LIBYA MultiSector Needs. Assessment. September 2017 LIBYA INTER-SECTOR COORDINATION GROUP

Transcription

1 LIBYA 2017 MultiSector Needs Assessment September 2017 LIBYA INTER-SECTOR COORDINATION GROUP

2 FUNDED BY: ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED IN THE FRAMEWORK OF: WITH THE SUPPORT OF: Cover photo: Guwarsha neighbourhood, Benghazi ACTED June 2017 Back cover photo: Malek Elmaghreb October 2017 About REACH REACH is a joint initiative of two international non-governmental organizations - ACTED and IMPACT Initiatives - and the UN Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNOSAT). REACH aims to strengthen evidence-based decision making by aid actors through efficient data collection, management and analysis before, during and after an emergency. By doing so, REACH contributes to ensuring that communities affected by emergencies receive the support they need. All REACH activities are conducted in support to and within the framework of inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, please visit our website: You can contact us directly at: geneva@reach-initiative.org or our in-country address: libya@reachinitiative.org and follow us on and on Facebook at:

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since 2014, the intensification of the conflict in Libya has affected millions of people, both displaced and nondisplaced. Libya s complex political and community landscape created further division and security concerns as conflict erupted in different regions of the country, leading to several waves of displacement. The latest figures identified 1.15 million people in need of humanitarian assistance, out of which 170,000 were internally displaced persons (IDPs), 200,000 returnees and 370,000 non-displaced persons. 1 In order to fill remaining information gaps on needs and vulnerabilities among Libyan affected households, and inform further humanitarian programming in light of the 2018 Humanitarian Programme Cycle, the Inter-Sector working group (ISWG) and the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) conducted a interagency multi-sector needs assessment (MSNA) with facilitation from REACH. It was funded through the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Data collection was conducted by REACH in Libya and local service providers between 17 June and 18 September 2017 in two rounds, surveying 2,978 households 1,414 non-displaced, 935 IDP and 629 returnee households - in the following mantikas: Al Jabal Al Gharbi, Al Margab, Benghazi, Derna, Ghat, Misrata, Sebha and Tripoli. Findings are representative per population groups and per mantika with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 10%. Key Findings As the Libyan conflict enters its sixth year, the most commonly reported needs revolved around protection issues, lack of access to adequate healthcare, and access to cash and livelihoods. Issues related to contamination from explosive hazards in urban centres, and high levels of psychological distress continued to be of concern throughout locations assessed. The most pressing health concerns were found to be a widespread lack of personnel and a lack of equipment and medicine. Finally, Libya has fallen into a severe economic crisis, exacerbated by the devaluation of the Libyan dinar. Access to basic goods and services has increasingly become a challenge as many households struggle with meeting their basic needs due to persistent income challenges and a lack of access to cash. IDP households were found to be a particularly vulnerable population group, with almost half of them affected by multiple displacement. Their main push and pull factors revolved around fleeing from and/or looking for security, in areas generally contaminated by explosive hazards. IDPs also faced higher barriers to accessing income and saw their consumption pattern distorted due to the higher costs they have to put into their housing. Provision of basic services to IDP households often fell short of their actual needs: in some areas such as Al Margab, Derna and Ghat, more than 80.0% of IDP households, in which a member had needed healthcare in the 15 days prior to the assessment, did not get access to adequate care. Eastern locations assessed under this study seemed particularly vulnerable: in Derna city, a loose encirclement at the time of assessment already placed constraints of access to services and posed protection concerns. Benghazi appears as a vulnerable location due to the high damage inflicted by recent clashes with housing and infrastructure greatly affected, and an important explosive contamination remaining while important waves of returns are already ongoing. Other localised geographical vulnerabilities noted during the assessment included a particularly harsh strain on water and electricity infrastructure in the mantika of Tripoli; in addition to the southern assessed mantika of Ghat, where the economic crisis appeared to be exacerbated. Displacement & Protection IDP households were affected by ongoing and multiple displacements, with 46.9% of IDP households having been displaced more than once. Their most reported push and pull factors revolved mainly around security leaving because of insecurity/conflict in an area (78.8%), choosing another location for its perceived security (47.7%). 1 OCHA (forthcoming), Libya 2018 Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO). 1

4 Concerning issues faced upon returns, 62.3% of returnee households reported that they had returned to damaged shelters, sometimes contaminated by explosive hazards. They also often did not have access to most basic services such as financial services or healthcare. High proportions of both IDP and returnee households reported having at least one member displaying signs of psychological distress with respectively 39.0% and 46.7% including at least one member displaying two or more signs. Shelter & Non-Food Items (NFIs) One of the most widespread issues affecting households was housing damage, with 18.2% reporting living in a shelter with some form of damage, and returnee and IDP households being more affected (respectively 73.6% and 54.0%). The most affected locations were Benghazi, Derna city and Ghat. In the two former locations, returnee households were particularly affected, coming back to areas having witnessed intense fighting. Irregular access to electricity was a challenge for many households (74.9%), with average daily electricity cuts of 4 hours, rising as high as 7 hours per day in Tripoli. Around 90.0% of non-displaced and returnee households reported owning their current housing. IDP households, on the other hand, were mainly renting their accommodation (61.2%). IDP occupancy arrangements showed a higher vulnerability compared to non-displaced and returned populations given a higher dependency on rented accommodation. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) In the eight assessed mantikas, no major WASH issue was reported. Households generally drew their water from the main water network, except in Al Jabal Al Gharbi and Tripoli mantikas, where bottled water was most widely used. Bottled water consumption was driven by high rates reported in the main urban centres Tripoli and Benghazi and in mantikas such as Al Jabal Al Gharbi, where the water network has historically been underdeveloped. The vast majority of households had access to flush or pour toilets in their housing (97.0%) with no notable difference among population groups. Overall, 13.4% of households were relying on negative waste management practices (burying or burning them; leaving them in inappropriate location). The highest proportions of households using these negative practices were found in Derna city (10.5% buried or burned them; 19.3% left them in inappropriate location). Food Security Food security was not reported as a major concern by the majority of the assessed population. However, IDP households were more likely to have a worse food consumption score (FCS) across all mantikas assessed with an overall of 79.5% acceptable FCS, 12.5% borderline and 7.9% poor, compared to 95.4% and 96.8% acceptable, respectively, for non-displaced and returnee households. This situation was worse for IDP households in Tripoli where high proportions of poor FCS (15.3% of households) as well as borderline FCS (22.5%) were found. The households food-related coping strategies assessed were based on the reduced Coping Strategy Index (rcsi). Overall, 19.6% of households reported a medium use of food-related coping strategies (rcsi score from 4 to 9) and 16.3% reported high use of coping strategies (rcsi score 10, with 27 being the maximum household score recorded). The most regularly reported food coping strategy was to rely on less preferred and less expensive foods, used on average two days in the previous seven by all households. IDP and returnee households were more likely to resort to this food coping strategy, especially in Derna city, Benghazi and Misrata where it was reported on average more than 3 days a week, and up to 4.6 days a week for returnee households in Misrata. The main sources of food were predominantly purchasing on markets with cash (95.3% of households) followed by purchasing on credit (25.4%), as Libya remains a heavily cash-based economy. 2 IDP households were also 2 See e.g. Zaptia, S. (12 October 2017) CBL and Madar launch Sadad mobile e-payment service Libya Herald. Retrieved from: 2

5 reportedly more reliant on external assistance % of households indicated food assistance as a main source of food, highlighting a higher vulnerability and dependency on external support. Cash & Livelihoods With rates of private-sector employment generally low across mantikas assessed, government jobs were reported as the main source of income (by 57.0% of households), a potential issue given the reported irregularity of government salary payments. Displaced populations were more likely to have a low salary (19.5% of IDP and 20.3% of returnee households), and 15.6% of IDP households reported facing a lack of work opportunity. The ongoing liquidity crisis a financial situation characterised by a lack of cash flow impacted most Libyan households: 18.0% of households across all assessed mantikas were reportedly unable to withdraw hard currency during the previous month. Among those that could, 38.4% could only access less than 600 Libyan dinars (LYD). Limits on withdrawals were especially acute in Ghat, Al Margab and Al Jabal Al Gharbi. While most households reported having access to banks (66.0%) and informal financial service providers (43.3%), queuing for hours in front of financial service providers was common, and many respondents reported feeling insecure while waiting. Across all locations and population groups, the most reported coping mechanisms used in the 30 days prior to data collection to cope with lack of cash or income/resources were spending savings (reported by 56.5% of households), selling gold (36.2%) and borrowing money (21.9%). The overwhelming majority (94.7%) of households reported having physical access to markets. The main barriers to accessing market items were not physical but rather that items were too expensive (52.4%), unavailable (18.8%), or households did not have liquidity to pay for basic market items (16.1%). Thus, the main issue in accessing items was financial: although most items were available, the liquidity crisis was adding additional strains on households purchasing power. Health Households access to health services fell short of their actual need for healthcare. 37.2% of households indicated having one member in need of health treatment in the previous 15 days, and out of those 44.0% did not get access to adequate healthcare. Returnee households were reportedly even less likely to have accessed the adequate healthcare (54.0%) as they generally returned to formerly conflict-affected areas, where some basic services might remain non-operational. Across all of the assessed mantikas, health facilities were frequently underequipped (reported by 58.1% of households) and understaffed (reported by 54.5% of households). Across all assessed mantikas, 38.2% of households reported having at least one member suffering from a chronic disease, with the highest rates reported in Benghazi, Derna and Sebha. Among those, diabetes was the most commonly reported chronic disease, with at least half households in Misrata, Benghazi and Tripoli reporting at least one household member affected. Education The proportion of school-aged children (from 4 to 17 years old) enrolled in formal education was 69.5%, with nearly all enrolled children attending. When asked about barriers to accessing education, those households with schoolaged children reported facing no barrier in 87.3% of cases; 5.8% reported the distance to educational facilities and 1.9% reported the inability to afford educational services. The proportion of households not reporting any educational barriers was 80.2% for IDP households, shedding light on a higher prevalence of barriers to accessing education for this group in particular due to their displacement. Around a third (32.2%) of households with school-aged children reported that children in their households were attending some form of non-formal education. IDP households with school-aged children were less likely to have them attend non-formal education (21.4% compared to 32.6% for non-displaced households). 3

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 Key Findings... 1 List of Acronyms... 5 Geographical Classifications... 5 List of Figures, Tables and Maps... 5 INTRODUCTION... 7 METHODOLOGY... 8 Methodology Overview Quantitative Data Collection... 9 Qualitative Data Collection Ethical Data Collection Data Cleaning and Analysis Challenges and Limitations FINDINGS...14 Demographics Protection Shelter and NFIs WASH Food Security Cash & Livelihoods Health Education Priority Needs & Assistance CONCLUSION...54 ANNEXES...55 Annex 1: Household Questionnaire and Indicators Matrix: (link) Annex 2: Qualitative tools: (link) Annex 3: Research Terms of Reference: (link) Annex 4: MSNA Key findings per location: Annex 5: MSNA Key findings per sector:

7 List of Acronyms DTM ECHO FCS FGD HCT HH HNO IDP IMAWG (I)NGO ISWG IOM KI LYD MSNA NFI OCHA rcsi UASC UNICEF USAID UXO WASH WHO WFP Displacement Tracking Matrix European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations Food Consumption Score Focus Group Discussion Humanitarian Country Team Household Humanitarian Needs Overview Internally Displaced Person Information Management and Assessment Working Group (International) Non-Governmental Organisation Inter-Sector Working Group International Organization for Migration Key Informant Libyan Dinar Multi-Sector Needs Assessment Non-Food Item United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reduced Coping Strategy Index Unaccompanied and Separated Child United Nations Children and Education Fund United States Agency for International Development Unexploded Ordnance Water, Sanitation and Hygiene World Health Organization World Food Programme Geographical Classifications Region Mantika Baladiya Muhalla Highest administrative division below the national level, 3 in Libya Tripolitania (West), Cyrenaica (East), Fezzan (South). Second administrative level corresponding to a district there are currently 22 mantikas in Libya. Third administrative level corresponding to the municipality there are currently 100 baladiya in Libya An area or neighbourhood smaller than, and most often included in, the municipality. List of Figures, Tables and Maps Figure 1: Average number of individuals per HH, per mantika and per population group Figure 2: % of female-headed household, per mantika Figure 3: Age distribution of HH members in %, per population group Figure 4: % of IDP HHs per # of displacement Figure 5: % of IDP and returnee HHs displaced more than once, per mantika Figure 6: % of HHs indicating damaged or destroyed housing upon return Figure 7: Score of sense of belonging in current area of residence, per population group Figure 8: Score of sense of belonging in current area of residence for IDP HHs, per mantika Figure 9: % of HHs reporting the presence of UXOs in their area, per mantika Figure 10: % of HHs reporting the presence of UXOs in their area, per population group Figure 11: % of HHs reporting receiving UXO awareness campaigns, per mantika Figure 12: % of HHs reporting a loss of documentation, per mantika and population group Figure 13: % of HHs reporting their housing occupancy arrangements, per population group Figure 14: % of IDP HHs per housing tenancy type, per mantika Figure 15: % of HHs reporting level of damage to their housing, per population group Figure 16: % of HHs reporting access to cooking fuel, per mantika

8 Figure 17: % of HHs reporting access to heating fuel, per mantika Figure 18: % of HHs reporting issues with the quality of their main source of drinking water, per main source of water Figure 19: % of HHs reporting burying or burning solid waste, or leaving it outside in an inappropriate location, per mantika Figure 20: % of HHs reporting needing essential hygiene items that they do not possess, overall per item Figure 21: % of households reporting sources of food items, per population group Figure 22: % of HHs mentioning access to the following subsidised food items, overall per food item Figure 23: % of adult members of HHs employed in a permanent job, per mantika Figure 24: % of HHs deriving part of their income from government salary in the 30 days prior to the assessment, per mantika Figure 25: % of HHs reporting challenges to accessing income, per population group Figure 26: Reported HH expenditure items in the last 30 days in %, per population group Figure 27: % of HHs reporting availability of informal financial service providers in their area, per mantika Figure 28: % of HHs reporting their withdrawal limit over the last month, overall Figure 29: % of HHs reporting having used and exhausted coping strategies related to a lack of cash or income in the 30 days prior to the assessment, per population group Figure 30: % of HHs reporting barriers to accessing health services, per barrier Figure 31: % of HHs reporting they needed more than 30 minutes to access the nearest health facility, per mantika Figure 32: Out of those households reporting at least one member affected by a chronic disease, % of HHs reporting member(s) affected by diabetes or high blood pressure, per mantika Figure 33: % of HHs reporting at least one member affected by a formally diagnosed mental disorder, per mantika Figure 34: % of HHs with at least one woman who gave birth within the two years prior to the assessment, Figure 35: % of HHs reporting their priority needs, per population group Figure 36: % of IDP and returnee HHs reported having received assistance in the six months prior to the assessment, per mantika Figure 37: % of HHs reporting assistance received in the six months prior to the assessment, per type and population group Table 1: MSNA sample size, per mantika and population group Table 2: Number and type of qualitative data collection method, per mantika Table 3: Age distribution of HH members in %, per mantika Table 4: IDP HHs' mantika of origin in %, per mantika Table 5: Main push factors for IDP and returnee HHs, overall and per displacement category Table 6: Main pull factors for IDP and returnee HHs per displacement category Table 7: % of HHs reporting at least one member displaying two or more signs of psychological distress, per mantika and population group Table 8: % of returnee HHs reporting level of damage to their housing, per mantika Table 9: % of HHs reporting possessing NFIs, per item and per population group Table 10: Three main reported water sources for HHs, per mantika Table 11: % of IDP HHs per FCS comparing to overall FCS, per mantika Table 12: % of HHs reporting basic food items' price changes in the 30 days prior to the assessment, overall Table 13: % of HHs resorting to low, medium or high use of coping strategies related to food, per mantika Table 14: % of HHs reporting barriers to accessing education per three main reported barriers, per mantika Table 15: % of HHs with school-aged children reporting at least one child attended non-formal education, per non-formal education type Map 1: Assessed locations... 9 Map 2: Assessed geographical locations - administrative level 3 (baladiya) Map 3: % of HHs reporting their current housing sustained medium damage to heavily damaged-destroyed, per mantika Map 4: Average duration of electricity cuts per day reported by HHs, per mantika Map 5: % of HHs with high use of food-related negative coping strategies, per mantika Map 6: Preferred modality for future assistance, per mantika and population group

9 INTRODUCTION Libya has experienced several waves of conflicts since 2011, that have resulted in large-scale displacement. The latest Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO) figures identified 1.15 million people in need of immediate humanitarian assistance, out of which 170,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs), 200,000 returnees, and 370,000 nondisplaced persons. 3 As the conflict is becoming more protracted, Libyans continue to face major financial, social and psychological challenges in their daily lives. The conflict is exacerbated by a major financial and economic crisis : the country s currency has depreciated on the parallel market since 2014, resulting in strong inflationary pressures. 4 Access to basic goods and services as a result has become a challenge in some parts of the country as affected populations struggle with a lack of liquidity limiting their ability to purchase basic necessities, putting many households including IDP, returnee and non-displaced at risk. 5 Multiple information gaps subsist in this rapidly evolving situation and require timely evidence-based information to identify vulnerabilities among population groups and across locations assessed. In order to fill these information gaps and inform further humanitarian programming in light of the 2018 Humanitarian Programme Cycle, the Inter- Sector working group (ISWG) and Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) conducted an interagency household-level multi-sector needs assessment (MSNA) with facilitation from REACH. It was funded through the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It provides a quantitative evidence base for humanitarian decision-makers with the purpose of informing planning, sector prioritisation and target group identification, and, when replicated over time, will also allow for indepth longitudinal analyses.. After a detailed description of the methodology and the reason it was chosen, the report outlines key assessment findings in the sectors covered: 1. Demographics 2. Displacement and Protection 3. Shelter and Non-Food Items (NFIs) 4. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) 5. Food Security 6. Cash and Livelihoods 7. Health 8. Education 9. Priority Needs and Assistance 3 OCHA (forthcoming), Libya 2018 Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO). 4 REACH & CMWG (October 2017) Market systems in Libya assessment report. Retrieved from: 5 Ibid. 7

10 METHODOLOGY Methodology Overview. This MSNA s primary objective was to collect multi-sector data at household level on IDP, returnee and nondisplaced populations living in conflict affected locations inside Libya, in order to identify gaps and opportunities for the provision of humanitarian assistance. More precisely, the research questions guiding this study were: - What are the current needs of affected populations, per sector? - How do these needs differ by population group and by location? - Are certain groups more vulnerable? Throughout the research design phase, REACH closely collaborated with the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and sectors leads to ensure their engagement and the relevance of the assessment for future planning. The locations assessed were selected after consultation with the HCT to prioritise those with a high concentration of displaced populations and where needs were expected to be the greatest, while avoiding duplication with any other ongoing data collection exercise. All indicators and questionnaires used for this assessment have also been developed through consultations with sectors in light of their respective information gaps and strategy. Two rounds of data collection were conducted resulting in 2,978 household surveys, one from 17 June to 8 August 2017, the second one from 10 August to 18 September. The first round covered three locations: West: Mantika of Al Jabal Al Gharbi South: Mantika of Sebha East: City of Derna The second round of data collection covered five locations: West: Mantikas of Tripoli, Misrata, Al Margab South: Mantika of Ghat East: Mantika of Benghazi For the purpose of this assessment, the definition of household used was taken from the World Food Programme s (WFP) definition of people eating from the same pot, also taking in consideration the fact that the members are living in and sharing rooms of their dwelling together. A mixed methods approach was used to collect data: A household survey was conducted to collect data that is statistically representative at the mantika level (Admin 3 level) of the average household in Libya. In addition to the assessment of seven mantika, an additional sampling frame was developed to gather representative data at the level of the municipality of Derna, in the East. 6 For both level, respondents were profiled by population group/status with the exception of returnee households in the mantika of Sebha since there was none identified in the baseline data available. Key Informant (KI) Interviews/Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): Following the household survey, a set of FGDs and individual KI interviews were conducted to provide in-depth understanding and case studies on the vulnerabilities of particular population groups, as well as to further contextualise and triangulate household survey findings. 6 To compensate access restrictions to the rest of the mantika. 8

11 Map 1: Assessed locations Populations of interest. IDP households: those forced to flee [their] home but who remain within [their] country s borders. 7 Returnee households: defined in assessments from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) 8 as those families [or households] that return to the same house or same neighbourhood they originally [forcibly] left, who may lack access to mechanisms for property restitution, reconstruction of their homes, or compensation. Non-displaced households: Non-displaced populations were identified as those who have not left their areas of origin due to conflict. Quantitative Data Collection Sampling Methodology: To enable comparison between IDP, returnee and non-displaced populations, a stratified sample approach was used with random household selection through GPS points. Based on IOM Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) population figures for IDPs and returnees, population density per location as well as data from the Libyan Bureau 7 United National High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Internally Displaced People, retrieved from 8 See e.g. IOM Iraq (August 2010), Review of displacement and return in Iraq. Retrieved from: 10.pdf. 9

12 of Statistics, 9 REACH randomly selected the exact GPS-recorded locations and number of samples to be collected. A representative sample was drawn for each population group in each mantika, with the aim of providing representative findings at mantika and population group level with a 95% level of confidence and a 10% margin of error. The surveys were conducted through KoBo mobile data collection on smartphones or tablets with GPS coordinates collection to ensure target completion in each area and for each population group. GPS coordinates were for internal use only and remained confidential. The method of sampling was determined by the geographical characteristics of the surveyed population groups in each location. Non-displaced populations: as areas with non-displaced households are large and widespread, a cluster sampling method was used to sample this population group. Clusters were created through the satellite density imagery, before randomly selecting some of them and applying the number of surveys to be conducted within each of them; IDPs, returnees, and non-displaced in the municipality of Derna: the geographical locations and data available were precise and concentrated enough so that a two-stage random sampling 10 could be conducted. For each location and population group, the total number of surveys was adjusted for design effect with a 20% buffer to account for non-responses or data entry errors. Effective figures of surveys after data cleaning can be found in the table below, and a map of the different baladiya of data collection can be found on the next page. Table 1: MSNA sample size, per mantika and population group Location Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna city Total Sample size Household Non-displaced (HH) survey IDPs sample Returnees Total ,542 Location Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Total HH survey sample TOTAL Sample size Non-displaced IDPs Returnees N/A Total ,436 Non-displaced HHs 1,414 IDP HHs 935 Returnee HHs 629 TOTAL 2,978 9 Data from the Libyan Bureau of the Population and satellite density imagery were used to identify and sample non-displaced populations. Regarding IDPs and returnees, the preferred source for identification and sampling were humanitarian documents and datasets such as IOM DTM data and OCHA s latest HNO document. These documents were crucial references to identify caseload figures of affected populations in the different mantikas, municipalities (baladiya) and localities (muhalla). For information, see latest IOM DTM Libya IDP & Returnee Information package (October November 2017). Retrieved from: 10 For the purpose of two-stage random sampling, available data is used to determine the location of the surveyed population group within the selected area. Subsequently, a subset of this population group is randomly selected within the locations surveyed. Contrary to the cluster sampling method abovementioned, there is no initial creation of random clusters through satellite density imagery. 10

13 Qualitative Data Collection. In addition to the quantitative data collection, which was designed to provide statistically representative information at household level, additional qualitative interviews were conducted to triangulate findings as well as to dig further into specific follow-up questions. This qualitative data collection was conducted in each location through interviews with KIs or through FGDs, as much as possible indicative of a wide array of the populations targeted in the respective areas. The number of qualitative interviews / FGDs organised varied depending on the need for more or less in-depth research in each location. KIs: KIs were chosen based on their sector-specific knowledge, e.g. community representatives, local authority members, members from health or education sectors, etc. FGDs: FGDs were conducted with non-displaced, IDP and returnee household members chosen purposively by data collection teams. Table 2: Number and type of qualitative data collection method, per mantika Location assessed # of FGD type # of KI Profile FGDs KIIs Al Jabal Al Gharbi 5-3 with non-displaced men 4-1 Civil society KI - 1 with IDP men - 1 Education sector KI - 1 with returnee women - 1 Health sector KI Al Margab 8-3 with non-displaced men / 1 with non-displaced women / 1 with nondisplaced youth - 2 with IDP men - 1 with IDP women Benghazi 6 1 with non-displaced men 1 with IDP men 2 with returnee men 1 with IDP women 1 with returnee women Derna city 5-1 with non-displaced women - 1 with IDP women - 1 with returnee women - 1 with IDP youth - 1 with returnee youth Ghat 6-1 with non-displaced men / 1 with non-displaced women - 1 with IDP men / 1 with IDP women - 1 with returnee men / 1 with returnee women Misrata 7-1 with non-displaced men / 1 with non-displaced women / 1 with nondisplaced youth - 1 with IDP men / 1 with IDP women / 1 with IDP youth - 1 Local authority KI 8-4 Civil society KIs - 2 Health sector KIs - 2 IDP KIs 12-5 Health sector KIs - 3 Civil society KIs - 3 Local authority KIs - 1 Education sector KI 11-5 Civil society KIs - 3 Education sector KIs - 2 Health sector KIs - 1 Local business KI 9-4 Civil society KIs - 2 Health sector KIs - 2 Local authority KIs - 1 Education KI 10-2 Civil society KIs - 1 Education sector KI - 1 Health sector KI Sebha 2-2 with non-displaced men 3-2 Health sector KIs - 1 Education sector KI Tripoli TOTAL

14 In addition to this, throughout and after data collection, assessment teams monitored secondary data other organisations publications, newspapers articles and social media to ensure triangulation and contextualisation of findings for the final output production. Map 2: Assessed geographical locations - administrative level 3 (baladiya) Ethical Data Collection The data collection activity adopted a Do No Harm approach, to avoid causing any harm or injury to assessment participants. The assessment adhered to the following guiding principles to ensure that data collection was ethically sound: Informed consent This assessment was conducted with Head of Households or respondents qualified to speak in the name of the household, aged 18 years or above only. Respondents gave their consent to take part in the survey. Confidentiality This assessment ensures that the confidentiality of the information provided by respondents is respected. All personal information were made anonymous in datasets and excluded from the final report. Ethical data collection The research design and design of the questionnaire took into account the complex cultural and socio-political context in Libya. Only questions appropriate for this setting were included in the survey. Any questions that were deemed too sensitive to be included by Libyan enumerators were removed from the survey in advance of data collection over the course of a careful questionnaire review. Sector specialists from relevant working groups in Health, Protection, Shelter & NFIs, Displacement, WASH, Education and Cash & Markets were consulted throughout research design. 12

15 Data Cleaning and Analysis During data collection, newly uploaded data was imported daily from the KoBo server to ensure a smooth data cleaning process. The data were cleaned daily as well and checked for any incoherence in order to correct them with the help of team leaders and enumerators in Libya if needed. When incoherent data could not be checked and corrected, they were not taken into consideration during the analysis phase 11. During the data analysis phase, findings were weighted based on the imbalance of the number of households assessed and actual population figures available to be representative at the mantika level. As much as possible, data were corroborated and/or crosschecked with secondary data as well as the qualitative findings of individual interviews and FGDs. Challenges and Limitations. The following challenges and limitations should be kept in mind when reading the report: Access and security in some of the locations Access to some areas in the country was not possible due to a lack of authorizations. Additionally, security concerns during the process of data collection were faced by field teams in some of the mantikas targeted e.g. conflict-affected areas in Al Jabal Al Gharbi or Al Margab. As a result, data collection had to be put on hold at times, delaying its completion. Methodology limitations Although the Libya MSNA should enable in the future for longitudinal trends analysis, the change in methodology from KI-based assessments toward household level survey did not allow for comparison with previous rounds of MSNA conducted in Libya given their qualitative nature and the adjustment of indicators. In addition, this research cycle did not allow for extended geographical coverage, mostly due to resource constraints. Additionally, it should be noted that quantitative results are statistically representative for non-displaced, IDP and returnee households, and for each location assessed, but indicative only when disaggregated to a small subset of the population and into further levels of analysis. Although triangulated and cross-checked between qualitative and household survey results, the reader should be reminded that the findings herein presented are self-reported and can be biased. Technical challenges The first version of the survey did not contain all mantika choices for the Area of Origin of IDP households surveyed meaning that this data could not be used for the mantika of Al Jabal Al Gharbi, Sebha and the city of Derna. External issues related to data export on KoBo were also faced, which slowed down the process of data analysis notably for looped questions in the health section. To mitigate this technical challenge, limited changes to the survey were made between rounds of June-July and August to address minor discrepancies such as skip logic, response options and constraints. 11 The clean, anonymized dataset of the Libya 2017 MSNA can be found on this link: 13

16 FINDINGS This section of the report highlights the main findings from the 2017 Libya MSNA. It includes findings on all relevant sectors including protection, shelter and NFI, WASH, food security, cash and markets, health, and education as well as findings related to the assessed population profile. Demographics This sub-section outlines findings related to the assessed population profile including demographics, household composition and vulnerable household members. Little differences were found across locations and population groups related to age and sex of the head of household. However, findings highlighted variations on household vulnerabilities. Displaced households were more likely to include pregnant women, members suffering from chronic diseases, and/or to host displaced non-household members. Household Demographics The demographic characteristics between non-displaced, IDP and returnee households in the assessed areas were broadly similar. The overall average number of people per household in the assessed locations amounted to 5.6. Non-displaced households consisted on average of 5.5 individuals, while this figure was 5.6 for IDP households and 6.1 for returnee households. Small variations were also noticed across mantika ranging from 5.4 individuals per household on average in Al Margab and Al Jabal Al Gharbi, up to 6.4 in Ghat Figure 1: Average number of individuals per HH, per mantika and per population group Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall Non-displaced HHs IDP HHs Returnee HHs Sex of head of household Across all surveyed areas, 7.8% of households were female headed. The proportion of female headed households was found to be 10.6% for IDP and 12.4% for returnee households, raising further concerns as to a potential higher vulnerability of those households. The rate was 7.6% in the case of non- displaced households. The proportion of female-headed households varied across mantikas. Female headed households represented less than 5% of assessed households in Tripoli and Misrata mantikas, while they represented 12.9% in Derna, 13.0% in Benghazi, 14.2% in Sebha and the highest 23.6% in Ghat (figure 2). 14

17 Figure 2: % of female-headed household, per mantika 23.6% 13.0% 12.9% 14.2% 6.1% 9.5% 3.9% 4.6% 7.8% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall Age distribution of household members Overall, minors accounted for slightly more than a third of the population 35.8%, while adults represented 60.9%, and 3.3% overall for elderly members. Little variation was noticed across population groups, as demonstrated in figure 3. Figure 3: Age distribution of HH members in %, per population group Non-displaced HHs 7.0% 19.9% 9.0% 60.8% 3.3% Infants (0-3) Children (4-14) IDP HHs 7.4% 20.8% 10.8% 57.9% 3.1% Youth (15-17) Adults (18-64) Returnee HHs 6.9% 15.7% 9.2% 63.8% 4.4% Elderly (65+) Notable variations were noted concerning age distribution of household members across mantikas. This included the lowest percentage of minor members in households in Benghazi with 29.5% - and the highest in Misrata where minors represented 44.4% of the households. Elderly members percentages varied little from 2.3% in Al Jabal Al Gharbi to 5.1% in Sebha. 15

18 Table 3: Age distribution of HH members in %, per mantika Infants (0-3) Children (4-14) Youth (15-17) Adults (18-64) Elderly (65+) Al Jabal Al Gharbi 5.9% 24.8% 11.1% 56.0% 2.3% Al Margab 7.9% 23.3% 11.9% 54.3% 2.6% Benghazi 5.4% 15.9% 8.1% 66.5% 4.0% Derna 7.9% 19.1% 9.7% 59.5% 3.9% Ghat 7.3% 22.2% 10.7% 56.5% 3.4% Misrata 9.8% 24.7% 9.9% 52.3% 3.3% Sebha 6.6% 15.8% 10.6% 63.9% 5.1% Tripoli 6.8% 17.5% 7.4% 65.1% 3.1% Overall 7.0% 19.7% 9.1% 60.9% 3.3% Vulnerable household members Overall, 5.6% of households were hosting displaced non-household members. More IDP households reported hosting displaced individuals (9,1%), compared to 5.2% of returnee households and 5.5% of nondisplaced households. Hosting households were highest in Benghazi (8.0%) and Misrata (11.2%) and lowest in Derna city (1.1%). Households reporting hosting unaccompanied and separated children (UASC) were few (1.1% overall), the rate being lowest for returnee households (0.1%) and highest for non-displaced households (1.2%). Overall, 10.6% of households reported including one or more pregnant women. 12 Proportions of households comprising of at least one pregnant woman were highest in Al Margab, Sebha and Misrata at respectively 16.8%, 16.4% and 16.0%. Very little variation was noted across population groups. Across all locations and population groups, 38.2% of households reported at least one member suffering from chronic disease. IDP and returnee households were more likely to have chronically ill members (41.2% and 50.4%, respectively), compared to non-displaced households (37.6%). These percentages were affected by higher reported proportions in the eastern assessed locations with 47.1% in Derna, and 55.6% of households in Benghazi including members suffering from chronic diseases compared to only 18.2% in Al Jabal Al Gharbi. Protection Displacement Almost half of the IDP households surveyed (46.9%) reported having been displaced more than once, including 21.6% having been displaced at least three times across all assessed locations. 12 Libya 2018 Humanitarian Response Plan forthcoming. Pregnant women are considered as a vulnerable group especially those living in areas where two thirds or more public hospitals are either non-functional or working less than 25% of their capacity. 16

19 Figure 4: % of IDP HHs per # of displacement 21.6% 25.3% 53.1% Once Twice Three times or more The proportion of IDP households displaced more than once was most prominent in Western locations - Al Margab (42.6%), Tripoli (41.7%) and Al Jabal Al Gharbi (41.6%). The proportion of IDP households displaced more than once was the lowest in Ghat with only 13.2%. Figure 5: % of IDP and returnee HHs displaced more than once, per mantika 41.6% 42.6% 36.2% 38.8% 41.7% 36.1% 29.7% 25.1% 13.2% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall Two major trends were visible on IDP households displacement patterns. For the most part, IDP households were displaced either i) within the same mantika or ii) to neighbouring mantikas. A majority of IDP households in Benghazi (81.7%), Derna city (56.1%) and Al Jabal Al Gharbi (52.9%) were displaced within the same mantika. This could be explained in two mantikas by difficulties of movements, either physical (the mantika of Al Jabal Al Gharbi is characterised by highly mountainous zones that can be hard to reach) or artificially-created (movement into and out of Derna was affected by a loose encirclement implemented two years prior to the assessment). In Benghazi, displaced households fled clashes either to go to Misrata or to other locations within the Benghazi mantika, both destinations chosen due to strong community links. Intra-mantika and/or short distance displacements took place mainly in Al Margab (51.8% of displaced households are from neighbouring Misrata), Ghat (47.1% are from neighbouring Ubari) and Tripoli (58.6% are from neighbouring Al Jabal Al Gharbi). Only in Misrata and Sebha were the main mantikas of origin more distant - Benghazi and Sirte, respectively. These displacements, especially from Sirte to Sebha, are largely due to the strong community links existing between those respective locations. Similarly, an important proportion of Benghazi 17

20 inhabitants found their roots in Misrata 13 and had strong community affiliations during the 2014 conflict, which likely led to this visible pattern of displacement. Al Jabal Al Gharbi 15 Al Margab Benghazi Derna city 16 Ghat Misrata Tripoli Sebha 17 Table 4: IDP HHs' mantika of origin in %, per mantika 14 Main mantika of origin 2 nd most reported mantika of origin Al Jabal Al Gharbi Tripoli 52.9% 25.6% Misrata Benghazi 51.8% 25.9% Benghazi Zwara 81.7% 5.8% Derna Benghazi 56.1% 28.3% Ubari Zwara 47.1% 32.7% Benghazi Zwara 49.6% 18.4% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Zwara 58.6% 18.2% Sirt Misrata 53.2% 22.8% 3 rd most reported mantika of origin Azzawya 11.9% Zwara 20.5% Al Kufrah 3.8% Sirt 9.6% Sebha 18.3% Misrata 18.4% Benghazi 14.1% Ubari 17.0% Push and pull factors Overall, IDP and returnee households reported similar reasons for displacement. The main reason accounting for most IDPs and returnees displacement was overwhelming the absence of security in their areas for 78.8% of IDP households and 89.2% of returnee households. This was followed for IDP households by the households dwelling being damaged or destroyed and for returnee households by violence or threat of violence. Table 5: Main push factors for IDP and returnee HHs, overall and per displacement category 18 IDP HHs Returnee HHs Main push factor 2 nd most reported push factor 3 rd most reported push factor No security in the area 78.8% No security in the area 89.2% Dwelling damaged/destroyed 27.0% Violence/threat vs. HH 17.3% Violence/threat vs. HH 22.0% Dwelling damaged/destroyed 9.0% The most important pull factors for IDP and returnee households were generally similar revolving around the presence of familiar people - the household s family and/or friends, or their communities and a more secure environment. For the vast majority of returnee households (72.7%), the presence of friends/family was the first pull factor as households were going back to their original area of origin, followed by the presence of their community (22.5%). On the other hand, for the majority of IDP households (47.7%), the most important pull factor was the secure environment, followed by the presence of family and friends for 44.4% of IDP households. 13 Historical link reported by enumerators and local staff. 14 Light red corresponds to intra-mantika displacement; light grey corresponds to displacement from a neighbouring mantika. 15 Due to survey constraint inconsistency, data for this indicator could not be presented in this location. Instead was used data from the IOM DTM Libya round 12 presenting findings from June-July 2017, similarly to this REACH MSNA. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Respondents could choose several answers. 18

21 IDP HHs Returnee HHs Table 6: Main pull factors for IDP and returnee HHs per displacement category 19 Main pull factor 2 nd most reported pull factor 3 rd most reported pull factor More secure environment 47.7% Presence of friend/family 72.7% Presence of friend/family 44.4% Presence of HH s community 22.5% Presence of HH s community 26.0% More secure environment 19.4% Re-integration of returnees to areas of origin When asked about issues encountered upon return to their area and housing of origin, returnee households indicated that the top three main issues encountered were damaged or destroyed housing (62.3%), valuables missing in property (housing looted, 54.9%), and the persistent lack of functionality of basic services in the area of origin (35.6%). The main issue encountered damaged or destroyed housing was particularly prevalent in Al Jabal Al Gharbi (reported by 90.5% of returnee households), Benghazi (65.0%) and Derna city (63.6%). The high rates of returnee households reporting damaged or destruction to their housing related to the severe destruction level in Benghazi and Derna areas affected by heavy fighting in Most areas within Benghazi and Derna where households have returned to suffered some form of medium to heavy damage. 20 Although Al Jabal Al Gharbi did not witness the level of destruction of Benghazi and Derna, most returnee households in Al Jabal Al Gharbi were especially concentrated in Kikkla baladiya, which had previously witnessed intense fighting. 21 With the exception of Al Jabal Al Gharbi, damaged or destroyed housing did not seem to be a major issue in the West or South of Libya (Tripoli with 16.5%, Ghat with 15.4%). Although most mantikas in the West of the country Al Margab, Misrata, Tripoli did not witness high level of damage due to conflict, 45.2% of returnee households have reported primarily looted housing with valuables missing in property as one of their main issues. 90.5% Figure 6: % of HHs indicating damaged or destroyed housing upon return % 63.6% 62.3% 36.4% 25.0% 15.4% 16.5% 0.0% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall 19 Idem. 20 See ACTED (18 August 2017), Profile on Benghazi neighbourhoods. Retrieved from 21 On the conflict in Kikkla see e.g. Benibrahim, A. (20 January 2016), Zintan, Kikla sign peace agreement on Libya Observer. Retrieved from: 22 Returnee households not assessed in the Sebha mantika. 19

22 Sense of belonging in current area of residence When asked about their sense of belonging in their current area of residence, IDP households scored the lowest with a score of 2.4 out of 4, lower than returnee households which scored 3 out 4 and non-displaced households which scored the highest 3.4 out of 4. Returnee households sense of belonging in the current area of residence was considerably high, consistent with their main pull factors being the presence of family and friends in the area of return (72.7%). On the other hand, IDP households have a lower sense of belonging in their current areas of residence likely linked to their displacement status. Figure 7: Score of sense of belonging in current area of residence, per population group Non-displaced HHs 3.4 IDP HHs 2.4 Returnee HHs 3 The assessed IDP population across the eight assessed mantikas in Libya have not scored higher than 3 out of 4. IDP households sense of belonging in current area of residence was highest in Al Jabal Al Gharbi with a score of 2.8. This could be possibly due to the intra-mantika displacement that characterised Al Jabal Al Gharbi as most IDP households therein have been displaced within the same mantika (52.9%). The lowest scores collected were both in the main urban mantikas, Tripoli (with 2.3) and Benghazi (with 2.1). Figure 8: Score of sense of belonging in current area of residence for IDP HHs, per mantika Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi 2.1 Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Protection Explosive hazards Overall, 4.9% of households reported the presence of explosives hazards and unexploded ordnances (UXOs) in their areas with relative differences across mantikas. Higher percentages of households reported the presence of UXOs in Derna (12.7%), Al Margab (10.6%) and Benghazi (8.6%) - areas which witnessed intense active conflict. 20

23 Figure 9: % of HHs reporting the presence of UXOs in their area, per mantika 10.6% 8.6% 12.7% 3.0% 0.0% 6.4% 1.1% 0.0% 4.9% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall A higher proportion of returnee households reported the presence of UXOs (24.5%), compared to 11.5% of IDP households and 3.8% of non-displaced households. This could be due to the fact that returnee households were more likely to return to previous areas affected by clashes and explosive hazards. The higher rates of households in Derna and Benghazi who reported the presence of UXOs is also likely linked to this trend since those two areas have witnessed important returns in the months prior to the assessment 23 to areas that have witnessed recent clashes. 24 Figure 10: % of HHs reporting the presence of UXOs in their area, per population group 24.5% 11.5% 3.8% Non-displaced HHs IDP HHs Returnee HHs Only 21.3% of assessed households reportedly received explosive hazards awareness campaigns. They were predominantly conducted through conventional media (television, radio, newspapers) for 64.5% of households who reported an awareness campaign, followed by social media for 29.4%, and posters for 20.2% The latest IOM Libya DTM report (Round 15) reported until now 51% of all returnees identified in the baladiya of Benghazi, and 2,100 returnees in the baladiya of Derna, although this number might be underestimated due to recent events and the difficulty to efficiently track numbers of displacement in the encircled city. 24 See ACTED (18 August 2017), Profile on Benghazi neighbourhoods. Retrieved from See REACH (November 2017), Derna Rapid Situation Overview. Retrieved from: 25 Due to this data corresponding to subsets of populations assessed, the results are indicative rather than representative. 21

24 Awareness campaigns on UXOs were reportedly not primarily conducted in areas where the highest proportions of households reported the presence of explosive hazards. While no household reported the presence of UXOs in their area in Ghat or Tripoli, awareness campaigns were reported by the highest proportions of households in these locations (34.7% and 27.5% respectively). On the other hand, households in Al Margab were among those who most reported the presence of UXOs in their vicinity while they least reported reception of awareness campaigns (8.9%). Figure 11: % of HHs reporting receiving UXO awareness campaigns, per mantika 34.7% 26.8% 27.5% 20.7% 17.6% 22.5% 21.3% 12.7% 8.9% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall Loss of documentation Overall, only 4.2% of households reported missing documentation. However this figure is relatively higher amongst IDP and returnee communities with 22.9% IDP households and 18.0% of returnee households reporting having lost documentation. The proportions were affected by regional trends, with the highest percentage of IDP households reporting loss of documentation in Al Margab (54.8%), followed by Sebha (38.8%), Benghazi (28.4%) and finally Misrata (26.0%). For returnee households, loss of documentation was most reported in Misrata (22.5%), Benghazi (18.7%). Figure 12: % of HHs reporting a loss of documentation, per mantika and population group 54.8% 38.8% 17.9% 28.4% 18.7% 15.6% 26.0% 22.5% 21.6% Al Jabal Al Gharbi 8.2% 8.3% 8.2% 4.6% 4.6% Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Non-displaced HHs IDP HHs Returnee HHs Overall N/A 7.3% 22

25 Of all the households who reported having lost documentation, 71.2% re-applied for the documentation they had lost while 28.3% did not. 26 The main reported reasons for not re-applying were i) the process taking too much time and being too complicated, ii) the households not being familiar with the procedures; and finally iii) households not having access to a functioning civil registry nearby. This last reason reported seemed to be especially problematic in the Eastern regions, with 22.0% of households in Benghazi and up to 38.3% in Derna city reporting it. Psychological distress Years of conflict have had effects on household members psychological condition. 27 Overall, 24.9% of all assessed households reported at least one member displaying two or more signs of psychological distresses identified in the survey. Higher percentage of returnee and IDP households reported members with at least two or more signs of psychological distress compared to non-displaced households % of IDP households and 39.0% of returnee households reported the following compared to only 23.5% of non-displaced households, possibly linked to the displacement dynamics faced by these population groups. Proportions of IDP households reporting members displaying two or more signs of psychological distress were highest in Derna city (78.1%), Sebha and Al Margab (75.0%) followed by Benghazi (61.5%) and Misrata (55.6%). Rates of returnee households reporting members displaying two or more signs of psychological distress were highest in Al Margab (66.7%), Benghazi (58.8%) and Misrata (52.3%). Table 7: % of HHs reporting at least one member displaying two or more signs of psychological distress, per mantika and population group Non-displaced HHs IDP HHs Returnee HHs Al Jabal Al Gharbi 26.6% 40.0% 38.8% Al Margab 16.3% 75.0% 66.7% Benghazi 53.8% 61.5% 58.8% Derna city 60.5% 78.1% 51.9% Ghat 26.8% 44.9% 36.0% Misrata 25.0% 55.6% 52.3% Sebha 48.6% 75.0% N/A 28 Tripoli 32.7% 26.3% 11.9% Overall 23.5% 39.0% 46.7% Shelter and NFIs Shelter Shelter type and tenancy Overall, 95.7% of assessed households across all locations reported living in private housing such as apartments or houses. 3.9% of households reported living in unfinished housing, while marginal rates of households lived in another kind of private housing (0.2%), collective housing or in a prefabricated housing (both 0.1%). Such a trend was noted across all locations assessed with the exception of Ghat where 17.1% of households overall reported living in unfinished housing. 26 Due to this data corresponding to subsets of populations assessed, the results are indicative rather than representative. 27 The psychological distress signs taken into consideration for this assessment and developed notably with specialists from protection sector during the research conception phase were: feeling little interest or pleasure doing things that you/they normally like ; feeling down, depressed or hopeless ; feeling tired or having little energy for no good reason ; trouble falling asleep, staying asleep or sleeping too much ; felt so nervous that nothing could calm you/them down ; felt so afraid that nothing could calm you/ them down ; and felt so angry that you felt out of control. 28 Returnee households not assessed in the Sebha mantika. 23

26 While the majority of non-displaced (88.2%) and returnee households (93.2%) reported owning their current housing, only 15.3% of IDP households indicated the same, likely linked to their displacement status. Indeed, more than 60.0% of IDP households reported renting their accommodation, compared to only 7.6% of non-displaced households and 4.5% of returnee households. Furthermore, while the proportion of non-displaced and returnee households hosted for free was marginal (both 1.6%), it was reported by 21.1% of IDP households. Figure 13: % of HHs reporting their housing occupancy arrangements, per population group Non-displaced HHs 88.2% 7.6% 1.6% IDP HHs 15.3% 61.2% 21.1% Returnee HHs 93.2% 4.5% 1.6% Owned Rented Hosted for free While IDP households renting housing was a predominant phenomenon in three mantikas, Tripoli, Sebha and Al Margab with more than 80.0% of households concerned (respectively 89.2%, 86.3% and 86.1%), this was less the case in Ghat and Al Jabal Al Gharbi where only 32.7% and 36.3% of IDP households were renting respectively. In Ghat, most IDP households (62.7%) reported being hosted for free, reflective of the fact that most IDP households moved therein due to the presence of relatives. In Al Jabal Al Gharbi, 44.7% of IDP households reported owning their current housing unlike the overall trend of IDP households in Libya. This requires further research to explain displacement trends and housing arrangements there. IDP accommodation arrangements highlighted some specific vulnerabilities compared to non-displaced populations given their higher dependency on rented accommodation or relying on free housing provided by extended kin, family and friends. The majority of IDP households were living in rented accommodation, having to pay rent on a monthly basis which was taking up a large share of expenditure at time when a lack of cash was reported as one of the most pressing constraints in Libya (see expenditure section below). When renting their housing, % of IDP households mentioned that renting costs had increased in the six months prior to the assessment. Lack of property and housing ownership for IDP households means that they are reliant upon more insecure shelter arrangements than non-displaced and returnee households, necessitating regular monthly income. 29 Data on this indicator correspond to a subset of the population assessed and should thus be considered indicative rather than representative. 24

27 Figure 14: % of IDP HHs per housing tenancy type, per mantika % 7.0% 24.6% 14.1% 19.8% 12.5% 7.2% 21.1% 36.3% 46.9% 62.7% 86.1% 56.7% 69.5% 86.3% 89.2% 61.2% 44.7% 37.5% 32.7% Al Jabal Al Gharbi 13.4% 15.3% 4.3% 9.2% 3.6% 1.3% 3.6% Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall Owned Rented Hosted for free Furthermore, IDPs accommodation arrangements rendered them more vulnerable to evictions compared to nondisplaced communities. 6.5% of IDP households reported having been either threatened with eviction or recently evicted (5.4% threatened with eviction and 1.1% recently evicted), a much higher rate than the 1.4% of households overall. This trend was noticed especially in three mantikas: Benghazi (11.2%), Misrata (14.5%) and Al Margab (25.2%) Reasons given by households to explain threats of eviction or a recent eviction were for more than half relating to the owner s behaviour: he or she wanted the housing for his or her own personal use, found a new tenant, or simply wanted the household to leave; and for almost half of the respondents, unaffordable renting prices. 31 Housing damage 32 Overall, 18.2% of households reported living in some form of damaged housing including 11.7% reporting living in housing with light damage, 5.7% reporting medium-to-heavy damage necessitating repair before being liveable and 0.7% of households reporting that their housing was heavily damaged or completely destroyed. Areas with the highest percentage of households reporting from medium damage to heavily destroyed housing were Benghazi (13.2%), Ghat (11.8%) and Al Margab (10.6%) as seen on map 3 below. A much higher proportion of IDP and returnee households reported living in damaged housing compared to non-displaced communities with 54.0% of IDP and 73.6% of returnee households (14.6% of non-displaced households only). The proportion of returnee households reporting housing damage was highest with 37.8% of returnee households indicating their housing sustained medium-to-heavy damage, or heavily destroyed housing. The high level of damaged housing experienced by returnee households is in line with the fact that most have returned to neighbourhoods that have witnessed heavy fighting. 30 This figure did not represent marginal results for other options, hence some locations data not reaching 100%. 31 In view of the low number of respondents to this follow up question, information should be considered as indicative rather than representative. 32 To characterise housing damage, the following categories were defined ahead of the assessment: - No damage - Light damage does not compromise the integrity of the housing at all - Medium damage compromises the integrity of the housing but still liveable without immediate repair - Medium-to-heavy damage necessitates repair before being liveable - Heavily damaged-destroyed needs complete reconstruction 25

28 Figure 15: % of HHs reporting level of damage to their housing, per population group 100% 90% 80% 70% Heavy damage - destroyed 60% Medium-to-heavy damage 50% Medium damage 40% Light damage 30% 20% No damage 10% 0% Non-displaced HHs IDP HHs Returnee HHs Map 3: % of HHs reporting their current housing sustained medium damage to heavily damaged-destroyed, per mantika Benghazi, Ghat and Al Jabal Al Gharbi were the three mantikas with the highest proportion of returnee households reporting either medium-to-heavy damage or heavily damaged-destroyed housing, with 28.2% in Al Jabal Al Gharbi, 18.0% in Benghazi and 12.3% in Ghat. 26

29 Table 8: % of returnee HHs reporting level of damage to their housing, per mantika No damage Light damage Medium Medium-toheavy damage Destroyed Heavily damageddamage Al Jabal Al Gharbi 16.5% 32.9% 22.4% 24.7% 3.5% Al Margab 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Benghazi 23.0% 36.0% 23.0% 12.2% 5.8% Derna city 29.6% 33.3% 28.7% 5.6% 2.8% Ghat 18.5% 49.2% 20.0% 9.2% 3.1% Misrata 45.9% 45.0% 7.2% 1.8% 0.0% Sebha N/A Tripoli 85.3% 13.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% Overall 26.4% 35.8% 21.2% 11.6% 5.0% Energy Access to electricity Overall, 74.9% of households reported irregular access to electricity. The data collection timing accentuated this as it took place in summer traditionally prone to more regular and longer electricity cuts due to heightened consumption of air conditioning devices. Lack of electricity affected the population assessed since there was an overall 4 hours of daily electricity cuts reported by households. The mantika of Tripoli was particularly affected by electricity cuts with an average of 7 hours cuts daily, mainly due to weak infrastructure unable to cope with the demand and summer conditions, 33 but also due to a particular security environment where armed groups are reportedly using basic infrastructure at times as a means to pressure the population. 34 The proportion of households reporting irregular access to electricity at the time of the assessment was highest in Ghat (96.8%), Misrata (94.4%) and Derna city (93.9%) while it was lowest (although still reported by a majority of households) in Benghazi (50.5%). Regarding households main electricity sources, there was an overall trend of reliance on the main electricity network, reported by 92.2% of households across all locations. The second most reported electricity source was generators, by 7.1% of households. Higher reliance on generators was reported in two locations Derna city by 12.9% of households and Tripoli by 19.9% of households. This high proportion in Tripoli was explained by the reasons mentioned above, in addition to a generally year-round weak infrastructure (also outside summer months) favouring a continued reliance on generators. 33 Ali, M. (16 August 2017), A miserable summer in Tripoli on Libya Herald. Retrieved from 34 Zaptia, S. (14 June 2016) GNA s Serraj admits militias controlling electricity distribution on Libya Herald. Retrieved from 27

30 Map 4: Average duration of electricity cuts per day reported by HHs, per mantika Access to fuel Overall, households reported having regular access to cooking fuel with only 1.7% of households reporting no access at all, 37.8% irregular access, and 60.4% regular access. The location where households reported the most irregular access to cooking fuel was Ghat with 96.3%. Compared to non-displaced households, IDP households had overall less access to cooking fuel with 7.2% reporting no access and 54.6% irregular access. Figure 16: % of HHs reporting access to cooking fuel, per mantika 96.3% 77.0% 37.6% 59.5% 75.4% 40.9% 37.8% 9.4% 16.6% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall No access Irregular access Regular access 28

31 Overall, 69.5% of households across all locations reported having no access at all to heating fuel, while 25.1% reported irregular access and only 5.4% regular access. Benghazi and Ghat were amongst the two mantikas that have little access to heating fuel with 92.7% and 96.3% of households reported, at the time of assessment (during summer months), no access to heating fuel. In some cases, like in the mantika of Benghazi, using heating fuel is not current practice and electric heaters are the preferred option for heating. 35 High proportions of households reporting a lack of access were also noted in Sebha (82.3%), Misrata (76.6%) and Tripoli (76.4%) mantikas. As the assessment was conducted during the summer months, these findings should be taken with caution as households could be referring to current access to heating fuel rather than during the winter months. Figure 17: % of HHs reporting access to heating fuel, per mantika 47.1% 92.7% 55.7% 96.3% 76.6% 82.3% 76.4% 69.5% 13.5% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall No access Irregular access Regular access NFIs Households were asked to specify whether or not they owned basic NFIs, including winterization items. Most households across Libya reported being in possession of the standard list of NFIs. The three items that were most often reported as lacking included water tanks, mosquito nets and heaters. It is worth noting that the presence of these NFIs in a given household does not necessarily imply that the household s full need for these items has been met. While there did not seem to be dire needs in terms of NFIs across assessed locations in Libya, IDP households were more likely to report lacking basic items such as bedding items (including mattresses and blankets respectively possessed by 67.8% and 66.2% compared to the overall of 92.8% and 91.4%) and heating 40.5% of IDP households with access to heating compared to the overall 72.0%. Table 9: % of HHs reporting possessing NFIs, per item and per population group Non-displaced HHs IDP HHs Returnee HHs Cooking set 96.8% 83.1% 93.3% Mobile phone 94.6% 87.0% 92.7% Mattress 93.6% 67.8% 91.2% Stove 92.7% 66.9% 88.3% Blanket 92.3% 66.2% 88.9% Bedding 89.1% 52.8% 84.2% Heater 74.1% 40.5% 45.7% Mosquito 32.2% 16.5% 24.9% Water tank 14.1% 10.5% 9.4% 35 Reported by enumerator teams and local partner during follow-up on data collected. 29

32 WASH While years of conflicts in Libya did affect water infrastructure and continues to provoke shortcomings in localised areas due to clashes among armed groups, 36 it seems that most households have access to basic WASH services. This section highlights findings related to water sources and quality, household hygiene access and practices in solid waste management. Water source and quality Bottled water consumption was the first reported water source with 43.2% of households overall. Following this, 37.8% of households reported relying on an improved, safely managed public network 37 as their main source of drinking water. The use of private protected wells was the third main source reported by 11.9% of households. The use of unimproved sources for drinking water was overall rarely reported and consisted mainly of unprotected wells and rainwater collection. The reported rates of bottled water consumption were driven by high proportions of household reports in important urban centres such as Tripoli or locations where the water network has historically not been very developed and reliable (i.e Al Jabal Al Gharbi). In Tripoli in particular, the majority of households indicated relying on bottled water as their main source of water (61.2%) due to instability in the main water network following recent maintenance work. The water network could be cut for long periods of time when armed groups controlled it in struggle for influence over an area in the city. 38 On the other hand, most households in the city of Derna, although affected by a military encirclement (which has been tightened after the time of the assessment), could reportedly still rely on the main network. Households indicated the presence of an unaffected water desalination plant providing drinking water to the population. Table 10: Three main reported water sources for HHs, per mantika Main source of water 2 nd main source of water 3 rd main source of water Al Jabal Al Gharbi Bottled water Water trucking Public network 82.0% 8.7% 5.4% Al Margab Public network Water trucking Bottled water 64.4% 11.1% 11.1% Benghazi Public network Bottled water Protected well 64.2% 29.4% 4.6% Derna city Public network Bottled water Water trucking 73.8% 9.6% 4.8% Ghat Public network Water trucking Communal tap 88.7% 7.5% 2.3% Misrata Public network Bottled water Water trucking 48.7% 36.3% 7.4% Sebha Public network Bottled water Communal tap 50.8% 39.9% 6.6% Tripoli Bottled water Protected well Public network 61.2% 24.7% 8.0% Overall Bottled water Public network Protected well 43.2% 37.8% 11.9% Overall, water quality was deemed good by 66.4% of households. Households who used rainwater, protected wells and bottled water as their main source of water were the most satisfied with the quality of their water (households 36 Lewis, A.; Laessing, U. (27 October 2017). Libyans dig for water in latest test for capital s residents on Reuters. Retrieved from: 37 Following JMP classification on drinking water, retrieved from: 38 Lewis, A.; Laessing, U. (27 October 2017). Libyans dig for water in latest test for capital s residents on Reuters. Retrieved from: 30

33 reported the quality of the water as good respectively in 82.7%, 82.5% and 74.5% of cases). Of those relying on the main network as their primary source of water, 56.7% of households only indicated that the water was good, while it tasted bad for 42.3% of households. The main issue with water quality was bad taste, reported by 32.4% of households. Out of the 2.1% of households using unprotected wells as their main source of water, 74.0% indicated that it tasted bad, even leading to reports of health issues for 8.4% of households, and that it smelt bad (0.5%). IDP households most often reported the use of those unprotected wells (5.9%), likely leaving them more exposed to potential water-borne diseases. Most households (66.8%) did not use any water treatment, likely linked to the perception that the water used was of good quality. The most reported method was to use water filters for 28.5% of households. This was followed by treatment from chlorine tablets reported by 1.6% of households. IDP households were reportedly less likely to use any water treatment (83.2% of IDP households) compared to non-displaced and returnee households (respectively 66.5% and 62.7%). A much higher proportion of households reported not using any water treatment, in particular in the mantikas of Ghat and Al Jabal Al Gharbi (respectively 92.9% and 90.0%), while the use of water filters was most reported in Al Margab (39.4%) and Misrata (37.3%). Households using unprotected wells did not use any treatment in 41.5% of cases; this proportion reached 80.0% for IDP households, likely leading to potential health risks. 39 Figure 18: % of HHs reporting issues 40 with the quality of their main source of drinking water, per main source of water 82.9% 43.3% 44.5% 54.6% 17.3% 17.5% 25.5% Rainwater Protected well Bottled water Public network Communal tap Water trucking Unprotected well Sanitation within households The majority of households had access to basic sanitation facilities 41 including flush or pour toilets. A total of 97% of households overall reported the presence of flush toilet in their dwelling. IDP households reported less access to flush toilets (83.5%) compared to other population groups. Households in Ghat too seemed less likely to have access to flush toilets (62.5%) and 37.2% accessing pour toilets, while at least 85.0% of households in all other locations assessed had access to flush toilets. 39 This data regards a subset of the surveyed population and should therefore be considered as indicative rather than representative. 40 Issues with drinking water reported by households include bad taste, bad smell, discolouration, and health issues. 41 Following JMP classification on sanitation, retrieved from: ; a basic level only is assumed (compared to a safely managed level) in the absence of indicators on disposal and management of excreta. 31

34 Waste management practices in area of residence Despite ongoing and protracted conflict, waste management seemed to be functioning across the assessed locations. A vast majority (86.6%) of households across all locations were relying on either solid waste collection (which can be both public under municipal services or undertaken by private companies) or putting the waste in a designated pickup area respectively 44.3% and 42.3%. Only 7.3% of households reported leaving their solid waste in an inappropriate place and 5.9% burying or burning them. The highest proportion of households reporting negative waste management practices was in Derna city (10.5% buried or burned; 19.3% left in inappropriate location), Misrata (15% buried or burned; 5.2% left in inappropriate location) and Al Margab (14.4% buried or burned; 3.3% left in inappropriate location) as seen in figure 19. Further research is required to understand the reasons of variations in waste management practices across the country. Figure 19: % of HHs reporting burying or burning solid waste, or leaving it outside in an inappropriate location, per mantika 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 5.9% 7.3% 0% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall Buried or burned Left outside in inappropriate location Hygiene items needed in households When asked about the hygiene items needed and not possessed, three main items needed were disinfectant (reported by 42.1% of households), soap (31.8%) and water containers (27.2%). These were followed by shampoo (24.3%) and dishwashing liquid (22.2%). Those three essential hygiene were also the three most needed for both non-displaced and IDP households, while the returnee households three most needed items were soap (45.5%), shampoo (39.8%) and dishwashing liquid (36.2%). Disinfectant, water containers and soap were also among the most reported needed hygiene items geographically although some variations could be noted across mantikas such as high proportions of hosueholds reporting needing shampoo in Al Margab and Benghazi, or sanitary pads in Misrata and Tripoli. 32

35 Figure 20: % of HHs reporting needing essential hygiene items that they do not possess, overall per item 42.1% 31.8% 27.2% 24.3% 22.2% 21.7% 19.7% 17.9% 15.4% Disinfectant Soap Water container Shampoo Dishwashing Liquid Sanitary pads Toothpaste Toothbrush Baby diapers Food Security The overall food security needs among the Libyan population were low compared to other sectors assessed under this study. However, there were noticeable differences among population groups, with IDP households generally reporting a lower Food Consumption Score (FCS) than the other population groups, as well as a relatively high reliance on negative food coping strategies. Food Consumption Score Index 42 The FCS is a composite indicator based on the dietary diversity and frequency of consumption of different food groups by assessed households. FCSs across all locations assessed were classified as acceptable for a vast majority of households (95.0%), with 4.0% of households overall having an FCS classified as borderline and only 1.0% as poor. Similar figures were collected in all assessed mantikas, except for notably higher rates of borderline and poor FCSs in the mantika of Tripoli (9.2%), largely driven by lower IDP scores. IDP households were found to have worse FCSs across all locations, with 12.5% scoring borderline and 7.9% poor compared to respectively 3.8% and 0.8% for non-displaced households, and 1.9% and 1.3% for returnee households. In addition, IDP households food consumption levels were generally lower than those of both other population groups, meaning they were consuming both a quantitatively smaller and less nutritionally valuable diet over the previous seven-day period. While the food security situation for IDP households was comparable to those of other population groups in Al Jabal Al Gharbi and Derna city, much higher proportion of households with poor and borderline FCSs were identified in Sebha (21.3%), Tripoli (37.8%) and Al Margab (41.8%) compared to the overall 5.0%. Additionally, returnee households scored significantly lower FCS than non-displaced households in Al Jabal Al Gharbi (average score of 79.2 vs. 95.6) and in Ghat (average score of 72.7 vs. 82.1). 42 The FCS assigns weights to household food consumption frequency for each of eight food groups: cereals and tubers; pulses and nuts; vegetables; fruits; meat and fish; dairy products; sugar and honey; and oil, fat and butter. With a possible range from 0 to 112, the FCS is classified as poor for a score of 28 and less, borderline for a score between 42 and 29, and acceptable above a score of 42 source; WFP Guidance note: Calculation of household food security outcome indicators, retrieved from: _calculation_of_fcs_rcsi_hhs_and_dd.docx 33

36 Table 11: % of IDP HHs per FCS comparing to overall FCS, per mantika Poor overall FCS Poor IDP FCS Borderline overall FCS Borderline IDP FCS Acceptable overall FCS Acceptable IDP FCS Al Jabal Al Gharbi 0.6% 0.5% 0.1% 2.1% 99.3% 97.4% Al Margab 0.0% 6.1% 1.1% 35.7% 98.9% 58.3% Benghazi 1.0% 6.7% 3.1% 10.4% 95.9% 82.8% Derna 1.7% 0.0% 1.7% 1.6% 96.6% 98.4% Ghat 1.5% 6.4% 5.2% 12.7% 93.3% 80.9% Misrata 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 6.1% 99.9% 90.1% Sebha 1.1% 3.8% 1.1% 17.5% 97.8% 78.8% Tripoli 2.0% 15.3% 9.2% 22.5% 88.8% 62.2% Main food sources When asked about how they access food, nearly all households reported purchasing it from markets with cash (95.3%), followed by 25.4% of households purchasing food from markets on credit and 19.1% of households producing some or all of their own food. Linked to this, the vast majority of households across assessed locations declared that their primary modality for overall expenditure was hard cash (89.8% overall). Such a high level of dependency on hard cash, even as the economic system nationwide is characterised by a critical liquidity crisis, is likely to limit households ability to buy in markets, especially food items.. In a context of liquidity constraints and increasing food prices, 19.5% of IDP households were relying on food assistance as one of their three most common food sources, underlining external dependency. As IDP households generally had to devote a much higher proportion of their expenditures to housing, it is likely that they were often unable to set aside as much money for food. Figure 21: % of households reporting sources of food items, per population group 43 Market with cash Market on credit Own production Hunting Work or barter for food Rely on food assistance Rely on relatives and friends Zakat Other (mainly market with cheques) Begging 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Non-displaced HHs IDP HHs Returnee HHs Overall 43 Respondents could choose several options 34

37 Price changes of staple food items 44 For all assessed food items, a majority of households reported that prices have increased in the 30 days prior to the assessment, as seen in the table below. According to households, this was especially true at the time of assessment for chicken meat, for which 84.4% reported increased prices. Reported price changes were crosschecked against REACH data collected under the Joint Market Monitoring Initiative in July and August and showed that households generally reported increased prices while market monitoring data showed either increased or unchanged prices for most commodities in the table below. 45 Table 12: % of HHs reporting basic food items' price changes in the 30 days prior to the assessment, overall Increased Did not change Decreased Chicken 84.4% 7.4% 8.2% Chickpeas 62.2% 20.9% 17.3% Cooking oil 67.5% 25.8% 6.7% Eggs 71.6% 9.9% 18.5% Flour 62.1% 32.4% 5.5% Pasta 66.2% 26.1% 7.8% Rice 70.3% 25.5% 4.2% Sugar 67.7% 27.2% 5.1% Tomato paste 63.0% 28.6% 8.4% Subsidised items Access to subsidised food items 46 had always been a central characteristic of the Libyan economy under the previous regime. 47 Subsidised items were made accessible through official consumer associations locally designated under the name of jam iyat, small government-run shops selling goods subsidised by the authorities. With major economic and market disruptions since 2014, such access has been disrupted in many locations. Jam iyat remain active in some locations in eastern Libya, but are not operational in most locations in the west and south of Libya. 48 However, data collected showed that there were other ways of accessing subsidised items when the official channels are inaccessible, such as through normal shops in limited quantities, usually unofficially communicated through social media. Across assessed mantikas, 54.5% of households reported having access to some type of subsidised items, though with important regional variations: for instance, 95.0% of households in Sebha and 62.4% in Benghazi reported not being able to access subsidised goods. This is coherent with the continued shutdown of official channels for subsidised food items in Sebha and the apparent lack of other means to get access to some form of subsidised items in the latter. In Benghazi, qualitative data collected underlined that although the official jam iyat were functional, the low proportion of households reporting access was primarily due to difficult administrative procedures for households to be officially granted access. Among those households reporting access to subsidised items, the three most accessible food items overall were dairy products (61.0%), canned tuna (58.0%) and pasta (40.7%). In the east, the most accessible subsidised products were cooking oil, flour and sugar, reflecting differing distribution patterns through the official jam iyat and unofficial channels Snapshot over the month prior to data collection for detailed and up-to-date information and analysis of month-to-month evolution of food items and NFIs as well as fluctuation of exchange rates, see REACH Joint Market Monitoring Initiative (JMMI) factsheets from June ( July ( August ( September ( October ( and November ( 45 REACH & CMWG JMMI factsheets: July ( August ( 46 For the purpose of this study, a broad understanding of subsidised items has been used, meaning populations buying an item at a price that has been made artificially low, whether through official or unofficial channels. 47 See e.g. Zaptia, S. (12 October 2017) CBL and Madar launch Sadad mobile e-payment service Libya Herald. Retrieved from: 48 For more information on subsidized food items system and access, see REACH & CMWG (October 2017), Market systems in Libya assessment report. Retrieved from: 49 Ibid. 35

38 Figure 22: % of HHs mentioning access to the following subsidised food items, overall per food item Dairy Tuna Pasta Sugar Cooking oil Tomato Paste Flour Tea Eggs Rice Chicken 13.8% 13.0% 33.6% 32.3% 30.8% 27.2% 23.7% 23.4% 40.7% 58.0% 61.0% Reduced Coping Strategy Index (rcsi) 50 The MSNA assessed two types of coping strategies used by Libyan households: those related to a lack of food, and those adopted to deal with a lack of cash or income (see Cash and Livelihoods below). The assessed foodrelated coping strategies were based on WFP s rcsi. Households were asked how many days, if any, they had used any of the following strategies to cope with a lack of food or cash to purchase food in the seven days prior to the assessment, which enabled a better understanding of households dependency on such strategies: Relying on less preferred and less expensive foods (weight: 1) Borrowing food or relying on help from friends or relatives (weight: 2) Limiting portion size at mealtime (weight: 1) Restricting consumption by adults in order for small children to eat (weight: 3) Reducing number of meals eaten in a day (weight: 1) The most regularly adopted food coping strategy was to rely on less preferred and less expensive foods, used on average two days out of the previous seven. On an average of one day per week, households reported reducing the quantity of food they ate, either by limiting portion sizes or by reducing the number of meals eaten per day. On the positive side, a far lower proportion of households reported relying on the more heavily weighted and therefore more negative coping strategies (restricting consumption by adults average of 0.3 days in the week prior to data collection; and borrowing food or relying on help from friends or relatives average of 0.1 day). Overall, 42.3% reported not resorting to any food-related coping strategy at all (rcsi score of 0). IDP and returnee households were more likely to resort to all of the above food-related coping strategies. In particular, on average, they relied more often on less preferred and less expensive foods (2.6 days per week for IDP households, 3.4 for returnee households) and limit portion sizes (1.3 and 1.6 days per week respectively). The higher use of coping strategies highlights these displaced populations heightened vulnerability. Overall, 19.6% of households reported medium use of food-related coping strategies (rcsi score from 4 to 9) and 16.3% reported high use of coping strategies (rcsi score 10, with 27 being the maximum household score recorded). The average rcsi score for non-displaced households across assessed mantikas was 4.7, on the low 50 The rcsi is often used as a proxy indicator for household food insecurity. rcsi represents the sum of the frequency of each strategy (in number of days per week adopted) weighted by each strategy s severity. Higher rcsi indicates a worse food security situation and vice versa,. Possible household scores range from 0 to 56, but tend to skew low; a score of 0 to 3 indicates no or low use of coping strategies, a score from 4 to 9 indicates medium use of coping strategies, and a score of 10 or above indicates high use of coping strategies source; WFP Guidance note: Calculation of household food security outcome indicators, retrieved from: 36

39 end of the medium category; the average score for both IDP and returnee households was 7.3, indicating their generally greater vulnerability. Households in different mantikas had considerably different dependency on negative coping strategies. As can be seen on map 5, the highest proportions of households resorting to negative coping strategies were found in Ghat (26.6%), Benghazi (22.7%) and Derna city (22.3%). Table 13: % of HHs resorting to low, medium or high use of coping strategies related to food, per mantika Low use of coping strategies Medium use of coping strategies High use of coping strategies Al Jabal Al Gharbi 91.1% 5.5% 3.4% Al Margab 62.8% 18.3% 18.9% Benghazi 46.5% 30.8% 22.7% Derna 51.3% 26.4% 22.3% Ghat 55.2% 18.2% 26.6% Misrata 68.3% 21.1% 10.6% Sebha 68.8% 25.2% 6.0% Tripoli 67.1% 14.7% 18.2% Overall 64.1% 19.6% 16.3% Map 5: % of HHs with high use of food-related negative coping strategies, per mantika 37

40 Cash & Livelihoods Since early 2015, Libya has been suffering from a severe economic and financial crisis linked to a lack of access to liquidity. As a result, access to basic goods and services has become a challenge in some parts of the country, with many households reportedly struggling to meet their basic needs due to their decreasing purchasing power and a lack of access to cash. Although most surveyed households had physical access to markets and financial service providers, these institutions lack of functionality often served as a constraining barrier. Those services could also easily be disrupted, which could potentially lead to a rapid deterioration in living conditions. Severe challenges to accessing income and liquidity meant that a high proportion of households, especially displaced households, resorted to negative coping strategies when they could not access cash. This potentially presents risks in the long term, as it caused faster depletion of household resources and increased debt due to purchasing on credit. Employment 51 Across all assessed mantikas, 47.5% of adults were employed in some capacity. This proportion encompassed the 38.0% of adults employed in a permanent job, 6.3% in a temporary job and 3.2% in daily labour. IDP adults were less likely to hold permanent jobs (30.1%, roughly 8 points lower than the overall rate), and 7.1% of IDP adults were engaged in daily labour compared to 3.2% overall, reflecting their higher level of economic vulnerability. Adult employment rates showed notable variation across mantikas, with the highest rates of employment (57.2%) found in Derna and the lowest (24.2%) found in Tripoli. 52 Figure 23: % of adult members of HHs employed in a permanent job, per mantika 51.4% 51.6% 57.2% 49.9% 49.2% 47.5% 36.5% 34.2% 24.2% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall The overall rate of employment for minors was found to be 2.0%, subdivided between 0.9% working in permanent jobs, 0.5% in temporary jobs and 0.6% in daily labour. Variations among locations and groups were minimal and 51 All livelihoods indicators were designed to assess employment and income over the 30 days prior to data collection. Thus, for households with erratic employment or income patterns, the survey may have captured atypical results. 52 Follow-up with field coordinators allowed REACH to understand better some of the figures observed, such as the low percentage of employment in the mantika of Tripoli, Libya s main economic hub. Some respondents might not consider public government jobs to be permanent employment, given the increasingly sporadic nature of public-sector salaries, and thus might not consider themselves to be fully employed. Additionally, the question specifically assessed employment rates over the last 30 days to be consistent with other cash and livelihoods indicators, and many household members, although on the public government payroll, reportedly did not work in the previous 30 days, hence a lower rate. These elements will be considered for the development of future surveys. 38

41 marginal given such limited figures, except in Al Margab, where 7.3% of minors were reportedly employed, nearly half of them in permanent positions. Household Income and Expenditure Household income sources The public sector in Libya was by far the largest income-generating sector, with 57.1% of households overall deriving part of their income from government salary. This proportion ranged from 80.1% among households in Al Margab to just 36.5% in Sebha. It could not be verified what percentage of public-sector workers were actively employed and what percentage remained on the government payroll without working. Reportedly, even those who actively worked in public-sector positions tended to receive their salaries irregularly due to the Libyan government s chronic cash flow issues. After public-sector salaries, 12% of households in assessed mantikas reported deriving most of their income from national benefits, followed by business and trade (9.6%). Households indicated being most reliant on private-sector employment in Tripoli (36.7%), Ghat (28.0%) and Misrata (22.6%). This reflects the status of Tripoli and Misrata as important hubs for Libyan economic activity; as for Ghat, its remote, peripheral location both places it at a great distance from centres of government and limits local economic opportunity, with a proportion of households reporting deriving their income from daily labour twice the average across assessed mantikas (9.9% compared to 4.6%). Figure 24: % of HHs deriving part of their income from government salary in the 30 days prior to the assessment, per mantika 80.1% 61.2% 70.8% 58.3% 65.0% 57.1% 46.8% 45.9% 36.5% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall Due to their generally less stable financial status, IDP households tended to derive their income from sources more diverse, yet less secure, than did their non-displaced counterparts. Only 41.8% IDP households declared deriving income from the public sector, compared to the overall rate of 57.1%. Conversely, most households derived their income from casual labour (8.4% vs. the overall of 4.6%), family and friends (4.0% vs. 0.8%), and humanitarian assistance (3.0% vs. 0.4%). The two most reported overall challenges to accessing income stemmed both in part from the liquidity crisis: 40.6% of households reported some difficulty in obtaining enough income to support their households due to the irregularity of salary payments, while another 39.2% blamed the dysfunctional banking system. 39

42 Displaced households reported being more affected by low salaries 53 (19.5% of IDP households and 20.3% of returnee households) compared to non-displaced households (11.9%). Additionally, IDP households were more likely to report facing a lack of work opportunity (15.6%) compared to returnee households (6.1%) and nondisplaced households (4.5%). Figure 25: % of HHs reporting challenges to accessing income, per population group 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Irregular salary Dysfunctional banking system Low salaries Non-displaced HHs IDP HHs Returnee HHs Lack of work opportunity No challenge Household income expenditure Overall, the largest item of expenditure, by a wide margin, for all households in all locations assessed was food (44.4%), followed by water (10.9%) and health (10.3%). These high water costs included expenses from locations where households did not use the main public network as their primary source of water and had to rely on paid options, including water trucking and purchasing bottled water. Qualitative information 54 highlighted that regular cuts in the public water supply, especially in the west of Libya, were driving prices for water trucking upward due to high demand. In contrast with non-displaced and returnee households, IDP households in assessed mantikas spent nearly one-quarter of their income on housing (24.7%), as they were much more reliant on rented housing than non-displaced households. This reduced the share of expenditure that IDP households could spend on other items compared to both non-displaced and returnee households, especially food: 32.7%, vs. 44.5% and 50.4% for non-displaced and returnee households respectively. 53 A low salary corresponds to the respondents perception and is not based on any standard of salary indication. 54 Based on information provided by FGD participants and enumerators. 40

43 60 Figure 26: Reported HH expenditure items in the last 30 days in %, per population group Non-displaced HHs IDP HHs Returnee HHs 10 0 Food Housing Water Health Education Energy (electricity & fuel) Debt repayment NFIs In Tripoli, housing was one of the three main expenses for all the population groups, which could be explained by higher rental prices in Libya s main urban centre. Non-displaced households in Derna city listed energy as one of their three main expenditure items, even prior to the tightening of the military encirclement in July 2017; since then, needs have potentially increased, highlighting the need for up-to-date information on this situation. Access to markets Access to markets was not reported to be a main concern in Libya, with 94.7% of households overall reporting that they had consistent access. However, this was notably not the case for 13.5% of households in Benghazi and 17.2% in Ghat. Barriers to accessing markets were relatively uncommon with 86.2% of households overall reporting no barrier. The most frequently reported barriers were transportation costs (9.2%), a prevalent issue in Ghat, followed by distance to the nearest market (3.5%), reported by higher proportions of displaced households in Benghazi: 20.9% of returnee households and 18.7% of IDP households. When asked whether they found market items to be consistently accessible, 52.4% of households reported that some or all key items were too expensive to afford. This was especially true in two locations Derna city (85.5%) and Ghat (86.9%). An additional 18.8% of households reported that some or all key items tended to be unavailable in their local markets, with Derna and Ghat again more exposed (63.1% and 44.4% of households, respectively, reporting a lack of availability). In general, markets in these two locations were under considerable strain, in Derna due to the ongoing encirclement and in Ghat due to its remoteness and relative poverty. Access to financial services Overall, roughly two thirds (66.0%) of households across all assessed locations reported the presence of banks in their areas of residence, though in the context of the liquidity crisis, many of these households also reported severe limits on withdrawals. The presence of informal financial service providers, such as loans from shop and hawala (a traditional financial system of money transfer), was generally less common, reported by 43.3% and 3.9% of households, respectively. However, these results differed greatly across assessed mantikas. For instance, in Al Margab and Sebha, 97.8% and 93.7% of households respectively reported the presence of banks, with only 6.7% and 6.3% reporting the presence of informal providers; in Benghazi and Tripoli, by contrast, 33.1% and 50.3% respectively reported the 41

44 presence of banks, with 82.4%% and 56.1% reporting the presence of informal financial service providers. Further research should be undertaken to better understand the reasons behind these variations. Figure 27: % of HHs reporting availability of informal financial service providers in their area, per mantika 82.4% 56.1% 43.3% 19.8% 24.5% 18.3% 6.7% 6.7% 6.3% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall Despite relatively widespread access to financial service providers, households often faced barriers that prevented them from adequately utilising the services offered. The most reported barriers were long waiting times (60.3% of households overall), limits on currency withdrawals (43.1%) and the risk of insecurity while waiting in line at the service provider (22.1%). Displaced population groups were more affected by these barriers, with more IDP and returnee households reporting being affected by limits to withdrawal than non-displaced (58.8% of IDP households and 53.1% of returnee households, compared to 42.1% of non-displaced households). The three main reported barriers to access financial service providers were the same across locations assessed except for the mantikas of Al Margab and Misrata where the unavailability of services was among the three main reported barriers. Withdrawal limits Overall, 18.0% of households across all locations and population groups reported being wholly unable to withdraw hard currency over the month prior to the assessment. The most common amount of cash households reported being able to withdraw per month was Libyan dinars (LYD, 35.0% of households), followed by LYD (27.0% of households). There were no major variations across population groups. The Libya Cash & Markets Working Group s (CMWG) initial evaluation of a monthly minimum expenditure basket for a typical Benghazi household was 1,125 LYD, 55 highlighting the amounts reported in this assessment are well below the minimum amount considered as appropriate. Overall, withdrawal challenges seemed to be less acute in assessed mantikas in the east, specifically Derna and Benghazi. In these locations, only 6.7% and 8.3% of households, respectively, reported being able to withdraw strictly less than 300 LYD per month or were unable to withdraw at all. By contrast, in Tripoli, 25.7% of households reported being able to withdraw strictly less than 300 LYD or nothing at all, a proportion that rose to 35.0% in Al Margab. Households in Ghat (where banks were only provided with hard currency once every two or three months), however, faced the most severe restrictions; in addition to 19.4% of households being unable to withdraw any cash at all, a majority of households (52.4%) were only able to withdraw between 1 and 299 LYD per month. 55 CMWG (September 2017), Libya Cash & Markets Working Group overview (internal only). 42

45 Figure 28: % of HHs reporting their withdrawal limit over the last month, overall LYD 3.9% LYD 34.5% LYD 26.6% > 1,000 LYD 5.0% Unable to withdraw 18.0% Coping mechanisms to deal with a lack of cash or income/resources Households were asked about what coping mechanisms they used to deal with a lack of cash or income. Assessed strategies revolved around: Depletion of assets to obtain income: spending savings, selling gold, selling furniture, selling property or land, borrowing money, purchasing items on credit; Changes to livelihoods strategies: household members taking on additional jobs, adults or minors taking on dangerous jobs, economic migration; Changes to personal life: reducing expenses on essential services, withdrawing children from school, begging, relying on external support, child marriage. Across all locations and population groups, the most reported coping mechanisms used in the previous 30 days were spending savings (56.5% of households), selling gold (36.2%) and borrowing money (21.9%). Overall, 22.2% of households reported not resorting to any coping strategy at all. The high proportion of households reporting spending their savings and assets, as well as borrowing money to cope with a lack of cash, income and/ or resources underlined a negative trend of financial resource depletion that appears as dangerous and unsustainable. No notable variation among mantikas was observed. IDP households reported using more extensively their resources in the 30 days prior to the assessment with 75.1% reporting spending their savings as a coping mechanism to a lack of cash, in addition to having already exhausted this strategy for 12.2% of them. In comparison, the proportion of non-displaced households having used this strategy was lower (at 57.5%) with only 4.8% having already exhausted it. Similarly, a lower proportion (23.6%) of returnee households have spent savings, and 13.9% had already exhausted them. The second most reported coping strategy overall, selling gold, was reported by 54.7% of returnee, 53.8% of nondisplaced and 41.6% of IDP households having either used it in the 30 days prior to the assessment or already exhausted it. Having exhausted many of their reserves, IDP households appeared as more vulnerable as any income shock will limit their spending capacity and might force them to turn to even more negative spending- or food-related coping strategies. Returnee households main coping strategy, on the other hand, was to reduce expenses on basic services (health, education, etc.), as reported by 53.2% of households over the previous 30 days).this as well as another one of the three most reported strategies taking on an additional job for one member in the household (30.6%, more than ten percentage points more than for other population groups) revealed that returnee households coping mechanisms seemed to put less emphasis on depleting resources compared to those used by IDP households, and focused more on renouncing using or spending money on services. 43

46 In addition, the fact that some households already exhausted some of these coping strategies (see figure 28 above) especially IDP and returnee households is showing a severe risk of long-term resource depletion compared to non-displaced populations and needs to be taken into consideration for further humanitarian planning. Figure 29: % of HHs reporting having used and exhausted coping strategies related to a lack of cash or income in the 30 days prior to the assessment, per population group 18- member takes dangerous job 18- member married Begging 18+ member takes on dangerous job Rely on external support Sell furniture Sell land or property Take on additional job Purchase on credit Reduce expenses on basic services Borrow money Sell gold Spend savings 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Returnee HHs IDP HHs Non-displaced HHs Returnee HHs exhausted IDP HHs exhausted Non-displaced HHs exhausted Health Historically, Libya has relied on a skilled foreign workforce for the provision of health services. This workforce has gradually left the country following the onset of the crisis, leaving a gap in healthcare provision that has not been adequately filled. 56 Many assessed households reported inadequate access to healthcare due to understaffed and underequipped health facilities in all assessed locations. Localised cases illustrated the crisis of the current health system: in Ghat for instance, health facilities lacking staff and medicine led to the difficult handling of health crises such as maternal deaths or widespread food poisoning See e.g. Irin News (2 September 2014) Libyan health care on life support. Retrieved from: ; MSF (12 September 2016) Strengthening quality of care in a health system destabilized by years of conflict. Retrieved from: See also Alharathy, S. (4 December 2017), Tripoli doctors conduct surgeries and examination in Ghat. Retrieved from: Najjair, H. (8 November 2017), WHO provides aid to Ghat hospital. Retrieved from: African News Agency (24 October 2017), Libyan hospital struggling to treat mass food poisoning. Retrieved from: 44

47 Healthcare Access Overall, 37.2% of households reported that one or more members had needed healthcare in the 15 days prior to data collection. While there was only marginal variations among population groups, a higher proportion of households reporting at least one member in need of healthcare was noted in Misrata (56.9%) and in Al Jabal Al Gharbi (55.0%). Out of the overall 37.2% of households aforementioned, 44.0% reported that they were unable to access the necessary treatment. In Al Margab (65.0%), Derna (62.0%), Ghat (60.2%) and Benghazi (57.8%), households were more likely than average to report not having access to the healthcare they needed, 58 illustrating a lack of functional and well-equipped facilities in locations affected by conflict or geographic isolation. The gap was even larger for IDP households in Derna city (88.9%), Al Margab (82.1%) and Ghat (81.7%). Across all assessed mantikas, returnee households were most likely (54.0%) to report a lack of access to adequate healthcare. This additional vulnerability came in part from the fact that returnee households were more likely to return to conflict-affected areas where basic services, including health services, were not yet fully operational. As returnees ability to re-integrate in their areas of origins largely depends on their ability to resume a normal life and meet their households needs, a lack of access to functional services can hinder this rebuilding process. Barriers to accessing health services Households frequently reported a lack of medical supplies and medical personnel as obstacles to accessing healthcare. Although there did not seem to be major issues with health facilities per se, in the sense that few seemed to be damaged or too distant, households most frequently reported under-equipment (58.1%) and understaffing (54.5%) as barriers to accessing healthcare. Figure 30: % of HHs reporting barriers to accessing health services, per barrier Lack of supplies or equipment Lack of medical staff 58.1% 54.5% Lack of resources to afford healthcare 24.2% No space available for new patients Health facility damaged Distance to health facility too far Lack of available transportation Route to health facility unsafe 7.5% 7.3% 5.9% 2.4% 1.1% Overall, the time needed to reach the nearest health facility by car was under an hour for 93.7% of households, and under 30 minutes for 78.2% of households. Although non-displaced households were more likely to be within a 15-minute trip from a health facility (41.9%, vs. 30.6% for returnee households and 26.9% for IDP households), differences between population groups were smaller for other time intervals. In Derna city, all households could reportedly reach the nearest health facility in 30 minutes or less, 59 while 45.9% of households in Ghat reported that they needed more than 30 minutes to reach the nearest health facility 58 Due to a further level of disaggregation, results should be considered indicated and not statistically representative. 59 This finding is likely due to the sampling covering only the urban area of Derna. 45

48 (figure 30). This was likely due to geographical elements: while in Derna, the assessment covered a compact urban area, Ghat mantika is much more expansive and isolated. Figure 31: % of HHs reporting they needed more than 30 minutes to access the nearest health facility, per mantika 45.9% 36.6% 24.6% 22.5% 21.8% 9.4% 3.9% 0.0% 3.3% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall To better understand assessed households health-related priorities, they were asked about the strategies they used to cope with a lack of resources to afford healthcare. The concerned households (24%) 60 tended to deprioritise all but emergency care (reported by 68% of those households) or rely on alternative or traditional medicine (57.6%); a substantial minority sought out conventional medical treatment provided by untrained staff (25%). The most reported coping strategy to prioritise emergencies underlined that basic health needs or even chronic disease treatment might be overlooked, raising major health concerns; additionally, the fact that a fourth of households might seek treatment by untrained staff in light of the health system shortages is a worrying trend. Vaccination cards Slightly more than half (51.7%) of households in assessed mantikas reported not being in possession of vaccination cards for their children. As with many other types of documentation, it was slightly more reported by IDP households (58.9%) and returnee households (62.9%) to not be in possession of these cards, which could reflect loss of documentation during periods of displacement. It should be noted that lack of a vaccination card does not necessarily mean that children in the household were not vaccinated; it does, however, highlight potential concerns. Chronic diseases and mental illness Chronic disease prevalence and top reported chronic diseases Chronic diseases seemed widespread and prevalent health issues in Libya. Overall, 38.2% of households in assessed mantikas reported including at least one member suffering from a chronic disease. A higher proportion of households reporting at least one member with a chronic disease was found in Benghazi (55.6%), Derna city (47.1%) and Sebha (41.5%). In addition, returnee and IDP households were more likely to include at least one member with a chronic disease: 50.4% of IDP households and 41.2% of returnee households, compared to 37.6% of non-displaced households Due to a further level of disaggregation, results should be considered indicated and not statistically representative. 61 A lower degree of certainty was noted in the statistical test of comparison between non-displaced and returnee households. 46

49 The most reported chronic diseases by households with at least one member with a chronic disease were diabetes (57%) and high blood pressure (42.9%), followed by arthritis (13.0%) and heart disease (10.7%). Diabetes was most frequently cited as a chronic disease in the three main urban centres of Libya: Tripoli (68.3%), Benghazi (54.9%) and Misrata (50.0%). Figure 32: Out of those households reporting at least one member affected by a chronic disease, % of HHs reporting member(s) affected by diabetes or high blood pressure, per mantika Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Diabetes High blood pressure Mental illness Overall, 2.9% of households reported that at least one member had been medically diagnosed with a mental disorder. This figure varied from 1.1% of returnee households to 3.0% of non-displaced households and 4.7% of IDP households. The proportion of households with at least one member medically diagnosed with a mental disorder was highest in Al Jabal Al Gharbi (6.0%) and Sebha (5.5%). Figure 33: % of HHs reporting at least one member affected by a formally diagnosed mental disorder, per mantika 6.0% 4.5% 5.5% 1.1% 3.0% 2.9% 1.8% 2.8% 2.9% Al Jabal Al Gharbi Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall 47

50 Pregnant women / Women who gave birth in the two years prior to the assessment Nearly all households reporting including at least one pregnant woman mentioned that they had consultations (95.8%), 62 with doctors (77.9%) and/or with nurses (27.6%). Non-displaced and returnee households, in line with the overall trend, reported women having consultations with doctors in respectively 78.6% and 74.2% of cases, and with nurses in 27.5% and 31.2% of cases. However, a lower proportion of IDP households reported consultations, notably when it came to consulting with doctors (60.6%). Households reporting including at least one woman who gave birth in the two years prior to the assessments reported that they had consultations (97.5%) with doctors (80.0%) and/or with nurses (27.4%). Similar to pregnant women at the time of data collection, higher proportions of returnee and non-displaced households reported women were consulted by a doctor than IDP households (respectively 85.3% and 80.3% compared to 71.9%). Figure 34: % of HHs with at least one woman who gave birth within the two years prior to the assessment, per mantika Al Jabal Al Gharbi 19.7% Al Margab Benghazi Derna 22.1% 24.4% 26.2% Ghat Misrata 29.7% 31.3% Sebha Tripoli Overall 24.1% 23.6% 24.4% Regarding assistance during childbirth, 63 IDP households were fewer to report pregnant women to be assisted by doctors during the delivery (65.9%) compared to non-displaced women (76.4%) and returnee women (78.5%). Overall, 61.7% of those women who gave birth in the two years prior to data collection indicated that they had exclusively breastfed their recently born infant for the first six months of their life. 64 This constituted an acceptable rate in line with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children and Education Fund (UNICEF) target of 50% of exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months to provide all essential nutrients to newborns and effectively reduce child mortality Due to a further disaggregation of the data, these results should be considered indicative rather than representative. 63 Idem. 64 Idem. 65 Global Nutrition Target 2025 (2014), Breastfeeding Policy Brief. Retrieved from: 48

51 Education Attendance to Formal and Informal Education Overall, the enrolment rate in Libya was at 69.5% of school-aged children (defined as children aged 4-17) across all assessed locations, while the rate of actual attendance, 68.4%, was quite similar. When asked about barriers to accessing education, 87.3% of households with school-aged children reported facing no barrier; 5.8% reported the distance to educational facilities, 1.9% reported the inability to afford educational services and 0.4% the lack of safety of the route to the educational facilities. Returnee children of school age showed slightly worse attendance rates (61.5%) compared to other population groups (68.8% attending for non-displaced, 67.5% for IDP households). As seen in the table below, a higher proportion of households in Benghazi reported barriers to accessing education services, in particular IDP households (33.3%) quite higher than the overall percentage in Benghazi or in other mantikas. In Sebha in particular, 2.6% of households reported that they considered the route to educational facilities unsafe. Table 14: % of HHs reporting barriers to accessing education per three main reported barriers, per mantika No issue reported Distance to educational facility is too far Cannot afford education services Route to educational facility is unsafe Al Jabal Al Gharbi 98% 0.2% 4.5% 0.0% Al Margab 86.5% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% Benghazi 80.1% 13.4% 3.3% 0.0% Derna 91% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% Ghat 90.2% 6.6% 3.8% 0.0% Misrata 89.5% 4.8% 2.4% 0.0% Sebha 93.1% 6.9% 0.0% 2.6% Tripoli 86.4% 1.9% 0.1% 0.9% Overall 87.3% 5.8% 1.9% 0.4% A higher proportion of school-aged IDP children were likely to have dropped out of formal educational services (4.7% across locations) compared to non-displaced (1.4%) and returnee children (2.0%). The highest drop-out rates were found among school-aged children from IDP households in Benghazi (5.3%), Misrata (6%), Tripoli (6.4%), Sebha (6.6%) and Al Margab (8.9%). For those IDP households, the main reasons cited were inability to afford educational services (42.2%) and inability to continue their children s education due to displacement (24%). 66 This could highlight particular economic vulnerabilities faced by IDP households, who tend to be in more precarious economic situations and may be unable to afford educational services. Non-formal education Overall, 32.2% of households reported that school-aged children were attending some form of nonformal education, 67 in particular remedial education (15.8%), recreational activities (9.9%) and programmes in child-friendly spaces (3.6%). 68 IDP households with school-aged children were less likely to report attendance to non-formal education than other population groups (21.4% compared to 32.6% for non-displaced households and 30.0% for returnee households). 66 Findings revolving around reasons for dropouts correspond to a small subset of the population assessed and should therefore be considered indicative rather than representative. 67 During consultation with the Education Sector, non-formal education was defined as any kind of education provided by uncertified staff and which does not give access to any official education certification. 68 Findings revolving around types of non-formal education correspond to responses from a small subset of the population assessed and should therefore be considered indicative rather than representative. 49

52 Remedial education and recreational activities were the two non-formal education services favoured in the locations assessed remedial education seemingly more likely to be attended in eastern mantikas (first reported in both Derna and Benghazi), while recreational activities were always reported first in southern mantikas (both Sebha and Ghat) (see table below). Table 15: % of HHs with school-aged children reporting at least one child attended non-formal education, per nonformal education type Main non-formal education attended 2 nd main non-formal education attended 3 rd main non-formal education attended Al Jabal Al Gharbi Remedial education Catch-up classes Recreational activities 21.5% 19.5% 2.0% Al Margab Recreational activities Child-friendly spaces Remedial education 6.7% 6.7% 6.0% Benghazi Remedial education Recreational activities Child-friendly spaces 16.3% 13.1% 4.8% Derna city Remedial education Recreational activities Catch-up classes 17.9% 2.2% 2.2% Ghat Recreational activities Child-friendly spaces Remedial education 7.3% 6.2% 4.9% Misrata Remedial education Recreational activities Child-friendly spaces 21.7% 16.9% 5.6% Sebha Recreational activities Remedial education Child-friendly spaces 15.1% 13.4% 6.2% Tripoli Remedial education Recreational activities Child-friendly spaces 15.3% 7.8% 0.9% Overall Remedial education Recreational activities Child-friendly spaces 15.8% 9.9% 3.6% Priority Needs & Assistance Among households in the eight assessed mantikas, the top three most reported needs were cash/income support, healthcare and food, which were highlighted by 53.0%, 51.9% and 47.0% of households respectively. 69 IDP households indicated shelter, food and cash/income support as their top three priority needs, with 71.6%, 58.6% and 47.5% of IDP households giving these responses. This ranking of needs, particularly the high proportion of IDP households reporting needing shelter assistance, was coherent with the combination of needs and vulnerabilities noted throughout this report. Similarly, the financial pressure caused by higher housing costs and constrained access to livelihoods, combined with the overarching liquidity crisis, placed additional strain on the food security of IDP households compared to other population groups. By contrast, returnee households priority needs were food, healthcare and shelter, reported by 73.0%, 62.2% and 50.0% of returnee households respectively. While the need for food assistance might be cross-cutting due to the aforementioned reported increased prices and liquidity crisis as food expenses were the first expenditure item across population groups, the characteristics of returns explained the high proportion of returnee households reporting shelter and healthcare needs as households come back to damaged housing and in areas where basic services might not be functional. Non-displaced households reported needing cash/income support (53.3%), healthcare (51.7%) and food (45.5%). 69 Respondents could choose up to three answers. 50

53 Figure 35: % of HHs reporting their priority needs, per population group 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cash/income support Healthcare Food assistance Shelter Energy Education Psychosocial support None NFIs Non-displaced HHs IDP HHs Returnee HHs Assistance received in the six months prior to the assessment Throughout the assessed mantikas, 23.3% of IDP households reported having received assistance in the six months prior to the assessment, compared to 18.4% of returnee and 3.6% of non-displaced households. In particular, high rates of IDP households reported having received assistance in Misrata (57.5%), Sebha (67.5%) and Al Margab (77.4%). Similarly, a majority of returnee households mentioned having received assistance in Al Jabal Al Gharbi (77.6%). 100% Figure 36: % of IDP and returnee HHs reported having received assistance in the six months prior to the assessment, per mantika 70 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Al Jabal Al Gharbi 23.3% 18.4% Al Margab Benghazi Derna Ghat Misrata Sebha Tripoli Overall Non-displaced HHs IDP HHs Returnee HHs 3.6% 70 Returnee households not assessed in Sebha mantika. 51

54 Most households (63.1%) who reported receiving aid within the six months prior to the assessment indicated 71 that the assistance was in-kind, with 77.0% of returnee households reporting receiving in-kind aid. This was followed by mixed assistance for 25.3% of households, and finally cash & voucher assistance for 13.0% of households. The three main providers of humanitarian assistance overall, as reported by households, were private donations (43.0%), local NGOs (36.4%) and INGOs (23.0%). 72 It should be noted that these households perceptions may understate the real rates of INGO support. Figure 37: % of HHs reporting assistance received in the six months prior to the assessment, per type and population group 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% In-kind Mixed (in-kind & cash) Cash & vouchers Non-displaced HHs IDP HHs Returnee HHs Preferred modality for future assistance When asked about their preferred assistance modality for the future, 36.7% of households indicated cash and voucher assistance, followed by mixed assistance (a combination of in-kind and cash/vouchers) for 30.8% of households. Finally, in-kind assistance was reportedly preferred by only 6.5% of households. A higher proportion of returnee and IDP households indicated a preference for cash and voucher assistance only (46.3% and 45.5% respectively). These percentages should be considered in light of the findings above that in-kind assistance comprised a majority of assistance received by all population groups. Non-displaced and returnee households reported that they would prefer cash and voucher assistance in a majority of mantikas where they were surveyed (five out of eight mantikas for non-displaced households, four out of seven for returnee households). It should also be noted that non-displaced households reported primarily requiring no assistance in the mantika of Tripoli. IDP households reported in a majority of locations assessed wanting mixed assistance (in five mantikas out of eight). 71 These observations only correspond to a subset of population groups assessed the households having responded they had received assistance in the six months prior to the assessment and therefore should be considered indicative and not representative. 72 Idem. 52

55 Map 6: Preferred modality for future assistance, per mantika and population group 53