Executive Summary
1.1 Key Findings
This report uses anonymised mobile operator data from Vodacom Congo (DRC) to map population movements out of the most affected health zones in the 2026 Ebola Bundibugyo outbreak, and to identify which areas across the country face the greatest risk of importation of infectious persons, to inform surveillance prioritisation. It updates and extends our 4 June 2026 Rapid Update, using a more recent reference period (4 May 2026–17 May 2026) and an improved methodology.
We provide data on movements away from two groups of health zones. The first, in Ituri, consists of Bunia, Mongbwalu, Nyankunde and Rwampara, which account for the vast majority of confirmed and suspected cases in
DRC (Nyankunde has been added since the previous report). The second, in Nord-Kivu, consists of Beni, Butembo and Katwa. For each group we follow an anonymised cohort of subscribers present in the origin zones during 4 May 2026–17 May 2026, and measure their average subscriber-days per cohort member in every health zone over the follow-up period (18 May 2026–8 June 2026), a metric capturing both how many cohort members reached a zone and how long they stayed.
For the Ituri cohort, the nine highest-ranked recipient zones are all within the province: Lita, Nizi, Bambu, Tchomia, Kilo, Gety, Damas, Komanda and Drodro, led by Lita at 1.09 subscriber-days per cohort member; the first zone outside Ituri is Katwa (Nord-Kivu, rank 10), followed by Butembo (15), Beni (17), Watsa (Haut-Uele, 18) and Makiso Kisangani (Tshopo, 22). For the Nord-Kivu cohort, the top five recipients are all within Nord-Kivu: Musienene (1.64), Kalunguta, Oicha, Kyondo and Mabalako, with the main destinations beyond the two provinces being Watsa (rank 15) and Makiso Kisangani (rank 17).
Mobility patterns align closely with the observed case distribution: for the Ituri cohort, all ten top-ranked destination zones have at least one confirmed case as of 25 Jun 20261,2,3, and 21 of the top 30 do (70%); confirmed cases are far less common further down the ranking, with only 6 of zones ranked 31–60 affected (20%). For the Nord-Kivu cohort,14 of the top 30 destinations have confirmed cases (47%)1,2,3, including all five of the top five.
The exportation risk from the Nord-Kivu cluster is considerably more uncertain than from the Ituri cluster. For Nord-Kivu, case counts remain low and likely underestimate the true burden given detection and testing constraints in the northeast1,2,3, so exportation from this cluster cannot be reliably estimated from the data presented here; we therefore present these flows as a separate, interim analysis. Recent spatial spread nonetheless suggests some exportation beyond the main Ituri outbreak, which may reflect the importance of this group. Responders should evaluate the data through their knowledge of the local context in Nord-Kivu, rather than reading the rankings as a direct measure of risk; the Nord-Kivu cohort also shows substantially stronger urban connectivity: roughly six times the Ituri cohort's exposure to Goma (NK rank 22), five times to Bukavu (NK rank 36) and nearly twice to Lubumbashi (NK rank 78), which would become particularly important should this cluster grow.
We recommend that highly ranked health zones without confirmed cases receive particular attention in surveillance planning. If the three Nord-Kivu origin zones do contribute sizeable exportation, several zones ranking highly for Nord-Kivu but not Ituri warrant attention: Mandima (Nord-Kivu rank 6, Ituri rank 24), Mutwanga (Nord-Kivu rank 8) and Lubero (Nord-Kivu rank 12), together with Makiso Kisangani, which faces compound exposure from both clusters yet has no confirmed cases to date. Ten health zones rank in the top 30 of both cohorts, facing possible compound importation pressure not visible in either ranking alone.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was funded by the King Baudouin Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The underlying DRC programme of work was established with funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Data is provided by Vodacom Congo, with support from Vodacom Foundation.
We would like to thank Vodacom Foundation and Vodacom Congo (DRC) for providing us with pseudonymised call detail records, which has enabled us to produce the estimates presented in this report of the 2026 DRC Ebola Bundibugyo outbreak.
This work was funded by the King Baudouin Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The underlying DRC programme of work was established with funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN VODACOM CONGO AND FLOWMINDER
Since 2018, Vodacom Congo and the Flowminder Foundation have been collaborating to put anonymised mobile data at the service of development and humanitarian action in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This partnership combines operator metadata (CDRs) provided by Vodacom Congo with Flowminder's analytical expertise in big data, in strict compliance with subscriber privacy. Together, the two organisations have produced mobility indicators to support the government's response to COVID-19, estimate population displacement following the eruption of Mount Nyiragongo in 2021, and strengthen routine immunisation planning for the Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI). This collaboration illustrates how the Congolese private sector, national health authorities, and technical partners can combine their strengths to produce timely, evidence-based insights for the benefit of the people of the DRC. The analyses are carried out on de-identified mobile data. No individual-level data leaves Vodacom’s secure premise.