LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT - displacement.iom.int...In November, two pumps of the Great Man-Made...

Project funded by the European Union

THE UN MIGRATION AGENCY

IOM OIM

ROUND 34 • NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2020

LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT

© 2020 International Organization for Migration (IOM)

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 International Organization for Migration (IOM).

2019

3

ContentsKey findings .............................................................................................................................. 4

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Drivers and Areas of Displacement and Return ......................................... 6

Locations of Displacement and Return Map ................................................. 8

Demographics .......................................................................................................................... 8

Multi-Sectoral Location Assessment .................................................................... 9

humanitarian Priority Needs ....................................................................................... 9

Humanitarian Priority Needs By Region ............................................................ 10

Health ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Security and Mine Action ............................................................................................ 12

Education .................................................................................................................................. 13

Food ............................................................................................................................................... 14

NFI and Access to Markets .......................................................................................... 15

Accommodation .................................................................................................................... 16

Water Sanitation And Hygiene (WASH) ........................................................ 18

Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 20

Reference Map - Libya ........................................................................................................ 21

DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX | LIBYA

DTM LIBYA ROUND 344

KEY FINDINGSRound 34 (November-December 2020)

Interviews with key informants(Round 34, Mobility Tracking)2,124

100%coverage

idps in libya returnees in libya 278,177

IDPs Returnees

604,965

of idps live in self-paid rented accommodation

of returnees live in their previous homes

70% 88%

were displaced due to the deterioration of the security situation

94%returned to their places of origin due to improved security situation

92%

659 of 667 COMMUNITIES

100% of MUNICIPALITIES Project funded by

the European Union

5

IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT

NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2020

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

DecNovoctSepAugJulJunMayAprMarFebJanDecNovOctSebAugJulJunMayAprMarFebJanDecNovOctAugJulJunMayAprMar FebJanDecNovOctSepAugJul Jun MayAprMarFebJanDecNovOctSep

310,829

604,965

278,177

Oct Dec Feb2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec

240,188

249,298

199,091

304,305

179,400 187,423

268,629

343,180

401,836

372,022403,978

444,760 447,388 457,324

OVERVIEW

This report presents the findings of round 34 of the Mobility Tracking component of IOM Libya’s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) programme, covering November and December 2020. During the reporting period, the security situation remained stable as the ceasefire continued to hold, resulting in an increasing number of previously displaced families returning to their places of origin in Western Libya.

The number of returnees identified during this round of data collection increased from 567,802 returnees identified in round 33 to 604,965 returnees in round 34 (+37,163 individuals). Correspondingly, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) identified in Libya decreased from 316,415 individuals reported in round 33 to 278,177 IDPs by the end of December 2020.

Most of the new returnees were recorded in the Tripoli region. More specifically, the number of returnees in different municipalities in and around the capital increased by more than 33,000 individuals to a total of 147,225 returnees. The municipalities of Abusliem and Ain Zara accounted for most new returnees observed since the last round (89% of all new returnees identified in this round of data collection).

Fig 1 Libya displacement and return timeline

However, substantial challenges related to the limited provision of essential services, such as intermittent electricity and water supply, remain an issue in the areas of return. This reduction in service provision has been exacerbated by additional infrastructural damage as a result of recent conflict. In November, two pumps of the Great Man-Made River were destroyed1 near Brak al-Shati, bringing the total of wells that have been affected by attacks over the last two years to 151 which has negatively impacted water supply and security in Tripoli and north-western Libya.

Additionally, war damage to houses and property are challenges to IDP return. In a rapid assessment conducted with spontaneously returned families during the previous round in South Tripoli (Qasr Ben Gashir), only one fifth (19%) of interviewed families reported no damage to their housing, while the majority (58%) reported minor to moderate damage and 23% indicated that their houses had been severely damaged by the armed conflict.

Furthermore, the presence of unexploded ordnances continues to pose a substantial risk, both to returning IDPs as well as non-displaced population in South Tripoli.

1 UNSMIL Report -19th January 2021- Available at https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/United%20Nations%20Support%20Mission%20in%20

Libya%20-%20Report%20of%20the%20Secretary-General.pdf

https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/United%20Nations%20Support%20Mission%20in%20Libya%20-%20Report%20of%20the%20Secretary-General.pdf





DTM LIBYA ROUND 346

DRIVERS AND AREAS OF DISPLACEMENT AND RETURN

Fig 2 Number of IDPs by Region (Mantika)

Number of IDPs

Man

tika

(Reg

ion)

During the November - December data collection period, the number of IDPs in Tripoli region continued to decrease and more than 18,000 individuals (3,600 families) previously displaced in urban locations in Tripoli returned to their places of origin and habitual residence.

The same trend was observed in other locations in Libya hosting IDPs as the return of previously displaced populations to Tripoli and other areas in Western Libya continued during the reporting period. Since July 2020, more than 148,000 individuals returned to their communities of origin.

However, despite these returns, the Tripoli region still hosts the largest displaced population in Libya with over 53,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) present in its various municipalities. The municipalities of Tajoura, Suq Aljuma, and Hai Alandalus together host 83 percent of the IDPs in the Tripoli region.

In this context, damage to public infrastructure and housing remain an obstacle for some of the families still displaced from Southern Tripoli.

While an uptick in economic activity in South Tripoli was reported by field observers, the current economic situation in Libya amidst the COVID-19 pandemic poses severe challenges for returnees trying to rebuild their livelihoods. Although the economic slowdown affects Libyans across the country to varying degrees, those returning to their communities, which suffered extensive damage during the war, often find themselves in a particularly challenging situation. The World Bank predicts a 41% GDP drop in 2020 in Libya1.

Adding to these challenges, unexploded ordnances in neighborhoods such as Ain Zara continue to be reported

and pose a risk to returnees.

53,155

38,330

34,520

25,085

21,050

21,025

14,795

13,347

11,100

9,205

8,138

5,343

4,980

3,550

3,427

3,195

2,035

1,905

1,602

925

900

565

Tripoli

Benghazi

Misrata

Ejdabia

Murzuq

Sebha

Sirt

Almargeb

Aljfara

Azzawya

Ghat

Zwara

Alkufra

Ubari

Al Jabal Al Gharbi

Nalut

Wadi Ashshati

Al Jabal Al Akhdar

Tobruk

Aljufra

Almarj

Derna

1 World Bank (2020). ‘Libya Economic Update’. Available at https://

www.worldbank.org/en/country/libya/publication/economic-update-

october-2020

https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/libya/publication/economic-update-october-2020



7



Fig 3 Number of Returnees by Region (Mantika)

Regio

n (M

antik

a)

Number of Returnees

DTM’s Round 34 Mobility Tracking data collection also gathered information on the reasons of displacement, which helps to better understand why those who remain displaced initially had to leave their homes.

Overall, displacement in Libya has been primarily linked to security related issues, such as the hostilities in Western Libya in 2019-2020. For 91% of assessed IDPs, insecurity and its associated factors was identified as the primary driver that led IDPs to leave their community of origin at the time of displacement. Another 5% reportedly left due to the deterioration of the local economic situation, while 4% identified lack of access to basic services as the primary driver of displacement.

In 60% of communities currently hosting IDPs, respondents indicated that the presence of relatives or social and cultural bonds was one of the reasons for IDPs to seek safety in this specific location of displacement.

189,025

147,225

88,000

62,075

37,215

28,130

14,545

12,294

9,710

4,326

3,790

2,345

2,310

2,175

550

500

450

175

125

Benghazi

Tripoli

Aljfara

Sirt

Derna

Ubari

Zwara

Al Jabal Al Gharbi

Misrata

Almargeb

Sebha

Murzuq

Nalut

Alkufra

Ghat

Ejdabia

Aljufra

Wadi Ashshati

Azzawya


DTM LIBYA ROUND 348

Alkufra

Ghat Ubari

Misrata

Sebha

Azzawya

Benghazi

Almarj

Al Jabal Al Akhdar

Derna

Tobruk

Ejdabia

Sirt

Alkufra

Murzuq

Aljufra

Sebha

UbariGhat

Wadi Ashshati

Al Jabal Al GharbiNalut

Zwara

Azzawya

Misrata

Almargeb

Tripoli

Aljfara

1

1

5,343 14,545

14,795 62,075

34,520 9,710

3,427 12,294

925 450

3,197 2,310

25,085 500

38,330 189,025565 37,215

900

1,905

4,980 2,175

21,050 2,345

21,025 3,790

2,035 175

3,550 28,1308,138 550

53,155 147,225

11,100 88,00013,347 4,326

9,205 125

1,602

LOCATIONS OF DISPLACEMENT AND RETURN MAP

DEMOGRAPHICS

Fig 4 Map of IDPs and returnees by region (mantika)

Fig 5 IDP Profiling: Age - Gender Disaggregation

Demographic composition of IDP families as per DTM rapid profiling of displaced households is shown in figure 5. This demographic data is from a sample of 87,573 IDPs (16,530 families).

0-5MR31 2339R32 5166

6%

6%

18%

18%

24%

24%

3%

2%

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

0-5

year

s6-

17ye

ars

18-5

9ye

ars

60 y

ears

and

abov

e

IDP Sex-Age Disaggregation

50%50%

9



MULTI-SECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENT

HUMANITARIAN PRIORITY NEEDS

DTM Libya’s Mobility Tracking includes a Multi-Sectoral Location Assessment (MSLA) covering all regions (mantika) and municipalities (baladiya) of Libya. The MSLA key informant interviews regularly collect sectoral baseline data on availability and access to services and priority humanitarian needs. The regular and continuous implementation of the MSLA is aimed at supporting both strategic and operational planning of humanitarian programming via identification of specific sectoral issues and needs at community-levels.

This round 34 report presents the multisectoral priority needs of IDPs and returnees during the months of November

- December 2020. The following sections also cover key findings related to education, food, health, non-food items (NFI) and access to markets, protection (security and Mine Action), water sources (WASH), and other public services, across Libya.

The most urgent priority needs for IDPs identified during November - December 2020 data collection were accommodation, food assistance, health services and non- food items (NFIs) as shown in figure 6.

For returnees, key priority needs were found to be food assistance, followed by access to health services, non-food items (NFI), and support in the provision of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services, as shown in figure7.

Similar to the previous rounds, the main challenges faced by affected populations in fulfilling these needs were related to the erosion of coping mechanisms due to the protracted nature of the crisis, and now also increasingly due to the negative socio-economic impact of COVID-19. Access to health services was reportedly constrained due to irregular supply of medicines, while more than one third of the private and public health facilities were reported to be only partially operational.

The chart shows ranked priority needs of affected population groups based on the top three needs reported at community (muhalla) levels.

Fig 6 Priority Needs of IDPs (Ranked)

Fig 7 Priority Needs of Returnees (Ranked)

Area analysis of priority humanitarian needs shows variation in the reported priority needs for the top three regions (mantika) as per the population figures for IDPs and returnees in these regions (more details in the next section).

32%

28%

17%

10%

5%

5%

1%

1%

1%

Accommodation

Food

Health Services

NFIs

Access to livelihoods

WASH

Education

Legal Assistance

Security

24%

22%

19%

11%

8%

7%

7%

1%

1%

Food

Health services

NFIs

WASH

Education

Security

Accommodation

Legal Assistance

Access to livelihoods


DTM LIBYA ROUND 3410

HUMANITARIAN PRIORITY NEEDS BY REGION

The top three ranked humanitarian needs for the regions (mantika) with the largest IDP and returnee populations are shown below. The ranking is based on the weighted average score calculated for the highest number of people with humanitarian needs. This indicates regional variation in the humanitarian needs of IDPs and returnees identified by key informants.

For IDPs in Tripoli region the top three humanitarian needs were related to shelter assistance, access to health services (particularly critical in the context of COVID-19), and provision of food assistance.

Fig 8 Priority humanitarian needs of IDPs (ranked) for top three regions (mantika) with highest IDP populations.

Fig 9 Priority humanitarian needs of returnees (ranked) for top three regions (mantika) with highest returnee populations.

For returnees in the Benghazi region the top three needs were related to early recovery to improve their living conditions and included improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services, access to Education, and non-food items (NFI).

The needs of IDPs and returnees in other top regions by highest populations can be seen in figures 8 and 9 below.

Tripoli

Shelter

Health services

Food

Benghazi

Shelter

Food

Health services

Misrata

Shelter

Food

Health services

Benghazi

Wash

Education

NFIs

Tripoli

Food

Shelter

NFIs

Aljfara

Health services

Food

NFIs

11



HEALTH

As part of the Multi-Sectoral Location Assessment (MSLA), 60% of the health facilities in Libya were reported to be operational, while 34% were reported to be partially operational, and 6% were reported to be not operational at all. Please refer to figure 10 for more detailed statistics on reported operational, partially operational, and non-operational private and public health facilities.

In terms of functionality of health facilities, the range of services available in operational health facilities was often reported to be limited due to various factors, such as shortages of medicines for chronic diseases as reported in all the municipalities in Libya.

Fig 10 Availability of health services in the assessed municipalities

Especially for life saving clinical management of critical COVID-19 patients only hospitals with fully functional intensive or critical care units may be considered to provide adequate levels of care and service. The combination of armed conflict in various parts of Libya over the past years, chronic underinvestment in health infrastructure, and the dependence on private health service providers has drastically reduced the capacity of the health sector in Libya to deal with the COVID-19 emergency.

54%

50%

91%

37%

40%

5%

7%

10%

4%

191

903 929

Hospitals Public health centersand clinics

Private health centersand clinics

Not operational

Partially operational

Operational

In

Baladiya100

Fig 11 Irregular supply of medication reported in 100 municipalities (baladiya)



SECURITY AND MINE ACTION

During Round 34, security-related indicators were collected in all municipalities across Libya, including questions specifically related to mine action (Mine Action Area of Responsibility). The objective was to understand the challenges faced by residents in moving safely within their municipalities, the reasons preventing safe movement, and awareness of the presence of unexploded ordnances (UXOs).

Visible presence of UXOs was reported in 11 municipalities. Residents were reported as not being able to move safely within their area of residence in 9 municipalities. In municipalities where movement was restricted, the main reasons were insecurity (5 municipalities), presence or threat of unexploded ordinance (4 municipalities), and road closures (2 municipalities).

Fig 12 Presence of UXOs reported in 11 municipalities

Fig 13 Restrictions on freedom of movement reported in 9 municipalities

Fig 14 Reasons for restrictions on freedom of movement as reported in 10 municipalities

In

Baladiya9

In

Baladiya11

Municipality Reason for Restricted Freedom of Movement

Abu Qurayn Road closed, Insecurity, Threat / Presence of Explosive Hazards

Al Qalaa Road closed, Other

Alkufra Insecurity

Derna Road closed, Threat / Presence of Explosive Hazards, Other

Murzuq Insecurity, Threat / Presence of Explosive Hazards

Thaher Aljabal Road closed, Other

13



EDUCATION

As part of DTM’s multi-sectoral location assessment (MSLA) data collection, key informants in 100 municipalities of Libya reported that 8% of public and 14% of private schools were not operational due to damaged buildings and infrastructure as a result of armed conflict. In this round of data collection, 48 schools were reported to be fully destroyed due to armed conflict. See figures 15 and 16 for further details.

Fig 15 Operational and non-operational schools

Percentage of schools reported operational / non-operational

Fig 16 Number of schools reported as partially and fully destroyed or being used as shelter for IDPs

92%

86%

8%

14%

Public Schools (n = 3,620)

Private Schools (n = 1,441)

Operational Non-operational

20

214

48

Schools used asshelter for IDP

Partially damagedschools

Fully destroyedschools

However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic even those schools classified as operational were closed during most of the reporting period. In the East, schools gradually started re-opening in mid-December 20201 according to UNICEF, while those in other locations in Libya followed in early January 20212.

1 UNICEF monthly update -December 2020- available at: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/UNICEF%20Programme%20

Monthly%20Update%20%28December%202020%29.pdf

2 UNICEF Press release available at: https://reliefweb.int/report/libya/unicef-welcomes-phased-reopening-schools-libya

https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/UNICEF%20Programme%20Monthly%20Update%20%28December%202020%29.pdf

https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/UNICEF%20Programme%20Monthly%20Update%20%28December%202020%29.pdf



FOOD

In all 100 municipalities, local markets, such as grocery stores, supermarkets, and open markets, were reported to be the main source used by residents to procure food items, including IDPs and returnees. However, in one third of the municipalities food distributions by charity and aid organizations were also identified as key source of food supply for vulnerable populations as shown in the figure below.

Fig 17 Sources of food supplies for residents by number of municipalities (multiple choice)

Number of municipalities

The modes of payment utilized for purchasing food were reported to be payments in cash, followed by ATM cards and purchases made on credit (see figure 18 on the right).

The biggest obstacle related to adequate food supply to meet household needs was reported to be food prices, often considered to be too expensive by key informants compared to the purchasing power of affected populations.

Fig 18 Various modes of payment used for purchasing food by number of municipalities (multiple choice)

Fig 19 Main problems related to food supply


Percentage of municipalities

Local market

Donated by charity or aid

Donated by relatives or friends

Other food source

100

33

10

3

44

57

76

Pay with ATM card

Obtain on credit

Pay in cash

No problem reported

2%

Insufficient availability

1%Too

expensive97%

15



99

25

19

3

Too expensive

Distance from local market

Quality

Other problems

NFI AND ACCESS TO MARKETS

DTM’s data collection on humanitarian priority needs also included non- food items (NFIs). The most commonly cited obstacle to accessing NFIs was that items were too expensive for those in need of assistance. Furthermore, in 19 municipalities a challenge in accessing non-food items was also reported to be poor quality of items available on local markets, while distance from local markets was indicated as key challenge in 25 municipalities.

The most commonly reported NFI to be needed by IDPs and Returnees were hygiene items, followed by fuel and then mattresses.

Fig 20 Main challenges reported in obtaining the required Non-Food Items (multiple choice)


Fig 21 Most reported priority Non-Food Items in need (multiple choice)


25

36

40

45

56

57

Heaters

Clothes

Portable lights

Mattress

Gas / fuel

Hygienic items



ACCOMMODATION

In November and December 2020, 70% of all IDPs identified in Libya were reported to be residing in privately rented accommodation, while 17% were staying with host families without paying rent, and 4% were taking shelter in other settings.

87% of individuals who returned to their areas of origin were reported to be back in their own homes. The remaining returnees were in rented accommodation (7%), with host families (5%) or utilizing other accommodation arrangements (1%).

Fig 22 Accommodation types utilized by IDPs

Percentage of IDP families

Fig 23 Accommodation types utilized by returnees

70%

17%

4%

3%

6%

Rented Accommodation

Host Family

Public Buildings

Informal Camp Setting

Other

87%

7%

5%

1%

Their own house

Rented Accommodation

With host family, no rent

Other

Percentage of Returnee families

17



Alkufra

Ghat Ubari

Misrata

Sebha

Azzawya

Benghazi

Ejdabia

Sirt

Alkufra

Murzuq

Ghat

Nalut

Zwara

Misrata

Tripoli

Aljfara

1

1

Sebha

6,560

4,275

1,881

2,010

1,885

1,965

1,570

600

75

75

45

7,97068%

32%

29%

23%

48%

89%

11%

No Accomodation

Abondened Buildings

Squating on other people’sproperties (e.g. farms)

Informal settings (such as makeshift shelters)

Shelter Type

Schools or Other public buildings

87%

13%

8%

92%

77%

23%

61%

29%

96%

4%

100%

100%

100%

100%10%

Fig 24 Map of public shelter or communal accommodation types used by IDPs by location



WATER SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH)

In terms of utilized water sources, in 68 municipalities the use of water trucking was reported as primary means to meet the needs of residents, including DPs, returnees, host community and migrants. Furthermore, in 56 municipalities open wells (boreholes) were reportedly frequently utilized while the public water network only constituted one of the main water sources in 48 municipalities. The entire distribution of the main water sources reported can be seen in figure 25.

Fig 25 Main sources of water in use by the number of municipalities (multiple choice)

Analysis of water source availability by municipality shows that in 29 municipalities only one source of water was available while in 20 municipalities two water sources were available, in 40 municipalities three water sources, in 9 municipalities 4 water sources and in one municipality 5 water sources were available and utilized.

Figure 26 below shows that in 12 of the 29 municipalities (41%) that depended on one source of water, open wells were the most common source of water, followed by 31% (9 municipalities) reporting dependence on water trucking as the only source of water utilized.

As the availability and utility of water sources increases the diversity of the types of water sources utilized also increases. However, as shown in figure 25 the reliance on water trucking – reported by 68 municipalities – as a source of

Fig 26 Analysis of number of water sources in use by municipality and their diversity

Perc

enta

ge o

f mun

icipa

litie

s pe

r nu

mbe

r of

sou

rces

water for household use is very common in Libya. Use of water bottles was reported the most amongst municipalities reporting availability of three water sources for household use. Both water trucking and use of water bottles are resource intensive and indicate a dependence on alternative sources of water in the absence of reliable municipal water networks.

Water Trucking

Open well

Water Bottles

Water Network

Springs or river

Other water source

68

56

50

48

8

4

24% 30%15%

25% 20%

31%30%

30%25%

20%

20%

26%25%

20%

41%13% 23%

25%

20%

3%5% 3% 20%3% 3%

29 20 40 10 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

-10%

10%

30%

50%

70%

90%

110%

1 Water SourceAvailable

2 Water SourcesAvailable




Water Network Water Trucking Water Bottles

Open well Springs / River Water Other Sources

19



The most frequently cited obstacle related to access to water of residents, IDPs and returnees was the price, reported as being too expensive for those in need in 58% of surveyed municipalities. This issue was observed primarily in communities dependent on resource intensive water trucking and use of bottled water. Furthermore, In 23 municipalities the water available was reported not to be safe for drinking or cooking.

Fig 27 Challenges related to water availability by number of municipalities (multiple challenges reported by several municipalities)


9

23

26

58

Other problem

Not safe for drinking or cooking

No problem

Too expensive



METHODOLOGY

75 Enumerators

5Implementing Partners

IOM Data collection in numbers

100%coverage

The data in this report is collected through DTM’s Mobility Tracking module. Mobility Tracking gathers data through key informants at both the municipality and community level on a bi-monthly data collection cycle and includes a Multi-Sectoral Location Assessment (MSLA) component that gathers multisectoral baseline data. A comprehensive methodological note on DTM’s Mobility Tracking component is available on the DTM Libya website.

In Round 34, DTM assessed all 100 municipalities in Libya. 2,124 key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted during this round. 659 KIIs were carried out at the municipality level and 1,465 at the community level. 31% KIIs were with the representatives from various divisions within the municipality offices (Social Affairs, Muhalla Affairs etc.), 15% were local crisis committee representatives, and 12% were from key

civil society organizations. 5% KIIs were with female key informants, whereas 95% were male key informants.

55% of data collected was rated as “very credible” during the Round 34, while 30% was rated “mostly credible”, and 13% was “somewhat credible”. This rating is based on the consistency of data provided by the Key Informants, on their sources of data, and on whether data provided is in line with general perceptions.

55%

Very Credible

30%

Mostly Credible

13%

Somewhat

REFERENCE MAP - LIBYA! P

! P! P

! P! P

! P

! P! P

! P! P

! P

! P

! P! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P! P

! P! P

! P

! P! P

! P

! P ! P! P

! P! P

! P ! P

! P

! P ! P

! P ! P

! P! P! P

! P! P

! P

! P

! P

! P! P

! P ! P! P

! P

! P

! P

! P! P! P

! P

! P

! P! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P! P

! P

! P

! P

! P! P

! P

! P

! P

! P! P

! P

Mad

ama

Mat

rum

Illiz

i

Dja

net

Selim

a O

asis

Egyp

tA

lger

ia

Nig

er

Cha

dSu

dan

Tuni

sia

Aga

dez

Tibe

sti

Enne

di O

uest

Enne

di-E

st

Tata

ouin

e

Kebi

li

Gab

èsM

éden

ine

Toze

ur

Illizi

Tam

angh

asse

t

Oua

rgla

El O

ued

Wad

i Alja

did

Mat

rouh

Giza

Men

ia

Ale

xand

ria

Behe

ra

Gha

t

Edri

Bra

k

Jadu

Sirt

Jalu

Uba

ri

Sebh

a

Zw

ara

Dar

aj

Waz

inK

abaw

Hra

wa

Der

na

Mur

zuq

Kik

kla

Zilt

un

Zlit

en

Surm

an

Espe

aa

Mar

ada

Auj

ala

Tobr

uk

Emsa

edSu

loug

Touk

raA

lmar

j

Labr

iq

Alju

fra

Nes

ma

Mis

rata

Trip

oli

Tarh

una

Alk

hum

s

Tazi

rbu

Alk

ufra

Alb

ayda

Ejda

bia

Ala

byar

Tara

ghin

Gha

dam

is

Alb

rayg

aGem

ieni

s

Ben

ghaz

i

Wad

i Etb

a

Alg

atro

un

Ash

shge

gaA

rrha

ibat

Gar

abol

li

Bin

t B

ayya

Alb

awan

ees

Abu

Qur

ayn

Ash

shw

ayri

f

Ban

i Wal

eed

Um

m a

rraz

amJa

noub

Azz

awya

Jard

as A

labe

ed

Kha

leej

Ass

idra

Alh

awam

id

Nal

ut

Baten Aljabal

Alg

urdh

a A

shsh

ati

Alg

hray

fa

Bir

Ala

shha

b

Alq

ubba

Alqayqab

Shahhat

Ass

ahel

Ejkh

erra

Alharaba

Alku

fra

Mur

zuq

Ejda

bia

Sirt

Alju

fra

Nalu

t

Tobr

uk

Gha

t

Wad

i Ash

shat

i

Uba

ri

Al J

abal

Al G

harb

i

Misr

ata

Der

na

Sebh

a

Almarj

Benghaz

i

Zwar

a

Alm

arge

b

Al Jabal Al Akhdar

! PBa

ladi

ya

Wat

er B

ody

Adm

inist

rativ

e Le

vel 1

Cou

ntry

Bou

ndar

y

Prim

ary

Road

Seco

ndar

y Ro

ad

Sea

Rout

e

Land

Rou

tes

±0

260

520

130

Kilo

met

ers

1:2,

251,

132

1 cm

= 2

3 km

LIBY

A

Dis

clai

mer

: Thi

s m

ap is

for i

llust

ratio

n pu

rpos

es o

nly.

Nam

es a

nd b

ound

arie

s on

this

m a

p do

not

impl

y offi

cial

end

orse

men

t or

acc

epta

nce

by IO

M.

Sour

ce D

ata:

Esr

i, IO

M, B

SC, O

SM

Cou

ntry

Ove

rvie

w

IOM

Mig

ratio

n Ro

ute

Map

Pro

duct

ion

Dat

e: 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

019

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P! P

! P

! P ! P! P

! P

! P

! P ! P

! P

! P ! P

! P

! P

! P! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P

! P! P

! P

! P

! P

! P! P

! P

! P! P

Alm

arge

b

Aljf

ara

Al J

abal

Al G

harb

i

Zwar

a

Azz

awya

Misr

ata

Trip

oli

Jadu

Zwar

a

Kik

kla

Yefr

en

Surm

an

Espe

aa

Ghi

ryan

Azz

awya

Janz

ourTr

ipol

i

Tajo

ura

Ala

saba

a

Azz

inta

n

Sabr

atha

Msallata

Arrayayna

Gar

abol

li

Al A

zizi

ya

Jano

ub A

zzaw

ya

Swan

i Bin

Ada

m

Aljm

ail

Azz

ahra

Al M

aya

Tarh

una

Arr

ajba

n

Al Q

alaa

Abu

slie

m Ain

Zar

a

Rig

dale

en

Al A

jayl

at

Suq A

ljumaa

Sidi

Ass

ayeh

Qas

r A

khya

r

Gharb A

zzawya

Suq

Alk

ham

ees

Hai

Ala

ndal

us

Thah

er A

ljaba

l

Qas

r Bi

n G

hash

eer

Project funded by the European Union

dtm.iom.int/libya [email protected]

Funded by the European Union, the Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) in Libya tracks and monitors population movements in order to collate, analyze and share information to support the humanitarian community with the needed demographic baselines to coordinate evidence-based interventions.

To consult all DTM reports, datasets, static and interactive maps and dashboards, please visit DTM Libya website:

dtm.iom.int/libya

http://dtm.iom.int/libya

Date post:	07-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT - displacement.iom.int...In November, two pumps of the Great Man-Made...

Documents