1. JUNE - JULY 2019
IDP AND RETURNEE REPORT
ROUND 26 - LIBYA
MOBILITY TRACKING
Funded by
European Union
2. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
JUNE - JULY 2019
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
2
CONTENTS
Round 26 - Key Findings 3
Overview - Context 4
IDP and Returnee Profiles
Displacement from Tripoli 5
Update on Ghat 6
Top 10 Municipalities of Displacement and Return 7
Locations of Displacement and Return (map) 8
Comparison: Municipality of Origin vs Displacement 9
Drivers of Displacement 10
Demographics 11
Multisectoral Data
Needs of IDPs and Returnees 12
Shelter Settings 13
Shelter settings Map: IDPs 14
Shelter settings Map: Returnees 15
Education 16
Food 17
Health 18
NFIs and Access to Markets 19
Security 20
WASH and Other Public Services 21
Methodology 22
3. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
3
JUNE - JULY 2019
KEY INFORMANT
INTERVIEWS
total number of
idps in libya
were displaced due to
the deterioration of
the security situation
total number of
returnees in libya
of idps live in
self-paid rented
accommodation
of returnees live
in their previous
homes
2,382
301,407 94% 62%
82%
100 of 100
MUNICIPALITIES
IDPs
RETURNEES
LOCATIONS COVERAGE
KEY FINDINGS
TOP 3 BALADIYAS OF
DISPLACEMENT
42%
17%
9%
Sirt
Benghazi
Abusliem
TOP 3 BALADIYAS OF
RETURN
9%
7%
6%
Tajoura
Sebha
Benghazi
IN
447,025
ROUND 26
have returned due to
improvement of security
situation
79%
4. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
JUNE - JULY 2019
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
4
CONTEXT
This report presents the findings of Round 26 of the
mobility tracking component of the Displacement Tracking
Matrix (DTM) programme in Libya, covering the reporting
period 23 June until 04 August 2019.
In June and July 2019, the number of IDPs identified in
Libya increased from 268,629 to 301,407 IDPs by the end
of Round 26. New displacements during the reporting
period were primarily due to continued conflict in South
Tripoli and related population movements, and to a lesser
extent due to localized displacement triggered by floods in
Ghat in June, affecting over 5,000 individuals.
Since the onset of armed conflict on 04 April 2019, clashes
have continuously been reported in densely populated
areas in South Tripoli and throughout the reporting period,
triggering displacement of civilians to safer neighborhoods
in Tripoli, the Nafusa mountains and along the coastal
line in Western Libya. IDP families displaced to locations
close to areas of conflict remain at risk, along with host
community members providing them with shelter. For
more information on displacements from Tripoli, please
refer to page 5.
OVERVIEW
R24
Feb 2019
R23
Dec 2018
R26
July 2019
IDPs
Returnees
Fig. 1 IDPs and Returnees Identified in the four most recent rounds
Shortly after Round 26 data collection was concluded, escalation
of violence in Murzuq triggered the displacement of over 16,700
individuals to surrounding areas, more details can be found in
DTM’s Murzuq Flash Update available at http://www.globaldtm.
info/libya-murzuq-flash-update-27-august-2019/.
Priority humanitarian needs of IDPs were reported to include
shelter, food, non-food items (NFIs) and health services, whereas
key priority needs for returnees were reported to be food, WASH,
NFIs, and health services. For more details, please refer to the
sector specific sections of this report from page 12 onwards.
R25
Apr 2019
5. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
5
JUNE - JULY 2019
DISPLACEMENTS
FROM TRIPOLI
The onset of armed conflict in the southern areas of Tripoli on 04 April 2019, led to the displacement of over 128,150 IDPs who
were forced to leave their homes during the reporting period. Throughout the reporting period, this upsurge in armed conflict
included heavy airstrikes which substantially impacted localities in conflict areas, leading to further displacement of civilians due
to the volatile security situation. DTM initiated Emergency Tracking of displaced and affected populations at the start of the crisis
and by the end of the Round 26 published 25 flash updates and assessments available at www.globaldtm.info/libya.
Fig. 2 Tripoli Emergency Tracking Displacement Timeline
TRIPOLI DISPLACEMENT
4.475
18.250
37.575
55.500
69.625
83.650
91.700
104.875
119.925
128.150
4-Apr 14-Apr 24-Apr 4-May 14-May 24-May 3-Jun 13-Jun 23-Jun 3-Jul 13-Jul 23-Jul 2-Aug 12-Aug
Displacement Timeline
Number of IDPs (IND)
6. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
JUNE - JULY 2019
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
6
UPDATE ON GHAT
FLOODS IN GHAT
Following heavy rainfall in early June, Ghat and surrounding areas were heavily
affected by floods, with water levels reaching up to two meters in affected areas.
Subsequently, over 5,075 people were displaced from flood-impacted areas. Over
1,850 IDPs, accounting for one third of the population displaced from Ghat, were
sheltered in collective shelters in Ghat and Ubari, with the remaining IDPs staying
with host families and in open areas in the desert outside Ghat.
Reported priority needs included food, health, water and NFIs (mattresses,
blankets and hygiene kits). Additionally, those staying in open areas outside Ghat
were reported to be also in urgent need of shelter and WASH services.
Availability of health services was reportedly
severely constrained due to health facilities
being affected by floods, including Ghat hospital.
Reportedly, IDPs displaced to areas outside Ghat
were also constrained in their ability to reach
health facilities due to distances exceeding 5
kilometers to the closest facility. Availability of
medical supplies in local markets was reported
to be very limited, including unavailability of
medicine for chronic diseases such as diabetes
and high blood pressures.
Although water levels gradually receded,
damage to homes and infrastructure in Ghat
remains substantial, for more details please
refer to DTM Libya's Flash Update on Ghat
available at http://www.globaldtm.info/ghat-
flash-update-1-17-june-2019/.
Photo: IOM, June 2019. IOM Emergency tracking team visiting
IDP families in Ghat and surrounding areas.
7. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
7
JUNE - JULY 2019
IDP AND RETURNEE
PROFILES
In Round 26, the majority of IDPs (68%) were identified in the
West of Libya, followed by 17% in the East and 16% in the
South of Libya.
Compared to the previous round, the municipalities of
Abusliem, Tajoura and Suq Aljumaa experienced a substantial
influx of IDPs as 15,727 new internally displaced persons
were identified in the three municipalities.
TOP 10 MUNICIPALITIES OF DISPLACEMENT AND RETURN
Fig. 5 Municipalities of Displacement (Top 10) Fig. 6 Municipalities of Return (Top 10)
Number
of
Returnees
(IND)
Number
of
IDPs
(IND)
Regarding IDPs returning to their places of origin, the
majority (51%) of returning IDPs (returnees) were identified
in the East of Libya, followed by 41% in the West, while
the remaining 7% were identified to have returned to their
places of origin in the South.
As in previous rounds of data collection, Benghazi continues
to have the highest number of returnees (188,625
individuals), followed by Sirt (77,210 individuals). The ten
municipalities with the highest number of returnees are
shown in figure 6.
Benghazi
Sebha
Tajoura
Abusliem
Suq Aljumaa
Misrata
Zliten
Ejdabia
Azzawya
Sirt
26,865
21,055
18,678
18,477
17,440
16,267
11,790
11,730
11,709
9,975
Benghazi
Sirt
Abusliem
Derna
Ubari
Ain Zara
Sabratha
Kikkla
Abu Qurayn
Hai Alandalus
188,625
77,210
42,250
37,270
28,010
11,635
11,610
8,942
8,275
4,945
8. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
JUNE - JULY 2019
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
8
IDP AND RETURNEE
PROFILES
LOCATIONS OF DISPLACEMENT AND RETURN (MAP I)
Fig. 7 Map of IDP and Returnee Locations
Benghazi
189,025
26,995
215
Almarj
890
Al Jabal Al Akhdar
650
37,270
Derna
716
Tobruk
14,015
Ejdabia
77,510
11,195
Sirt
6,855
1,735
Alkufra
12,430
965
Murzuq
935
Aljufra
21,100
2,085
Sebha
3,320
28,010
Ubari
8,135
Ghat
1,385
210
Wadi Ashshati
11,021
12,067
Al Jabal Al Gharbi
3,545
2,310
Nalut
7,875
13,470
Zwara
14,098
502
Azzawya
37,092
9,345
Misrata
27,600
881
Almargeb
70,000
61,790
Tripoli
Aljfara
8,370
21,340
980
500
9. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
9
JUNE - JULY 2019
IDP AND RETURNEE
PROFILES
MUNICIPALITY OF ORIGIN VS DISPLACEMENT
Figure 8: Table showing the breakdown of municipality (Baladiya) of origin
against the municipality of displacement
The comparison of municipality of origin to municipality of displacement indicates that a substantial share of IDPs did not move
far away from their areas of origin. For example, at least 22,635 IDPs in Benghazi were reported to originate from Benghazi and
surrounding areas of the municipality.
IDPs from
Misrata 19,573
Ejdabia 8,275
Abusliem 2,750
Benghazi 2,090
Janzour 1,850
Tarhuna 540
Other baladiyas 4,068
Ubari 9,996
Alkufra 3,415
Bani Waleed 2,520
Murzuq 845
Alghrayfa 700
Algatroun 525
Other baladiyas 1,991
IDPs from
Benghazi 40,972
Benghazi 22,635
Misrata 11,255
Janzour 1,800
Ejdabia 1,200
Jalu 605
Other baladiyas 3,477
Tripoli 23,872
Tarhuna 6,796
Garabolli 4,130
Bani Waleed 3,700
Sirt 1,950
Sidi Assayeh 1,470
Other baladiyas 5,826
Ain Zara 22,934
Zliten 3,605
Tajoura 3,220
Ain Zara 2,725
Sabratha 2,485
Azzahra 2,000
Other baladiyas 8,899
10. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
JUNE - JULY 2019
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
10
DRIVERS OF DISPLACEMENT
IDP AND RETURNEE
PROFILES
An overwhelming majority of key informants (94%) reported
that IDPs left their places of origin due to the deterioration
of the security situation, as shown in Figure 9.
To a significantly lesser extent, various other reasons were
cited for displacement, such as worsening of the economic
situation and lack of basic services at the place of origin.
Fig. 9 Reasons for displacement (leaving place of origin) Fig. 10 Reasons for choosing the current place of displacement
Similarly, movement of IDPs to their current locations of
displacement was mainly attributed to better security situation
(57%) in the respective municipalities and due to presence of
relatives, and social and cultural bonds (55%), indicating the
presence of possible social safety nets for IDPs on the move.
Another frequently reported reason was better access to
livelihood opportunities (34%), followed by availability of basic
services (26%).
Overall, the data indicates that the major driver of displacement was the deteriorating security situation, reflected in both the
decision to leave and the decision to choose a safer location as displacement location.
Deterioration of security situation
Deterioration of economic situation
Lack of basic services
Other Reason for Leaving
94%
29%
13%
12%
In transit (on the way to elsewhere)
Other Reason for Coming
Availability of basic services
Access to humanitarian assistance
Better access to livelihood opportunities
Presence of relatives_social and cultural bonds
Better security situation
2%
8%
26%
27%
34%
55%
57%
11. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
11
JUNE - JULY 2019
DEMOGRAPHICS
During the crisis in Tripoli, 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
6,000 IDPs displaced from South Tripoli in July 2019. Notably, a slight majority of sampled IDPs were female (51%), while
almost half of the surveyed population were children (48%).
For more detailed breakdowns, please refer to the charts below.
Fig. 12 Age disaggregation of sampled IDPs
IDP AND RETURNEE
PROFILES
Fig. 11 Gender disaggregation of sampled IDPs
49% 51%
12. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
JUNE - JULY 2019
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
12
IDP AND RETURNEE
MULTISECTORAL DATA
NEEDS OF IDPS AND RETURNEES
IDPs’ Priority Needs Identified Returnees’ Priority Needs Identified
Priority needs were identified by calculating weighted averages based on the rank scores assigned to each priority needs by KIs. The graphs in Figure 13
and 14 show relative percentages of the calculated weighted averages for comparison.
Fig. 13 IDPS’ priority needs Fig. 14 Returnees’ priority needs
The top four priority needs of returnees were:
Food
NFIs
Health Services
WASH
The top four priority needs of IDPs were:
Food
Shelter
Health
NFIs
Food
NFIs
Health services
Wash
Education
Security
Shelter
21%
19%
18%
16%
11%
9%
5%
Food
Shelter
Health services
NFIs
Wash
Access to income
Education
26%
25%
21%
14%
5%
5%
1%
13. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
13
JUNE - JULY 2019
SHELTER SETTINGS
IDP AND RETURNEE
MULTISECTORAL DATA
62% of all IDPs identified in Libya were reported to be residing in private rented accommodation, while 21% were staying
with host families without paying rent, and 6% were seeking shelter in schools and other public buildings. Other reported IDP
accommodations include informal camp settings (6%), other shelter arrangements (6%) such as abandoned buildings (2%).
83% of returnees were reported to have returned to their own homes in their area origin. The remaining returnees are reportedly
staying in rented accommodation (8%), with host families (7%) and other shelter arrangements (2%).
Please refer to page 16 for the geographical distribution of IDPs in public and private shelter settings by region and to page 17
for the returnees’ shelter settings in different parts of Libya.
Fig. 16 Shelter settings used by IDPs Fig. 17 Shelter settings used by returnees
62%
21%
6% 4% 6%
Rented
Accommodation
Host Family Public Buildings Informal Settlements Other
83%
8% 7%
2%
Own House Rented
Accommodation
Host Family Other
14. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
JUNE - JULY 2019
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
14
IDP AND RETURNEE
MULTISECTORAL DATA
SHELTER SETTINGS MAP: IDP
Fig. 18 Map showing public shelter settings used by IDPs
4,090
Sirt
275
Almargeb
60
2,131
93%
Benghazi
4,090
7%
Ejdabia
100%
82%
18%
Misrata
Ghat
29%
Ubari
48%
Murzuq
Aljfara
93 %
7%
8,625
6,560
1,460
275
45
Alkufra
100%
2,870
5%
95%
71%
2,010
41%
11%
7,035
No Accomodation
Abondened Buildings
Squating on other people’s
properties(farms, flats, houses)
Informal settings (e.g tents,
caravans, makeshift shelters)
Shelter Type
Schools or Other public buildings
Nalut
98%
2%
1169
100%
4,405
63%
Sebha
37%
30%
Tripoli
70%
355
Al Jabal Al Gharbi
86%
14%
100%
2,870
2,270
15. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
15
JUNE - JULY 2019
IDP AND RETURNEE
MULTISECTORAL DATA
SHELTER SETTINGS MAP:
Fig. 19 Map showing shelter settings used by Returnees
Derna
Benghazi
189,025
Sirt
Tripoli
Misrata
9,345
Almargeb
Azzawya
Zwara
Aljfara
Al Jabal Al Gharbi
Nalut
Wadi Ashshati
Ubari
Ghat
Murzuq
77,510
28,010
12,067
61,790
2,310
1,735
980
881
965
210
502
2,085
Sebha
13,470
8,375
Alkufra
Their own house 100%
500
Ejdabia
Their own house 100%
With host family, no rent 90%
Rented Accomoda�on 10%
37,270
Their own house 63%
Rented Accomoda�on 24%
With host family, no rent 13%
Their own house 99%
Rented Accomonda�on 1%
Their own house 88%
Rented Accomoda�on 10%
No accomoda�on 1%
Other Shelter 60%
Rented Accomoda�on 40%
Their own house 80%
Rented Accomoda�on 20%
Rented Accomoda�on 89%
Their own house 11%
Their own house 92%
Rented Accomoda�on 8%
Rented Accomoda�on 69%
With host family, no rent 31%
Their own house 97%
Rented Accomoda�on 3%
With host family, no rent 45%
Their own house 31%
Rented Accomoda�on 24%
Other Shelter 87%
Their own house 13%
With host family, no rent 42%
Rented Accomoda�on 36%
Their own house 22%
Their own house 90%
Rented Accomoda�on 7%
Other Shelter 3%
Rented Accomoda�on 100%
Their own house 88%
Rented Accomoda�on 8%
With host family, no rent 3%
16. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
JUNE - JULY 2019
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
16
IDP AND RETURNEE
MULTISECTORAL DATA
EDUCATION
Out of the 100 municipalities covered in Round 26, key informants in 95 municipalities reported that between 51-100% of public
schools were operational. Similarly, more than half of private schools were reported to be operational in 77 municipalities.
In two municipalities less than 50% of public schools were reported to be operational, while key informants in 13 municipalities
indicated that less than half of private schools were functional. More detailed breakdowns are illustrated below in Figure 20.
Additionally, 28 schools were used as shelters for the IDPs during the reporting period while 44 schools were reported as totally
destroyed.
Figure 20: Number of municipalities with operational schools (public and private) Figure 21: Number of schools used as shelters for IDPs, partially and fully
destroyed schools
28
193
44
Schools used as
shelter for IDP
Partially
damaged schools
Fully destroyed
schools
2
2
95
10
13
77
Unknown
0%-50%
operational
51%-100%
operational
Private schools
Public schools
17. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
17
JUNE - JULY 2019
IDP AND RETURNEE
MULTISECTORAL DATA
FOOD
In 99 municipalities it was reported that local markets were the primary source of food for residents, including IDPs,
returnees and the host community. In 15 municipalities food distributions by charity or aid organizations were a major
source of food supply for vulnerable populations.
Fig. 22 Primary source of food for residents by number of municipalities Fig. 23 Main problems related to food supply
Fig. 24 Main modes of payment used for purchasing food by
number of municipalities
The biggest obstacle for access to food was that it was frequently
reported to be too expensive compared to the purchasing power of
affected populations.
The primary modes of payment for purchasing food were cash and debit
cards, while in more than half of the municipalities (55%) people relied
on credit to obtain food.
Other food source
Donated by relatives or friends
Donated by charity or aid
Local market
1
3
15
99
Obtain on credit
Pay with ATM card
Pay in cash
55
56
75
No Problem
2%
Quantity available
in shops / market
insufficient
4%
Too
expensive
94%
18. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
JUNE - JULY 2019
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
18
IDP AND RETURNEE
MULTISECTORAL DATA
HEALTH
Across Libya, 64% of all health facilities were reported to be operational, while
31% were partially operational and 5% were not operational at all.
Within all municipalities, a total of 190 hospitals were assessed during the
reporting period. 55% of hospitals were reported to be fully operational and 38%
were partially operational while 7% of hospitals were non-operational.
Several municipalities did not have operational public and private health centers
or clinics, as shown in Figure 26.
Notably, in 13 municipalities there were no operational hospitals available, while
public health centers & clinics were not operational in 76 municipalities.
Fig. 25 Regular Access to Medicines (% Municipalities)
Fig. 26 Availability and status of health facilities accross 100 municipalities of Libya
In Round 26, in 94% of assessed municipalities
constraints related to regular access of needed
medical supplies were reported, particularly
for chronic diseases.
55%
53%
73%
38%
38%
24%
7%
9%
3%
190
866
1183
Hospitals Public health centers &
Clinics
Private health centers &
Clinics
Not operational
Partially operational
Fully operational
No regular access to
medicines
In
Baladiya
94
19. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
19
JUNE - JULY 2019
IDP AND RETURNEE
MULTISECTORAL DATA
NFIS AND ACCESS TO MARKETS
Data was also collected on humanitarian priority needs
related to non-food items (NFIs). The most commonly
cited obstacle to access NFIs was that items were too
expensive for those in need of assistance. In addition,
in 15 municipalities insufficient quality of NFIs available
on markets was also identified as constraint. In 12
municipalities, distance from the local markets was
reported to be an obstacle for affected populations.
Fig. 27 Items prioritized as part of NFI needs per locality
Notably, mattresses emerged as the most commonly cited NFI
need, reported in 79 municipalities. The second NFI priority
need were hygiene kits (62 municipalities), while gas/fuel (45
municipalities) and clothes (31 municipalities) were reported
as third and fourth NFI priority need respectively.
Fig. 28 Main challenges faced in obtaining NFI items PER
Heaters
Portable lights
Clothes
Gas/fuel
Hygienic items
Mattress
9
18
31
45
62
79
1
8
12
15
97
Too expensive
Quality
Distance from local market
Other problems
No problem
20. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
JUNE - JULY 2019
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
20
IDP AND RETURNEE
MULTISECTORAL DATA
SECURITY
As part of the baseline assessment, security related indicators
were collected in all municipalities. 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).
Fig. 29 Is there visible presence of unex-
ploded ordinances? (% of municipalities)
Fig. 30 Are people able to safely move
around? (% of municipalities)
Fig. 31 Table of the municipalities and the reported reasons that
restrict the movement of residents there.
Visible presence of UXOs was reported in 7 municipalities. Residents were reported as not being able to move safely within their
area of residence in 17 municipalities.
In municipalities where movement was restricted, the main reasons were insecurity (11 municipalities) and road closures (7
municipalities).
A visible presence of
unexploded ordnance
In
Baladiya
7
People are able to
safely move
In
Baladiya
83
Baladiyas residents
cannot move safely
Reason why can't move within Baladiya
Derna Road closed, threat/presence of explosive hazards
Murzuq Insecurity
Taraghin Insecurity
Sebha Insecurity
Al Aziziya Road closed, Insecurity, Other
Espeaa Road closed, Insecurity, Other
Qasr Bin Ghasheer Road closed, Insecurity, Other
Sidi Assayeh Insecurity
Suq Alkhamees Road closed, Insecurity, Other
Zliten Insecurity
Abusliem Road closed, Insecurity, Other
Ain Zara Road closed, Insecurity, Other
In
Baladiya
83
21. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
21
JUNE - JULY 2019
Infrastructure Repair
Sewage treatment
Water Network
Electritcity
Garbage Disposal
2
12
45
51
63
WASH AND PUBLIC SERVICES
Garbage disposal services, electricity, and operational water networks
were the most commonly available municipal services reported in
Round 26, although electricity was often available only intermittently.
Out of the 100 assessed municipalities, 60 municipalities reported
garbage disposal services as being operational, electricity was regularly
available in 51% of assessed locations, and water networks were fully
operational in 47% of the municipalities.
Fig. 32 Public services available at the municipalities
Fig. 33 Main sources of water supplying to the municipalities Fig. 34 Main problems associated with access to potable water as to the
number of reporting municipalities
IDP AND RETURNEE
MULTISECTORAL DATA
Other water source
Springs or river
Water Bottles
Water Network
Open well
Water Trucking
3
7
34
42
42
65
13
27
27
57
Too expensive
No problem
Not safe for drinking
Other problem
22. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
JUNE - JULY 2019
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
22
METHODOLOGY 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. A comprehensive methodological note on DTM’s
Mobility Tracking component is available on the DTM Libya website.
In Round 26, DTM assessed all 100 municipalities in Libya.
2,382 Key Informant interviews were conducted during this round.
404 Key Informants were interviewed at the municipality level
and 1,978 at the community level. 31% were representatives from
divisions within the municipality offices (Social Affairs, Muhalla
Affairs etc.), 12% from civil society organizations, and 10% from
healthfacilityrepresentatives.Outofallkeyinformantsinterviewed,
3% were female and 97% were male.
ENUMERATORS
in 659 communities out of
667...
....in 100 municipalities
55
enumerators
2,382
KI
interviews (KIIs)
97%
Male KIs
3 team
leaders
3%
Female KIs
METHODOLOGY
5 Implementing partners
Coverage
2382
KI Interviews
Male 97% Female 3%
2382
Other representation from baladiya office 741 31%
Civil Society Organization 282 12%
Representatives of Health facilities 239 10%
Local Crisis Committee Representative 207 9%
Representatives of education facilities 191 8%
Community / tribal representative 162 7%
Security forces 161 7%
Religious leaders 128 5%
Representation of displaced groups 103 4%
Humanitarian NFI distribution team 94 4%
Migrant community leaders 52 2%
Other 9 0%
Migrant networks 7 0%
Humanitarian Health team 6 0%
KIIs
23. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
23
JUNE - JULY 2019
DATA CREDIBILITY
METHODOLOGY
52% of data collected was rated as “very credible” in Round 26, while 33% was rated “mostly credible”, and 14% was “somewhat credible”. This rating
is based on the consistency of data provided by key informants, their sources of data, and on whether data provided is in line with general perceptions.
Disclaimer: The content of this report is based on the evidence collected during the survey. Thus, the reported findings and conclusions represent the
views and opinions of the surveyed key informants, for which DTM cannot be held responsible.
52%
Very Credible
33%
Mostly Credible
14%
SomewhatCredible
24. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
JUNE - JULY 2019
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
24
REFERENCE MAP - LIBYA
Egypt
Niger
Algeria
Chad
Sudan
Tunisia
Ghat
Edri
Brak
Jadu
Sirt
Jalu
Ubari
Sebha
Daraj
Wazin
Nalut
Hrawa
Derna
Murzuq
Kikkla
Zliten
Marada Aujala
Tobruk
Emsaed
Suloug
Toukra
Almarj
Labriq
Aljufra
Ghiryan
Nesma
Misrata
Tazirbu
Alkufra
Albayda
Ejdabia
Alabyar
Assahel
Taraghin
Alasabaa
Azzintan
Ghadamis
Albrayga
Ejkherra
Gemienis
Benghazi
Alqayqab
Wadi Etba
Algatroun
Alghrayfa
Ashshgega
Arrhaibat
Bint Bayya
Albawanees
Abu Qurayn
Alsharguiya
Ashshwayrif
Bani Waleed
Umm arrazam
Bir Alashhab
Jardas Alabeed
Khaleej Assidra
Zwara
Ziltun
Zliten
Surman
Espeaa
Ghiryan
Aljmail
Azzawya
Azzahra
Al Maya
Janzour
Tripoli Tajoura
Tarhuna
Alkhums
Sabratha Ain Zara
Msallata
Garabolli
Al Aziziya
Sidi Assayeh
Qasr Akhyar
Janoub Azzawya
Swani Bin Adam
0 200 400
100
Km
25. +218 91 0024827 www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
LIBYA
IDP REPORT
25
JUNE - JULY 2019
www.globaldtm.info/libya
dtmlibya@iom.int
FundedbytheEuropeanUniontheDisplacementTrackingMatrix(DTM)inLibyatracksandmonitorspopulation
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 www.globaldtm.info.libya/
DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX
