and vulnerabilities of displaced populations. The information collected seeks to inform the government of Nigeria — as well as the humanitarian community — with an improved understanding of population movement and displacement in the two zones. Likewise, it aims to better inform the humanitarian response and relief provision for the affected populations.

5


METHODOLOGY

Round 6 of DTM data collection in the north-west and north-central geopolitical zones was conducted between 8 and 24 February 2021. During the assessments, DTM deployed teams of enumerators to conduct assessments in 828 wards (up from 799 wards that were assessed in the last round of DTM assessments or Round 5 that was conducted in December 2020) located in 174 LGAs (up from 172). Eight states were covered including Benue, Nasarawa and Plateau (north-central) and Kaduna, Kano, Sokoto, Katsina and Zamfara (north-west).

DTM enumerators conducted assessments in 1,539 locations (an increase of 51 locations from Round 5 of assessments) including 1,460 (95%) locations where IDPs were residing among host communities and 79 (5%) locations categorised as camps/camp-like settings. In the Round 5 of assessments, 1,410 locations where IDPs lived among host communities and 78 camps/camp-like settings were assessed. During these assessments, data was collected on numbers, living conditions and multisectoral needs of displaced populations.

DTM activities in Nigeria’s north-central and north-west zones targeted IDPs and aimed to gain a better understanding of displacement numbers and trends, living conditions of affected populations, as well as the needs and vulnerabilities of these populations. The population categories are defined in this report as following:

• An Internally Displaced Person (IDP) is “a person who has been forced or obliged to flee or to leave his or her home or place of habitual residence, in particular as a result of, or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who has not crossed an internationally recognized state border”.

• In the context of Nigeria, a returnee is defined as any former IDP who returned to his or her locality of origin (IDP returnee); or any former refugee who returned to his or her country of origin (Returnee from abroad).

Return is understood as physical return and does not imply or suggest that returnees are living in a safe environment with dignity and access to sustainable livelihood opportunities or adequate resources.

National, gubernatorial and local authorities as well international and local humanitarian partners were involved in all the steps of DTM activities. Final results were validated by the government of Nigeria.

LIMITATIONS

The security situation in some wards of the north-central and north-west zones is still very unstable, and therefore, not all locations in the covered states were accessible at the time of the assessment.

The data used for this analysis are estimates obtained through key informant interviews, personal observation and focus group discussions. Thus, in order to ensure the reliability of these estimates, data collection was performed at the lowest administrative level: the site or the host community.

1 Source: Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, annexed to United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr Francis M. Deng, Submitted Pursuant to Commission Resolution 1997/39, Addendum (11 February 1998) UN Doc E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2, 6.

6


Map 1: IDP population by state

Sokoto

Zamfara

Katsina

Kano

Kaduna

Plateau

Nasarawa

BenueUkum

Sanga

KagarkoJema'a

Jaba

Niger

Kebbi

Kogi

Kwara

Osun

Ekiti

Ondo

Edo

Enugu

Taraba

Bauchi

Yobe

EbonyiCross River

Jigawa

FCT - Abuja

Anambra

NIGER

CAMEROON

Diffa

Dakoro Mayahi

Bermo

Aguié

Madarounfa

Guidan Roumdji

Tessaoua

GazaouaVille de Maradi

Zinder

MaradiTahoua

Dosso 44,741individuals

0 100 20050 Km

±

XXX

XXXDisplaced population(Neighbouring country)

Refugees from Cameroon

Nigerian Refugees to Niger

Displaced population within Nigeria

Affected States (Nigeria)

Refugees from (Cameroon)

Host States (Niger)

Other States (north-centraland north-west Nigeria)

International boundary

National boundary

Kaduna

Benue

Sokoto

Zamfara

Kano

Plateau

Katsina

Nasarawa

42,241individuals

Tillaberi

9,951individuals

Bauchi

Taraba

Yobe

Gombe

218,021individuals

19,800individuals

78,777individuals

76,711individuals

26,718individuals

108,968individuals124,678

individuals

Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries in this map do not imply of�cial endorsement or acceptance by IOMData source: IOM DTM (NC/NW RV), UNHCR, HDX, ESRI

DISPLACEMENT OVERVIEWDISPLACED POPULATIONThe Round 6 of DTM assessments identified 695,914 IDPs in 111,913 households across the eight states covered in north-cen-tral and north-west Nigeria. The number represents a decrease of 32,774 individuals (or 5%) from the 728,688 IDPs that were identified in the last round of assessment that was conducted in November and December 2020 (Round 5). Following a steep increase in the number of IDPs between Round 4 and Round 5, largely resulting from a significant expansion in the area covered by DTM, the decrease between Round 5 and Round 6 was a result of numerous IDPs returning to their locations of origin, majorly because of improved security in locations of origin, for farming pruposes and to rebuild their shelters.

In Round 6, the total number of IDPs consisted of 99,232 IDPs residing in camps/camp-like settings (or 14% of the total amount of IDPs) and 596,682 IDPs residing among host communities (or 86% of the total amount of IDPs). Fifty-seven per cent of IDPs (or 393,309 individuals) were located in the North-West zones while 43 per cent of IDPs (or 302,605 individuals) were located in the north-central zones. When considering the number of IDPs per state, Benue was the state where the highest number of IDPs were recorded with 218,021 individuals (or 31% of the total number of IDPs), followed by Zamfara with 124,678 individuals (or 18% of the total number of IDPs) and Katsina with 108,968 individuals (or 16% of the total number of IDPs). Additionally, the crisis led to the forced displacement of an estimated 45,000 Nigerian refugees in Niger.

7


5%decrease in displaced population from Round 5

Total IDP population per round

Displaced Individuals695,914

Displaced Households111,913

From KADUNA: 58,000

From PLATEAU: 82,911

From NASARAWA: 12,446

From other states: 58,274

From KANO: 9,251

From KATSINA: 110,146

From ZAMFARA: 126,119

TO KADUNA: 76,711

TO PLATEAU: 78,777

TO NASARAWA: 19,800

TO KANO: 26,718

TO KATSINA: 108,968

TO ZAMFARA: 124,678

State of origin State of displacement

17%

26%

10%

9%

3%

16%

12%

2%

6%

16%

3%

12%

6%

15%

7%

12%

28%99,232 IDPs were residing in camps/camp-like settings (14%).

596,682 IDPs were residing among host community settings (86%).

47% decrease in IDP numbers in Kano since Round 5.

44% of IDPs were displaced within their state of origin.

56% of IDPs were displaced from a different state.

KEY TRENDS

25% are boys (<18).

From SOKOTO: 36,665

TO BENUE: 218,021From BENUE: 202,104

TO SOKOTO: 42,241

Thou

sand

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Aug-19 Oct-19 Dec-19 Aug-20 Dec-20 Feb-21

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6

309,755

540,049

578,119 575,319

728,688 695,914

30% are girls (<18).21% are men.24% are women.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

8


1.DISPLACEMENT HIGHLIGHTED BY STATE1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH-CENTRAL AND NORTH-WEST NIGERIA

NORTH-CENTRAL

• Amongst the eight states affected by the crisis, Benue continued to host the largest number of internally displaced individuals with 218,021 IDPs or 31 per cent of the total IDP population (an increase of almost 7% or 13,828 individuals since the Round 5 of assessments). Together with Zamfara State in north-west Nigeria, Benue was one of the only two states that witnessed an increase in IDP numbers between Round 5 and Round 6. Of the total IDP population living in camps/camp-like settings, 60 per cent were found in Benue State. The two LGAs hosting the greatest numbers of IDPs in north-central and north-west Nigeria were located in Benue: Agatu was the LGA hosting the highest number of IDPs with 80,818 individuals (an increase of 79,951 in Round 5), followed by Guma where the second highest number of IDPs were identified with 47,228 individuals (up from 43,508 in Round 5).

• Plateau hosted 78,777 IDPs or 11 per cent of the total IDP population (decrease of 7% or 6,202 individuals since the Round 5 of assessments). The decrease in IDPs can be explained by numerous IDPs relocating to their initial location of displacement following the closure of a displacement site in Yola Wakat, Wase LGA. Within the state of Plateau, the highest number of IDPs were located in Riyom LGA with 11,233 individuals, followed by Langtang North with 10,489 and Jos North with 8,430 IDPs.

• In Nasarawa state, communal clashes have led to the displacement of thousands of people. Additionally, Nasarawa also experienced an influx of IDPs from Benue state. It currently hosts 19,800 IDPs, representing 3 per cent of the total number of IDPs in north-central and north-west Nigeria (down by 1% or 259 individuals since the Round 5 of assessments). About half of the IDPs in the state are located in the LGAs Karu (6,252 IDPs) and Lafia (4,149 IDPs). Few IDPs in Nasarawa have the hope of returning home in the foreseeable future as many villages have been burnt down during the violence, leaving IDPs without shelter and food in locations of origin. Some of the IDPs formerly located in Nasarawa have moved on to other states in search of durable accommodation.

NORTH-WEST

• Zamfara hosted the second largest IDP population in the northcentral and northwestern region with 124,678 individuals or 18 per cent of the total IDP population (up by 11% or 12,362 individuals since the Round 5 of assessments). Together with Benue State in north-central Nigeria, Zamfara was one of the only two states in the northcentral and northwestern region that witnessed an increase in IDP numbers between Round 5 and Round 6.

The steep increase of IDPs in Zamfara can be explained by improved security in the state what resulted in an influx of IDPs from neighbouring states. Anka LGA recorded the highest number of IDPs (24,258 individuals or 19% of IDPs in Zamfara), followed by Maru LGA (15,725 individuals or 13% of IDPs in Zamfara) and Talata Mafara LGA (12,690 individuals or 10% of IDPs in Zamfara).

• Katsina hosted 108,968 IDPs or 16 per cent of the total IDP population (down by 10% or 12,466 individuals since the Round 5 of assessments). Frequent attacks, which began in December 2018, have progressively increased in intensity and frequency, generating significant displacement. Katsina state was also affected by banditry, kidnapping, cattle rustling and herder attacks, during which victims were often killed and their homes set on fire. The decrease in IDP numbers was mainly a result of IDPs returning to their locations of origin or relocating to other states in search of livelihood opportunities. Batsari was the LGA hosting the highest number of IDPs in the state with 12,461 individuals or 10 per cent of IDPs in the state.

• Kaduna hosted 76,711 internally displaced persons or 11 per cent the total IDP population (down by 14% or 12,918 individuals since the Round 5 of assessments). The decrease of IDP numbers in Kaduna State was mainly a result of IDPs relocating to different states because of recent attacks and the fear of evictions in the locations where they were residing. Additionally, many IDPs that were residing in Kaduna North LGA have returned to their locations of origin where living conditions have improved. Within Kaduna, Lere LGA was home to the highest number of IDPs in the state with 17,866 individuals or 23 per cent of IDPs in Kaduna.

• In Sokoto, 42,241 IDPs were identified or 6 per cent of the total IDP population (down by 7% or 3,161 individuals since the Round 5 of assessments). Within Sokoto, Rabah was the LGA hosting the highest number of IDPs with a total of 8,076 individuals or 19 per cent of IDPs in the state. These IDPs are mainly found in Gandi ward as a result of multiple attacks in other villages in Rabah LGA. Rabah was followed by Sabon Birni LGA with 6,209 displaced individuals or 15 per cent of IDPs in the state.

• Kano hosted a total of 26,718 IDPs or 4 per cent of the total IDP population (down by 47% or 23,958 individuals since the Round 5 of assessments). The LGA that recorded the highest number of IDPs in Kano State was Gaya LGA with 2,538 displaced individuals, followed by Tarauni LGA with 2,479 individuals. The sharp decrease in IDP numbers can be explained by the fact that numerous IDPs who were displaced by floods ahead of Round 5 have now returned to their locations of origin to restore their shelters.

9


Kaduna

Benue

Sokoto

Zamfara

Kano

Plateau

Katsina

Nasarawa

CAMEROON

±NIGER

Niger

Kwara

Bauchi

Kogi Taraba

Kebbi

Edo

Kwara

Jigawa

Ondo

Yobe

Osun

Cross River

Ekiti

Enugu

Gombe

Ebonyi

Ogun

Anambra

FCT - Abuja

Lagos0 100 20050 Km

Less than 2,115

Neighbouring Country

Neighbouring States


2,116 - 5,405

5,406 - 11,233

11,234 - 24,258

More than 24,258

Maru

Wase

Isa

Kachia

Igabi

Toto

Chikun

Awe

Gudu

Karu

Lafia

Lere

Birnin-Gwari

Anka

Nasarawa

Guma

Kajuru

Zurmi

Soba

Kebbe

Kauru

Doma

Giwa

Kanam

Rabah

Tureta

Kubau

GummiTsafe

Oju

Kokona

Gusau

Logo

Bukkuyum

Maradun

GadaTangaza

Ukum

Obi

Ado Kwande

Gboko

Bassa

Shendam

Apa

Sanga

Faskari

Katsina-Ala

Illela

Bokkos

KagarkoMangu

Jibia

Kiru

Qua'an Pan

Bakura Safana

Sabon BirniGoronyo

Jema'a

Gwer East

Zango-Kataf

Binji

Ikara

Keana

Kafur

Tambuwal

Doguwa

Agatu

Kankara

Shagari

Batsari

Oturkpo

Konshisha

Wamba

Yabo

Mashi

Sumaila

Kanke

Ushongo

Rogo

Kaita

Obi

BichiDawakin

Tofa

Dawakin Kudu

BaureMani

Gwer West

Riyom

Ajingi

Jos East

Bebeji

Kurfi

Takai

Bakori

Silame

Gaya

MikangAkwanga

Gusau

Rano

Makurdi

Musawa

Birnin Magaji

Kaura

Tarka

Dan MusaMatazuBungudu

Buruku

Pankshin

Kankia

Talata Mafara

Ingawa

Rimi

Wurno

Tudun Wada

Okpokwu

Shinkafi

Jaba

Kware

Vandeikya

Sabuwa

Dange-Shuni

Danja

Gwadabawa

Zango

Barikin Ladi

Dambatta

Zaria

Bodinga

Wamako

Markafi

Ohimini

Kunchi

Langtang South

Garko

Nasarawa-Eggon

Kabo

Kibiya

Malumfashi

Mai'adua

KarayeAlbasu

Dutsi

Wudil

Funtua

Kusada

Dutsin-Ma

Ogbadibo

Gabasawa

Bindawa

Kaura Namoda

Bagwai

Gwarzo

Shanono

Minjibir

Jos South

Tsanyawa

Bunkure

Kudan

Makoda

Dandume

Langtang North

Charanchi

TofaRimin Warawa

Batagarawa

Gezawa

Kura

Sandamu

Madobi

Dawakin Tofa

Daura

Ungogo

Gwale

Jos North

Keffi

Sabon-Gari

Katsina

Fagge

Kaduna NorthKaduna South

Sokoto SouthSokoto North

Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries in this map do not imply of�cial endorsement or acceptance by IOMData source: IOM DTM (NC/NW RVI), HDX, ESRI

Map 2: IDP population by LGA

Table 1: Change in internally displaced population by state

Table 1: Change in accessed LGA's & WARDS by state

Total Population Total Population % Total Population Total Population %BENUE 14 204,193 28% 218,021 31% Increase 13,828 7%

KADUNA 22 89,629 12% 76,711 11% Decrease -12,918 -14%

KANO 38 50,676 7% 26,718 4% Decrease -23,958 -47%

KATSINA 34 121,434 17% 108,968 16% Decrease -12,466 -10%

NASARAWA 13 20,059 3% 19,800 3% Decrease -259 -1%

PLATEAU 17 84,979 12% 78,777 11% Decrease -6,202 -7%

SOKOTO 22 45,402 6% 42,241 6% Decrease -3,161 -7%

ZAMFARA 14 112,316 15% 124,678 18% Increase 12,362 11%

GRAND TOTAL 174 728,688 100% 695,914 100% Decrease -32,774 -4%

State Population difference

Percentage difference

R5 Total (December 2020)Counts Of LGAs

R6 Total (February 2021)Status

10


2A: LOCATION OF DISPLACEMENT AND ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONSRound 6 of DTM assessments conducted in north-central and north-west Nigeria showed that the largest share or 29 per cent of IDPs originated from Benue state (up from 26% in Round 5), while the second and third most reported states of origin of IDPs were Zamfara (18% - up from 16%) and Katsina (15% - down from 16%). It is important to note that, compared the previous rounds of assessments, Zamfara took over Katsina as the state hosting the second largest number of IDPs in north-west and north-central Nigeria.

Similar to Round 5, the largest majority or 87 per cent of IDPs were displaced within the borders of their own state. The states with the highest percentages of IDPs displaced within their state of origin were Zamfara, where 99% of IDPs originated from Zamfara, followed by Katsina (where 96% of IDPs originated from Katsina), and Benue (where 92% of IDPs originated from Benue). These numbers show that displacement across north-western and northcentral Nigeria are highly localized and only 13 per cent of IDPs have crossed a state border in search of safety and security.

Nasarawa and Kano were the only states hosting more out-of-state IDPs than IDPs originating from locations within the respective states. In Nasarawa, 53 per cent of the identified IDPs originated from a different state while in Kano, 67 per cent of the identified IDPs originated from locations outside of Kano state. This can be explained by the fact that both states experienced a large influx of IDPs from Borno, the most conflict-affected state in Nigeria’s northeastern region. Forty-six per cent (or 12,376 individuals) of all IDPs recorded in Kano originated from Borno, while 36 per cent (or 7,056 individuals) of IDPs recorded in Nasarawa originated from Borno State.

Out of the 99,232 IDPs in north-central and north-west Nigeria that were residing in camps and camp/like settings, 60 per cent were located in Benue State. Benue was followed by Zamfara with 23 per cent of IDPs in camps/camp-like settings, and Sokoto, hosting 12 per cent of IDPs in camps/camp-like settings in North-Central and North-West Nigeria.

2B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILEThe majority or 54 per cent of internally displaced persons were female, while 46 per cent were male (similar to Round 5). Most IDPs or 55 per cent were under 18 years old, with 27 per cent of the total IDP population under six years old. Displaced

2. DISPLACEMENT DETAILS

Male 46% Female 54%

60+y

18-59y

6-17y

1-5y

<1y

4%

17%

4% 5%

10%

15%

3%

20%

13%

8%

Figure 1a: IDPs by age group and sex

households were on average, composed of 6 members.

2C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENTCommunal clashes were cited as the reason for displacement by the majority or 47 per cent of the IDPs in north-central and north-west Nigeria (up from 45% in Round 5). Communal clashes were followed by armed banditry and kidnapping, reported by 35 per cent of IDPs (up from 30% in Round 5), and natural disasters, cited by 13 per cent of IDPs (down from 20%). The IDPs displaced due to natural hazards were affected by the floods and sandstorms that occurred in Kano State ahead of the previous round of DTM assessments. The remaining 5 per cent cited that they were displaced as a result of the insurgency by Non-State Armed Groups (NSAG) that is currently affecting north-east Nigeria.

The states where the highest percentages of IDPs indicated to have fled their locations of origin because of communal clashes were Benue, Plateau and Nasarawa with respectively 91 per cent, 88 per cent and 61 per cent of IDPs. Armed banditry and kidnapping was the most reported reason for displacement in the states Zamfara (92%), Sokoto (81%) and Katsina (62%). Just under 36 per cent of the IDP population in Katsina proclaimed to have fled their locations of origin because of natural disasters. These displacements were the result of floods and sandstorms that occurred ahead of Round 5 of DTM assessments. Katsina was followed by Kano where 35 per cent of IDPs indicated to have fled because of natural hazards.

Adults(18 - 59 years)

Children(0 - 17 years)

56%

37%

Elderly(60+ years) 7%

Figure 1b: Proportion of IDP population by age groups

5%

13%

35%

47%

Insurgency

Natural disasters

Armed banditry & kidnapping

Community clashes

Figure 2: Cause of displacement

11


Ninety-three per cent of displaced persons residing among host communities said that they were displaced once, 6 per cent mentioned that they were displaced twice and 1 per cent were displaced more than two times. The states of Sokoto and Zamfara hosted the largest numbers of IDPs in host communities who were displaced twice with 15 per cent and 14 per cent respectively.

2F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONSimilar to Round 5, 87 per cent of IDPs in north-central and north-west Nigeria were displaced within the borders of their state of origin. Thirteen per cent of the IDP population crossed a state border in during their displacement. The states with the largest out-of-state IDP populations were Kano (67% of IDPs originating from a different state), Nasarawa (53% of IDPs originating from a different state), and Kaduna (26% of IDPs originating from a different state).

2D: DISPLACEMENT PERIODS Four per cent of the total IDP population stated that they arrived in the location where they are currently residing in the year 2021, and 32 per cent of the total IDP population reported that they arrived in the current location of displacement in 2020. With another 23 per cent of arrivals reported in the year 2019 and 18 per cent in the year 2018, it can be concluded that the crisis in Nigeria’s north-central and north-west region has intensified since 2018 and is resulting in accelerated displacement numbers throughout the region.

2E: FREQUENCY OF DISPLACEMENTAmong the IDPs residing in camps/camp-like settings, 80 per cent of respondents said they were displaced once, 18 per cent declared that they were displaced twice and 2 per cent stated that they were displaced three times or more. In the states of Kaduna, Kano and Katsina, all IDPs living in camps/camp-like settings were displaced only once. In contrast, only 25 per cent of the IDPs living in camps/camp-like settings in Zamfara were displaced only once.

5%

56%

35%

50%

11%4%

36%

62%

2%

8%

92%

11%

8%

81%

2% 37%

10%2%

4% 1%

35% 60%

9%

91%

88%

Kaduna

Benue

Sokoto

Zamfara

Kano

Plateau

Katsina

Nasarawa

Communal clashes

Insurgency

Natural disaster

Armed banditry/Kidnapping

±

0 100 20050 Km

47%

13%5%

35%

Niger

Kogi

Kebbi

Kwara

Jigawa

FCT - Abuja


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

17%

2%4%

18%

23%

32%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Before 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Benue 10% 2% 6% 39% 23% 18% 2%

Kaduna 39% 6% 2% 5% 21% 22% 5%

Kano 52% 2% 3% 2% 11% 28% 2%

Katsina 2% 0% 0% 2% 31% 63% 2%

Nasarawa 46% 9% 11% 19% 6% 6% 3%

Plateau 49% 3% 3% 22% 17% 6% 0%

Sokoto 9% 0% 1% 3% 33% 48% 6%

Zamfara 0% 0% 6% 11% 20% 49% 14%

Grand Total 17% 2% 4% 18% 23% 32% 4%

Figure 4: Displacement trend by state

BENUE KADUNA KANO KATSINA NASARAWA PLATEAU SOKOTO ZAMFARA Grand Total

Once 94% 100% 100% 100% 75% 83% 58% 25% 80%

Two times 6% 0% 0% 0% 25% 17% 42% 50% 18%

More than four times 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 1%

Three times 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 5: Percentage of frequency of displacement per state


Once 91% 99% 97% 93% 86% 97% 84% 91% 93%

Two times 9% 1% 3% 7% 14% 2% 15% 6% 6%

Four times 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1%

Three times 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

More than four times 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 6: Percentage of frequency of displacement per state

Figure 7: State of origin, state of displacement and percentage of displaced population per state.

From BENUE: 202,102

From ZAMFARA: 126,119

From KANO: 9,251

From KOGI: 361

From KADUNA: 58,000

From TARABA: 23,373

From YOBE: 231

From PLATEAU: 82,911

From KATSINA: 101,146

From BORNO: 32,194

From ADAMAWA: 157

From NASARAWA: 12,446

From BAUCHI: 1,958

From SOKOTO: 36,665

State of oringin State of displacement Total IDPs

TOTAL IDPs: 695,914

11%

11%

31%

3%

4%

16%

6%

18%

BENUE: 218,021

KADUNA: 76,711

KATSINA: 108,968

NASARAWA: 19,800

KANO: 26,718

PLATEAU: 78,777

SOKOTO: 42,241

ZAMFARA: 124,678

8%

0.2%

12%

2%0.02%

29%

0.03%

5%

3.4%

0.05%1.3%

5%

16%

18%

12


2G: SETTLEMENT AND ACCOMODATION TYPENumber and locations of sitesA total of 1,539 locations (up from 1,488 locations compared to Round 5) were assessed across the eight states covered by DTM assessments during Round 6. These included 1,460 locations (up from 1,410) where IDPs were residing among host communities and 79 locations (up from 78) categorised as camps or camp-like settings. Katsina (264 locations), Kaduna (240 locations) and Plateau (222 locations) were the states with the highest numbers of locations assessed.The majority or 86 per cent of IDPs (up by 2% compared to Round 5) were residing among host communities, while 14 per cent were living in camps or camp-like settings. Ninety-five per cent of the locations assessed were categorised as locations where IDPs were living with host communities. The highest number of camps or camp-like settings was recorded in Benue (34 locations or 43% of all camps/camp-like settings in north-central and north-west Nigeria). The average number of IDPs per location of assessment was far greater in locations where IDPs were residing in camps/camp-like settings compared to the locations where IDPs were

living among host communities. In camps/camp-like settings, the average number of IDPs per location was reported at 1,256 individuals while in locations where IDPs were residing among host communities, an average of 408 IDPs were reported per location.

Figure 8: Percentage of IDPs per settlement type

1%

2%

16%

18%

27%

28%

14%

100%

100%

99%

98%

84%

82%

73%

72%

86%

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

KADUNA

KATSINA

KANO

PLATEAU

NASARAWA

ZAMFARA

BENUE

SOKOTO

Grand Total

camps Host Communities

IDPs # Sites % Sites # IDPs # Sites % SitesBenue 59,768 34 43% 158,253 155 10% 218,021 189

Kaduna 16 1 1% 76,695 239 16% 76,711 240Kano 348 6 8% 26,370 187 13% 26,718 193

Katsina 214 4 5% 108,754 260 18% 108,968 264Nasarawa 3,212 8 10% 16,588 161 11% 19,800 169

Plateau 1,236 6 8% 77,541 216 15% 78,777 222Sokoto 11,907 12 15% 30,334 112 8% 42,241 124

Zamfara 22,531 8 10% 102,147 130 9% 124,678 138Total 99,232 79 100% 596,682 1,460 100% 695,914 1,539

StateCamps/Camp-like settings Host Communities Total Number

of IDPsTotal Number

of Sites

Table 2: IDP figures per settlement type by state

2H: PRIMARY NEEDSSimilar to Round 5, food was the most reported urgent need for IDPs in north-west and north-central Nigeria. Across all the locations assessed, food was cited in 52 per cent of locations as the primary need for IDPs (up from 41% in Round 5). Food was followed by Non-Food Items or NFIs in 24 per cent of locations (down from 30%) and shelter in 15 per cent of locations (down from 17%). In 4 per cent of the locations assessed (down from 4%), medical services was reported as the primary need of IDPs.

1%

1%

1%

2%

4%

15%

24%

52%

Sanitationand Hygiene

Water for washingand cooking

Security

Drinking water

Medical services

Shelter

NFI

Food

Figure 9: Primary needs of IDPs by state of assessments

13


Sokoto

Zamfara

Katsina

Kano

Kaduna

Plateau

Nasarawa

BenueUkum

Sanga

KagarkoJema'a

Jaba

Niger

Kebbi

KogiOsun

Ekiti

Taraba

Bauchi

Yobe

Jigawa

FCT - Abuja

CAMEROON

±

Bauchi

Taraba

Yobe

Gombe

Ondo

Edo

Enugu

Ebonyi Cross RiverAnambra

NIGER

Less than 26,718

Host Community

Camp

26,719 - 42,241

42,242 - 124,678

Above 124,678

Neighbouring States


Neighbouring country

0 100 200Km50

IDP Population by State

Kaduna

Benue

Sokoto

Zamfara

Kano

Plateau

Katsina

Nasarawa

1%

16%

2%

218,021

19,800

78,777

76,711

26,718

124,678

42,241

108,968


27%

73%

84%

99%

100%

99%

28%

72%

100%

82%

18%

Map 4: IDP distribution per state and settlement type

14


2I. SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATIONA total of 1,539 locations were assessed in Round 6. Camps and camp-like settings (collective settlements and transitional centres) accounted for 5 per cent of the total number of locations assessed, while 95 per cent were locations where IDPs were residing among host communities. Only 14 per cent of camps/camp-like settings were formal sites. The majority or 86 per cent were informal sites. Of the 79 camps/camp-like settings, 54 per cent were categorised as camps, 43 per cent were categorised as collective settlements, and 3 per

IDP population by settlement type

Site Type Site Classi�cation

Camp/camp-like settings Host Community

Land ownership

14% 86%

Land ownership

CampCollective Settlement/CentreTransitional Centre

SpontaneousPlannedFor Relocation

3%

43% 54%

1%

99%

6%

27%

67%

Ancestral

PrivateBuilding

Public/Government

4%

18%

78%

Public/Government

Ancestral

Private Building

cent were categorised as transitional centres. Furthermore, 67 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings were located on government owned land or public structures, while 27 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings were located on private property. Six per cent of camps/camp-like settings were located on ancestral land. Land ownership in host communities was classified as privately owned with 78 per cent of the locations assessed. Eighteen per cent was classified as ancestral land and 4 per cent as government owned or public.

Figure 10: IDP population by settlement type

15


3A. CAMP COORDINATION AND CAMP MANAGEMENT (CCCM) Out of the 79 camps and camp-like settings assessed during the Round 6 of DTM assessments in the north-west and north-central Nigeria, only 13 per cent (down from 19%) had the support of a Site Management Agency (SMA), while 87 per cent (up from 81%) did not. Of the camps/camp-like settings who did have a SMA on site, the SMA was run by the government.

Most camps received support for shelter (94% - down from 96%) and protection (80% - down from 85%). Support for WASH and education was reported in respectively 70 per cent (down from 72%) and 71 per cent (up from 68%) of the camps/camp-like settings, while support with NFIs, general health, food and livelihood activities was reported in respectively 49 per cent (down from 53%), 42 per cent (up from 41%), 42 per cent (up from 37%) and 25 per cent (down from 96%) of camps/camp-like settings. Additionally, only 8 per cent (up from 2%) of the camps/camp-like settings received Camp Coordination and Camp Management (CCCM) support.

3B: SHELTER AND NFICamps and camp-like settings

In 25 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, roofing sheets were reported as the most needed type of shelter material. Roofing sheets were followed by tarpaulin (reported in 23% of the camps/camp-like settings) and bricks (reported in 18% of the camps/camp-like settings). The most pressing NFI needs in camps/camp-like settings were blankets/mats (reported in 30% of the sites - up by 2%), followed by mattresses (reported in 28% of the sites - up by 5%) and kitchen sets (reported in 13% of the sites - up by 5%).

1%

2%

4%

5%

5%

9%

14%

18%

42%

Individual house

Emergency shelter

Health facility

Rented house

Self-made/makeshift shelter

Community center

Host family house

Government building

School building

Figure 13: Accommodation type in camps/camp-like settings

2 NB: Any reference made to ‘camps’ comprises both camps and camp-like settings.

3.LIVELIHOODS AND LIVING CONDITIONS

Figure 11: Camp status, presence and type of Site Management Agency (SMA)

86%

14%

Government, 100%

SMApresence,

13%

no SMA, 87%

Formal

Informal

Figure 15: Percentage of camps/camp-like settings with most needed type of NFI

1%

3%

5%

9%

11%

13%

28%

30%

None

Soap

Solar lamp

Hygiene kits

Mosquito nets

Kitchen sets

Mattress

Blankets/Mats

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

92%

75%

58%

58%

51%

30%

29%

20%

6%

8%

25%

42%

42%

49%

70%

71%

80%

94%

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

CCCM

Livelihood

Health

Food

NFI

WASH

Education

Protection

Shelter

no yes

Figure 14: Percentage of camps/camp-like settings with most needed type of shelter material

1%

3%

3%

11%

16%

18%

23%

25%

Rope

Tools

Nails

No need forshelter material

Timber/wood

Block/bricks

Tarpaulin

Roofing sheets

16


3C: LIVELIHOODCamps and camp-like settings

The most common livelihood activity of IDPs living in camps/camp-like settings were jobs as a daily labourer (reported in 41% of the locations – up by 2%), followed by farming (reported in 37% of the locations – down by 7) and petty trade (reported in 10% of the locations – up by 5%).

Across Nigeria’s north-west and north-central zones, livestock is present in 81 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings (up from 78% in Round 5). Furthermore, in 43 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings (up from 37%), IDPs do not have access to land for cultivation. Despite these barriers, respondents in 99 per cent (up from 97%) of camps/camp-like settings reported that IDPs have access to income generating activities.

Host communities

In contrast to IDPs living in camps/camp-like settings, farming was reported as the most common livelihood activity for IDPs living among host communities (reported in 55% of the locations – up by 1%). Farming was followed by daily labour (reported in 23% of locations - down by 2%), petty trade (reported in 13% of locations – up by 2%) and agro-pastoralism (reported in 6% of locations – similar to Round 5).

In 95 per cent of the locations where IDPs were living among host communities, livestock we reported on site (up by 2%). Additionally, 77 per cent of IDPs in host communities have access to cultivable land and 96 per cent of IDPs residing among host communities have access to livelihood opportunities.

Host communities

The most common shelter type for IDPs that were hosted within the local communities were the homes of host families (reported in 68% of the locations assessed – up by 3% since Round 5). Family housing was followed by rented houses, reported in 17 per cent of locations (similar to Round 5), and individual housing, reported in 13 per cent of the locations assessed (down by 2% since Round 5).

During Round 6 of assessments, 88 per cent of locations where IDPs were residing among host communities reported the need for shelter material (up by 1%). Most IDPs living in host communities needed bricks (reported in 29% of the locations – up by 2%), followed by timber/wood (in 21% of the locations – up by 1%), roofing sheets (reported in 20% of the locations – down by 1%), and tarpaulins (reported in 8% of locations – down by 2%). In 13 per cent of the locations that hosted IDPs among the local communities, no specific shelter needs were reported.

The most important NFI needs for IDPs displaced among host communities were blankets/mats, reported in 35 per cent of the locations (up by 5%), followed by mosquito nets (reported in 19 per cent of locations – similar to Round 5), mattresses (reported in 17 per cent of locations – down by 1%) and kitchen sets (reported in 14 per cent of locations – down by 2%).

1%

1%

2%

7%

7%

11%

20%

21%

29%

Tools

Thatches

Rope

Nails

Tarpaulin

No need forshelter material

Roofing sheets

Timber/wood

Block/bricks

Figure 17: Most needed shelter material among host communities

Figure 18: Most needed NFI in host community sites

2%

3%

3%

7%

14%

17%

19%

35%

Solar lamp

Soap

Bucket/Jerry can

Hygiene kits

Kitchen sets

Mattress

Mosquito nets

Blankets/Mats

Figure 19: Livelihood activities of IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

1%

5%

6%

10%

37%

41%

Agro-pastoralism

Fishing

Collecting firewood

Petty trade

Farming

Daily labourer

Figure 20: Livelihood activities of IDPs in host community sites

1%

1%

1%

1%

6%

12%

23%

55%

None

Collecting firewood

Pastoralism

Fishing

Agro-pastoralism

Petty trade

Daily labourer

Farming

1%

1%

13%

17%

68%

Others

Self-made/makeshiftshelter

Individual house

Rented house

Host family house

Figure 16: Types of shelter in host community sites

17


3D: WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENECamps and camp-like settingsSources of waterIn 33 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, hand pumps were reported as the main source of drinking water (up from 28%). Hand pumps were followed by protected wells, lakes/dams and unprotected wells, mentioned as the main source of drinking water in respectively 19 per cent (down from 40%), 14 per cent (up from 6%) and 13 per cent of the locations assessed (up from 10%).

Distance to main water sourceIn 75 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, the main water sources were located within a 10 minute walking distance from the camp. This is a decrease of seven per cent compared to Round 5. Fifty-four per cent were on-site water sources while 20 per cent were off-site water sources. In total, 25 per cent of camps/camp-like settings have water sources located more than 10 minutes away (10% on-site, and 15% off-site).

Differentiation between drinking and non-drinking waterIn 86 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, IDPs did not differentiate between drinking water and non-drinking water (up from 81%). In the states Kaduna and Zamfara, no differentiation was made between drinking water and non-drinking water at all. In the states Nasarawa and Kano, a difference between drinking water and non-drinking water was made in respectively 38 per cent and 33 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings.

Improvement to water pointsThe majority or 81 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (up from 63%) reported no improvements to water points. In Kaduna, Katsina and Sokoto, none of the camps/camp-like settings reported improvement to water points while in Nasarawa, improvement to water points was reported in 38 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, which was the highest of all states.

Amount of water available per day per personIn 56 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings over 15 litres of water was available per person per day. This is a considerable decrease from the 64 per cent noted in Round 5. In Kaduna, Kano, Katsina and Plateau, over 15 litres of water was available per person per day in all of the camps/camp-like settings assessed. In 30 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, between 10 and 15 litres of water was available per person per day, and in 14 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, between 5 and 10 litres of water was available per person per day.

Figure 22: Distance to main water source in camps/camp-like settings

15%

50%

25%

25%

16%

9%

37%

20%

9%

12%

33%

10%

59%

100%

50%

75%

50%

67%

25%

63%

55%

17%

13%

17%

33%

15%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

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

Figure 23: Percentage of sites where IDPs differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water in camps/camp-like settings

94%

100%

67%

75%

63%

83%

83%

100%

86%

6%

33%

25%

38%

17%

17%

14%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

No Yes

79%

100%

83%

100%

63%

67%

100%

75%

81%

21%

17%

37%

33%

25%

19%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

No Yes

Figure 24: Improvement of water points in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 21: Main drinking water sources in camps/camp-like settings

2%

9%

10%

13%

14%

19%

33%

Surface water

Water truck

Piped water supply

Unprotected well

Lake/dam

Protected well

Hand pumps

56%

100%

100%

100%

38%

100%

42%

56%

32%

37%

50%

50%

30%

12%

25%

8%

50%

14%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

>15 ltr 10 - 15 ltr 5 - 10 ltr

Figure 25: Average amount of water available per person per day in camps/camp-like settings

18


Conditions of latrinesLatrines were considered unhygienic in 72 per cent of camps/camp-like settings assessed (down from 87% since Round 5). In the states Kano, Kaduna, Sokoto, Nasarawa and Katsina, all latrines were reported to be unhygienic. Latrines were not usable at all in 23 per cent of camps (up from 5% in Round 5). Only in 5 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, latrines have been reported in good and hygienic condition.

Availability of gender-separated latrinesSeventy-eight per cent of camps/camp-like settings (down from 86 per cent in Round 5) do not have separated latrines for men and women; only 22 per cent of camps/camp-like settings offered separated latrines for men and women.

Hygiene promotion campaignThe percentage of camps/camp-like settings where hygiene promotion and awareness campaigns were organised has increased from 62 per cent to 66 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings. In Kaduna and Sokoto, no hygiene promotion campaigns were reported at all while in Nasarawa, the organisation of hygiene promotion campaigns was reported in 75 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings assessed.

Waste disposalDuring Round 6 of assessments, an increase in waste burning was reported in camps/camp-like settings. The practice was reported as the main waste disposal mechanism in 60 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings (up from 54%). In 15 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, garbage pits were reported as the main waste disposal mechanism (down from 26%) and in 25 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, no waste disposal system was established at all (up from 21%).

Evidence of open defecatonEvidence of open defecation was reported in 57 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (up from 54 per cent recorded in Round 5). In contrast, no such evidence was found in 43 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings.

Host communitiesSources of waterIn 47 per cent of the locations where IDPs were residing among host communities, hand pumps were reported as the main sources of drinking (up from 44%). Hand pumps were followed by protected wells in 15 per cent of the locations (down from 18%), unprotected wells in 15 per cent of locations (down from 16%), piped water supplies in 10 per cent of locations (down from 11%), lakes/dams in 5 per cent of locations (down from 6%), surface water in 3 per cent of locations (no change since Round 5) and water trucks in 2 per cent of locations (no change since Round 5).

Figure 28: Availability of targeted hygiene promotion in camps/camp-like settings

No,66%

Yes,34%

Figure 29: Main garbage disposal mechanism in camps/camp-like settings

Burning60%Garbage pit

15%

No waste disposal system25%

Figure 27: Availability of gender-separated latrines in camps/camp-like settings by state

No,78%

Yes,22%

Figure 30: Evidence of open defecation in camps/camp-like settings

No,43%

Yes,57%

Figure 26: Condition of toilets in camps/camp-like settings

12%

5%

41%

33%

25%

23%

47%

100%

100%

100%

100%

67%

100%

75%

72%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

Good (Hygienic) Non usable Not so good (Not hygienic)

19


Improvement to water pointsThe majority or 61 per cent of locations where IDPs were residing among host communities reported no improvements to water points (similar to Round 5). Benue and Zamfara were the states where the least improvement to water points was reported (78% and 70% respectively).

Amount of water available per day per personIn 62 per cent of the locations where IDPs were residing among host communities, over 15 litres of water was available per person per day. This is a considerable decrease from the 71 per cent noted in Round 5. In 27 per cent of the locations, between 10 and 15 litres of water was available per person per day (up from 23%), and in 11 per cent of the locations, between 5 and 10 litres of water was available per person per day (up from 6%).

Conditions of latrinesLatrines were considered unhygienic in 95 per cent of locations where IDPs were residing among host communities (up by 2%). In the states Sokoto and Katsina, these numbers were reported at 100 per cent. Latrines were not usable at all in 4 per cent of locations (down by 1% since Round 5). Only in 1 per cent of the locations, latrines have been reported in good and hygienic condition (down by 2%).

Distance to main water sourceThe main water sources in 90 per cent of locations where IDPs were residing among host communities were within a 10 minute walking range (84% of those were on-site water sources, 6% were off-site water sources). This signifies an increase of 6 per cent compared to Round 5.

Contrarily, in 10 per cent of locations where IDPs were residing among host communities, water sources were located more than 10 minutes away (8% were located on-site, and 2% were off-site).

Differentiation between drinking and non-drinking waterIn 68 per cent (up from 63%) of locations where IDPs were residing among host communities, no differentiation was made between drinking water and non-drinking water. In the state Plateau, 50 per cent of locations distinguished between drinking water and non-drinking water. However, in Sokoto, only 14 per cent of the locations assessed made the difference between drinking water and non-drinking water.

Figure 32: Distance to main water source in host community sites


Off-site (<10 mn) 2% 3% 5% 0% 2% 0% 39% 16% 6%

Off-site (>10 mn) 6% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 8% 7% 2%

On-site (<10 mn) 67% 93% 94% 96% 94% 83% 48% 66% 84%

On-site (>10 mn) 25% 3% 1% 4% 3% 17% 5% 11% 8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

a few nobody

Figure 33: Percentage of locations where IDPs differentiate between drinking and non-drinking water

77%

73%

75%

65%

54%

50%

86%

82%

68%

23%

27%

25%

35%

46%

50%

14%

18%

32%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

No Yes

78%

62%

39%

63%

68%

50%

65%

70%

61%

22%

38%

61%

37%

32%

50%

35%

30%

39%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

No Yes

Figure 34: Improvement of water points in host community sites

Figure 35: Average amount of water available per person per day in host communities

1%

62%

79%

84%

77%

41%

41%

63%

26%

62%

30%

16%

16%

17%

40%

34%

31%

51%

27%

8%

5%

6%

19%

24%

6%

23%

11%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

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

Figure 36: Condition of toilets in host communities


Good (Hygienic) 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 0% 2% 1%

Non usable 10% 3% 1% 0% 1% 15% 0% 2% 4%

Not so good (Not hygienic) 87% 96% 98% 100% 99% 82% 100% 96% 95%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 31: Main drinking water sources for IDPs residing among host communities

1%

2%

2%

3%

5%

10%

15%

15%

47%

Others

Ponds/canals

Water truck

Surface water

Lake/dam

Piped water supply

Unprotected well

Protected well

Hand pumps

20


Availability of gender-separated latrinesNinety-eight per cent (up by 1%) of locations where IDPs were residing among host communities do not have separated latrines for men and women; only 2 per cent of locations offered separated latrines for men and women.

Hygiene promotion campaignThe percentage of locations where IDPs were residing among host communities and where hygiene promotion and awareness campaigns were organised increased from 20 per cent in Round 4 to 41 per cent in Round 5, and to 43 per cent in Round 6. This increased focus on hygiene could be due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The states where the least amount of hygiene promotion campaigns were reported were Benue with 17 per cent, and Kaduna, Sokoto and Zamfara with 21 per cent.

Waste disposalDuring the Round 6 assessments, similar to previous rounds, waste burning was reported as the main garbage disposal mechanism in locations where IDPs were residing among host communities. The practice was reported in 53 per cent of the locations assessed (down from 55%). In 19 per cent of the locations, garbage pits were reported as the main waste disposal mechanism (up from 17%) and in 28 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, no waste disposal system was established at all (similar to Round 5).

Evidence of open defecationEvidence of open defecation was reported in 46 per cent of locations where IDPs were residing among host communities (down from 52 per cent in Round 5). In contrast, no such evidence was reported in 54 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings.

3E: FOOD AND NUTRITION Camps and camp-like settingsAccess to foodWhile food was the most reported primary need for IDPs in Nigeria’s north-central and north-west zones, in 49 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, no food support was provided at all (down from 60%). In 9 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, food support was available off-site, while in 42 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, food support was available on-site.

In the camps/camp-like settings in the state Kano, no food support was provided at all while in the states of Plateau and Kaduna, food support was reported to be available on-site in all of the camp/camp-like setting assessed.

Means of obtaining foodPersonal savings was reported as the most common manner to obtain food in 57 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings (down from 64% in Round 5). Personal money was followed by crop cultivation, reported in 30 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings (up by 4%), food distributions, reported in 5 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, exchange by barter, reported in 4% of the camps/camp-like settings (down by 2%) and community donations, reported in 4% of the camps/camp-like settings (up by 1%). In all camps/camp-like settings in Kaduna State, it was reported that IDPs were 100 per cent dependent on distributions for food supplies.

Figure 39: Main garbage disposal mechanism in host communities

Burning, 53%

No waste disposal

system, 28%

Garbage pit, 19%

Figure 37: Availability of gender-separated latrines in host communities

98%

2%

no yesFigure 40: Evidence of open defecation in host communities

No,54%

Yes,46%

59%

100%

25% 25%

58%

38%

49%

3%

50%

9%

37%9%

38%

100%

25%

75%

100%

33%25%

42%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


No Yes, off site Yes, on siteFigure 41: Access to food in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 38: Availability of targeted hygiene promotion in host communities

No, 57%

Yes, 43%

21


Frequency of food distributionIn 50 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings in north-central and north-west Nigeria, it was reported that food was never distributed (down from 60 per cent in Round 5). In 49 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, food distribution was reported as irregular (up from 38 per cent), and in 1 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, food was distributed once a month. Kano was the only state where food had never been distributed in the camps/camp-like settings.

NutritionScreening for malnutrition was reported in 11 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings (down from 13% since Round 5), while supplementary feeding programmes for children, lactating mothers and the elderly were present in respectively 11 per cent, 10 per cent and 9 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings.

Malnutrition screenings and the supplementary feeding programmes were only reported in the camps/camp-like settings of the states Benue and Zamfara.

Host communitiesAccess to foodDisplaced households living among host communities have access to food in 35 per cent of the locations assessed (down from 43% since Round 5). This food was available on-site in 25 per cent of the locations (down from 29%) and off-site in 10 per cent of the locations (down from 14% since Round 5).

The trend is still similar to the previous rounds of assessments and the majority or 65 per cent of IDPs living among host communities do not have access to any form of food support (up from 57%). In Kano, 89 per cent of locations have not been supported with food, followed by Nasarawa with 85 per cent of the locations.

Means of obtaining foodThe most common means of obtaining food for IDPs who were living among host communities was with their personal savings, as reported in 59 per cent of the locations assessed (up from 49%). Personal savings were followed by crop cultivation (reported in 38 per cent of the locations), assistance from the host community (reported in 3% of the locations) and barter (reported in 1% of the locations). In Sokoto and Zamfara, personal savings were reported as the most common source for obtaining food in 84 per cent of the locations where IDPs were living among host communities. In Nasarawa and Plateau, crop cultivation accounted for the provision of food in respectively 76 per cent and 73 per cent of the locations.

Frequency of food distributionIn the majority or 65 per cent of locations where IDPs were living among host communities, food was never distributed (up from 58%). The situation continues to be particularly acute in the states Kano and Nasarawa where food was never distributed in respectively 89 per cent and 85 per cent of the locations. Furthermore, food distributions were reported as irregular in 35 per cent of the locations assessed (down from 39% in Round 5).

75%63%

89%

51%

85%

50%

69%

51%

65%

6%

12%

3%

14%

3%

8%

11%

22%

10%

19%25%

8%

35%

12%

42%

20%27% 25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


No Yes, off site Yes, on site

Figure 44: Access to food in host communities

Figure 43: Frequency of food or cash distribution in camps/camp-likesettings in camps/camp-like settings


Irregular 41% 100% 0% 75% 75% 100% 42% 50% 50%

Never 59% 0% 100% 25% 25% 0% 58% 38% 49%

Once a month 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Cash (personal money) 54% 62% 65% 78% 23% 27% 84% 84% 59%

Cultivated 38% 35% 35% 16% 76% 73% 8% 9% 38%

Distribution 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Exchange by barter 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Host community donation 1% 2% 0% 4% 1% 0% 8% 7% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Figure 45: Means of obtaining food in host communities

Figure 42: Means of obtaining food in camps/camp-like settings


Cash (personal money) 47% 0% 83% 75% 50% 33% 75% 75% 57%

Cultivated 35% 0% 0% 25% 50% 67% 25% 0% 30%

Distribution 9% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%

Exchange by barter 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Host community donation 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

22


Nutrition Similar to the situation in camps/camp-like settings, very few locations where IDPs were hosted by the local community have programmes for screening malnutrition. In only 4 per cent of locations (down from 5% in Round 5) the presence of a malnutrition programme was reported. Similarly, only 6 per cent of locations had supplementary feeding programs for lactating mothers. In Nasarawa however, supplementary feeding programs were reported in 37 per cent of the locations assessed.

3F: HEALTHCamps and camp-like settingsMost common health problemIn 58 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, malaria was reported as the most common health problem for IDPs (down from 65% in Round 5). Malaria was followed by cough and fever, reported in respectively 19 per cent (up from 4%) and 10 per cent (down from 19%) of the camps/camp-like settings. Malnutrition and diarrhea were reported as the most common health problems for IDPs in respectively 8 per cent and 5 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings assessed.

In Kaduna, all of camps/camp-like settings reported cough as the most common health problems for IDPs, while malaria was reported as the most common health problem for IDPs in 83 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings in the states Plateau and Kano. Malnutrition in Katsina and Zamfara was cited as the most common health problem for IDPs in 25 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings.

Location of health facilityFor 75 per cent of the IDPs residing in camps/camp-like settings, health facilities were located within a 3 kilometre range. These included both health facilities on-site (33%) and off the site of assessment (42%). In 3 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, no health facilities were reported at all (all camps/camp-like settings where no health facilities were reported were located in Benue).

Primary health providerIn 70 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (down from 78%), the main health provider was the government. Other health providers included local clinics in 10 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (down from 13%), INGOs in 8 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (up from 5%) and NGOs in 5 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (up from 3%). Local clinics were the primary health provider in all camps/camp-like settings in the state of Kaduna.

Host communitiesMost common health problemIn 55 per cent of the locations where IDPs were residing among host communities, malaria was reported as the most common health problem (down from 64% in Round 5). Malaria was the primary health concern in all states, with highest percentage reported in Zamfara (in 72% of the locations).

Malaria was followed by fever and cough reported in respectively 28 per cent and 7 per cent of the locations as the most common health problem. Diarrhea and malnutrition were reported as the most common health problem in respectively 5 per cent and 2 per cent of the locations assessed.

Figure 47: Common health problems in camps/camp-like settings


Cough 29% 100% 0% 0% 0% 17% 17% 12% 19%

Diarrhea 0% 0% 17% 25% 12% 0% 0% 13% 5%

Fever 3% 0% 0% 25% 38% 0% 25% 0% 10%

Malaria 62% 0% 83% 25% 50% 83% 50% 50% 58%

Malnutrition 6% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 8% 25% 8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Figure 48: Location of health facilities in camps/camp-like settings


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

Off-site (<3 km) 38% 0% 50% 25% 37% 33% 50% 63% 42%

Off-site (>3 km) 29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 14%

On-site (<3 km) 21% 100% 33% 50% 63% 33% 42% 25% 33%

On-site (>3 km) 6% 0% 17% 25% 0% 17% 8% 12% 9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 49: Main health providers in camps/camp-like settings


Government 59% 0% 100% 100% 75% 83% 83% 50% 70%

INGO 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 8%

Local clinic 15% 100% 0% 0% 0% 17% 9% 0% 10%

NGO 6% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 5%

None 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 46: Frequency of food or cash distribution in host communities


Irregular 25% 37% 11% 49% 15% 50% 29% 49% 35%

Never 75% 63% 89% 51% 85% 50% 69% 51% 65%

Once a month 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

23


Location of health facilityFor 87 per cent of the IDPs living among host communities, health facilities were located within a 3 kilometre range (up from 82%). These included both health facilities on-site (75%) and off the site of assessment (12%). In 1 per cent of locations, no health facilities were reported at all (this is the case for 6 per cent of the locations in the state of Zamfara). In 97 per cent of the locations in the state Nasarawa, health locations were reported to be less than 3 kilometres away. This was the case for 91 per cent of locations in Katsina and 94 per cent of locations in Kano.

Primary health providerIn 91 per cent of locations where IDPs were residing among host communities, the main health provider was the government (similar to Round 5). Following the government, local clinics were another health provider in 5 per cent of the locations. In 1 per cent of the locations, no healthcare was provided at all (in Zamfara and Benue States, no healthcare was provided in 9% of the locations). Noteably, there is a total absence of local clinics in locations in Katsina, Kano and Plateau. INGOs and NGOs together accounted for less than 1 per cent of the provision of healthcare in the assessed locations.

3G: EDUCATIONCamps and camp-like settingsAccess to educationIn 91 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, children in displaced households had access to formal or informal education. This number decreased from 96 per cent compared to the Round 5 of assessments. In all states except Benue (79%), 100 per cent of IDP children residing in camps/camp-like settings had access to education.

Location of education facilitiesThe majority or 71 per cent of education facilities were located within the camps/camp-like settings (down from 79%). In Kaduna State, 100% of schools were located on the site. Camps/camp-like settings in Katsina had the highest percentage of education facilities located outside of the camp/camp-like setting (75%), followed by Sokoto (58%) and Nasarawa (38%).

School attendanceIn 6 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings in Nigeria’s north-west and north-central zones, more than 75 percent of the children were attending school. In 27 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, less than 50 per cent of IDP children attended school (down from 37%), and in 25 per cent of sites, less than 75 per cent of IDP children attended school (up from 24%). States where more than 75 per cent of IDP children attended school were Benue with 9 per cent, Kano with 17 per cent and Nasarawa with 13 per cent.

Figure 52: Main health providers in host communities


Government 75% 79% 98% 97% 98% 99% 88% 89% 91%

INGO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Local clinic 13% 16% 0% 0% 2% 0% 7% 1% 5%

NGO 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

None 9% 5% 2% 3% 0% 0% 5% 9% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 53: Access to formal/informal education services in camps/camp-likesettings

21%

9%

79%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

91%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

No Yes


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

Off-site (<3 km) 16% 9% 13% 5% 7% 3% 50% 13% 12%

Off-site (>3 km) 13% 4% 3% 0% 1% 1% 3% 7% 4%

On-site (<3 km) 47% 78% 81% 86% 90% 86% 38% 64% 75%

On-site (>3 km) 21% 7% 2% 9% 2% 8% 9% 10% 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Figure 51: Location of health facilities in host communitiess

Figure 54: Location of formal/informal education services in camps/camp-like settings

6%

3%

6%

33%

75%

38%

33%

58%

25%

27%

88%

100%

67%

25%

63%

67%

42%

75%

71%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

None Off-site On-site

Figure 50: Common health problems in host communities


Cough 12% 5% 2% 8% 14% 5% 12% 1% 7%

Diarrhea 6% 2% 3% 6% 5% 10% 6% 1% 5%

Fever 26% 37% 23% 47% 27% 10% 14% 22% 28%

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

Malaria 50% 48% 71% 36% 53% 58% 67% 72% 55%

Malnutrition 3% 3% 0% 1% 1% 4% 1% 2% 1%

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

RTI 2% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Skin disease 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Wound infection 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

24


Reasons for not attending schoolFees and costs continued to be the most significant barrier preventing children from accessing education, with 61 per cent of respondents in camps/camp-like settings reporting these factors as the reason why some IDP children were not attending school (down from 69% in Round 5). In 13 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (up from 12%), the main reason for IDP children to not attend was because the school was occupied (by families or the military), while in 10 per cent (up from 9%) of camps/camp-like settings, the lack of teachers was the main reason why IDP children did not attend school. The lack of school supplies was mentioned in 6 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings as the main reason preventing IDP children from accessing education.

In 65 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (up from 59%), the distance to school was less than 1 kilometre. In 27 per cent of sites, the distance to school was less than 2 kilometres (similar to Round 5). In 5 per cent of sites, school was at a distance of less than 5 kilometres (similar to Round 5).

Host communities Access to educationDisplaced children who were living among host communities had access to education (both formal and informal) in the majority or 97 per cent of the locations assessed (down from 98% in Round 5). In Katsina and Nasarawa, 100 per cent or all locations reported that displaced children had access to schools, while in 11 per cent of locations in Kaduna, and in 8 per cent of locations in Zamfara, displaced children did not have access to education.

Location of education facilitiesIn 86 per cent of the locations assessed, the schools were located on-site or within the community (down from 87 per cent in Round 5). Most noteably, in the state Sokoto, 68 per cent of the schools were located off-site or outside of the locations of assessment.

School attendanceIn 7 per cent of the locations where IDPs were living among host communities (down from 9%), more than 75 percent of the children were attending school. In 38 per cent of the locations assessed (down from 42%), less than 50 per cent of IDP children were attending school, and in 19 per cent of the locations assessed (down from 23%), less than 25 per cent of IDP children were attending schools (this percentage was highest in the states Sokoto and Zamfara with respectively 52% and 28%). In 3 per cent of the locations where IDPs were living among host communities, none of the IDP children were attending school. The state that scored the highest in school attendance was Plateau, where in 31 per cent of the locations assessed, more than 75 per cent of IDP children were attending school.

Reasons for not attending schoolSimilar to IDP children in camps/camp-like settings, the main obstacle to school attendance in locations where IDPs were living among host communities were the high fees and costs, as mentioned in 67 per cent of the locations (down from 76%). Other reasons for which IDP children were not going to school were that children had to work in the fields (mentioned in 15% of the locations – up from 7%), the lack of school supplies (mentioned in 6% of locations – up from 5%), diseases and illnesses and the lack of teachers (both mentioned in 4% of the locations assessed).

Figure 57: Location of formal/informal education services in host communities

11%

8%

5%

6%

9%

3%

68%

30%

14%

89%

92%

95%

94%

91%

97%

32%

70%

86%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

None Off-site On-site

4%

11%

1%

1%

1%

8%

3%

96%

89%

99%

100%

100%

99%

99%

92%

97%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

No Yes

Figure 56: Access to formal/informal education services in host communities

Figure 58: Percentage of children attending school in host communities

25%

22%

5%

17%

17%

2%

52%

28%

19%

43%

31%

21%

55%

35%

30%

28%

58%

38%

27%

35%

70%

27%

34%

36%

12%

5%

33%

1%

1%

3%

14%

31%

8%

7%

4%

11%

1%

1%

1%

8%

3%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

<25% <50% <75% >75% None

Figure 55: Percentage of children attending school in camps/camp-likesettings

32%

17%

50%

33%

50%

50%

33%

17%

17%

25%

37%

50%

33%

37%

27%

21%

100%

50%

25%

50%

17%

17%

13%

25%

9%

16%

13%

6%

21%

9%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

<25% <50% <75% >75% None

25


3I: COMMUNICATION

Camps and camp-like settings

Most trusted source of informationIn 62 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, the most trusted sources of information were local leaders and community leaders (down from 67 per cent in Round 5). The second most trusted category were friends, neighbours and family, reported in 20 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings (up from 19%). Friends, neighbours and family were followed by religious leaders, reported in 6 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (down from 8%), and traditional leaders, reported in 3 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (similar to Round 5).

3H: PROTECTION

Camp and camp-like settings:

In 80 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings (down from 86%), security is provided. Security is guaranteed in 100 per cent, or all the camps/camp-like settings in the states of Kaduna, Katsina, Nasarawa, Plateau, Sokoto and Zamfara. However, in only 56 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings assessed in the state Benue, security was provided.

In 25 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, security was self-organized (up from 13%), while in 20 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, no security was provided at all (up from 14%). In 18 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, security was provided by community leaders (down from 26%), followed by police in 18 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings (down from 24%) and the military in 9 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings (down from 15%).

Host Communities

Security is provided in 94 per cent of the locations where IDPs were residing among host communities (up from 92% in Round 5). Sokoto and Kano were the states where the most locations without security were reported (in 19% and 12% of the locations respectively).

Similar to the Round 5 assessments, the most common provider of security was the police (reported in 29% of locations - down from 31%). The police was followed by local authorities, reported in 24 per cent of the locations (up from 21%) and community leaders, reported in 22 per cent of the locations assessed (up from 21%). Security was self-organised in 14 per cent of the locations (up from 11%).

Figure 61: Security provided in host communities

7%

6%

12%

1%

19%

8%

6%

93%

94%

88%

100%

99%

100%

81%

92%

94%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

No Yes

Figure 63: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

1%

1%

3%

6%

7%

20%

62%

Aid worker

Other

Traditional Leader

Government official

Religious leader

Friends, neighboursand family

Local leader/Community leader

Figure 60: Main security providers in camps/camp-like setting

2%

8%

9%

18%

18%

20%

25%

Religiousleaders

Localauthorities

Military

Communityleaders

Police

None

Self organized

Figure 62: Main security providers in host communities

0%

0%

5%

6%

14%

22%

24%

29%

Political Leaders

Religious Leaders

Others

None

Self organized

Community leaders

Local authorities

Police

Figure 59: Security provided in camps/camp-like settings

44%

17%

20%

56%

100%

83%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

80%

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

BENUE

KADUNA

KANO

KATSINA

NASARAWA

PLATEAU

SOKOTO

ZAMFARA

Grand Total

No Yes

26


Primary concernsThe primary topics where the IDP community in camps/camp-like settings desired information on were access to services (reported in 24% of the camps/camp-like settings – down from 26%), other relief assistance (reported in 19% of the camps/camp-like settings – up from 18%) and the situation in areas of origin (reported in 17% of the camps/camp-like settings – similar to Round ).

Expression of needsIn the majority or 73 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (down from 74%), IDPs were able to express their needs through direct conversation while in 25 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, the expression of needs occurred through a third party. Less than 1 per cent of IDPs in camps/camp-like setting expressed their needs in writing or using sign language.

Host communities

Most trusted source of information In 58 per cent of locations where IDPs were living among host communities, the most trusted sources of information were local leaders and community leaders (down from 62 per cent in Round 5). The second most trusted source of information were friends and neighbours, reported in 20 per cent of the location (similar to Round 5). Friends and neighbours were followed by religious leaders, reported in 10 per cent of locations (up from 8%), and traditional leaders, reported in 7 per cent of locations (up from 5%).

Preferred means to receive informationFor IDPs living in camps/camp-like settings, the preferred channel of information was word of mouth (reported in 44% of the camps/camp-like settings – up from 42%), followed by the radio (reported in 35% of the camps/camp-like settings – down from 44%), telephone calls (reported in 11% of the camps/camp-like settings) and community meetings (reported in 9% of the camps/camp-like settings).

Access to a functional radioIn 72 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, respondents reported that only a few IDPs had access to a functional radio (up from 71%). In 4 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, none of the IDPs had access to a functional radio (similar to Round 5). This percentage was higher in Benue and Sokoto where respectively 6 per cent and 8 per cent of IDPs did not have access to a functional radio. In 20 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, respondents reported that most IDPs had access to a functional radio (down from 23%) while in 4 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, almost all IDPs had access to a functional radio (up from 3%).

Figure 67: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in host communities

1%

4%

7%

10%

20%

58%

Others

Government official

Traditional leader

Religious leader

Friends, neighbours and family

Local leader/Community leader

Figure 65: Percentage of IDPs with access to functional radio in camps/camp-like settings

4% 4%

20%

72%

Almost all

None

Most

Few

Figure 64: Preferred means of receiving information for IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

9%

11%

35%

44%

Community meetings

Telephone voice call

Radio

Word of Mouth

Figure 66: Most important topic for IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

1%

6%

10%

10%

13%

17%

19%

24%

Registration

Safety and security

Shelter

Distribution

How to contact aid providers

Situation in areas of origin

Other relief assistance

Access to services

27


Primary concernsThe primary topics where that the IDPs residing with the host community desired information on were distributions (reported in 29% of the locations), other relief assistance (reported in 23% of locations – up from 22%), access to services (reported in 17% of the locations – down from 24%), and the situation in areas of origin (reported in 14% of locations – down from 13%).

Expression of needsIn the majority or 73 per cent of locations where IDPs were residing with host communities (up from 63%), IDPs were able to express their needs through direct conversation while in 27 per cent of locations, the expression of needs occurred through a third party (down from 36%). Less than 1 per cent of IDPs residing within host communities expressed their needs in writing.

Preferred means to receive informationFor IDPs living among host communities, the preferred channel of information was the radio (reported in 57% of the locations – up from 56%), followed by word of mouth (reported in 28% of the locations – down from 29%) and community meetings (reported in 7% of the locations – similar to Round 5).

Access to a functional radioIn 61 per cent of the locations where IDPs were living among host communities, respondents reported that only a few IDPs had access to a functional radio (similar to Round 5). In 3 per cent of the locations, none of the IDPs had access to a functional radio (down from 4%). This percentage was considerably higher in Kaduna and Nasarawa where respectively 10 per cent and 9 per cent of IDPs did not have access to a functional radio. In 26 per cent of the locations, respondents reported that most IDPs had access to a functional radio (similar to Round 5), while in 9 per cent of the locations, almost all IDPs had access to a functional radio (up by 1%).

Figure 70: Most important topic for IDPs in host communities

1%

3%

3%

10%

14%

17%

23%

29%

How to get information

How tocontact aid providers

Shelter

Safety and Security

Situation in areas of origin

Access to services

Other relief assistance

Distribution

Figure 69: Percentage of IDPs with access to functional radio in host communities

3%5%

29%

63%

None

Almost all

Most

Few

Figure 68: Preferred means of receiving information for IDPs in host communities

1%

1%

6%

7%

28%

57%

Others

Loudspeakers

Telephone voice call

Community meetings

Word of mouth

Radio

28


4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Since 2013, Nigeria’s north-central and north-west geopolitical zones have been afflicted by a humanitarian crisis that has displaced large numbers of populations. This report presented an overview of the displacement situation and living conditions of displaced populations in the 8 affected states (Benue, Nasarawa, Plateau, Kaduna, Kano, Sokoto, Katsina and Zamfara).

Similar to the Round 5 of DTM assessments, communal clashes were cited as the primary reason for displacement during Round 6. These communal clashes predominantly result from violent conflicts between herders and farmers. Forty-seven per cent of IDPs indicated that they have been displaced because of these communal clashes. Communal clashes were followed by armed banditry/kidnappings and natural disasters, cited by respectively 35 per cent and 10 per cent of IDPs. Another 5 per cent of IDPs were displaced as a result of the ongoing insurgency that is currently affecting north-east Nigeria.

Assessments conducted by DTM between 8 and 24 February 2020 identified a total of 695,914 IDPs in 111,913 households across the eight states. The number represents a nominal decrease by 32,774 persons or 4.5 per cent compared to the 728,688 IDPs that were identified in the last round of assessment that was conducted between November and December 2020 (Round 5). The most affected states were Benue (with 208,021 IDPs, or 31% of the total IDP population), Zamfara (with 124,678 IDPs, or 18% of the total IDP population), Katsina (with 108,968 IDPs, or 16% of the total IDP population) and Plateau (with 78,777 IDPs, or 11% of the total IDP population).

The trends and changes observed reflect the current situation found in camps/camp-like settings and locations where IDPs are residing among host communities across the states affected by the crisis in north-west and north-central Nigeria. The majority (54%) of internally displaced individuals were female, while 46 per cent were male. Most IDPs (56%) were children, half of which (28%) were children under 6 years old. Displaced households were, on average, composed of six members.

The overwhelming majority, or 86 per cent of IDPs, continued to live with host communities, while 14 per cent of IDPs were residing in one of the 79 assessed camps and camp-like settings. This represents a significant shift from Round 1 when IDPs equally lived in camps/camp-like settings and among host communities. As the crisis continuously evolved since Round 1, it is noted that the majority of IDPs are currently displaced among host communities. The most urgent needs of IDPs across all locations assessed was food, cited in 52 per cent of locations, followed by Non-Food Items (cited in 24% of locations) and shelter (cited in 15% of locations).

Multisectoral assessments were conducted in 828 wards, located in 174 LGAs across north-central and north-east Nigeria. During the Round 6 of assessments, a total of 1,539 locations were assessed. These included 1,460 locations where IDPs were residing among host communities and 79 camps and camp-like settings. The situation and access to services of displaced populations witnessed notable, and varying, changes since Round 1 of assessments. During Round 5, the access to education for IDP children, availability of water and access to health care are continuing the positive trend that was already noticed between Round 3 and Round 5. However, although access to food in camps/camp-like settings has shown a slight increase during the Round 6, food distribution remains inaccessible for most IDPs and this is reflected in food and nutrition being the primary need for the majority of IDPs in north-central and north-west Nigeria.

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

“When quoting, paraphrasing, or in any other way using the information mentioned in this report, the source needs to be stated appropriately as follows: “Source: Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), January 2021.”

Contacts:

NEMA: Alhassan Nuhu, Director, Disaster Risk Reduction,

[email protected]

+234 8035925885

IOM: Henry Kwenin, DTM Project Officer,

[email protected]

+234 9038852524

Date post:	16-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

IOM NIGERIA DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

Documents