dtm - https:/displacement.iom.int - international organization

IOM NIGERIADISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX (DTM) NORTH-EAST NIGERIA | DISPLACEMENT REPORT 39

DECEMBER 2021

DTMNigeria

Nigeria north-east zone | Displacement Report Round 39 (December 2021) | A2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

KEY HIGHLIGHTS 3

METHODOLOGY 4

LIMITATIONS 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

BACKGROUND 7

OVERVIEW: DTM ROUND 39 ASSESSMENTS 8

1. BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF DISPLACEMENT 10

1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH-EAST NIGERIA 10

1B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 12

1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT 12

1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT 12

1E: MOBILITY 13

1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS 13

1G: UNMET NEEDS IN IDP SETTLEMENTS 14

1H: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF THE DISPLACED POPULATIONS 14

2 . S ITE ASSESSMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS 16

2A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPs 16

2B: SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATION 16

2C: SECTOR ANALYSIS 17

3. RETURNEES 24

3A: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT 25

3B: YEAR OF RETURN 25

3C: REASONS FOR INITIAL DISPLACEMENT 25

3D: SHELTER CONDITIONS 26

3E: HEALTH FACILITIES 26

3F: EDUCATION FACILITIES 26

3G: WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE FACILITIES 27

3H: LIVELIHOOD FACILITIES 27

3I: MARKET FACILITIES 27

3J: PROFILE OF ASSISTANCE 27

ANNEXES 29


Jigawa

Katsina

Kano

Plateau

Nasarawa

Benue

Cross River

Niger

Cameroon

Lake Chad

Nganzai

Marte

Abadam

KukawaGuzamala

±

89%

11%

YOBE

151,874

BORNO

52%

48%

91%9%

ADAMAWA

TARABA

6%

94%

100%

GOMBE

98%

2%BAUCHI

66,103

1,639,028

212,253

76,931

45,168

Hard to reach LGA

Less than 100,000

100,001 - 160,000

160,001 - 220,000

Above 220,001

IDPs in camps & camp-like settings

IDPs in host communities

IDP Population by State

0 100 20050 Km

Grand Total

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

Chad

Lake Chad

±

Taraba

Bauchi

Gombe

Plateau

Jigawa

Benue

92%

4%

92%

8%

90%

10%

Abadam

Chad

Niger

Cameroon

Lake Chad

0 70 14035 Km

Hard to reach LGA

Returnees total by state

Returnees from abroad

Returnee IDPs

Guzamala

Kukawa

Nganzai

Marte

YOBE

BORNO

ADAMAWA

xxxDisclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries in this map do not imply o�cial endorsement or acceptance by IOMData source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXIX), HDX, ESRI

341,579

743,851

832,633

21%Women

18%Men

22%Women

19%Men

32%Girls (<18)

27%Boys (<18)

32%Girls (<18)

29%Boys (<18)

53%Returned from locations within

the state of origin

39%Returned from

other states

8%Returned from

neighbouring countries

1%Increase in displaced population from DTM R38

89%Displaced within states of origin

IDP and returnee population trends

11%Displaced from di�erent states

2,200,357Displaced Individuals

1,943,445 Returned Individuals

1%Increase in

return population from DTM

R38

FROM ADAMAWA: 164,234

FROM BORNO: 1,825,325

TO ADAMAWA: 212,253


FROM BAUCHI: 40,360

FROM OTHER STATES: 301,835

FROM TARABA: 79,663

FROM ABROAD: 156,778

FROM BORNO: 523,306

FROM GOMBE: 151,631

FROM YOBE: 212,957

TO ADAMAWA: 837,054

TO BORNO: 758,787

TO YOBE: 347,603

TO GOMBE: 45,168

TO TARABA: 76,931

TO BAUCHI: 66,103

TO YOBE: 151,874

TO BORNO: 1,639,028

FROM BAUCHI: 3,067FROM OTHER STATES: 16,714

FROM TARABA: 67,088

FROM YOBE: 123,929

IDPs population per state and settlement type Returnee population per state

IDP movements Returnee movements

890,237IDPs residing in camps/camp-like settings (40%)

1,310,120IDPs residing among local host communities (60%)

1,786,667IDP returnees

(92%)

156,778Returnees from

abroad (8%)

262,

324

1,73

6,84

9

Milli

ons

1,49

1,70

6

2,15

0,45

1

2,23

9,74

9

2,15

1,97

9

2,24

1,48

4

2,15

5,61

8

2,06

6,78

3

2,09

3,03

0

1,82

2,54

1

1,77

0,44

4

1,89

9,83

0

1,83

2,74

3

1,88

4,33

1

1,82

5,32

1

1,75

7,28

8

1,71

3,77

1

1,70

2,68

0

1,78

2,49

0

1,88

1,19

8

1,91

8,50

8

1,92

6,74

8

2,02

6,60

2

1,94

8,34

6

1,98

0,03

6

2,01

8,51

3

2,03

5,23

2

2,03

9,09

2

2,04

6,60

4

2,08

8,12

4

2,11

8,55

0

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Dec

-14

Feb-

15

Apr

-15

Jun-

15

Aug

-15

Oct

-15

Dec

-15

Feb-

16

Apr

-16

Jun-

16

Aug

-16

Oct

-16

Dec

-16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jun-

17

Aug

-17

Oct

-17

Dec

-17

Feb-

18

Apr

-18

Jun-

18

Aug

-18

Oct

-18

Jan-

19

May

-19

Jul-1

9

Sep-

19

Nov

-19

Dec

-19

Mar

-20

Aug

-20

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33

Nov

-20

R34

Dec

-20

R35

Feb-

21

R36

Apr

-21

R37

Jul-2

1

R38

IDPs RETURNEES

332,

333

320,

365

389,

224 59

9,16

4

663,

485 91

0,95

5

958,

549

1,03

9,26

7

1,15

1,42

7

1,09

9,50

9

1,23

4,89

4

1,26

8,14

0

1,25

7,91

1

1,30

7,84

7

1,32

9,42

8

1,38

6,22

9

1,44

1,09

9

1,54

9,63

0

1,58

0,09

3

1,64

2,69

6

1,55

8,05

8

1,64

2,53

9

1,62

2,90

8

1,61

9,01

0

1,61

1,67

6

1,61

1,67

6

1,70

5,56

7

1,71

4,68

2

1,73

6,84

9

1,74

2,90

7

1,76

3,37

7

1,75

3,48

4

1,91

8,06

3

2,19

1,19

3

2,18

2,61

3

1,94

3,44

52,

200,

357

2,14

4,13

5

2,15

0,24

3

2,18

4,25

4

389,

281

1,18

8,01

8

1,38

5,29

8

Oct

-21

R39

KEY HIGHLIGHTS


The data collected in this report was obtained by implementing different DTM tools used by enumerators at various administrative levels. The type of respondent for each tool was different as each focuses on different population types:

TOOLS FOR IDPS

Local Government Area Profile ‐ IDP: This assessment is conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The type of information collected at this level focuses on IDPs. It includes displaced population estimates (households and individuals), date of arrival, location of origin, reason(s) for displacement and type of displacement locations (host communities, camps, camp-like settings, etc.). The assessment also records the contact information of key informants and organizations assisting IDPs in the LGA. The primary outcome of this assessment is the identification of wards where the presence of IDPs is reported. This list will be used as a reference to continue the assessment at the ward level (see “ward level profile for IDPs”).

Ward level Profile ‐ IDP: This is conducted at the ward level. The type of information collected at this level includes displaced population estimates (households and individuals), time of arrival, location of origin, reason(s) for displacement and type of displacement locations. The assessment includes information on displacement originating from the ward and a demographic calculator based on a sample of assessed IDPs in host communities, camps, and camp-like settings. The results of the ward level profile are used to verify the information collected at the LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all wards that had previously been identified as having IDP populations in the LGA profile.

Site assessment: This is undertaken in identified IDP locations (camps, camp-like settings and host communities) to capture detailed information on the essential services available. Site assessment forms are used to record the exact location and name of a site, accessibility constraints, size and type of the site, availability of registrations and the likelihood of natural hazards putting the site at risk. The form also captures details about the IDP population, including their place of origin, demographic information on the number of households disaggregated by age and sex, as well as information on IDPs with specific vulnerabilities. In addition, the form captures details on access to services in different sectors: shelter and NFI, WASH, food, nutrition, health, education, livelihood, communication and protection. The information is captured through interviews with representatives of the site and other key informants, including IDP representatives.

TOOLS FOR RETURNEES

Local Government Area Profile - Returnees: This assessment is conducted with key informants at the LGA level. The information collected at this level focuses on returnees and includes returnee population estimates (households and individuals), date of return, location of origin and initial reasons for displacement. The primary outcome of this assessment is a list of wards where returnee presence has been identified. This list will be used as a reference to continue the assessment at the ward level (see “ward level profile for returnees”).

Ward level Profile ‐ Returnees: This assessment was conducted at the ward level. The type of information collected at this level focuses on returnees. It includes information on returnee population estimates (households and individuals), date of return, location of origin and reasons for initial displacement. This type of assessment results is used to verify the information collected at the LGA level. The ward assessment is carried out in all wards identified as having returnee populations in the LGA profile. Data is collected via interviews with key informants such as administration representatives, community leaders, religious leaders and humanitarian aid workers. Assessments are conducted and cross-checked with several key informants to ensure data accuracy. The accuracy of the data also relies on the regularity and continuity of the assessments and field visits conducted every six weeks.

METHODOLOGY


• The security situation in some wards in north-east Nigeria remains unstable and as a result, accessibility is limited. In locations with limited accessibility, data was collected through telephone interviews with key informants.

• Linked to the security situation, access is often limited due to movement restrictions imposed by the military. During the the assessment period of Round 39, this was the case in the state of Yobe as a result of intermittent kidnappings and abductions.

• As the situation is volatile in some locations, with frequent displacements, it is challenging for the enumerators to build a network of trusted key informants. Additionally, regular updates of the sites or wards are necessary due to the frequency of these movements, often due to attacks or the fear of attacks.

• Key informant fatigue. Many key informants are increasingly reluctant to cooperate due to perceived lack of response. In some cases, this has resulted in threats and intimidation of enumerators.

• The increasing cost of transportation (motorcycle hire) to access hard to reach areas.

• Enumerators feel that sometimes the numbers provided by key informants are not correct. Exaggerated numbers are given in the hope of receiving assistance. Enumerators cross-check the information provided by also using Focus Group Discussions (FGD).

• In some locations, the difference between camps and host communities becomes increasingly blurred as camps are being absorbed by the host community (example: Hostel Camp in Gude ward, Mubi South LGA in Adamawa).

LIMITATIONS

A view of a camp absorbed by the host community | Hostel camp, Guda ward, Mubi South LGA of Adamawa State © IOM Nigeria/Elijah Jabula/IOM 2021


This report, which presents the results from Round 39 of Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) assessments carried out by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), aims to improve the understanding of the scope of internal displacement, the plight of returnees and the needs of the displacement affected populations in north-east Nigeria. The report covers the period from 30 August to 15 October 2021 and reflects the trends from the six states in Nigeria’s north-east geopolitical zone. This zone is the most affected by the conflict and consists of the following states: Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe.

In Round 39, a total of 2,200,357 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) were identified in 452,363 households. This signified an increase of less than 1 per cent (or 17,744 individuals) compared to Round 38 when 2,182,613 IDPs were recorded (July 2021). The number of IDPs recorded during Round 39 also increased by 9,164 individuals or less than 1 per cent compared to Round 37 when 2,191,193 IDPs were identified (May 2021). When comparing the number of IDP individuals between Round 39 and Round 34 (September 2020), the number of IDPs in north-east Nigeria has increased by almost 3 per cent or 56,222 individuals during the past year.

The number of IDPs in the region is now well above (8% increase) the number recorded in Round 25 (2,026,602 individuals), which was conducted before the escalation in violence observed in October 2018. Even though accessibility remains lower than during Round 25 and prior, the increase in IDPs was noted. Since the Round 25 of assessments, the LGAs Kukawa, Kala/Balge and Guzamala in Borno State have been largely inaccessible due to increased hostilities in those districts. In Round 29, the ward Rann in Kala/Balge LGA became accessible again and remains so currently. Given that the number of IDPs is increasing, although accessibility remains low, it can be inferred that the actual displacement figures could be considerably higher.

To gain insights into the profiles of IDPs, interviews were conducted with 6 per cent of the identified IDP population — 122,644 internally displaced persons — during this round of assessments. The information collated and analysed in this report includes the reasons for displacement, places of origin and shelter types, mobility patterns and unfulfilled needs of the displaced populations.

During Round 39, IDP assessments were conducted in 2,381 locations (up from 2,380 locations in Round 38). Assessed locations included 309 camps and camp-like settlements (no change since Round 38) and 2,072 locations where internally displaced persons lived among host communities (up from 2,071 in Round 38). The purpose was to understand better the gaps in services provided and the needs of the affected population. Site assessments included an analysis of sector-wide needs, shelter and non-food items, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), food and nutrition, health, education, livelihood, security, communication and protection.

Furthermore, 1,943,445 returnees were recorded in the DTM Round 39 assessment.1 This number represents an increase of 25,382 individuals or more than 1 per cent compared to Round 38 when 1,918,063 returnees were recorded (July 2021). When comparing the number of returnee individuals between Round 39 and Round 34 (1,736,849 individuals in September 2020), the number of returnees in north-east Nigeria has increased by 12 per cent or 206,596 individuals during the past year. While IDP numbers continue to increase, it can be concluded that there is a clear trend toward a return to locations of origin in the BAY (Borno, Adamawa and Yobe) states.

This report includes analyses of the number of returnees, their displacement profiles, shelter conditions, health, education, livelihood, market, assistance and WASH facilities available to the returnees. Notably, as Borno is the most affected state by conflict-related displacements in north-east Nigeria, it concentrates explicitly on the related data and analysis.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 It is to be noted that return movements are only captured in the states Borno, Adamawa and Yobe.


Eleven years into the crisis in north-east Nigeria, it shows no sign of abating. On the contrary, the protracted character of the crisis had a devastating impact on the region and is adding to a long history of marginalisation, under-development and poverty. The escalation of the violence in 2014 resulted in widespread displacement and deprivation. To better understand the scope of displacement and assess the needs of the affected populations, IOM began implementing its Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) programme in September 2014, in collaboration with the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and relevant State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs).

In recent times, various conflict escalations have been noted, with the security situation remaining unpredictable and leading to fluid mobility. Some violent attacks were recorded in the first months of 2021 against IDPs, returnees and aid workers. At present, the humanitarian situation is rapidly approaching famine levels and is characterised by high levels of food insecurity, malnutrition and exposure to diseases. Frequent attacks against farmers and fishermen have been reported when food security is rapidly deteriorating, especially across the BAY states (Borno, Adamawa and Yobe).

The main objective of the DTM programme is to provide support to the Government and humanitarian partners by establishing a comprehensive system that collects, analyses and disseminates data on IDPs and returnees to ensure timely and effective assistance to the affected populations. In each round of DTM assessments, staff from IOM, NEMA, SEMAs and the Nigerian Red Cross Society collate data in the field, including baseline information at LGA and ward-levels, by carrying out detailed assessments in displacement sites, such as camps and collective centres, as well as in locations where IDPs are residing among host communities.

BACKGROUND

New arrivals (awaiting registration) camping outside Reception/Transit Camp, Pulka/Bokko ward, Gwoza LGA, Borno State © IOM Nigeria/Sunday Owa/ IOM 2021

New arrivals (awaiting registration) camping outside Reception/Transit Camp, Pulka/Bokko ward, Gwoza LGA, Borno State © IOM Nigeria/Sunday Owa/ IOM 2021


DTM Round 39 assessments were carried out from 30 August to 15 October 2021 in 107 LGAs (no change from the last round of assessments). Within the 107 accessible LGAs, the assessments were conducted in 780 wards (decrease from 790 wards in Round 38) in the conflict-affected states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe in north-east Nigeria. As per the assessments, 2,200,357 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) or 452,363 IDP households were recorded as displaced, an increase of 17,744 persons (or less than 1%) compared to the last assessment (Round 38) assessed in July 2021 when 2,182,613 IDPs were recorded.

Since the escalation of the violence in October 2018, humanitarian access to certain areas in north-east Nigeria has been highly constrained. This is important to consider as actual displacement figures could be considerably higher. The populous LGAs Guzamala, Kukawa and Nganzia in Borno State, accessible before October 2018, remain entirely inaccessible for DTM enumerators.

Prior to the reduction in accessibility due to the deterioration in the overall security situation, the number of wards assessed by DTM had been growing steadily over the months: from 797 wards assessed in June 2018 to a high of 807 assessed wards in the Round 25, which was conducted before violence erupted in October 2018. For this Round 39,780 wards in six states were assessed by DTM enumerators, a decrease by ten wards compared to Round 38.

OVERVIEW: DTM ROUND 39 ASSESSMENTS

Plateau

Jigawa

Katsina

Kano

Nasarawa

Benue

Cameroon


0 100 20050 KmCross River

±

DTM Accessibility

Accessible

Partially accessible

Hard to reach wards

Hard to reach LGA

Bali

Toro

Ibi

Gashaka

Ningi

Gassol

Alkaleri

Kurmi

Dukku

Ganjuwa

Wukari

Bauchi

Kirfi

Akko

Sardauna

Donga

Zaki

Karim-LamidoLau

Darazo

Takum

Gamawa

Ussa

Shira

Zing

Nafada

Ardo-Kola

Tafawa-Balewa

Misau

Dass

Warji

Bogoro

Kwami

Yorro

Balanga

Funakaye

Itas/Gadau

Katagum

Billiri

Yamaltu/Deba

Gombe

Damban

Giade

Kaltungo

Shomgom

Jama'are

Jalingo

Lake Chad

Chad

Niger

Dalwa

Gumti

Zageri

Kusur

Yabal

Mafa

Fai

Zumo

Biriri

Bita Izge

Kalizoram

Borko

Buratai

Kala

Beti

Mulgo Kopchi

Dilala

Jakana

Wagir

Dawo 2

Gujba

Gabai

Gur

Ajigin A

Tawa

Yeli

Kiri 1

Garaha

Mafa

Zari

Janga

Kurnawa

Jajere

Tulotulo

Soye

Yunusari/Ngirabo

Yadim

Mutai

Gurin

Kayeri

Borno Yesu

Fuye

Danani

Titiwa

Kareto

Farang

Garubula

Zowo

Mashio

Ajiri

Pariya

Muliye

Guya

Gumsuri

Bego

Gunda

Dirma

Suktu

Lantaiwa

Sugu

MadaAjiri

Ngelzarma B

Masu

Ngulde

Buni Gari

Ngohi

Bogomari

Kogin Baba 2

Lege

Ndufu

Kafiya

Kaliyari

Dapchi

Bille

Suwa

Lamisu

Yebbi

Koriyel

Jaba

Bogum

GazabureLayi

Daksiri

Mayo Inne

Goduram

Ngamdu

Yajiwa

Gumsa

Azir Multe

Garu

Tuba

Kalallawa Gabai

Dawo 1

Gulumba

Hambagda

Toungo 2

Uki Tuki

Gaanda

Chamba

Daura A

Ngetra

Kollere Kafaje

Karlahi

Ardimini

Daratoshia

Jebuwa

Gasi

Bodwai

Gurumpawo

Kupti

Ma'Anna

Mairari

Kafa Mafi

Wuyo

Wawa Korode

Ribadu

Sumbar

Lafiya Loi Loi

Kilange Funa

Mussa

Sorau A

Andara

Kwaja�a

Fukurti

Gamu

Wulo

Boga

Korongilum

Song Waje

Leko

Kawuri

Gumshi

Vulpi

Mayori

Guyaku

Gudi Dozi

Limanti

Koma 2

Felo

Yabiri

Dumbari

Duji

Sorau B

Wajiro

Puba Vidau

Bultuwa

Masaba

Muguram

Borno Kiji

Jororo

Wala Warabe

M. Kaza

Yusufari

Mapeo

Gashigar

Jaggu

Alagarno

Wuro Bokki

Gudu Mboi

Manda Da'A

Gawa

Sure

Zah

Ajigin B

Tola

Mayo Farang

Maimalari

Yo�o

Babangida

Duwa

Dilli

Gidgid Bayam

Gadaka

Libbo

Mamudo

Buduwa

Ngalda

Afunori

Namtari

Sigire

Gengle

Jarawa

Gorgoram

Guba Dapso

Ayi Yasku

Dong

Goniri

Furram

Daura B

M. MajaJilbe

Dekwa

Gaya-sikalmi

Gwio-Kura

Gagure

Gabon

Loskuri

Kingowa

Bumsa

Gorobi

Degaltura

Shani

Koma 1

Telli

Amchaka

Mozogun

Yang

Margata

Ardoram

Gotala

Ngurbuwa

Mbullo

Ndikong

Mofio

Toungo 3

Buduwa/Bula Chirabe(Banki)

Gulak

Jereng

Bara

Dabira

Gereng

Guji Metalari

Demsa

Zangebe

Ngelzarma A

Shehuri

Kiri 2

Bwalki

Ruhu

Warshele

Kumagannam

Kiri

Dole

Shekau

Danaba

Yajiri

Bebel

Abbaram

Dokshi

Ngojin

Mujigine

Ngamma

Bare

Mbalala

Dwam

Bukarti

Dille Huyim

Kpasham

Buni Yadi

Waltandi

Alau

Kirawa

Bangshika

Marguba

Hong

Gubio 1

Asaga

Muchalla

Yele

Kaguram

Dagona

Jada 2

Magumeri

Rann

Balle

Zulum

Wuro Dole

Chikila

Waro

Modire

Pallam

Boboshe

Dakri

Yawi

Dikwa

Bularafa

Walama

Gwamba

Digil

Bargu

Bahuli

Jumbam

Mijilu

Jawa G Dole

Mandunari

Jakusko

Damagum B

Kodomti

Tambo

Dogoma

Jara-Dali

Sukur

Dazigau

Kuburmbula

Sungul Koka

Jumbul

Dumsai

Girei 2

Zabudum Dachia

Guwo

Fajiganari

Uba

Dumne

Hildi

Moholo

Gambir Moduri

Gajibo

Mandala

Dadingel

Maja Kura

Dala

Karagawaru

Ngbebogun

Tobolo

Gora

Gulani

Gubio 2

Dawayo

Zarawuyaku

Kola

Duhu

Bakta

Darajamal

Logumane

Damakasu

Bakari Goso

Miringa

Dugja

Mainok

Afuye

Kubo

Uvu Uda

Wamdeo Giwi

Leko

Bebel

Betso

Vimtim

Pemi

Guyuk

Dusuma

Bulabulin

Duvu

Bulatura

Mayo Kalaye

Kukareta Warsala

Murfakalam

Hoserezum

Jawur Katamma Futchimiram

Thilbang

MandaragirauTeteba

Yolde Kohi

Bayamari

Bajama

Dudduye

Ngurno

K Kaudi

Wulgo

Talum

Gwalasho

Nyibago

Song Gari

Zajibiri/Dumbal

Peta

Marmari Gudugurka

Ngurore

Gwangang Chata

Shettimari

Waduku

Kushimaga

Bulanguwa

Ma'Afa

Mayo Lope

Sigal

Karasuwa Galu

Mujara

Kwaya Kusar

Chukuriya

Kautikari

Konkol

Nzuda Wuyaram

Jara-Gol

Binyeri

Maisandari Wi

Damai

Tsugum Tagali

Hoyo Chingowa

Mbamba

Grim Damchoba

Benisheikh

Kasugula

Gyawana

Koshebe

Balbaya

Dalori

Gongulong

Gang Fada

Bobini

Dawasa

Pulka Bokko

Hausari Zadawa

Karauswa Garu Guna

Whuntaku

Watinani

Fika Anze

Mbula

Gasma

Manjekin

Gajigana

Gwaskara

Rumirgu Chul

Bogo

Garin Gawo

Zangaya Mazawaun

Dukul

Maskandare

Tikau

Garta

Gundo

Nduku

Falimaram

Kukuri

Lafiya

Timdore

Machina

Zulum Umarti

Kurba Gayi

Fufore

Bole Yolde Pate

Kirchinga

Dabule

OpaloJera Bakari

Konkomma

Ribadu

Pama Whitambaya

Wawa

Mbokura

Jada 1

Mugulbu

Dongo

Shirarkir

Dumna

Hizhibwala

Monguno

Gude

Asheikri 1

Jera Bonyo

Kararam

Kidda

Garkida

Kwayabura

Kogin Baba 1

Imburu

Askira East

Ngudoram

Limanti

Tambajam

K Kumaga

Nassarawo Demsa

Nangere

Yimirdalang

Juluri Damnawa

Ngurthlavu

Kopa

Degubi

Madzi

Bodeno

Waga-chakawa

Shangui

Shelleng

Vih/Boka

Sasawa Kabaru

Damakuli

Futuless

Ngbakawo

Borgozo

Gamadiyo

Wassaram

Borrong

Girei 1

Humbutudi

Ngala

Wada

Hausari Tampul

Kombo

Lassa

Kuranabasa

Sakwa Hema

Kubuku

Briyel

Taganama

Gella

Kukayasku

Kilange Hirna

Gamboru C

Kumshe

Lamurde

Mayo Nguli

Zara

Buma

Chikide

Gamawu

Tsukumu/Tilijo

Mayo Bani

Purakayo

Dubange

Damboa Central

Galtimari

Sha�a

Lokoro

Kwarhi

Shehuri

Njibulwa

Ketembere

DirbishiLakundum

Maisandari

Gwandi

Bila Gusi

Daima

Ganye 2

Ngubala Bamma

Auno

Bare Bari

Maiha Gari

Langawa Darin

Yerimaram

Gombi North

Chilariye

Wula

Rigange

Sina Kamale

Gatamarwa

Bilingwi

Garu

Mairi

Khadammari

Ufaye

Banjiram

Kwaja

Jigalambu

Lamurde

Shoye

Ngarbi

Hyambula

Gwapopolok

Turmi Malori

Wachakal

Likama

Marama Kidang

Karewa

Bolori I

Tumbara/Ngabili

Guduf A&B

Gombi South

Galangi

Damare

Toungo 1

Ninkisi/Wuro Ngiki

Bolori II

Guwal

Mbilla

Tamsu Ngamdua

Kumalia

Konduga

Garin Tuwo

Gava Agapalawa

Goniri

Damasak

Sabon Pegi

Fikhayel

Pakka

Jaji Maji

Nayinawa

Yelwa

Ashigashiya

Mubi Fussami

Gamadadi

Ngoshe

Old Maiduguri

Damagum A

Asheikri 2

Michika 2Michika 2

Katuzu

Lokuwa

Jambutu

Bulabulin

Gwadabawa

Nglaiwa

Madagali

Njiwaji Gwange

Sarkin Hausawa

Gamboru BTunokalia

Makama A

Galdimari

Sangassumi

Dogon Nini

Gwapopolok

Sabon Gari

Sulumthla

Numan 2

Hausari

Zango

YaleMalari

Fune

Biu

Bama

Song

Toungo

Fufore

Damboa

Konduga

Kaga

Kukawa

Tarmua

Gujba

Mafa

Jada

Fika

Bursari

Marte

Geidam

Hong

AbadamYusufari

Magumeri

Gubio

Gwoza

Yunusari

Jakusko

Mobbar

Gulani

Ganye

Gombi

Hawul

Dikwa

Nganzai

Guzamala

Ngala

Damaturu

Demsa

Maiha

Chibok

Jere

Maiduguri

Monguno

Bayo

Kala/Balge

Girei

Askira/Uba

Shani

Mayo-Belwa

Machina

Shelleng

KarasuwaNguru

Nangere

Lamurde

Numan

Guyuk

Bade

Michika

Madagali

Yola South Yola North

Mubi North

Bade

Potiskum

Kwaya Kusar

Mubi South

ADAMAWA

GOMBE

BAUCHI

YOBE

BORNO

TARABA

Map 1: LGA Coverage of DTM Round 39 Assessments


445

573

688 657749

987

1,2721,350 1,331 1,342 1,339

763 751 760 760 767 772 776 779 787 794 797 797 804 807 794 795 794 794 790 790 792 791 791 791 791 791 790 791

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34 R35 R36 R37 R38

Dec-14 Feb-15 Apr-15 Jun-15 Aug-15 Oct-15 Dec-15 Feb-16 Apr-16 Jun-16 Aug-16 Oct-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Mar-17 May-17 Jun-17 Aug-17 Oct-17 Dec-17 Feb-18 Apr-18 Jun-18 Aug-18 Oct-18 Jan-19 May-19 Jul-19 Sep-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Mar-20 Aug-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Feb-21 Apr-21 Aug-21

Dec 2014 Feb 2015 Feb 2016 Jan 2017 Feb 2018 Jan 2019 Mar 2020 Feb 2021

R39

Oct-21

Figure 1: Number of wards assessed per round

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) in Isa Tonga host community Kwami ward, Jurara LGA of Gombe State © IOM Nigeria/Phoebe Awosina/ IOM 2021

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) in Gwaram host community, Misau LGA of Bauchi State © IOM Nigeria/Phoebe Awosina/ IOM 2021


The estimated number of IDPs identified during Round 39 of DTM assessments in the conflict-affected states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe was 2,200,357 individuals, divided among 452,363 households. The number of IDPs represents an increase of 17,744 individuals or less than 1 per cent since the last assessment when 2,182,613 IDPs were identified (data collection in July 2021). The Round 39 number also increased by less than 1 per cent compared to the number of IDPs identified in Round 37 (2,191,193 individuals in April 2021).

Analysis of the data collected during Round 39 demonstrated that the majority, or 88 per cent of IDPs, are displaced within their state of origin (no change since Round 38). Twelve per cent of IDPs travelled between different states in search of safety and security. When considering the same data at the LGA level, 56 per cent of IDPs were residing in an LGA other than their LGA of origin (no change since Round 38). Furthermore, in 88 per cent of the wards assessed, the presence of IDPs originating from a different ward was reported.

The most conflict-affected state of Borno continued to host the highest number of IDPs with 1,639,028 individuals, an increase of 9,790 persons or 0.6 per cent compared to Round 38. Similar to the previous assessments, Borno is home to more than 74 per cent of all IDPs in Nigeria’s north-east geopolitical zone. The fact that the IDP number recorded during Round 39 in Borno State increased while a decrease was recorded during the previous round demonstrates the fluctuating mobility situation in the state.

It is to be noted that the decreasing IDP numbers recorded during Round 39 in Borno’s Jere and Maiduguri M.C. (MMC) LGAs were mainly a result of the Government relocation schemes from the camps and camp-like settings in these respective LGAs towards their LGAs of origin. These LGAs of origin included Mobbar LGA, where IDP numbers increased by 8,193 individuals after the closure of Mogcolis Camp, Ngala LGA and Bama LGA.

The steep increase in Bama LGA (16,205 individuals or 18%) was also a result of the arrival of IDPs from several inaccessible locations within the LGA (Gulumba, Soye, Botori, Alafa, Drajamal and Kotembein) caused by attacks by Non-State Armed Groups (NSAG) and the fear of future attacks. Additionally, Bama LGA witnessed an influx of returning refugees from Cameroon. These are Nigerian nationals returning to Nigeria due to the poor living conditions in Cameroon.

Many returned IDPs immediately integrated within the local host communities upon returning to the LGAs of origin following the Government relocation schemes. In contrast, others continued their journey to inaccessible locations for the humanitarian community (mainly in the LGAs Marte and Mafe). Hence, this made it extremely challenging for DTM and the wider humanitarian community to track these IDPs. As a result, it can be assumed that actual displacement numbers in Borno State are likely to be considerably higher

Furthermore, as the rainy season in north-east Nigeria has now ended, many IDPs who were located in the urban centres of the LGAs Jere and M.M.C. have moved on to locations in the states of Adamawa and Taraba to engage in farming activities. As the urban centres in the LGAs Jere and M.M.C. are congested, farmlands are predominantly located on the other side of the trenches surrounding the cities. These farmlands are inaccessible for IDPs residing within the urban centres of the LGAs Jere and M.M.C.

The state of Adamawa recorded an increase of 8,767 IDP individuals compared to Round 38 (less than 1%). The most notable increase was reported in Shelleng LGA, where the IDP population increased by 6,666 individuals or more than doubled since Round 38. This is because, during August, floods sweeping through the state of Adamawa damaged and destroyed houses and farmlands across Shelleng LGA and displaced many of the residents.

Despite the decrease in the number of IDPs in Maiduguri Metropolitan Council due to the Government relocation programmes, Borno’s capital city, M.M.C., continued to host the highest number of IDPs among all LGAs with 292,817 individuals or 13 per cent of the total IDPs in north-east Nigeria. Maiduguri Metropolitan Council was closely followed by Jere, also in Borno State, as the LGA hosting the second-highest number of IDPs in the assessment area with 279,700 individuals or 13 per cent of IDPs recorded.

1A: PROFILE OF DISPLACEMENT IN NORTH-EAST NIGERIA

1. BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT

Table 1: Change in internally displaced population by state

Total population Total population (%) Total population Total population (%)

ADAMAWA 21 212,486 10% 221,253 10% Increase 8,767 4%

BAUCHI 20 66,225 3% 66,103 3% Decrease -122 -0.2%

BORNO 22 1,629,238 74% 1,639,028 75% Increase 9,790 0.6%

GOMBE 11 45,046 2% 45,168 2% Increase 122 0.3%

TARABA 16 78,079 4% 76,931 3% Decrease -1,148 -1.5%

YOBE 17 151,539 7% 151,874 7% Increase 335 0.2%

GRAND TOTAL 107 2,182,613 100% 2,200,357 100% Increase 17,744 1%

Percentage

di�erenceState LGAs Accessed

R38 Total (August 2021) R39 Total (Oct 2021)Status

Population

di�erence


Bali

Toro

Fune

Ibi

Biu

Gashaka

Bama

Ningi

Song

Gassol

Alkaleri

Toungo

Fufore

Kurmi

Konduga

Damboa

Jada

Kukawa

Mafa

Tarmua

Gujba

Bauchi

Fika

Ganjuwa

Dukku

Kaga

Bursari

Kir�

Wukari

Sardauna

Yusufari

Geidam

Marte

Hong

Magumeri

Jakusko

Abadam

Akko

Karim-Lamido

Lau

Yunusari

Donga

Zaki

Gubio

GwozaDarazo

Takum

Mobbar

Gamawa

Gulani

Ganye

Ussa

Hawul

Gombi

Dikwa

Nganzai

Shira

Guzamala

Ngala

Kwami

Girei

Shani

Zing

Damaturu

Nafada

Demsa

Jere

Balanga

Ardo-Kola

Chibok

Monguno

Bayo

Funakaye

Misau

Tafawa-Balewa Billiri

Katagum

Dass

Karasuwa

Damban

Warji

Bogoro

Michika

Maiha

Askira/Uba

Yorro

Kala/Balge

Mayo-Belwa

Machina

Itas/Gadau

Shelleng

Yamaltu/Deba

Kaltungo

Giade

Nguru

Lamurde

Nangere

Numan

Bade

Guyuk

Madagali

Yola South

Shomgom

Bade

Potiskum

Mubi NorthKwaya Kusar

Jama'are

Mubi South

Jalingo

Maiduguri

Gombe

Yola North

Chad

Niger

Cameroon

Lake Chad

Jigawa

Katsina

Kano

Plateau

Nasarawa

Benue

Cross River

Hard to reach LGA

Water Bodies

IDP Population by LGA

Less than 7,026

7,027 - 20,211

20,212 - 42,605

42,606 - 146,252

More than 146,253

±ADAMAWA

GOMBE

BAUCHI

YOBE

BORNO

TARABA

Map 2: IDP distribution by LGA

Figure 2: IDP population by round of DTM assessment

Millio

ns

1,49

1,70

6

2,15

0,45

1

2,23

9,74

9

2,15

1,97

9

2,24

1,48

4

2,15

5,61

8

2,06

6,78

3

2,09

3,03

0

1,82

2,54

1

1,77

0,44

4

1,89

9,83

0

1,83

2,74

3

1,88

4,33

1

1,82

5,32

1

1,75

7,28

8

1,71

3,77

1

1,70

2,68

0

1,78

2,49

0

1,88

1,19

8

1,91

8,50

8

1,92

6,74

8

2,02

6,60

2

1,94

8,34

6

1,98

0,03

6

2,01

8,51

3

2,03

5,23

2

2,03

9,09

2

2,04

6,60

4

2,08

8,12

4

2,11

8,55

0

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Dec

-14

Feb-

15

Apr

-15

Jun-

15

Aug

-15

Oct

-15

Dec

-15

Feb-

16

Apr

-16

Jun-

16

Aug

-16

Oct

-16

Dec

-16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jun-

17

Aug

-17

Oct

-17

Dec

-17

Feb-

18

Apr

-18

Jun-

18

Aug

-18

Oct

-18

Jan-

19

May

-19

Jul-1

9

Sep-

19

Nov

-19

Dec

-19

Mar

-20

Aug

-20

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33

Nov

-20

R34

Dec

-20

R35

Feb-

21

R36

Apr

-21

R37

Jul-2

1

R38

2,19

1,19

3

2,18

2,61

3

2,20

0,35

7

2,14

4,13

5

2,15

0,24

3

2,18

4,25

4

389,

281

1,18

8,01

8

1,38

5,29

8

Oct

-21

R39


1C: REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENTReasons for displacement remained unchanged since the last round. The ongoing conflict in north-east Nigeria continued to be the main reason for displacement (93% - similar to Round 38), followed by communal clashes for 6 per cent of IDPs and natural disasters in 1 per cent of cases.

1B: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILEA detailed and representative overview of age and sex breakdowns was obtained by interviewing a sample of 122,644 displaced persons, representing 6 per cent of the recorded IDP population in the six most conflict-affected states of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. Fifty-four per cent of the internally displaced population are female while 46 per cent are male. Fifty-nine per cent of IDPs are minors (under 18 years old) and 6 per cent are above 60 years old. The results are depicted in Figures 3 and 4 below.

Figure 4: Proportion of IDP population by age groups

6%

35%

59%

Adults(18 - 59 years)

Elderly(60+ years)

Children(0 - 17 years)

Figure 3: Age and demographic breakdown of IDPs

4%

8%

20%

19%

3%

3%

7%

17%

16%

3%

Female 54%Male 46%

<1y

1-5y

6-17y

60+y

18-59y

Figure 5: Percentage of IDPs by reason for displacement

ADAMAWA

4%

TARABA

1%18%

BAUCHI

36%1%

76%

20%

81%

63%

GOMBE

20%

80%

YOBE

100%

1%

BORNO

100%

Insurgency

Natural Disaster

Communal clashes

±


0 60 12030 Km

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

Map 3 provides an overview of the reasons for displacement by state. Similar to previous rounds, the state of Taraba showed the highest number of displacements due to communal clashes during the Round 39 assessments with 81 per cent. These are often triggered by land and border issues and increasing violence between farmers and herders during the farming seasons.

1D: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT

Similar to the previous rounds of assessments, the year during which the highest percentage of IDPs were forced to flee their locations of origin was 2015 (23%), followed by 2016 (18%). Also in line with the previous round of assessments, 15 per cent of IDPs were displaced in 2017 and 11 per cent in 2018. Eight per cent of displacements took place in 2019, 8 per cent in 2020 and 14 per cent of IDPs were displaced before the year 2015. No changes were recorded compared to the previous round of assessments.

Figure 6: Year of displacement by State

State Before 2015 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

ADAMAWA 18% 23% 14% 14% 13% 11% 5% 3%

BAUCHI 57% 18% 9% 3% 5% 3% 4% 1%

BORNO 11% 25% 19% 17% 11% 8% 7% 3%

GOMBE 34% 15% 14% 11% 6% 3% 7% 10%

TARABA 26% 19% 12% 10% 12% 7% 10% 5%

YOBE 17% 12% 13% 10% 13% 10% 12% 13%

Grand Total 14% 23% 18% 15% 11% 8% 7% 4%

14%

23%

18%

15%

11%

8% 7%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

93%

6%

1%

Insurgency

Community clashes

Natural disasters


1F: ORIGIN OF DISPLACED POPULATIONSSimilar to the previous rounds, 83 per cent of IDPs cited Borno, the most conflict-affected state in north-east Nigeria, as their state of origin. After Borno, Adamawa was the state of origin of 7 per cent of IDPs, followed by Yobe (5%) and Taraba (3%). Plateau was cited as the state of origin by 1 per cent of the IDPs.

As has been the trend, most displaced persons remain within their state of origin. In Borno, 99 per cent of IDPs originated from locations within the state of Borno. In Adamawa, 83 per cent of IDPs were originally from Adamawa while 15 per cent were displaced from Borno State. In Yobe, 50 per cent of IDPs originated from Yobe State while 48 per cent fled their locations of origin in Borno State.

In addition, almost four per cent of the IDP population, or over 88,000 individuals in north-east Nigeria, have been displaced since the beginning of 2021. Once more, this demonstrates the continued escalation of the conflict and the profound impact it has on the residents of the affected regions. In the state of Yobe, 13 per cent of the total IDP population in the state, or over 20,000 individuals, were displaced in the first nine months of 2021.

1E: MOBILITY Among IDPs living in camps and camp-like settings, the majority or 56 per cent of respondents said they were displaced once, 32 per cent reported that they were displaced twice, 10 per cent said they were displaced three times and 2 per cent said they were displaced four times or more. In the state of Bauchi, none of the respondents reported that they had been displaced previously. In the state of Adamawa, only 39 per cent of IDPs have been displaced only once.

Seventy-one per cent of displaced persons residing with host communities said they were displaced once, 23 per cent said they were displaced twice and 5 per cent said they were displaced three times or more. In the state of Gombe, 97 per cent of IDPs residing among host communities were displaced only once. In the state of Bauchi, this number was recorded at 95 per cent. Multiple displacements were more frequent in the BAY-states and Taraba. In Borno for example, only 56 per cent of IDPs in host communities were displaced only once.

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total

Once 39% 100% 58% 50% 42% 56%

Twice 39% 0% 32% 42% 16% 32%

Three Times 14% 0% 9% 8% 21% 10%

Four Times 7% 0% 0% 0% 21% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 7: Frequency of displacement of IDPs per state

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total

Once 73% 95% 55% 97% 59% 57% 70%

Twice 24% 5% 39% 3% 34% 29% 24%

Three Times 2% 0% 6% 0% 7% 13% 5%

Four Times 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 8: Frequency of displacement of IDPs per state

83% 75%

10%

2%

3%

4%

7%

7%

1%1%

3%

5%

State of displacementState of origin Total IDPs

TOTAL IDPs: 2,200,357TO BORNO: 1,639,028

TO ADAMAWA: 221,253

TO GOMBE: 45,168

TO BAUCHI: 66,103

TO TARABA: 76,931

TO YOBE: 151,874


FROM BORNO: 1,825,325

FROM PLATEAU: 14,608

FROM OTHERS: 5,173

FROM YOBE: 123,929

FROM TARABA: 67,088

Figure 9: Origin of displaced populations

Niger

BORNO

TARABA

BAUCHI

Kogi

KADUNA

Edo

ZAMFARA

Kano

ADAMAWA

Jigawa

PLATEAU

NASARAWA

Benue

Katsina

Sokoto

GOMBE

Cross River

Edo

Ebonyi

FCT

Niger

70%

85%

99.9%

67%

2%

13%

2.5%1%

0.1%

16%55%

2.3%

22%

30%

33%

5%0.2%

1%

28%

13%

54%

YOBE

Displacement from other states

Displacement within states of Origin

IDP population by State of origin

Less than 70,000

Greater than 70,000

More than 200,000

XX%

Disclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries in this map do not imply o�cial endorsement or acceptance by IOM.Data source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXIX), HDX, ESRI

Map 4: Origin of IDPs and location of displacement


As Borno state can be considered the epicentre of the insurgency in north-east Nigeria, many fled their rural areas of origin to urban centres serching for security and humanitarian assistance. Hence, the IDP population in urban centres increased significantly and camps were established, mainly in the LGAs Maiduguri, Jere and Konduga. As the insurgency intensified over time, more IDPs relocated to the camps around the urban centres of Borno State.

In the five other states in north-east Nigeria, IDPs living among host communities outnumbered IDPs living in camps and camp-like settings. In Gombe, all IDPs were residing among the local host communities.

1G: UNMET NEEDS IN IDP SETTLEMENTSSimilar to the previous rounds, the percentage of IDPs who needed food remained high. In 77 per cent of the locations assessed, food was cited as the primary unfulfilled need (up from 76% in Round 38). Non-food items (NFIs) were cited as the primary unfulfilled need in 12 per cent of the locations (down from 13% in Round 38) followed by shelter in 4 per cent of the locations (no change since Round 38) and medical services in three per cent of the locations (no change since Round 38).

1H: SETTLEMENT TYPE OF DISPLACED POPULATIONMost of the IDPs in north-east Nigeria (60%) were living among host communities during the Round 39 assessments, with the remainder (40%) residing in camps and camp-like settings (Figure 10).

Out of all six states, Borno continued to be the only state where the number of people residing in camps or camp-like settings exceeded the number of IDPs living in host communities. Fifty-two per cent of IDPs in Borno lived in camps or camp-like settings while 48 per cent of IDPs lived among host communities.

Other needs

Security

Potable drinking water

Sanitation and hygiene

Medical services

Shelter

NFI

Food77%

12%

4%

3% 1%

1%

1%

1%

309Camps/camp-like

settings.

2,072 Host community

locations. 1,310,120 individuals (60%)

890,237 individuals

(40%)

Figure 10: IDP population and number per settlement type

Figure 12: IDP settlement type by state

9%2%

52%

6%11%

40%

91%98%

48%

100%94%

89%

60%


Camp Host Community

A view of IDP settlement type | NRC camp, Benesheik, Kaga LGA of Borno State © IOM Nigeria/Midiga Lagu/ IOM 2020

Fig 11: Main needs of IDPs


Jigawa

Katsina

Kano

Plateau

Nasarawa

Benue

Cross River

Niger

Cameroon

Lake Chad

Nganzai

Marte

Abadam

KukawaGuzamala

±

89%

11%

YOBE

151,874

BORNO

52%

48%

91%9%

ADAMAWA

TARABA

6%

94%

100%

GOMBE

98%

2%BAUCHI

66,103

1,639,028

212,253

76,931

45,168

Hard to reach LGA

Less than 100,000

100,001 - 160,000

160,001 - 220,000

Above 220,001

IDPs in camps & camp-like settings

IDPs in host communities

IDP Population by State

0 100 20050 Km

Grand Total


Chad

Lake Chad

Map 5: IDPs distribution by state and significant site type

# IDPs # Sites % Sites # IDPs # Sites % Sites

ADAMAWA 20,044 28 9% 201,209 460 22% 212,253 485

BAUCHI 1,648 5 2% 64,455 371 18% 66,103 376

BORNO 846,864 245 79% 792,164 454 22% 1,639,028 700

GOMBE / 45,168 203 10% 45,168 203

TARABA 4,463

/ /

12 4% 72,468 197 10% 76,931 209

YOBE 17,218 19 6% 134,656 386 19% 151,874 408

Total 890,237 309 100% 1,310,120 2,071 100% 2,200,357 2,381

State

Camps/camp-like settings Host Communities Total Number of

IDPs

Total Number of

Sites

Table 3: Number of IDPs and sites assessed per settlement type


The majority of camps and camp-like settings were located on publicly owned land (57%), followed by private property (43%) and ancestral ground (1%). Most IDPs living with host communities resided in private buildings (88%). Eight per cent were dwelling in public structures and 4 per cent in ancestral homes.

41%58%

1%

28%

72%

Transitional Centre

Camp

Collective Settlement/Centre

Planned

Spontaneous

Site Classification

IDP Population by Settlement Type

Site Type

Camp/camp-like settings Host Community

Land ownership

40% 60%

Land ownership

1%

43%

57%

Ancestral

Private

Public/Government

4%

7%

88%

Ancestral

Private building

Public/Government

Figure 15: IDP population by settlement type

2A: LOCATION AND NUMBER OF IDPs

2B: SETTLEMENT CLASSIFICATIONSeventy-two per cent of the camps/camp-like settings were classified as spontaneous, while 28 per cent were planned. Most of them were categorised as collective settlement/centres (59%), while others were camps (41%). Only El-Miskin camp II in Old Maiduguri, Jere LGA, was considered a transitional centre.

Fig 13: Type of sectoral support reported in percentage of camps/camp-like settings

No Yes

WASH 71%

Shelter 67%

NFI 67%

Protection 61%

Food 58%

Education 43%

Health 42%

Livelihood 40%

CCCM 40%

Fig 14: Type of sectoral support reported in percentage of host communities

Education 80%

Protection 76%

Health 76%

Food 75%

NFI 67%

Livelihood 55%

Shelter 54%

WASH 45%

2. SITE ASSESMENTS AND SECTORAL NEEDS OF IDPS

The DTM Round 39 site assessments were conducted in 2,381 locations (up from 2,380 locations in Round 38). These locations included camps/camp-like settings and locations where displaced persons lived with local host communities. The purpose of the site assessments was to understand better the gaps in services provided and the needs of the affected population.

These assessed locations included 309 (similar to Round 38) camps/camp-like settings and 2,072 locations where IDPs resided with host communities (up from 2,071 locations in Round 38). The graphic below illustrates the percentage of a specific type of sectoral support reported in camps/camp-like settings and host communities, respectively.


CAMP COORDINATION AND CAMP MANAGEMENTIn the Round 39 of DTM assessments, out of the 309 camps and camp-like settings assessed, 84 per cent (down by 1% from Round 38) were informal sites while the remaining 16 per cent were formal. Furthermore, 50 per cent of camps and camp-like settings did not have a Site Management Agency (SMA). As many of the camps are located around the urban centres of Borno State, it is to be noted that 95 per cent of the IDPs residing in camps and camp-like settings in north-east Nigeria are located in the state of Borno.

SHELTERCamps and camp-like settings

Camps and camp-like settings presented a variety of shelter conditions, with the most common type of shelter being self-made/makeshift shelters at 37 per cent (up by 1% since Round 38), followed by emergency shelters at 35 per cent (down by 1% since Round 38) and government buildings, reported in 7 per cent of the sites assessed.

For more analysis, click here.

Host Communities

An estimated 57 per cent of IDPs living with host communities lived in a host family’s house (down from 5% reported in Round 38). Host family housing was followed by rented houses, reported at 24 per cent (up from 22% in Round 38), and individual houses at 16 per cent (similar to Round 38).


NON-FOOD ITEMS (NFIs)Camps and camp-like settings

Blankets and mats continued to remain the most needed type of Non-Food Item (NFI) in camps and camp-like settings as reported in 47 per cent of the sites assessed (no change since Round 38). Blankets and mats were followed by kitchen sets (18% - down from 19%) and mosquito nets (13% - down from 17%).


Host Communities

Similar to IDPs in camps/camp-like settings, blankets and mats were the most needed NFI for IDPs hosted by local communities as reported in 34 per cent of the locations assessed (down from 35%). Blankets and mats were followed by mosquito nets (18% - down from 19%), mattresses (18% - up from 17%) and kitchen sets (16% - similar to Round 38).


Figure 16: Presence and type of site management agency

16%

45%

22%

18% Local NGO

UN

Government

INGO

50%50%

No SMA SMA presence

16%

84%

Formal

Informal

Figure 17: Types of shelter in camps/camp-like settings

1%

3%

4%

4%

4%

6%

7%

35%

37%

Community center

Open lot

School building

Host family house

Rented house

Individual house

Government building

Emergency shelter

Self-made/Makeshift shelter

Figure 19: Number of campsites with the most needed type of NFI

2%

2%

5%

5%

7%

14%

18%

47%

Solar lamps

Bucket/Jerry can

Soap

Mattress

Hygiene kits

Kitchen sets

Mosquito nets

Blankets/Mats

Figure 18: Types of shelter in host community sites

1%

2%

16%

24%

57%

Government building

Self-made/Makeshift shelter

Individual house

Rented house

Host family house

2C. SECTOR ANALYSIS

Figure 20: Number of host community sites with most needed type of NFI

2%

3%

3%

6%

16%

18%

18%

34%

Solar lamps

Bucket/Jerry Can

Hygiene kits

Soap

Kitchen sets

Mattress

Mosquito nets

Blankets/Mats


A layout of Non Food Items for distribution in Muna Elbadaway IDP camp, Dusuman, Jere LGA of Borno State © IOM Nigeria/Midiga Lagu/ IOM 2021

Registration activity for NFI distribution at Muna Elbadaway IDP camp, Dusuman, Jere LGA of Borno State © IOM Nigeria/Midiga Lagu/ IOM 2021


Host Communities

In contrast to camps and camp-like settings, hand pumps were the primary source of drinking water in locations where IDPs were living among host communities (49% of assessed locations – down from 50% in Round 38). Piped water supplies followed hand pumps (in 28% of assessed locations – similar to Round 38), protected wells (in 8% of assessed locations – up by 1% compared to Round 38) and unprotected wells (in 7% of assessed locations – similar to Round 38).

In 89 per cent of the locations where IDPs were residing among host communities, the drinking water was reported potable (up from 88% in Round 38). In the state of Yobe, drinking water was reported potable in all of the locations assessed. On the other hand, in the state of Taraba, the drinking water was reported as non-potable in 25 per cent of the locations assessed.


WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH)

Water ResourcesCamp and camp-like settings:

For 68 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings, piped water was the primary source of drinking water (up from 66% in Round 38). In 19 per cent (down from by 21% in Round 38) of the camps/camp-like settings, hand pumps were the primary source of drinking water, followed by water trucks (7% - no change since Round 38), unprotected wells (2% - up by 1%) and protected wells (1% - down by 1%).

In 95 per cent of the camps and camp-like settings, IDPs reported that the water provided was potable. In the state and Borno, the water was potable in all (100%) of the camps and camp-like settings assessed. On the other hand, in the state of Taraba, the water was reported as non-potable in 50 per cent of the camps and camp-like settings assessed.


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

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

7%

19%

68%

Others

Ponds/canals

Surface water

Protected well

Unprotected well

Water truck

Hand pumps

Piped water supply

Figure 22: Potable water in camps/camp-like settings per state

18%

40%

0%

50%

5% 5%

82%

60%

100%

50%

95% 95%


No Yes

Figure 24: Main source of drinking water in host communities

1%

1%

1%

5%

7%

8%

28%

49%

Others

Lake/dam

Surface water

Water truck

Unprotected well

Protected well

Piped water supply

Hand pumps

Figure 24: Potable water in host communities per state

16%

4%14%

18%25%

11%

84%

96%86%

82%75%

100%

89%


No Yes

Potable water in Gubio camp, Gubio ward of Maiduguri Metropolitan Council, Borno State © IOM Nigeria/A. Phoebe/ IOM 2021


FOOD AND NUTRITION Camps and camp-like settings

In the Round 39 assessments, food support was available both on-site (in 41% of camps/camp-like settings) and off-site (in 36% of camps/camp-like settings). However, no food support was available in 23 per cent (up from 21% since the last round of assessments) of the camps and camp-like settings assessed.

Host Communities

For For IDPs living among host communities, food support was available on-site in 51 per cent of the locations assessed (down from 53% compared to Round 38) and off-site in 25 per cent of the locations assessed (up by 3% compared to Round 38). In 24 per cent of locations where IDPs were living among host communities, no food support was available at all (down from 25% in Round 38). In the state of Borno, food support was available on-site in 44 per cent and off-site in 33 per cent of the locations assessed. In Taraba, no food support was available at all in 76 per cent of the locations where IDPs were living among host communities.


Camps and camp-like settings

In 82 per cent of camps and camp-like settings (down from 87% in round 38), toilets were described as unhygienic, while toilets were reported to be hygienic in 13 per cent of the locations assessed (up by 1%). In the state of Borno, respondents reported that 84 per cent of the sites had unhygienic toilets. In the state of Bauchi, all toilets were reportedly unhygienic.


Host Communities

In 91 per cent of displacement sites, toilets were described as unhygienic (down from 93% in Round 38), while in only 5 per cent of the locations, toilets were considered hygienic (similar to Round 38). In 2 per cent of the locations assessed, toilets were reported as entirely unusable. In the state of Borno, respondents said that 88 per cent of locations had unhygienic toilets, and 9 per cent of the toilets were hygienic. In Gombe and Bauchi’s states, nearly all toilets were reported unhygienic (99% and 97%, respectively).


8%

2%

9%

8%

1%

5%

5%

1%

1%

3%

1%

2%

87%

97%

88%

99%

88%

92%

91%

2%

1%

1%

6%

2%

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

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

Good (hygienic) Non-usable Not so good (not hygienic) Unknown

Figure 26: Condition of toilets in host communities by state

11%

15%

8%

13%

4%

0%

8%

5%

1%

79%

100%

84%

83%

53%

82%

7%

1%

42%

4%

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

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

Good (hygienic) Non-usable Not so good (not hygienic) Unknown

Figure 25: Condition of toilets in camps/camp-like settings by state Figure 27: Access to food in camps/camp-like settings

32%21%

42%32%

23%

7%80% 38%

58%

21% 36%

61%

20%

41%47% 41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


No Yes o�-site Yes on-site


35%

1%

23%

5%

76%

20% 24%

23%

22%

33%

26%

18%

23%25%

42%

77%

44%

69%

6%

57%51%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


No O�-site On-site

Figure 28: Access to food in host communities

Personal Hygiene Facilities


HEALTHCamps and camp-like settings

During Round 39, similar to the previous rounds, malaria was cited as the most common health problem reported in 70 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (up from 65%). Malaria was followed by fever (in 14% of camps/camp-like settings – down by 4%) and cough (in 13% of camps/camp-like settings – down by 1%).


Host Communities

Mirroring the situation in camps/camp-like settings, malaria was the most prevalent health ailment among IDPs residing among host communities in 64 per cent of the locations assessed (down from 65%). Malaria was followed by fever (in 21% of locations – up by 2%) and cough (in 7% of locations – similar to Round 38). In addition, in Borno, malaria was the most common health problem as reported in 58 per cent of the locations. Similar to the regional numbers, malaria was followed by fever (reported in 24% of the locations in Borno State) and cough (reported in 6% of the locations in Borno State).

Figure 29: Common health problems in camps/camp-like settings


Cough 11% 20% 14% 0% 5% 13%

Diarrhoea 0% 0% 2% 17% 5% 3%

Fever 21% 20% 13% 8% 11% 14%

Malaria 68% 60% 70% 75% 74% 70%

Malnutrition 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0%

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Figure 30: Common health problems in host communities


Cough 9% 6% 9% 8% 3% 2% 7%

Diarrhea 2% 2% 9% 7% 5% 2% 4%

Fever 22% 17% 24% 25% 22% 19% 21%

Hepatitis 8% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2%

Malaria 58% 74% 58% 49% 62% 76% 64%

Malnutrition 0% 0% 0% 10% 6% 1% 2%

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

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

For more details, click here.

EDUCATIONCamps and camp-like settings

In 5 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, no children were attending school at all (up by 2%). In 24 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, less than 25 per cent of the children were attending school (up from 24%) and in 48 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, between 25 and 50 per cent of children were attending school (up from 47%). In only 2 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, more than 75 per cent of children were attending school (down from 3% in Round 38). In the state of Taraba, 42 per cent of the children in camps/camp-like settings were not attending school at all.


Host Communities

In two per cent of the locations where IDPs resided with host communities, no children were attending school at all (up by 1%). In 36 per cent of the locations where IDPs were residing with host communities, between 51 and 75 per cent of children were attending school (up by 2%). In 14 per cent of the locations, less than 25 per cent of children were attending school (down by 1%) and in 9 per cent of locations, over 75 per cent of children were attending school (down by 1%).


ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO GOMBE TARABA YOBE Grand Total <25% 19% 7% 11% 5% 41% 8% 14% 25% - 50% 40% 28% 50% 40% 35% 39% 39% 51% - 75% 31% 52% 37% 50% 15% 29% 36% >75% 8% 12% 1% 5% 5% 22% 9% None 2% 1% 1% 0% 4% 2% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 32: Percentage of children attending school in host communities

ADAMAWA BAUCHI BORNO TARABA YOBE Grand Total <25% 21% 20% 21% 25% 58% 24% 25% - 50% 32% 40% 54% 8% 16% 48% 51% - 75% 21% 40% 22% 25% 0% 21% >75% 18% 0% 0% 0% 5% 2% None 7% 0% 2% 42% 21% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 31: Percentage of children attending school in camps/camp-like settings


The most preferred medium used by IDPs residing among host communities to receive information was the radio (reported in 49% of the locations assessed), followed by word of mouth (reported in 36% of the locations assessed) and telephone calls (reported in 8% of the locations assessed).


LIVELIHOODSCamps and camp-like settings

In 33 per cent of camps/camp-like settings assessed, petty trade was cited as the main occupation of IDPs (down from 35% during Round 38), followed by jobs as a daily wage labourer which were cited in 32 per cent of camps/camp-like settings as the main occupation of IDPs (up by 1%). In 26 per cent of camps/camp-like settings, farming was cited as the main occupation of IDPs (up from 23% since Round 38).

In 44 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings assessed, the IDPs had access to land for cultivation. In Bauchi and Yobe, all IDPs had access to farming land, while in Borno and Taraba, only 33 per cent of the IDPs had access to land for cultivation. This is because most of the camps and camp-like settings in Borno State are located within and close to the urban centres in the state. Additionally, in 84 per cent of the camps/camp-like settings assessed, there was livestock on-site (no change since Round 38).

COMMUNICATIONCamps and camp-like settings

Friends, neighbours and family were cited as the most-trusted source of information in 49 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (down by 5%), followed by local and community leaders in 34 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (up by 4%), aid workers in 6 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (up by 1%) and traditional leaders in 4 per cent of camps/camp-like settings (down by 1%).

The most preferred medium used by the IDP communities in camps/camp-like settings to receive information was the radio (reported in 48% of the camps/camp-like settings – up by 2%), followed by word of mouth (reported in 38% of the camps/ camp-like settings – similar to R38) and telephone calls (reported in 5% of the camps/camp-like settings).


Host Communities

In sites where IDPs were residing with host communities, Friends, neighbours and family were the most trusted source of information in 40 per cent of locations (up from 39% in Round 38), followed by local and community leaders in 31 per cent of locations (down from 32%) and religious leaders in 14 per cent of locations (similar to Round 38).

Figure 35: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in host communities

3%

4%

8%

14%

31%

40%

Government o�cial

Aid worker

Traditional leader

Religious leader

Local leader/community leader

Friends, neighbours and family

5%

5%

5%

37%

48%

Community meetings

Loudspeakers

Telephone voice call

Word of mouth

Radio

Figure 34: Most preferred medium by IDP communities in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 33: Most trusted source of information for IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

1%

3%

3%

4%

6%

34%

49%

Military o�cial

Government o�cial

Religious leader

Traditional leader

Aid worker

Local leader/community leader

Friends, neighbors and family

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

26%

32%

33%

Fishing

None

Pastoralism

Collec�ng firewood

Agro-pastoralism

Farming

Daily labourer

Pe�y trade

Figure 37: Livelihood activities of IDPs in camps/camp-like settings

3%

4%

8%

36%

49%

Loudspeakers

Community meetings

Telephone voice call

Word of mouth

Radio

Figure 36: Most preferred medium by IDPs in host communities


PROTECTIONCamps/camp-like settings

Security was provided in 86 per cent (no change since Round 38) of camps/camp-like settings. This number was reported at 91 per cent (down by 1%) in the camps/camp-like settings in the most affected state of Borno.


Host Communities

In 90 per cent of the locations (no change since Round 38), some form of security was present. This figure was reported at 96 per cent in the most affected state of Borno (no change since Round 38).



Host Communities

For IDPs living among host communities, farming was reported as the main occupation in 65 per cent of the locations assessed (up by 2% compared to Round 38). Farming was followed by jobs as a daily labourer, cited in 13 per cent of the locations assessed (up by 1%) and petty trade, also cited in 13 per cent of the locations assessed (no change since Round 38).

In contrast to IDPs in camps/camp-like settings, in 86 per cent of the locations where IDPs resided among host communities, IDPs had access to land for cultivation (up by 1%). This number was reported lower only in the state of Borno where IDPs had access to land for cultivation in 60 per cent of the locations assessed. Again, this can be explained by the fact that in the state of Borno, many IDPs are residing in the urban centres of Maiduguri, Jere and Konduga LGAs. Additionally, in 94 per cent of the locations assessed, there was livestock on-site.


Figure 39: Livelihood activities of IDPs in host communities

1%

1%

2%

5%

13%

13%

65%

Others

Fishing

Pastoralism

Agro-pastoralism

Petty trade

Daily labourer

Farming

5% 2%

40%

16%10% 8%

14%

95% 98%

60%

84%90% 92%

86%


No Yes

Figure 40: Access to land for cultivation in host communities

54%

9% 8%

37%

14%

46%

100%91% 92%

63%

86%


No Yes

Figure 41: Security provided in camps/camp-like settings

18%

4% 1%

14%22%

10%

82%

100% 96% 99%

86%78%

90%


No Yes

Figure 42: Security provided in host communities

7%

67% 67%56%

93%100%

33% 33%

100%

44%


No Yes

Figure 38: Access to land for cultivation in camps/camp-like settings


3. RETURNEES

A total of 1,943,445 returnees or 314,834 returnee households were recorded during Round 39 of DTM assessments in north-east Nigeria. This signified an increase of 25,382 individuals or 1.3 per cent compared to Round 38 when 1,918,063 returnees were identified. This increase is a result of gradually increasing returnee numbers in most of the assessed LGAs.

During Round 39, 40 LGAs with a total of 683 return locations were assessed in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States (up from 675 locations in Round 38 assessments)2. The state of Adamawa continued to host the most significant number of returnees with 837,054 individuals or 43 per cent of the total returnee population in north-east Nigeria. Borno State hosted 758,787 returnees, or 39 per cent of the total number of returnees. It was followed by Yobe with 347,604 individuals or 18 per cent of the total estimated returnee population in north-east Nigeria.

When comparing current numbers to the Round 38 assessments, all states witnessed increased returnee numbers. The most notable increase was noted in Borno State, where the returnee population increased by 14,936 individuals or 2 per cent. This was mainly due to considerable increases in the LGAs Mobbar and Bama, where returnee numbers increased with 5,371 individuals and 2,551 individuals, respectively, due to the improved security situation in the respective LGAs.

The state of Adamawa witnessed a slight increase of 4,421 returnee individuals (less than 1% compared to Round 38). In the state of Yobe, the returnee population increased by 6,025 individuals or almost 2 per cent. Within Yobe, Yunusari LGA continued to witness an influx of returnees due to the restored security situation following the Geidam attack in April 2021. Also, in the LGAs Gujba and Gulani, increasing returnee numbers were reported as IDPs returned to their locations of origin to restore their houses and take up farming activities.

Fifty-four per cent of the entire returnee population were female, while 46 per cent were male. Sixty-two per cent of the return population were minors (under 18 years old), and 4 per cent were above 60 years old. The average household size for returnee families in north-east Nigeria was six persons. Out of the total number of returnees, 1,786,667 individuals or 92 per cent of all returnees, were classified as IDP returnees. In comparison, 156,778 individuals or 8 per cent of all returnees, were classified as returned refugees as they travelled back from neighbouring countries.

2 It is to be noted that return movements are only captured in the states Borno, Adamawa and Yobe.

Table 4: Returnee population by state

State R38 total (Aug 2021)

R39 total (Oct 2021)

Status Di�erenceReturn population

per state(in percentages)

ADAMAWA 832,633 837,054 Increase +4,421 43%

BORNO 743,851 758,787 Increase +14,936 39%

YOBE 341,579 347,604 Increase +6,025 18%

GRAND TOTAL 1,918,063 1,943,445 Increase +25,382 100%

Figure 44: Returnee population trend

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

58,041 11,968

56,891

209,940

64,321

247,470

47,594 80,718 60,242 51,918

83,467 23,017 10,229 39,707 21,581

56,801 54,870 108,531

30,463 62,603

(84,638)

64,850 19,631

(23,529) (7,334)62,186

31,705 9,115 22,167 6,058 20,470

262,324 320,365 332,333

389,224

599,164 663,485

910,955 958,549

1,039,267 1,099,509

1,151,427

1,234,894 1,257,911 1,268,140

1,307,847 1,329,428 1,386,229

1,441,099

1,549,630 1,580,093

1,642,696

1,558,058 1,622,908 1,642,539 1,619,010 1,611,676

1,673,862 1,705,567 1,714,682 1,736,849 1,742,907

Aug

-15

Oct

-15

Dec

-15

Feb-

16

Apr

-16

Jun-

16

Aug

-16

Oct

-16

Dec

-16

Jan-

17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jun-

17

Aug

-17

Oct

-17

Dec

-17

Jan-

18

Mar

-18

Ma y

-18

Jul-1

8

Sep-

18

Jan-

19

Apr

-19

Jul-1

9

Sep-

19

Nov

-19

Feb-

20

May

-20

Jul-2

0

Nov

-20

R 35

Dec

-20

R 36

Feb-

21

R 37

Apr

-21

R 38

Aug

-21

R 39

Oct

-21

Milli

ons

0.50

0.75

1.0

1.50

1.25

1.75

2.0

0.25

0

(0.25)

Returnee population change from previous DTM assessment Total returnees

(9,893)

1,763,377 1,753,848

1,918,063

164,579

1,943,445

25,382

Figure 43: Age and demographic breakdown of returnees

Female 54%Male 46%2%

6%

21%

16%

2%

3%

7%

23%

19%

2%

<1y

1-5y

6-17y

18-59y

60+y


The percentage of returned refugees did not change since the last round of assessments. Among the returned refugees, 88,631 individuals returned from Cameroon (57% of refugee returnees), 42,701 individuals from the Niger Republic (27% of refugee returnees) and 25,446 individuals from Chad (16% of refugee returnees).

3A: YEAR OF DISPLACEMENT FOR RETURNEES

The majority or 34 per cent of returnees stated that they were forced to flee their locations of origin in 2016. Twenty-six per cent of returnees said they were displaced in 2015 and 12 per cent were displaced in 2017. These figures did not change since Round 38. It is to be noted that 10 per cent of the returnee population left their locations of origin in the year 2021. These movements are predominantly related to the attack in Geidam LGA, Yobe State in April 2021. As many of the households who were displaced as a result of the attack in Geidam have returned to their locations of origin ahead of Round 38, it can be concluded that this was a significant population movement but relatively short in time.

3B: YEAR OF RETURN FOR RETURNEES

The majority or 32 per cent of returnees (or 626,541 individuals) stated that they returned to their locations of origin in 2016. Twenty-six per cent of returnees (or 511,492 individuals) returned in 2015 while 16 per cent (or 302,565 individuals) returned in the year 2017. As a result of the significant return movement towards Geidam LGA ahead of Round 38, the number of returnees that returned in 2021 increased considerably to reach a total of 199,002 individuals or 10 per cent of the total number of returnees. While a spike in return movements was recorded during 2015 and 2016, it is noteworthy that areas of return shifted from one year to the next. In 2015, the majority or 85 per cent of returns recorded were towards or within Adamawa State. However, 2016 and 2017 witnessed most of returns towards or within Borno State (57% and 77% respectively).

This can be explained by the fact that in 2015, Borno State was still embroiled in the conflict with Non-State Armed Groups, which controlled large swaths of the territory. Adamawa State was relatively stable and secure, reflected by many IDPs returning to the state. Likewise, the increased number of returns between 2016 and 2017 to Borno State can be attributed to the improved security in the state at that time. The improved security situation resulted from significant military operations, which led to a subsequent loss of territory by the Non-State Armed Groups.

Figure 45: Year of displacement for returnees

165,276 (8%)

507,188 (26%)

653,205 (34%)

226,782 (12%)

165,369 (8%)

21,678 (1%)

15,767 (1%)

188,180 (10%)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Retu

rned

indi

vidua

ls

Year of Displacement

±

Taraba

Bauchi

Gombe

Plateau

Jigawa

Benue

92%

4%

92%

8%

90%

10%

Abadam

Chad

Niger

Cameroon

Lake Chad

0 70 14035 Km

Hard to reach LGA

Returnees total by state

Returnees from abroad

Returnee IDPs

Guzamala

Kukawa

Nganzai

Marte

YOBE

BORNO

ADAMAWA

xxxDisclaimer: This map is for illustration purposes only. Names and boundaries in this map do not imply o�cial endorsement or acceptance by IOMData source: IOM DTM (NE RXXXIX), HDX, ESRI

341,579

743,851

832,633

Map 6: Returnee population per state

Retu

rned

indi

vidua

ls

Year of Displacement

12,453(1%)

511,492(26%)

626,541(32%)

302,565(16%)

234,979(12%)

24,307(1%)

32,106(2%)

199,002(10%)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Figure 46: Year of return for returnees

3C: REASONS FOR INITIAL DISPLACEMENT OF RETURNEES

Ninety-three per cent of returnees attributed their displacement to the ongoing conflict in north-east Nigeria, 6 per cent of returnees said they were displaced due to communal clashes and one per cent reported to be displaced due to natural disasters. These numbers were consistent with those of Round 38. In the state of Yobe, 100 per cent or all displacements occurred as a result of the insurgency. In Adamawa, 86 per cent of returnees cited the conflict as their reason for displacement, followed by communal clashes (14%) and natural disasters (2%). In Borno State, 98 per cent of returnees were displaced due to the conflict and 2 per cent due to communal violence.


3D: SHELTER CONDITIONS FOR RETURNEES

Seventy-nine per cent of returnee households (up from 78% in Round 38) were residing in shelters with walls. Sixteen per cent of returnee households were residing in traditional shelters (no change since Round 38) and 5 per cent were living in emergency/makeshift shelters (down from 6% in Round 38). In Borno State, 82 per cent of returnees lived in shelters with walls (up from 81% in Round 38), while 9 per cent were living in emergency/makeshift shelters (no change since Round 38) and 10 per cent were living in traditional shelters (no change since Round 38). In addition, 24 per cent of returnee households found their houses in their locations of origin either fully or partially damaged, while 76 per cent of the houses of returnees were not damaged upon their return.

3E: HEALTH FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

Unlike the situation in locations hosting IDPs, 64 per cent of locations hosting returnees did not have access to health services (down from 67%). The lack of access to medical services was reported as highest in Adamawa at 66 per cent, followed by Borno at 64 per cent and Yobe at 54 per cent of the locations assessed. In areas that did have access to health services, the most common types were primary health centres or PHCC (80%) followed by general hospitals at 10 per cent, mobile clinics at 9 per cent and dispensaries at one per cent.

3F: EDUCATION FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

In contrast to facilities in locations hosting IDPs, educational facilities were present in only 51 per cent of locations where returnees were residing (up from 47% in Round 38). In comparison, no education facilities were available in 49 per cent of the locations hosting returnees (down from 53% in Round 38). More specifically, education facilities were available in 50 per cent of the locations in Borno, 50 per cent of the locations in Adamawa and 59 per cent of the return locations in Yobe.

Figure 51: Type of medical services in areas of return

1%

9%

10%

80%

Dispensary

Mobile clinic

General hospital

PHCC

Figure 48: Shelter type of the returned households in areas of return

74%

82%

83%

79%

2%

8%

3%

5%

24%

10%

14%

16%

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

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

Grand Total

Wall building Emergency/makeshift shelters Traditional shelters

Figure 49: Shelter conditions of the returnee households

88%

66%

73%

76%

9%

28%

19%

19%

3%

6%

8%

5%

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

ADAMAWA

BORNO

YOBE

Grand Total

No damage Partially damaged Fully damaged

Figure 50: Availability of medical services in areas of return

66%

64%

54%

64%

34%

36%

46%

36%

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

Adamawa

Borno

Yobe

Grand Total

Not available Available

86%

98%

100%

93%

12%

2%

6%

2%

1%

75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

Adamawa

Borno

Yobe

Grand Total

Insurgency Communal clashes Natural disasters

Figure 47: Reasons for initial displacement of returnees

Figure 52: Availability of education services in areas of return

50%

50%

41%

49%

50%

50%

59%

51%

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

Adamawa

Borno

Yobe

Grand Total


Figure 53: Percentage of education types in areas of return

1%

3%

21%

75%

Kindergarten

Religious school

Secondary school

Primary school


3I: MARKET FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

Twenty-one per cent (no change since Round 38) of locations where returnees have settled had markets nearby while 79 per cent had no market facilities. Twenty-one per cent of markets were functional.

3J: PROFILE OF ASSISTANCE FOR RETURNEES

In 32 per cent (down by 1%) of locations hosting returnees, no assistance was provided. In 33 per cent of the return locations that received assistance, food was reported as the most common type of assistance received by the returnee community. Food followed by NFIs, reported in 30 per cent of the return locations and WASH, reported in 15 per cent of the return locations.

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

WASH facilities were provided in 73 per cent of sites where returnees were residing (up from 72% in Round 38). No WASH facilities were present in 27 per cent of the return locations. Hand pumps were the most common type of WASH facility, present in 41 per cent of locations where returnees were residing and had access to WASH facilities. Hand pumps were followed by communal boreholes, present in 40 per cent of locations, and communal wells, present in 15 per cent of locations where returnees had access to WASH facilities.

3H: LIVELIHOOD FACILITIES FOR RETURNEES

The most common livelihood activity in return locations was farming, recorded at 98 per cent of the locations assessed (up by 2% since Round 38). Other livelihood activities reported were petty trade and fishing activities, each cited in one per cent of the return locations as the most common livelihood activity for returnees. Access to farmland was available in 96 per cent of the locations assessed (up by 1% compared to Round 37).

Figure 55: Percentage of WASH facilities provided

2%

2%

15%

40%

41%

River

Public toilet

Communal wells

Communal boreholes

Hand pump

Figure 54: Availability of WASH facilities in areas of return

39%

11%

19%

27%

61%

89%

81%

73%

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

Adamawa

Borno

Yobe

Grand Total


Figure 57: Breakdown of farmers with access to farmland by State

1%

10%

4%

99%

90%

100%

96%

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

Adamawa

Borno

Yobe

Grand Total

No access Access

Figure 56: Means of Livelihood

1%

1%

98%

Others

Fishing

Farming

Figure 58: Availability of market services in areas of return

79%

81%

73%

79%

21%

19%

27%

21%

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

Adamawa

Borno

Yobe

Grand Total


Health

WASH

NFI

Food

33%

30%

15%

11%Protection1%

Shelter4%

Education

2%Livelihood

4%

Figure 60: Most typical type of assistance in return locations

Figure 59: Availability of assistance in areas of return

37%

25%

32%

32%

63%

75%

68%

68%

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

Adamawa

Borno

Yobe

Grand Total

No assistance Assistance provided


Contacts:

IOM: International Organization for Migration (UN Migration Agency)

No 55 Hassan Musa Katsina Road, Asokoro

Abuja – Nigeria (GMT +1)

Tel.: +234 8085221427

[email protected]

NEMA: Alhassan Nuhu, Director, Disaster Risk Reduction,

[email protected]

Tel.: +234 8035925885

Cover photo: Rann IDP camp, Rann ward, Kala/balge LGA of Borno State © IOM-DTM/Midiga Lagu/2020

The depiction and use of boundaries, geographic names, and related data shown on maps and included in this report are not warranted to be error-free, nor do they imply a 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), October 2021.”


DTM Nigeria | Sectoral Analysis - Round 39 (December 2021)

Figure 16b: Percentage of camps and camp-like settings with the most needed shelter material

Figure 17b: Number of host community sites with the most needed shelter material

Figure 16a: Percentage of individuals in camps/camp-like settings Figure 17a: Percentage of individuals in host community.

Figure 16c: Need for shelter materials Figure 17c: Most needed shelter materials

Figure 16e: Most supporting organization in camps/camp-like settings Figure 17e: Most supporting organization in host communities

Figure 17d: Sites accessible by trucks for NFI distribution

Figure 16d: Sites accessible by trucks for NFI distribution

Host CommunitiesCamp/Camp-like Settings

93%

7%

98%

2%

92%

8%

79%

21%

yes no yes no yes no yes no

DTMNigeriaSHELTER AND NON FOOD ITEMS

BAUCHI

TARABA

YOBE

ADAMAWA

BORNO

GOMBE

BAUCHI

TARABA

YOBE

ADAMAWA

BORNO 61%

15%

95.1%

2.1%

2%

0.6%

0.2%

10%

5%

6%

3%

1%

1%

3%

3%

6%

7%

12%

67%

Tools

Rope

Nails

Block/bricks

Roo�ng sheets

None

Timber/wood

Tarpaulin

1%

1%

3%

13%

15%

21%

23%

23%

Others

Tools

Nails

Block/blocks

Tarpaulin

None

Timber/Wood

Roo�ng sheets

1%

1%

1%

1%

3%

5%

18%

29%

41%

Others

Religious entity

Local NGO

Government

INGO

Government

None

UN

INGO

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

4%

8%

18%

29%

36%

Religious entity

Local NGO

Religious entity

Government

Individual/Private

UN

INGO

None

Government

Go back.


DTMNigeria

Figure 20a: Distance to primary water sources Figure 22a: Distance to primary water sources

Figure 20b: Main non-drinking water sources in camps/camp-like settings Figure 22b: Main non-drinking water sources

Water Facilities

Figure 22c: Di�erentiate between drinking and non-drinking water in host communities

Figure 20c: Di�erentiate between drinking and non-drinking water in camps/camp-like settings

Figure 22d: Have water points been improved in host communities?Figure 20d: Have water points been improved in camp and camp-like settings?

Host CommunitiesCamp/Camp-like Settings

WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH)

14%

20%

27%

33%

11%

25%

7%

0%

2%

25%

5%

4%

71%

80%

68%

42%

84%

68%

7%

3%

3%

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

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

o�-site (<10 minutes) o�-site (>10 minutes) on-site (<10 minutes) on-site (>10 minutes)

4%

1%

2%

50%

2%

7%

9%

1%

23%

1%

4%

77%

88%

91%

70%

13%

93%

78%

10%

11%

7%

29%

14%

5%

11%

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

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

o�-site (<10 minutes) o�-site (>10 minutes) on-site (<10 minutes) on-site (>10 minutes)

1%

1%

2%

2%

4%

6%

12%

21%

24%

26%

Others

None

Spring

Ponds/canals

Water truck

Surface water

Protected well

Piped water supply

Hand pumps

Unprotected well

1%

1%

2%

4%

6%

20%

64%

Others

Surface water

None

Unprotected well

Water truck

Hand pumps

Piped water supply

50%

100%

91%

75%

89%

87%

50%

0%

9%

25%

11%

13%

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

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

Non-Di�erentiated Di�erentiated Non-Di�erentiated Di�erentiated

25%

32%

77%

40%

51%

66%

49%

75%

68%

23%

60%

49%

34%

51%

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

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

50%

40%

31%

42%

42%

34%

50%

60%

69%

58%

58%

66%

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

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

Not improved Improved Not improved Improved

39%

42%

46%

83%

57%

14%

42%

61%

58%

54%

17%

43%

86%

58%

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

ADAMAWA

BAUCHI

BORNO

GOMBE

TARABA

YOBE

Grand Total

Go back.


,

Figure 16f: The main problem with waterFigure 15f: The main problem with water

Figure 15e: Average amount of water available per person per day Figure 16e: Average amount of water available per person per day

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

Personal Hygiene Facilities

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

Figure 16g: Main garbage disposal mechanism in host communities

Figure 16h: Targeted hygiene promotion/main garbage disposal mechanism in host communities

No, 26%

Yes , 74%

No, 64%

Yes , 36%

Burning, 64%

No waste disposal system,20%

Garbage pit, 16%

Garbage pit,

No waste disposal

system, 16%

14%

Burning, 70%


<5ltr 4% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2%

5-10ltr 7% 20% 11% 0% 5% 10%

10-15ltr 64% 60% 58% 33% 37% 56%

>15ltr 25% 20% 29% 67% 11% 29%

unknown 0% 0% 1% 0% 47% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


<5ltr 0% 1% 4% 0% 2% 1% 1%

5-10ltr 7% 15% 23% 12% 10% 3% 12%

10-15ltr 70% 32% 49% 64% 46% 21% 46%

>15ltr 22% 52% 21% 23% 42% 33% 31%

unknown 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 42% 9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


color 0% 0% 0% 25% 5% 1%

none 82% 60% 100% 50% 95% 95%

taste 18% 20% 0% 8% 0% 2%

suspended solids 0% 20% 0% 17% 0% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


color 0% 1% 0% 2% 4% 0% 1%

none 84% 96% 86% 82% 75% 100% 89%

odor/smell 0.44% 0.00% 0.22% 0.49% 1.02% 0.00% 0.29%

taste 11% 2% 13% 15% 20% 0% 9%

suspended solids 4% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Go back.


Go back.

dtm - https:/displacement.iom.int - international organization

Documents