DISPLACEMENT TRACKING MATRIX PHILIPPINES — Taal Volcano Eruption

1 FEBRUARY 2020 • REPORT NO. 1

NUMBERS AT A GLANCE

150 Remaining evacuation centers

368 ECs (71%) closed since 25 Jan

5,947 Families or 21,602 persons still in ECs

30,071 Families or 112,478 persons (84%) have left the ECs since 26 Jan when

Alert Level 3 was declared

59,604 Families or 218,950 persons are

outside ECs

8,000 Persons or approximately 1,600

families living on the Volcano Island before the eruption can no longer

return

40 Municipalities across 4 provinces where remaining ECs are located:

Batangas (26), Cavite (9), Laguna (3), Rizal (2)

77 Municipalities across 5 provinces

where IDPs are staying outside ECs: Batangas (23), Cavite (13), Laguna (16),

Quezon (12), Rizal (13)

HIGHLIGHTS

• 57,572 IDPs or 47% of the total displaced population have already returned as per the latest DSWD DROMIC report.

• 53% are still displaced majority of which are staying outside ECs. Probable reasons for not returning are on-going debris clearing, damaged houses and loss of livelihoods.

• Top needs in remaining ECs include sustainability of food supply, NFIs, WASH, MHPSS services, information return and settlement options

Source: https://mangomap.com/dswdgis/maps/104078/taal-volcano-eruption-evacuation-centers?preview=true#

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

25 Jan 26 Jan 27 Jan 28 Jan 29 Jan 30 Jan 31 Jan 1 Feb

Persons inside ECs

Persons outside ECs

25 Jan 26 Jan 27 Jan 28 Jan 29 Jan 30 Jan 31 Jan 1 Feb Remarks

No. of ECs 518 493 483 478 383 373 192 150 368 # of ECs (71%) closed since 25 Jan

Families in ECs 36,648 37,230 35,317 31,550 16,888 16,181 9,618 5,947 30,701 # of families/persons (84%) who left ECs since Alert Level 3 was declared on 26 JanPersons in ECs 134,080 131,720 122,018 111,165 58,892 56,331 63,794 21,602 112,478

Families outside ECs 44,589 16,617 24,557 58,353 43,741 42,774 58,131 59,604 15,015 # of families/persons who left their host dwellings (outside ECs) as of 1 FebPersons outside ECs 170,718 64,175 92,659 216,473 165,558 162,407 213,867 218,950 48,232

IDP MOVEMENTS 25 JAN - 1 FEB

Source: DSWD DROMIC 4A Taal Report #s 49-78

LOCATION OF OPEN AND CLOSED EVACUATION CENTERS

DSWDDepartment of Social Welfare and Development

Breastfeeding mothers

Persons with physical disability

Pregnant women

Single female-headed families

Single male-headed families

Persons w/ chronic/serious medical condition

Unaccompanied older persons

Child-headed families

Persons with sensory disability

Persons with mental disability

Unaccompanied children

Separated children

Orphaned children 9

13

40

51

63

69

113

130

287

383

514

730

929

AG

E G

ROU

P (Y

EAR

S)

<1

1-3

4-5

6-12

13-19

20-59

>59 1,963

10,879

3,670

3,735

1,029

1,257

1,477

1,594

11,895

4,127

4,036

1,175

1,384

1,548MaleFemale

DTM KEY FINDINGS

The following information is the result of the Displacement Tacking Matrix (DTM) assessments conducted in 206 evacuation centers (30% of total ECs) on 21  January to 1 February 2020 involving more than 100 enumerators from DSWD, IOM and the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT).

SEX AND AGE BREAKDOWN

4%

96%

Government-identified ECSpontaneous settlement

SITE CLASSIFICATION

GROUPS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

TOP NEEDS

• Although there are daily food distributions and even provision of cooked food for 88% of assessed ECs, 41% of assessed ECs identified sustainability of food supply as their top concern. 48% of assessed ECs anticipate their food supply to last only several days, 20% of assessed ECs anticipate 1 week and 12% of assessed ECs anticipate 2 weeks.

• 17% of assessed ECs identified NFIs as the top concern.

• 11% of assessed ECs identified WASH as their top concern.

Food

NFI

Other

WASH

Shelter

Health

Livelihood

Protection

Psychosocial Support

Education

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

PREFERRED MODE OF DELIVERY OF ASSISTANCE

40% of assessed ECs prefer assistance to be provided in-kind rather than in cash. 34% of assessed ECs would accept assistance in both in-kind and cash. 11% of assessed ECs would prefer just cash.

10

20

30

40

In-kind Both Cash

School - 63%

Sports Facility - 15%

Other - 11%Government Hall - 10%

Community Center - 1%

FACILITY TYPE

WATER SOURCES

57% of assessed ECs said their main source of potable water is delivered/bottled water while 84% of assessed ECs said their main source of water for washing is the in-house water system of the EC.

Water from delivery

Water system

Bottled water

Well

Spring

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

POTABLE WATER

Water system

Well

Water from delivery

Spring

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

WATER FOR DOMESTIC USE

WASH FACILITIES

Handwashing stations

Bathing areas

Latrines 1,365

1,247

973

343

334

334

344

Male Female Unsegregated

Cough

Colds

Fever

Other

Diarrhea

Rashes

Skin diseases

Wounds

Convulsions/seizures

Pregnancy-related conditions

Eye infections

0 15 30 45 60 75 90

HEALTH COMPLAINTS OF IDPs

Top health complaints in the assessed ECs are cough, colds and fever.

Never

Irregular

Every day

Twice a week

Once a week

Unknown

No answer

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

FREQUENCY OF MHPSS SERVICES

27% of assessed ECs reported never having received MHPSS services. 25% of assessed ECs report receiving it irregularly and 24% of assessed ECs report receiving it every day.

TYPICAL LIVELIHOODS OF IDPs

The typical livelihood of IDP families in 66% of assessed ECs is agriculture, and 63% of assessed ECs is fisheries and 34% of assessed ECs is small business.

Agriculture

Fisheries

Other

Small business

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

INFORMATION NEEDS OF IDPs

In 59% of assessed ECs, information on return, resettlement or migration options are most requested by IDPs.

Return/resettlement/migration options

Food distribution

Other

None

Healthcare

Documents

NFI distribution

Water and sanitation

Protection services

Security situation

Legal services

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

CONTINUING NEEDS

• Tracking of IDPs outside ECs whose return movement to places of origin remain suspended due to ongoing debris clearing, damage houses and loss of livelihood.

• Relocation assistance for more than 1,600 families coming from the Volcano Island and a few barangays declared as no-return zones.

• Early recovery support for all returning families particularly on shelter and livelihood, especially the most vulnerable IDPs.

• Mass Evacuation Planning support for both affected municipalities and host LGUs in preparation for future Taal Volcano eruptions, including gathering the lessons learned and best practices gained from the recent evacuation experiences.

• Comprehensive awareness-raising on volcanic hazards and risks among the affected population to instill preparedness at the family level.

HOST PROVINCES # of ECsINSIDE ECs OUTSIDE ECs

Families Persons Families Persons

Total 150 5,947 21,602 59,604 218,950

Batangas 96 4,178 15,022 28,692 107,253

Cavite 40 1,078 4,124 20,161 71,435Laguna 12 531 2,025 6,067 22,488

Quezon 2 160 431 4,138 15,762

Rizal 0 0 0 546 2,012

DISPLACEMENT SUMMARY AS OF 1 FEBRUARY 2020

HOST PROVINCE / CITY / MUNICIPALITY

# of ECs Families Persons

Total 150 5,947 21,602

Batangas 96 4,178 15,022Balayan 21 768 2,483

Calaca 1 108 396

Calatagan 5 128 511

Lian 5 53 168Nasugbu 3 169 600

Tuy 4 119 389

Bauan 3 136 473

Mabini 1 13 64San Luis 10 339 1,136

San Pascual 3 87 290

Balete 1 86 376

Cuenca 1 39 102Laurel 1 156 642

Mataas na Kahoy 1 19 75

Sta. Teresita 1 24 74

Sto. Tomas City 3 308 1,064

Tanauan City 1 66 233Alitagtag 3 58 224

Taysan 0 0 0

Padre Garcia 1 48 186

Ibaan 3 105 363San Jose 2 19 76

Rosario 0 0 0

San Juan 2 35 115

Batangas City 15 1,151 4,597Lipa City 4 119 309

Cavite 40 1,078 4,124

Dasmarinas City 2 65 226

Silang 4 59 173Gen. Trias 17 416 1,517

General Emilio Aguinaldo 1 37 131

Maragondon 9 116 363

Mendez 1 26 95Naic 1 7 25

Tagaytay City 3 339 1,542

Ternate 1 13 52

Laguna 12 531 2,025Bay 1 26 110

Calamba City 11 401 1,389

San Pablo 0 104 526

Quezon 2 160 431San Antonio 1 4 24

Lucena City 1 19 71

IDPS INSIDE EVACUATION CENTERS 4 PROVINCES, 40 MUNICIPALITIES: BATANGAS (26), CAVITE (9), LAGUNA (3), RIZAL (2)

HOST PROVINCE/CITY/ MUNICIPALITY Families PersonsGrand Total 59,604 218,950Batangas 28,692 107,253Balayan 881 3,318Calatagan 756 2,645Lian 385 1,597Nasugbu 259 881Tuy 686 3,027Bauan 2,842 10,379Mabini 804 2,295San Luis 1,185 3,792San Pascual 2,353 8,246Lobo 129 405Malvar 2,334 8,834Mataas Na Kahoy 375 1,391Sta. Teresita 77 212Sto. Tomas City 24 120Tanauan City 302 1,160Alitagtag 705 2,312Padre Garcia 147 459Ibaan 607 2,035San Jose 495 2,262Rosario 495 2,262San Juan 577 2,077Batangas City 6,313 21,766Lipa City 4,781 20,960Cavite 20,161 71,435Bacoor 432 1,572Dasmarinas City 297 1,240Carmona 328 1,253Silang 297 1,240Gen. Trias 750 2,827Amadeo 315 946Indang 334 1,189Trece Martires 14,556 50,504Alfonso 1,082 3,900Maragondon 182 1,079Mendez 231 835Naic 138 491Tagaytay City 1,219 4,359Laguna 6,067 22,488Santa Rosa 125 465Los Banos 304 1,026Bay 468 1,756Cabuyao City 648 3,235Calamba City 3,566 12,215Alaminos 298 1,047San Pablo 180 900Nagcarlan 116 408Santa Cruz 40 220Cavinti 8 32Kalayaan 24 103Magdalena 44 171Pakil 17 75Majayjay 62 229Siniloan 13 55Pila 154 551Quezon 4,138 15,762Infanta 12 45Pagbilao 90 352Real 13 41Tayabas 98 373Sampaloc 4 12Candelaria 842 3,186Dolores 455 1,738

IDPS OUTSIDE EVACUATION CENTERS 5 PROVINCES, 77 MUNICIPALITIES: BATANGAS (23), CAVITE (13), LAGUNA (16), QUEZON (12), RIZAL (13)

HOST PROVINCE/CITY/ MUNICIPALITY Families PersonsSan Antonio 650 2,691Sariaya 465 1,670Tiaong 1,229 4,546Lucena City 245 965Pitogo 35 143Rizal 546 2,012Antipolo 156 659Angono 17 55Binangonan 27 114Cainta 82 315Taytay 53 223Tanay 55 55Baras 2 10Cardona 4 17Jalajala 73 282Morong 17 55Rodriguez 19 80Pililla 27 93Teresa 14 54

For more information, please contact IOM Philippines:

Kristin Dadey

Chief of Mission

IOM Philippines

kdadey@iom.int

Conrad Navidad

CCCM, Shelter, DTM

Program Coordinator

cnavidad@iom.int