LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT · 2020-04-05 · more recently, other conflict-affected areas in Western Libya such as Abu Gurayn and Sirt. IDP families displaced to locations close

Project funded by the European Union

dtm.iom.int/libya [email protected]

DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX

JANFEB2020

LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT

ROUND 29JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2020

MOBILITY TRACKING

© 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).

Cover Photo: IOM provides Non-Food Item (NFI) Direct Assistance to IDPs in Janzour, Libya; ©IOM / Moayad Zaghdani 2020

LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT 2019

3DTM ROUND 29 | JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2019

JANFEB2020

Contents

Key Findings (Round 29) ................................................................................................4

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

Update on Conflict in Western Libya .................................................................6

Areas of Displacement and Return ....................................................................... 7

Locations of Displacement and Return Map .................................................9

Demographics ..........................................................................................................................9

Drivers of Displacement ................................................................................................. 10

Multi-Sectoral Location Assessment .................................................................... 11

Humanitarian Priority Needs ...................................................................................... 11

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

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

Health ........................................................................................................................................... 15

NFI and Access to MArkets ......................................................................................... 16

Security and Mine Action ............................................................................................ 17

Accommodation .................................................................................................................... 18

WASH and Other Public Services ..........................................................................20

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

Methodology..........................................................................................................................22


IOM LIBYA

4 DTM ROUND 29 | JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2019

KEY FINDINGS (ROUND 29)

659 of 667 COMMUNITIES

100% of MUNICIPALITIES

100% COVERAGE

INTERVIEWS WITH KEY INFORMANTS(ROUND 29, MOBILITY TRACKING)2,188

idps in libya returnees in libya 373,709

IDPs Returnees

448,573

of idps live in self-paid rented accommodation

of returnees live in their previous homes

59% 83%

were displaced due to the deterioration of the security situation

96%decline in returns observed due to lack of security

TOP 3 REGIONS WITH IDPs TOP 3 REGIONS WITH RETURNEES

TRIPOLI

MISRATA

ALMARGEB TRIPOLI

BENGHAZI

SIRT


97,118

35,717

35,565

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

Tripoli

Misrata

Almargeb

189,025

77,510

62,320

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

Benghazi

Sirt

Tripoli

97,118

35,717

35,565

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

Tripoli

Misrata

Almargeb

189,025

77,510

62,320

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

Benghazi

Sirt

Tripoli

5


IOM LIBYA

DTM ROUND 29 | JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2019

OVERVIEW

Fig 1 Libya displacement and return timeline by rounds

ReturneesIDPs

373,709

94 467

73,499Individuals

Municipalities Communities

Families

41 174

448,573 89,597

Municipalities Communities

Individuals Families

Overall, the Tripoli region (mantika) currently hosts the largest number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Libya. In the context of ongoing armed conflict in and around south Tripoli since April 2019, and the protracted cases of previously displaced households, the municipalities of Tripoli region collectively host almost 97,000 IDPs. In Round 29 no significant return movements were reported, as IDPs return to their places of origin continued to be constrained by the ongoing armed conflict and its associated insecurity in their places of origin.

The sustained use of air strikes and artillery shelling in the vicinity of areas inhabited by civilians continues to negatively impact the safety and lives of the civilian population in southern Tripoli region (mantika) and other conflict-areas in Western Libya. The protracted conflict that started on 04 April 2019 has resulted in the new displacement of at least 201,168 individuals over the past year as the number of IDPs in Libya increased from 172,541 prior to the onset of hostilities in Round 24 to 373,709 IDPs in Round 29) Displacement was not only observed from Tripoli and surrounding areas, but also from Murzuq in Southern Libya and, more recently, other conflict-affected areas in Western Libya such as Abu Gurayn and Sirt. IDP families displaced to locations close to areas of conflict remain at risk, along with host community members providing them with shelter.

This report presents the findings of Round 29 of the mobility tracking component of the Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) programme in Libya, covering the reporting period from January to February 2020.

In Round 29, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) identified in Libya increased from 355,762 IDPs to 373,709 IDPs. New displacements during the reporting period were primarily due to continued armed conflict in western Libya and floods in Eastern Libya in Tobruk and surrounding areas in February*. Towards the end of the data collection cycle intensification in the conflict was reported in the areas of Sirt and Abu Gurayn, resulting in the displacement of over 4,650 individuals to surrounding areas. For further details on displacement from Abu Gurayn and from parts of Sirt please refer to page 7.

301,407

343,180355,672

373,709

447,025 447,388 447,707 448,573

R26Jun 2019

R27Oct 2019

R28Dec 2019

R29Feb 2020

IDPs (IND) Returnees (IND)

* Reportedly, families displaced due to February floods in Eastern Libya returned to their homes shortly after the end of Round 29 data collection as rainfall stopped and water levels normalized


IOM LIBYA


In Round 29, the security situation in conflict-affected areas in south Tripoli remained volatile. During the reporting period sustained use of air strikes and artillery shelling in the vicinity of areas inhabited by civilians continued to negatively impact the safety and lives of the civilian population. The number of incidents related to armed conflict reported during the Round 29 data collection period in January and February 2020 remained high (see Figure 2 below), posing a substantial risk for the civilian population of direct and indirect harm due to the armed conflict, particularly in the densely populated areas of Tripoli and surrounding suburbs.

UPDATE ON CONFLICT IN WESTERN LIBYA

Fig 2 Comparison of reported events related to armed conflict in Libya via utilization of ACLED project dataset.

1 Data as of 31 March 2020 from Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), Data Export Tool, https://www.acleddata.com/data/

75

1637 37 52 62 60 46 56

36 22

104

4034

5559

9370

4849

48 61

2

92

65

411

25

6 4

Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20

Battles Explosions/Remote violence Violence against civilians

Furthermore, the security situation around Abu Qurayn, especially near al-Washkah area, deteriorated substantially during and after the reporting period as periodic shelling and artillery fire were reported by field observers. DTM identified at least 930 newly displaced families (approximately 4,650 individuals) who were forced to leave their homes due to armed conflict since the last week of January. Fore more information, please refer to DTM’s latest Event Tracking Flash Update issued shortly after the end of Round 29 data collection on 16 March 2020.

[email protected] http://dtm.iom.int/libya Project funded by

the European Union

AREA ABU QURAYN, SIRT

TYPE OF INCIDENT DISPLACEMENT

Since the last update of IOM Libya’s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) in February, the security situation around Abu Qurayn, especially near al-Washkah area, reportedly remained tense as shelling and artillery fire continued to be reported in the first week of March. DTM identified an additional 372 internally displaced families (approximately 1,860 individuals), bringing the total number of internally displaced persons from Abu Qurayn and Sirt to at least 930 families (approximately 4,650 individuals) who have been forced to leave their homes due to armed conflict since the last week of January.

Displacement dynamics were observed both towards Western Libya (Misrata) and towards Eastern Libya (Ejdabia, Benghazi, Al Brega, Al Arqoub, Marada, Al Zwaitina). Please refer to the map below for more details on displacement locations.

Shelter arrangements reported by IDP families were primarily rented accommodation (72%) and host families (28%).

Humanitarian priority needs included food, non-food items, WASH and health assistance. In most locations humanitarian service delivery had reportedly commenced by both local and international organizations, but a few gaps were identified in displacement locations in Eastern Libya (primarily in Benghazi).

16 MARCH 2020 FLASH UPDATE

EVENT TRACKING

AT LEAST

4,650 IDPs

(930 FAMILIES)

+1,860 IDPs

150 IDPs

2,725 IDPs

225 IDPs

550 IDPs

525 IDPs

250 IDPs

50 IDPs 50

IDPs 125 IDPs

150 IDPs

Fig 3 Abu Qurayn Displacement Map

7


IOM LIBYA


AREAS OF DISPLACEMENT AND RETURNDuring round 29 data collection, the Tripoli region (mantika) continued to host the largest population of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Libya. In the context of ongoing armed conflict in and around south Tripoli since April 2019, and the protracted cases of previously displaced households, the municipalities of Tripoli collectively host 97,118 IDPs.

The municipalities of Abusliem, Suq Aljuma, Tajoura and Ain Zara host 77 percent of the total IDP population in the Tripoli region (74,848 IDP individuals). The majority of IDPs seeking shelter and protection in these municipalities were displaced from the conflict affected areas of Ain Zara and southern Tajoura from within the Tripoli region, and from the municipalities of Al Aziziya, Qasr Bin Ghasheer and Swani Bin Adam in Aljfara region. These trends indicate that the conflict driven displacement in Tripoli largely follows a localized pattern as a majority of displaced households seek protection at safer locations in the vicinity of their areas of origin.

The regions (manatik) of Misrata and Almargeb in Western Libya host the second and the third largest populations of IDPs in Libya respectively. The majority of IDPs in these locations were also displaced from conflict affected areas in and around southern Tripoli since April 2019.

During the reporting period, Murzuq region was identified to host the fourth largest population of IDPs in Libya (28,660 individuals). A majority of the IDPs displaced in Murzuq region (56%, 16,230 individuals) were identified to be displaced within the region, especially in Wadi Etba, since August 2019 due to deterioration of the security situation in Murzuq city. A significant number of IDPs displaced from Murzuq region (11,615 individuals) were also identified to have displaced to various municipalities in the neighboring regions of Aljufra, Sebha, Ubari, and Wadi Al Shati.

Fig 4 Number of IDPs by Region (Mantika)

Number of IDPs

Regio

n (M

antik

a)

Number of IDPs

Mun

icipa

lity

(Bala

diya

)

Fig 5 Top 5 Municipalities of Displacement

IDPs by Minta

Row Labels

Tripoli

Misrata

Almargeb

Murzuq

Benghazi

Sebha

Aljfara

Azzawya

Ejdabia

Sirt

Zwara

Al Jabal Al Gh

Ghat

Ubari

Alkufra

Nalut

Wadi Ashshat

Aljufra

Tobruk

Al Jabal Al Ak

Derna

Almarj

Grand Total

Top 5 Areas o

Row Labels

Suq Aljumaa

Benghazi

Sebha

Tajoura

Misrata

Grand Total

97,118

35,717

35,565

28,660

27,365

26,425

24,245

17,885

14,160

12,850

10,840

9,834

8,135

7,020

6,855

5,030

2,035

1,945

915

510

430

170

Tripoli

Misrata

Almargeb

Murzuq

Benghazi

Sebha

Aljfara

Azzawya

Ejdabia

Sirt

Zwara

Al Jabal Al Gharbi

Ghat

Ubari

Alkufra

Nalut

Wadi Ashshati

Aljufra

Tobruk

Al Jabal Al…

Derna

Almarj

29,825

27,265

25,655

23,778

16,392

Suq Aljumaa

Benghazi

Sebha

Tajoura

Misrata

IDPs by Minta

Row Labels

Tripoli

Misrata

Almargeb

Murzuq

Benghazi

Sebha

Aljfara

Azzawya

Ejdabia

Sirt

Zwara

Al Jabal Al Gh

Ghat

Ubari

Alkufra

Nalut

Wadi Ashshat

Aljufra

Tobruk

Al Jabal Al Ak

Derna

Almarj

Grand Total

Top 5 Areas o

Row Labels

Suq Aljumaa

Benghazi

Sebha

Tajoura

Misrata

Grand Total

97,118

35,717

35,565

28,660

27,365

26,425

24,245

17,885

14,160

12,850

10,840

9,834

8,135

7,020

6,855

5,030

2,035

1,945

915

510

430

170

Tripoli

Misrata

Almargeb

Murzuq

Benghazi

Sebha

Aljfara

Azzawya

Ejdabia

Sirt

Zwara

Al Jabal Al Gharbi

Ghat

Ubari

Alkufra

Nalut

Wadi Ashshati

Aljufra

Tobruk

Al Jabal Al…

Derna

Almarj

29,825

27,265

25,655

23,778

16,392

Suq Aljumaa

Benghazi

Sebha

Tajoura

Misrata


IOM LIBYA


During round 29 data collection no significant return movements were reported, further confirming the negative impact of the overall deterioration of the security situation in Libya. As in previous rounds of data collection, the highest number of returnees (IDPs who had returned to their habitual place of residence since 2016) were identified in the regions of Benghazi (189,025 individuals), followed by Sirt (77,510 individuals) and Tripoli (62,320 individuals).

The charts below show the distribution of IDPs and returnees by region (mantika) of displacement and return respectively, followed by top 5 municipalities of displacement and return.

Number of Returnees

Fig 6 Number of Returnees by Region (Mantika)

Regio

n (M

antik

a)

Number of Returnees

Mun

icipa

lity

(Bala

diya

)

Fig 7 Top 5 Municipalities of Return

188,625

77,210

42,334

37,270

28,130

Benghazi

Sirt

Abusliem

Derna

Ubari

189,025

77,510

62,320

37,270

28,130

13,470

12,067

9,510

8,420

2,460

2,310

1,735

1,565

1,006

980

500

210

85

Benghazi

Sirt

Tripoli

Derna

Ubari

Zwara

Al Jabal Al Gharbi

Misrata

Aljfara

Sebha

Nalut

Alkufra

Murzuq

Almargeb

Ghat

Ejdabia

Wadi Ashshati

Azzawya

188,625

77,210

42,334

37,270

28,130

Benghazi

Sirt

Abusliem

Derna

Ubari

189,025

77,510

62,320

37,270

28,130

13,470

12,067

9,510

8,420

2,460

2,310

1,735

1,565

1,006

980

500

210

85

Benghazi

Sirt

Tripoli

Derna

Ubari

Zwara

Al Jabal Al Gharbi

Misrata

Aljfara

Sebha

Nalut

Alkufra

Murzuq

Almargeb

Ghat

Ejdabia

Wadi Ashshati

Azzawya

9


IOM LIBYA


Benghazi

189,02527,365

170

Almarj

510

Al Jabal Al Akhdar

43037,270Derna

915

Tobruk

14,160

Ejdabia

77,51012,850

Sirt

6,8551,735

Alkufra

28,6601,565

Murzuq

1,945

Aljufra

26,4252,460

Sebha

7,02028,130

Ubari

8,135

Ghat

2,035210

Wadi Ashshati

9,83412,067

Al Jabal Al Gharbi

5,0302,310

Nalut

10,84013,470

Zwara

17,885

85

Azzawya

35,7179,510

Misrata

35,5651,006

Almargeb

97,11862,320

TripoliAljfara8,420 24,245

980

500

LOCATIONS OF DISPLACEMENT AND RETURN MAP

DEMOGRAPHICSIn the context of ongoing armed conflict in western Libya, DTM conducted a rapid profiling exercise of displaced households to better understand the demographic composition of IDP families. To this end, DTM enumerators gathered demographic data from a sample of over 38,562 IDPs (7,042 families) displaced in western Libya till December 2019. Notably, a slight majority of sampled IDPs were female (51%), while almost half of the surveyed population were children (48%).

49%

51%

Fig 8 Map of IDPs and returneed by region (mantika)

Fig 9 IDP Profiling: Age - Gender Disaggregation

0-5M 6 -17M2339 6886

6%

6%

18%

18%

23%

24%

3%

3%

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


IOM LIBYA


DRIVERS OF DISPLACEMENTDuring the assessment, internal displacement in Libya was determined to be driven by the negative impact of armed conflict related to the deteriorating security and economic situation. Most IDPs left their communities of origin in search of safety.

Deterioration of the security situation was identified as the most significant driver of displacement in Libya. An overwhelming majority of key informants (96%) reported that IDPs had left their places of origin because of insecurity.

Similarly, a majority (70%) of interviewed key informants indicated that IDPs moved to their respective locations of displacement due to better security prospects in these areas. Most key informants (56%) also reported that the presence of relatives, or existing social and cultural bonds at the locations of displacement played a role in IDP families’ decision-making where to seek safety. These findings further reinforce that the deterioration of the security situation due to armed conflict is the most significant driver of displacement in Libya.

To a lesser extent, deterioration of the economic situation was cited by 30 percent of key informants as additional driver of displacement; in some instances, rising insecurity and economic deterioration may be related.

Furthermore, access to humanitarian services (32%), availability of basic services (32%), and access to livelihood opportunities (31%) were cited by less than a third of the key informants to have influenced IDP families’ decisions of choosing their specific locations of displacement.

Fig 10 Reasons for Displacement from Place of Origin (multiple choice)

Fig 11 Reasons for Choosing the Place of Displacement (multiple choice)

96%

30%

16%

13%

Deterioration of security situation

Deterioration of economic situation

Lack of basic services

Other reason for leaving

70%

56%

32%

32%

31%

11%

3%

Better security situation

Presence of relatives or social and culturalbonds

Access to humanitarian assistance

Availability of basic services

Better access to livelihood opportunities

Other reason for coming

In transit (on the way to elsewhere)

11


IOM LIBYA


MULTISECTORAL LOCATION ASSESSMENTDTM 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 in specific about availability of services and priority needs, and are primarily aimed at supporting humanitarian programming. The regular and continuous implementation of the MSLA is aimed at supporting both strategic and operational planning via identification of specific sectoral issues at community-levels.

This report presents the findings of the Round 29 MSLA covering multisectoral priority needs of IDPs and returnees, details of IDP shelter settings, and 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.

HUMANITARIAN PRIORITY NEEDS

The priority needs identified for IDPs were accommodation, food assistance, health services and non-food items (NFIs) as shown in Figure 12. For returnees, key priority needs were found to be food assistance, followed by non-food items, support in provision of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services, and health services as shown in Figure 13.

The top challenges in fulfilling these needs were related to the erosion of coping mechanisms of the affected populations due to the protracted nature of the ongoing armed conflict. The majority of key informants reported that IDPs and returnees in need were unable to meet their basic needs such as food and non-food items due to reported price hikes (inflation) and limited or irregular supply of the needed items on the market. The health services were reported to face challenges related to irregular supply of medicines and more than one third of private and public health facilities not being fully operational.

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

Fig 13 Priority Needs of Returnees (Ranked)Fig 12 Priority Needs of IDPs (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. See next page.

IDPs Needs

Need ReportedAccommodationFoodHealth ServicesNFIsAccess to incomeWASHEducationLegal HelpSecurity

28%

27%

16%

14%

6%

1%

1%

Accommodation

Food

Health Services

NFIs

WASH

Education

Security

21%

18%

16%

13%

12%

10%

9%

Food

NFIs

WASH

Health Services

Education

Accommodation

Security

IDPs Needs

Need ReportedAccommodationFoodHealth ServicesNFIsAccess to incomeWASHEducationLegal HelpSecurity

28%

27%

16%

14%

6%

1%

1%

Accommodation

Food

Health Services

NFIs

WASH

Education

Security

21%

18%

16%

13%

12%

10%

9%

Food

NFIs

WASH

Health Services

Education

Accommodation

Security


IOM LIBYA


The top three ranked humanitarian needs for the top regions (mantika) by IDP and returnee populations are shown below. The ranking is based on weighted average score calculation for the highest number of people with humanitarian needs. This indicates regional variation in the key informant identified humanitarian needs for IDPs and returnees, where for IDPs in Tripoli region (mantika) the top three humanitarian needs were related to the provision of humanitarian assistance related to accommodation, health, and food. The rest of the ranking per region (mantika) for IDPs and returnees respectively can be seen figures 14 and 15 below.

Fig 14 Priority humanitarian needs of IDPs (ranked) for top three regions (mantika) with highest IDP populations.

Fig 15 Priority humanitarian needs of returnees (ranked) for top three regions (mantika) with highest returnee populations.

The following section presents key sectoral findings of the DTM Multi-Sectoral Location Assessment conducted during round 29 data collection (January - February 2020).

Top 3 Needs of Top 3 Mantika Top 3 Need

Top 1 Tripoli Used for Chart Top 1* **

Need RepoTotal % Tripoli 100% Need RepoHealth serv 27421.1 33% Health serv 100% Water, San Food 20897 25% Food 100% EducationShelter 20934.5 25% Shelter 100% NFIsNFIs 7540 9% Misrata 100% SecurityWater, San 5970.4 7% Shelter 100% ShelterLegal Help 403 0% Food 100% FoodProtection 0 0% NFIs 100% Health servAccess to in 435 1% Almargeb 100% ProtectionEducation 0 0% Shelter 100% Access to iSecurity 0 0% Food 100% Legal Help

NFIs 100%Top 2 Misrata Top 2

Need RepoTotal % Need Repo

Tripoli

Accommodation

Health services

Food

Misrata

Accommodation

Food

NFIs

Almargeb

Accommodation

Food

NFIs

Benghazi

Wash

Education

NFIs

Sirt

Food

Accommodation

NFIs

Tripoli

Health services

Food

NFIs

13


IOM LIBYA


During round 29 MSLA data collection, key informants in the 100 municipalities (baladiya) of Libya reported that 4% public and 6% private schools were not operational for various reasons such as destroyed due to armed conflict or being utilized for sheltering IDPs in need of emergency shelters. More specifically, a total of 45 schools were reported to be fully destroyed due to armed conflict. See figures 16 and 17 for further details.

EDUCATION

Fig 16 Operational and non-operational schools.

Fig 17 Number of schools rerpoted as partially and fully destroyed

96%

94%

4%

6%

Public Schools (n = 3,625)

Private Schools (n = 1,326)

Operational Non-operational

206

45

Partially damaged schools Fully destroyed schools


IOM LIBYA


In 97 municipalities local markets were reported to be the primary source of food for residents, including IDPs, returnees and the host community. In 21 municipalities food distributions by charity and aid organizations were identified as additional major source of food supply for vulnerable populations as shown in the figure below.

FOOD

The primary modes of payment utilized for purchasing food were reported to be payments in cash, along with ATM cards or on credit as shown in the figure below.

The biggest obstacle in accessing adequate food to meet household needs was most frequently reported as food being too expensive compared to the purchasing power of affected populations, furthermore in two municipalities of Yefren and Sidi Assayeh insufficeint avilability of food items was also reported.

Fig 18 Primary source of food for residents by number of municipalities

Fig 19 Main modes of payment used for purchasing food by number of municipalities

Fig 20 Main problems related to food supply

Local markets

Donated by charity or aid

Donated by relatives or friends

Other food sources

97

21

7

2

Food purch Obtain on cPay with AT Pay in cash

Obtain on credit

Pay with ATM card

Pay in cash

55

56

79

No Problem

2%

Insufficient availability2%

Too expensive96%

15


IOM LIBYA


HEALTH

Across Libya, during round 29 data collection, key informants identified only 63% of all health facilities as operational, while 32% were reported partially operational and 5% were reported to be not operational at all. Across all municipalities, only 55% of the hospitals were reported to be operational, while 38% were partially operational and 7% were reported non-operational. Figure 21 presents the statistics on reported operational, partially operational, and non-operational private and public health facilities.

Furthermore, range of services available in operational health facilities was often reported to be limited due to various factors, including shortages of medical supplies, such as shortages of medicines for chronic diseases as reported in 99 municipalities out of a total of 100 municipalities in Libya.

Fig 21 Availability of health services in the assessed municipalities

Fig 22 Irregular supply of medication reported in 98 municipalities (baladiya)

Analysis of health facilities’ distribution by region (mantika) highlights structural issues, such as lack of a fully functional hospital in Aljufra, where three hospitals were reported to be only partially functional. Similarly, the worst three regions (mantika) in terms of overall availability of health services reported by key informants were identified as Aljufra, Alkufra, and Ghat.

Regular Acces # Baladiyas

No regular ac 99

Regular acces 1

Don`t Know 0

In

Municipalities

99

55%

52%

72%

38%

40%

25%

7%

9%

2%

191

886

1203

Hospitals Public health centersand clinics

Private health centersand clinics

Not operational

Partially operational

Fully operational


IOM LIBYA


NFI AND ACCESS TO MARKETS

Data was also collected on humanitarian priority needs related to non-food items (NFIs). The most commonly cited obstacle to accessing NFIs was that items were too expensive for those in need of assistance. In 16 municipalities the main challenge in accessing non-food items was reported to be the distance from local markets. In 14 municipalities, the quality of NFI items available was reported to be the main challenge.

Notably, mattresses emerged as the most commonly cited NFI need, reported by key informants in 80 municipalities. The second NFI priority need were hygiene items (60 municipalities), while gas/fuel (48 municipalities) and clothes (31 municipalities) were reported as third and fourth NFI priority need respectively.

Fig 23 Main challenges reported in obtaining the required Non-Food Items (% of municipalities)

Fig 24 Most reported Non-Food Items in need (% of municipalities)

Heaters

Portable lights

Clothes

Gas/fuel

Hygienic items

Mattress

16

20

31

48

60

80

Main prob Too expensDistance fr QualityOther probNo problem

98

16

14

12

Too expensive

Distance from local market

Quality

Other problems

17


IOM LIBYA


SECURITY AND MINE ACTION

As part of the Multisectoral Location Assessment, security-related indicators were collected in all municipalities, including questions specifically related to mine action. The aim was to understand the challenges faced by residents for moving safely within their municipalities, the reasons hindering safe movement, and awareness of the presence of unexploded ordinances (UXOs).

Visible presence of UXOs was reported in 8 municipalities. Residents were reported as not being able to move safely within their area of residence in 19 municipalities. In municipalities where movement was restricted, the main reason was insecurity (18 municipalities), road closures (8 municipalities), and presence of unexploded ordinance (2 municipalities).

Fig 25 Presence of UXOs reported in 8 municipal it ies

Fig 26 Restrictions on freedom of movement reported in 19 municipalities

Fig 27 Reasons for restrictions on freedom of movement as reported in 19 municipalities

In

Municipalities8

In

Municipalities19

In

Municipalities8

In

Municipalities19

Municipality Reason for Restricted Freedom of Movement

Derna Road closures, threat/presence of explosive hazards

Ghat Insecurity

Algatroun Insecurity

Alsharguiya Insecurity

Murzuq Insecurity

Taraghin Insecurity

Sebha Insecurity

Ubari Insecurity

Al Aziziya Road closures, Insecurity, Other

Espeaa Road closures, Insecurity, Other

Qasr Bin Ghasheer Road closures, Insecurity, Other

Sidi Assayeh Road closed, Insecurity, Other

Suq Alkhamees Road closures, Insecurity, Other

Garabolli Insecurity, threat/presence of explosive hazards

Tarhuna Road closures, Insecurity, Other

Abu Qurayn Insecurity

Zliten Insecurity

Abusliem Road closures, Insecurity, Other

Ain Zara Road closures, Insecurity, Other


IOM LIBYA


ACCOMMODATION

In round 29, 59% of all IDPs identified in Libya were reported to be residing in privately rented accommodation, while 24% were staying with host families without paying rent, and 6% are taking shelter in schools and other public buildings. Other places for shelter include informal camp settings (3%), other shelter arrangements (7%) such as abandoned buildings (2%). Data on accommodation from last three rounds indicates that IDPs are increasingly staying with host families (without paying rent) rather than in accommodation rented by themselves. This trend also points towards an erosion of coping strategies as several IDPs have been unable to return to their places of origin due to the increasingly protracted nature of ongoing armed conflict and are unable to continue paying for rented accommodation. Furthermore, reports on increases in rental prices of accommodation in areas considered safe from conflict were also received.

83% of returnees were reported to be back in their own homes at their area origin. The remaining returnees are in rented accommodation (8%), with host families (7%) and other accommodation arrangements (1%).

Please refer to the map on next page for the geographical distribution of IDPs in public shelter or communal accommodation settings by region.

Fig 28 Accommodation types utilized by IDPs

Fig 29 Accommodation types utilized by returnees

59%

24%

6%3%

7%

RentedAccommodation

Host Family Public Buildings Informal CampSetting

Other

83%

8% 7%1%

Own house Rentedaccommodation

With host family(not renting)

Other

19


IOM LIBYA


4,090275

Almargeb

2,225

93%

Benghazi

4,090

7%

Ejdabia

100%

83%

17%

Misrata

Ghat

29%

Ubari

53%

Murzuq

Aljfara

92 %

7%

10,769

6,560

1,460

1,340

45

Alkufra

100%

2,870

5%

89%

71%

2,010

36%

11%

8,530

No Accomodation

Abondened Buildings

Squating on other people’sproperties(farms, flats, houses)

Informal settings (e.g tents, caravans, makeshift shelters)

Shelter Type

Schools or Other public buildings

Nalut

98%

2%

1,330

73%

5,010

63%

Sebha

37%

10%

Tripoli

83%

35

Al Jabal Al Gharbi

100%

2,7172,435

4%

27%

6%

2%2%

2%

Fig 30 Map of public shelter or communal accommodation types used by IDPs by location

4,090

Sirt

275

Almargeb

60

2,235

93%

Benghazi

4,090

7%

Ejdabia

100%

83%

17%

Misrata

Ghat

29%

Ubari

53%

Murzuq

Aljfara

93 %

7%

9,012

6,560

1,460

1,340

45

Alkufra

100%

2,870

32%

66%

71%

2,010

36%

11%

8,530

No Accomodation

Abondened Buildings

Squating on other people’sproperties(farms, flats, houses)

Informal settings (e.g tents, caravans, makeshift shelters)

Shelter Type

Schools or Other public buildings

Nalut

98%

2%

1169

73%

5,005

63%

Sebha

37%

23%

Tripoli

77%

355

Al Jabal Al Gharbi

86%

14%

100%

3,1642,435

2%

27%

Figure 30 represents the distribution of IDPs in public shelters or communal accommodation per region (mantika), where the percentages are showing the proportion of the IDPs per region (mantika) in public shelters / communal accommodation only. The bubble (with number) along with each region’s name shows the number of IDPs (individuals) in such public/communal accommodations.


IOM LIBYA


WASH AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES

Garbage disposal services, electricity, and operational water networks were the most commonly available municipal services reported in Round 29, although electricity was often only available intermittently. Out of the 100 assessed municipalities, 64 municipalities reported garbage disposal services as being operational, whereas electricity was regularly available in only 52 municipalities, and water networks were reported as fully operational in only 47 municipalities. Infrastructure repairs were the least frequently reported available public service.

In terms of the main water sources utilized, in 61 municipalities (out of the 100 assessed municipalities) water trucking was reported as the main source of water, while in 44 municipalities open wells (boreholes) and in 43 municipalities -water network were reported to be the main source of water available. Bottled water was also identified as a main water source in 36 municipalities. The entire distribution of the main water sources reported can be seen in the chart below.

Fig 33 Main challenges related to water availability

Fig 31 Public services by number of municipalities reporting their regular availability

Fig 32 Main sources of water in use

When asked about the main challenges faced by the residents, IDPs and returnees in accessing adequate drinking water, the most cited obstacle was related to access to water being “too expensive”. In 24 municipalities the water available was reported as not safe for drinking or cooking as shown in the chart below.

Services re # Baladiya FullInfrastruct 3 100Sewage tre 12 100Water Netw 47 100Electritcity 52 100Garbage D 64 100

Infrastructure Repair

Sewage treatment

Water Network

Electritcity

Garbage Disposal

3

12

47

52

64

Water Trucking

Open well

Water Network

Water Bottles

Springs or river

Other water source

62

45

43

36

8

5

Too expensive

Not safe for drinking or cooking

Other problem

Security reasons

61

24

13

1

21


IOM LIBYA


REFERENCE MAP - LIBYA

Egyp

t

Nig

er

Alge

ria

Cha

dSu

dan

Tuni

sia Gh

at

Edri

Brak

Jadu

Sirt

Jalu

Ubar

i

Sebh

a

Dara

j

Waz

in Nalu

t

Hraw

a

Dern

a

Murz

uq

Kikk

la

Zlite

n

Mara

daAu

jala

Tobr

uk

Emsa

edSu

lougTo

ukra

Alm

arj

Labr

iq

Alju

fra

Ghiry

an Nesm

a

Misr

ata

Tazir

bu

Alku

fra

Alba

yda

Ejda

biaAlab

yar

Assa

hel

Tara

ghin

Alas

abaa

Azzin

tan

Ghad

amis

Albr

ayga

Ejkh

erra

Gem

ienis

Beng

hazi

Alqa

yqab

Wad

i Etb

a

Alga

troun

Algh

rayf

a

Ashs

hgeg

aAr

rhaib

at

Bint

Bay

ya

Alba

wane

es

Abu

Qura

yn

Alsh

argu

iya

Ashs

hway

rif

Bani

Wale

ed

Umm

arra

zam

Bir A

lashh

abJa

rdas

Alab

eed

Khale

ej As

sidra

Zwar

aZi

ltun

Zlite

n

Surm

an

Espe

aa

Ghiry

an

Aljm

ailAz

zawy

a Azza

hra

Al M

ayaJa

nzou

rTrip

oli

Tajo

ura

Tarh

una

Alkh

ums

Sabr

atha

Ain

Zara

Msall

ata

Gara

bolli

Al A

ziziya

Sidi

Ass

ayeh

Qasr

Akh

yar

Jano

ub A

zzaw

ya

Swan

i Bin

Ada

m

020

040

010

0Km


IOM LIBYA

22 DTM ROUND 29 | JANUARY - FEBRUARY 201922 DTM ROUND 27 | AUGUST-OCTOBER 2019

For more details on the methodology, the current situation in Libya, databases and more, consult the DTM Libya website: www.dtm.iom.int/libya. You can also find our latest IDP & Returnee report in the same website.

METHODOLOGY

55 enumerators

3 team leaders

5 implementing partners

IOM DTM DATA COLLECTION

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 29, DTM assessed all 100 municipalities in Libya. 2,188 key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted during this round. 377 KIIs were carried out at the municipality level and 1,920 at the community level. 30% KIIs were with the representatives from various divisions within the municipality offices (Social Affairs, Muhalla Affairs etc.), 12% from key civil society organizations, and 11% with local crisis committee representatives. 7% KIIs were with female key informants, whereas 93% were male key informants.

51% of data collected was rated as “very credible” during the Round 29, while 33% was rated “mostly credible”, and 15% 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.

51%

Very Credible

33%

Most ly Credible

15%

Somewhat Credible

23


IOM LIBYA


DISCLAIMERThe content of this report is based on the evidence collected during the assessment and surveys. Thus the reported findings and conclusions represent the views and opinions of the key informants interviewed and surveyed, for which DTM cannot be held responsible.

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 packages on Libya’s populations on the move. DTM is designed to support the humanitarian community with demographic baselines needed to coordinate evidence-based interventions. DTM’s Flow Monitoring and Mobility Tracking package includes analytical reports, datasets, maps, interactive dashboards and websites on the numbers, demographics, locations of origin, displacement and movement patterns, and primary needs of mobile populations. For all DTM reports, datasets, static and interactive maps and interactive dashboard please visit DTM Libya website:

dtm.iom.int.libya/


Documents

LIBYA IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT · 2020-04-05 · more recently, other conflict-affected areas in Western Libya such as Abu Gurayn and Sirt. IDP families displaced to locations close