RETURNS in IRAQ: 2020 OVERVIEW RI Jul 2021

RETURN INDEX RETURNS IN IRAQ: 2020 OVERVIEW

DECEMBER 2019 (ROUND 7) – DECEMBER 2020 (ROUND 11) JULY 2021

The Return Index is a tool designed to measure the severity of condi- overview of returns in 2020. The second considers conditions across tions in locations of return. The Return Index is based on 16 indicators all governorates of return at the end of 2020 and examines the divided into two scales: Scale 1, on livelihoods and basic services, and relationship between the rate of return and the severity of those Scale 2, centered around social cohesion and safety perceptions. A conditions. The third section outlines the areas of no return and regression model is used to assess the impact of each of the indi- newly assessed locations recorded by IOM’s Rapid Assessment and cators in facilitating or preventing returns. The index ranges from Response Teams (RARTs), and the returnee population living in crit- 0 (all essential conditions for return are met) to 100 (no essential ical shelters. Next, the report examines the mass arrivals from camps conditions for return are met). Higher scores denote more severe due to their closure, which began in mid-October, and highlights the living conditions for returnees. The scores of the severity index are living conditions of new arrivals when they returned to their area grouped into three categories: low, me-dium and high (which also of origin. The final section presents a more granular analysis of the includes very high). Refer to the report “Methodological Overview” factors driving severity in subdistricts of return which are designated for more details on the methodology. as ‘hotspots’, and how these factors changed between December 2019 and December 2020.1 The Returns in Iraq: 2020 Overview provides an analysis of returns across the country. The first section of this report presents an

OVERVIEW OF RETURNS

Between December 2019 and December 2020, the returnee popu- Over half of returns between December 2019 and December 2020 lation grew by 235,116, equivalent to roughly 39,186 households were to Ninewa Governorate (122,820 individuals, 52%); Anbar (Figure 1). This is around half the number of returnees recorded in accounted for around one in five returns (50,928 individuals, 22%) the previous year, when 431,130 individuals returned (December and Salah al-Din was the third major recipient of returnees (33,552 2018 to December 2019). The rate of change, that is, the percentage individuals, 14%) (Figure 1). While far smaller in absolute terms, Erbil change in the returnee population between rounds of data collection, saw 9,378 individuals return in 2020, which constitutes a 21 per cent also slowed significantly in 2020 (5%) compared with 2019 (10%). increase in the returnee population.

Figure 1. Changes in returnee population by governorate2

+235,116

+122,820 +50,928

+33,552 +8,640 +8,388 +1,422 +9,378 -12

All governorates Ninewa Anbar Salah al-Din Kirkuk Diyala Baghdad Erbil Dahuk

Dec 20 4,831,566 1,889,154 1,504,632 708,744 346,350 236,574 91,008 54,336 768 Dec 19 4,596,450 1,766,334 1,453,704 675,192 337,710 228,186 89,586 44,958 780

1 The return index classifies a subdistrict as a ‘hotspots’ if it scores highly in terms of severity on at least one of the two return index scales. A sub-district can also be considered a ‘hotspot’ if the area is scored as medium severity in one or both scales, but also hosts a relatively large number of returnees. 2 Data collected: November – December 2019, Master List Round 113 and November – December 2020, Master List Round 119.

1 IOM IRAQ RETURNS IN IRAQ: 2020 OVERVIEW

Map 1. Change in returnee population per district in 20203

Zakho Dahuk Amedi Mergasur Sumel Dahuk Soran Telafar Al-Shikhan Akre Tilkaif Tilkaif Choman Shaqlawa Sinjar Al-Hamdaniya Rania Pshdar

Mosul Erbil Ninewa Koisnjaq Dokan Erbil Sharbazher Makhmur Penjwin Al-Ba'aj Dabes Sulaymaniyah Hatra Al-Shirqat Kirkuk Sulaymaniya Darbandikhan Al-Hawiga Daquq Chamchamal Halabja Kirkuk Kalar Baiji Tooz Ra'ua Tikrit

Salah Al-Din Kifri Al-Daur Haditha Al-Ka'im Samarra Khanaqin Al-Thethar Al-Khalis Diyala Ana Balad Al-Muqdadiya Al-Fares Heet Tarmia Ba'quba Kadhimia Baladrooz Thawra1 Ramadi Abu Ghraib Al Resafa KarkhBaghdad Mada'in Falluja Badra Anbar Mahmoudiya Al-Azezia Al-Musayab Al-Suwaira Al-Mahawil Wassit Al-Rutba Ain Kerbala Al-Tamur Al-Hindiya Babylon Kut Ali Al-Gharbi Kerbala Hilla Hashimiya Al-Na'maniya

Al-Hai Amara Kufa Diwaniya Afaq Al-Manathera Qadissiya Missan Al-Shamiya Al-Rifa'i Al-Maimouna Al-Kahla Hamza Al-Rumaitha Al-Mejar Qal'at Al-Shatra Al-Kabir Saleh Najaf Al-Samawa Thi-Qar Al-Qurna Percentage change in returnee population Al-Khidhir Nassriya Suq Al-Midaina Najaf Al-Shoyokh Shatt Al-Arab Al-Chibayish -2% - 0% Basrah Basrah Abu > 0% - 13% Al-Zubair Al-Khaseeb Muthanna Fao > 13% - 25% Al-Salman

> 25% - 55%

> 55% - 133%

Not a district of origin

As of December 2020, Ninewa hosted the largest number of Nearly all of Anbar’s displaced population has returned (92%), with returnees (1,889,154 individuals), with 73 per cent of the population 1,504,632 returnees. Salah al-Din, with the third largest returnee displaced from that governorate having since returned (Figure 2). population of 708,744 individuals, has a rate of return of 83 per cent.

Figure 2. Rate of return per governorate4

Ninewa Anbar Salah al-Din Kirkuk Diyala Baghdad Erbil Dahuk

Rate of Return 73% 92% 83% 82% 76% 69% 85% 100%

IDPs from Governorate 705,370 134,119 142,449 78,376 72,958 41,074 9,483

Returnees 1,889,154 1,504,632 708,744 346,350 236,574 91,008 54,336 768

3 Data collected: November – December 2019, Master List Round 113 and November – December 2020, Master List Round 119. 4 The rate of return calculated here divides the number of returnees per governorate by the total number of returnees and IDPs originating from that governorate. Data collected: November – December 2020, Master List Round 119.

2 IOM IRAQ RETURNS IN IRAQ: 2020 OVERVIEW

RETURNEE POPULATION IN SEVERE CONDITIONS

During the Return Index Round 11 collected in November and Ten per cent of all returnees in Iraq live in severe conditions, equiva- December 2020, a total of 2,076 locations of return were assessed. lent to 484,548 individuals. However, just under half of all returnees Out of these assessed locations, 423 presented severe conditions.5 in Iraq live in locations of low severity (49%) (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Proportion and number of returnees by category of severity

High Medium Low 10% 41% 49% 484,548 individuals 1,953,102 individuals 2,367,954 individuals

Overall, the proportion of returnees living in locations classified as individuals living in high and medium severity conditions that occurred high and medium severity stayed relatively constant over 2020 (Figure in May–June 2020 can be correlated to a deterioration in employ- 4). Between December 2019 and December 2020, the proportion ment, concerns about sources of violence, and restrictions on daily of returnees in locations of high severity reduced from 12 to 10 per public life associated with the measures imposed to curb the spread cent, a reduction of around 37,000 individuals. The notable increase in of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Figure 4. Yearly trend of proportion of returnees by category of severity (% of Individuals)

High Medium Low

Nov-Dec 2020 10% 41% 49%

Sept-Oct 2020 11% 40% 49%

May-Jun 2020 14% 50% 36%

Jan-Feb 2020 11% 40% 48%

Nov-Dec 2019 12% 39% 49%

In absolute terms, the governorates with the highest number of returnees living in severe conditions are Ninewa (235,302 individuals) and Salah al-Din (143,682 individuals) (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Number of returnees by category of severity for all governorates of return (December 2020)6

1,049,442

769,926 680,196 600,288 407,916 272,310 235,302 155,310 143,682 139,728 52,350 55,470 49,752 49,038 71,814 2,088 33,450 31,272 1,170 4,128 204

Anbar Baghdad Diyala Erbil Kirkuk Ninewa Salah al-Din

High Medium Low

5 The wording ‘severe’ or ‘poor’ conditions in this report refers to conditions in the locations classified as high severity. 6 Dahuk is not on the chart as all 768 returnees are living in locations classified as low severity as of December 2020

3 IOM IRAQ RETURNS IN IRAQ: 2020 OVERVIEW

The sharp increase in severity recorded in some locations during where, in each case, the number of returnees in severe conditions in May–June was most pronounced in Anbar, Diyala, and Ninewa September–October fell to pre-pandemic levels (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Yearly trend of number of returnees living in severe conditions for all governorates of return

273,036

235,302 225,204 202,218 198,450 178,644 173,724 173,628 164,478 143,682 122,256 102,750 103,620

74,808 77,274

52,350 49,752 49,008 43,728 41,634

9,552 2,088 3,030 1,608 1,932 1,170 1,050 2,430 1,422 2,424 204 174 906 348 306

Anbar Baghdad Diyala Erbil Kirkuk Ninewa Salah al-Din

Nov-Dec 2019 Jan-Feb 2020 May-Jun 2020 Sept-Oct 2020 Nov-Dec 2020

In terms of proportion of returned population, Salah al-Din and Diyala witnessed the largest reduction in proportion of returnees living in have the highest percentages of returnees living in severe conditions locations of high overall severity. with 21 per cent each (Figure 7). Salah al-Din and Anbar governorates

Figure 7. Proportion of returnees by category of severity for all governorates of return (December 2019 and December 2020)

13% 20% 20% 11% 51% 52% 56% 61% 64% 58% 80% 79% 76% 66% 90% 59% 62% 59%

45% 40% 32% 32% 37% 34% 15% 8% 24% 30% 4% 8% 2% 2% 21% 18% 2% 5% 21% 10% 12% 21% (Dec 20) (Dec 19) (Dec 20) (Dec 19) (Dec 20) (Dec 19) (Dec 20) (Dec 19) (Dec 20) (Dec 19) (Dec 20) (Dec 19) (Dec 20) (Dec 19) Anbar Baghdad Diyala Erbil Kirkuk Ninewa Salah al-Din

High Medium Low

RETURN RATE PER CATEGORIES OF SEVERITY

Analysis of Return Index data from December 2019 to December proportion of locations that were high severity and where all the 2020 indicates a moderate association between the return rate and displaced population had returned increased slightly in 2020 (from categories of severity (Figure 8).7 Locations classified as low severity 2% in December 2019 to 5% in December 2020). Just under half of have more often witnessed the return of all its displaced popula- all locations with full returns are medium severity (46%) and half are tion while locations classified as high severity more often witnessed low severity (49%). the return of less than half its displaced population. However, the

Figure 8. Rate of return by overall severity (% of locations)8

Total 20% 46% 34% All have returned 5% 46% 49% Most have returned 14% 49% 37% Around half have returned 43% 46% 11% Nov-Dec 2020 Less than half have returned 70% 28% 2%

Total 17% 45% 38% All have returned 2% 40% 58% Most have returned 13% 47% 40% Around half have returned 38% 43% 19% Nov-Dec 2019 Less than half have returned 59% 35% 6%

High Medium Low

7 Moderate association (Cramer’s V = 0.327, p < .001 in Round 11 and Cramer’s V = 0.281, p < .001 in Round 7). 8 Here the rate of return is calculated as part of the return index, in which a key informant is asked how many households have returned in each location, according to the categories shown in the chart. 4 RETURNS IN IRAQ: 2020 OVERVIEW

LOCATIONS WITH NO RETURN AND NEWLY ASSESSED LOCATIONS

A location is recorded as having had no returns if none of the population an additional 88 locations of no return during the year. Nearly half of these displaced since 2014 has returned to date.9 As of December 2019, DTM locations were in Ninewa (48%), with a further 26 per cent in Erbil and identified 261 nationwide locations with no returns. Over the course of 22 per cent in Diyala. As a result, as of December 2020, there were a 2020, 62 of these locations witnessed returns. However, DTM identified total of 287 nationwide locations of no return.

Map 2. Percentage of locations of no return per district

Zakho Dahuk Amedi Mergasur Sumel Dahuk Soran Telafar Al-Shikhan Akre Tilkaif Tilkaif Choman Shaqlawa Sinjar Al-Hamdaniya Rania Pshdar

Salah Al-Din Kifri Al-Daur Haditha Al-Ka'im Samarra Khanaqin Al-Thethar Al-Khalis Diyala Ana Balad Al-Muqdadiya Al-Fares Heet Tarmia Ba'quba Kadhimia Baladrooz Thawra1 Ramadi Abu Ghraib Al Resafa KarkhBaghdad Mada'in Falluja Badra Anbar Mahmoudiya Al-Azezia Al-Musayab Al-Suwaira Al-Mahawil Wassit Al-Rutba AinKerbala Al-Tamur Al-Hindiya Babylon Kut Ali Al-Gharbi Kerbala Hilla Hashimiya Al-Na'maniya

Al-Hai Amara Kufa Diwaniya Afaq Al-Manathera Qadissiya Missan Al-Shamiya Al-Rifa'i Al-Maimouna Al-Kahla Hamza Al-Rumaitha Al-Mejar Qal'at Al-Shatra Al-Kabir Saleh Najaf Al-Samawa Thi-Qar Al-Qurna Al-Khidhir Nassriya Suq Al-Midaina Najaf Al-Shoyokh Shatt Al-Arab Percentage of locations of no return Al-Chibayish Basrah

0% - 4% Basrah Abu Al-Zubair Al-Khaseeb > 4% - 11% Muthanna Fao Al-Salman > 11% - 25%

> 25% - 40%

> 40% - 100%

Not a district of origin

RETURNEE POPULATION IN CRITICAL SHELTERS

As of December 2020, 177,096 returnees reside in shelters in critical condition, damaged pre-conflict residences. Around 32 per cent (56,670 individuals) representing around 4 per cent of the total returnee population nationwide.10 of returnees in critical shelters are concentrated in Ninewa Governorate, Specifically, most returnees in critical shelters reside in destroyed or heavily followed by Anbar (25%), Salah al-Din (24%) and Diyala (13%) (Figure 9). Figure 9. Returnee population in critical shelters by governorate (December 2020)

32%

25% 24%

13%

3% 3% 0%

Ninewa Anbar Salah al-Din Diyala Kirkuk Baghdad Erbil

9 These locations, having no key informants and no population, are difficult to record and monitor and are generally identified through word-of-mouth. 10 Critical shelters include collective shelters (such as religious buildings, schools, or other public buildings), unfinished or abandoned buildings, tents, caravans and other temporary, sub-standard or makeshift shelters; as well as severely damaged or destroyed habitual residences and long-term rental accommodations that are unfit for habitation (having the characteristics of unfinished or severely damaged buildings). Data collected: November – December 2020, Master List Round 119. 5 RETURNS IN IRAQ: 2020 OVERVIEW

IMPACT OF CAMP CLOSURES

The closure of several IDP camps began around mid-October 2020 country. Among these, 31,422 individuals (76%) returned to their district of following the Government’s announcement to close and consolidate camps origin while the remaining 9,738 individuals (24%) moved to new locations across the country. Between November and December 2020, a total of of displacement, thus becoming out-of-camp IDPs. Ninewa Governorate 41,160 individuals were recorded as leaving camps for non-camp settings received the highest number of individuals arriving from camp settings, in Anbar, Diyala, Erbil, Kerbala, Kirkuk, Ninewa and Salah al-Din governo- accounting for more than half of the population from camps (26,646 indi- rates. These individuals departed camps in seven governorates across the viduals), followed by Kirkuk (5,346) and Diyala (3,870) (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Arrivals from camps to non-camp locations by governorate of arrival (November to December 2020)

26,646

5,346 3,870 3,270 1,536 366 126

Ninewa Kirkuk Diyala Salah al-Din Anbar Erbil Kerbala

Map 3: Districts that recorded new arrivals from camps by number of individuals (November–December 2020)

Zakho Dahuk Amedi Mergasur Sumel Dahuk Soran Telafar Al-Shikhan Akre Tilkaif Choman Shaqlawa Sinjar Al-Hamdaniya Rania Pshdar

Al-Hai Amara Kufa Diwaniya Afaq Al-Manathera Qadissiya Missan Al-Shamiya Al-Rifa'i Al-Maimouna Al-Kahla Number of individuals of Hamza Al-Rumaitha Al-Mejar Qal'at Al-Shatra new arrivals from camps in ML 119 Al-Kabir Saleh Najaf Al-Samawa Thi-Qar Al-Qurna 6 - 132 Al-Khidhir Nassriya Suq Al-Midaina Najaf Al-Shoyokh Shatt Al-Arab 133 - 1,140 Al-Chibayish Basrah

1,141 - 2,082 Basrah Abu Al-Zubair Al-Khaseeb 2,083 - 3,324 Muthanna Fao Al-Salman 3,325 - 11,322

No new arrivals from camps

Not a district of origin

6 IOM IRAQ RETURNS IN IRAQ: 2020 OVERVIEW

Around half of the individuals who arrived from camps settled in Diyala and Anbar governorates. Although Erbil and Kirkuk gover- locations with high severity (18,348 individuals); 27 per cent (11,034 norates did not receive camp arrivals in high severity locations, 51 individuals) settled in locations classified as medium severity. Ninewa per cent of individuals who left camps arrived to medium severity Governorate hosted the largest population of camp arrivals who locations in Ninewa while 17 per cent settled in medium severity settled in high severity locations (16,254) (Figure 11), accounting locations in Diyala. for 39 per cent of all arrivals from camps, followed by Salah al-Din,

Figure 11. Number of individuals from camps by severity level of location by governorate of arrival

16,254 High Medium Low

5,574 3,138 1,860 1,452 1,044 990 1,500 1,014 1,086 132 90 180 186

Ninewa Kirkuk Diyala Salah al-Din Anbar Erbil

DRIVERS OF SEVERITY IN KEY AREAS OF RETURN

The analysis presented in this section focuses on five thematic areas severity,11 which track problematic aspects that particularly contrib- of the Return Index indicators: residential destruction, livelihoods, uting to severe conditions. This section presents an analysis of how access to essential service, social cohesion, and safety (Figure 12). To the severity for each driver has changed across ‘hotspots’12 between provide a more granular understanding of severity and obstacles to December 2019 and December 2020. return, the Return Index indicators are grouped into five drivers of

Figure 12. Drivers of severity and composite indicators13 DRIVER RESIDENTIAL LIVELIHOODS ESSENTIAL SERVICES SOCIAL COHESION SAFETY DESTRUCTION AND SECURITY

Residential Recovery of Provision of Daily public life Concerns regarding destruction agriculture government services mines and unexploded ordnance

Recovery of Electricity Community Concerns about business suciency reconciliation sources of violence

Access to Water Illegal occupation Presence of multiple INDICATORS employment suciency of private residences security actors

Access to Blocked returns Checkpoints controlled basic services by other security actors

11 Drivers of severity are calculated at the subdistrict level and provide information on living conditions that contribute to severity to better inform interventions. Each driver is comprised of several Return Index indicators and considers the impact of each indicator in facilitating or preventing returns and the size of the returnee population in a subdistrict. 12 Subdistricts are classified as ‘hotspots’ if they score highly in terms of severity on at least one of the two scales (either livelihoods and basic services, or safety and social cohesion) or if they score medium in terms of severity but also host relatively large numbers of returnees, at least 60,000 returnees in a subdistrict. As of December 2020, 33 hotspots were identified across five governorates. 13 An interactive dashboard presenting data on drivers of severity and rate of return for hotposts can be found at http://iraqdtm.iom.int/ReturnIndex. In addition, a detailed analysis of how drivers of severity varied across all subdistricts of return can be found in the respective governorate profiles, available athttp://iraqdtm.iom.int/ReturnIndex#Go vProfiles.

7 IOM IRAQ RETURNS IN IRAQ: 2020 OVERVIEW

RESIDENTIAL DESTRUCTION

Overall, the extent of residential destruction and the presence of recon- Notably, the subdistrict of Al-Gamra, Anbar Governorate, saw signif- struction efforts in most hotspot subdistricts is categorized as low severity. icant improvements in residential destruction, moving from medium This means that, while there may be variation at the location level, in to low severity. However, a worsening severity was recorded in general, fewer than half of the households in these areas are destroyed, Al-Amerli subdistrict in Salah al-Din Governorate, which may be and reconstruction efforts are ongoing. A notable exception is Al-Nasir attributed to returns over the course of the year in newly assessed Walsalam in Baghdad Governorate, which remained at high severity for locations with moderate housing destruction. residential destruction throughout 2020. Similarly, Balad district in Salah al-Din Governorate has three subdistricts of return with high severity for residential destruction, and no improvement over the course of the year.

Figure 13. Variation in severity for residential destruction in all hotspots (December 2019 to December 2020)

Low severity High severity GOVERNORATE DISTRICT SUB-DISTRICT Low severity High severity Al-Ka'im Markaz Al-Ka'im Falluja Al-Amirya Falluja Al-Garma Anbar Heet Al-Baghdady Heet Al-Forat Heet Markaz Heet Ramadi Husaibah Al-Sharqiah Baghdad Abu Ghraib Al-Nasir Walsalam Al-Muqdadiya Abo Sayda Al-Muqdadiya Markaz Al-Muqdadiya Diyala Khanaqin Jalula Kifri Qara Tabe Al-Ba'aj Al-Qahtaniya Al-Ba'aj Markaz Al-Ba'aj Mosul Hamam al Aleel Sinjar Al-Shamal Ninewa Sinjar Markaz Sinjar Sinjar Qaeyrrawan Telafar Ayadiya Telafar Markaz Telafar Telafar Zummar Al-Daur Markaz Al-Daur Al-Shirqat Markaz Al-Shirqat Baiji Al-Siniya Baiji Markaz Baiji Balad Al-Eshaqi Balad Markaz Al-Balad Salah al-Din Balad Yathreb Samarra Al-Moatassem Samarra Markaz Samarra Tuz Khurmatu Al-Amerli Tuz Khurmatu Markaz Tuz Khurmatu Tuz Khurmatu Suleiman Beg Low (Dec 20) Medium (Dec 20) High (Dec 20) Low (Dec 1920) Medium (Dec 1920) High (Dec 1920) Low (Dec 19) Medium (Dec 19) High (Dec 19) 8 IOM IRAQ RETURNS IN IRAQ: 2020 OVERVIEW

LIVELIHOODS

Many hotspots witnessed significant variation in the recovery of economic Most hotspots within Ninewa Governorate recorded a worsening of activities and access to employment over the course of 2020. While the severity regarding livelihoods, with subdistricts in Al-Ba’aj and Sinjar moving impact of restrictions associated with COVID-19 caused a notable wors- from medium to high severity. Balad district, Salah al-Din Governorate, ening of severity in May–June, many hotspots recorded a worsening of recorded two hotspots that worsened significantly over the year – from low severity over the course of the year with little sign of recovery although and medium to high severity. However, the uneven impact of market funda- restriction measures were eased. This suggests the impact of other mentals on livelihoods is best exemplified by the subdistrict of Suleiman underlying structural factors such as low oil prices, widespread youth unem- Beg, also in Salah al-Din, which recorded the largest overall improvement ployment and poor access to financial services across many areas of return.14 in severity during 2020.

Figure 14. Variation in severity for livelihoods in all hotspots (December 2019 to December 2020) Low severity High severity GOVERNORATE DISTRICT SUB-DISTRICT Low severity High severity Al-Ka'im Markaz Al-Ka'im Falluja Al-Amirya Falluja Al-Garma Anbar Heet Al-Baghdady Heet Al-Forat Heet Markaz Heet Ramadi Husaibah Al-Sharqiah Baghdad Abu Ghraib Al-Nasir Walsalam Al-Muqdadiya Abo Sayda Al-Muqdadiya Markaz Al-Muqdadiya Diyala Khanaqin Jalula Kifri Qara Tabe Al-Ba'aj Al-Qahtaniya Al-Ba'aj Markaz Al-Ba'aj Mosul Hamam al Aleel Sinjar Al-Shamal Ninewa Sinjar Markaz Sinjar Sinjar Qaeyrrawan Telafar Ayadiya Telafar Markaz Telafar Telafar Zummar Al-Daur Markaz Al-Daur Al-Shirqat Markaz Al-Shirqat Baiji Al-Siniya Baiji Markaz Baiji Balad Al-Eshaqi Balad Markaz Al-Balad Salah al-Din Balad Yathreb Samarra Al-Moatassem Samarra Markaz Samarra Tuz Khurmatu Al-Amerli Tuz Khurmatu Markaz Tuz Khurmatu Tuz Khurmatu Suleiman Beg

Low (Dec 20) Medium (Dec 20) High (Dec 20) Low (Dec 20) Medium (Dec 20) High (Dec 20) Low (Dec 19) Medium (Dec 19) High (Dec 19) Low (Dec 19) Medium (Dec 19) High (Dec 19) 14 Hamilton, Alexander (2020) Is demography destiny? The economic implications of Iraq’s demography. LSE Middle East Centre Paper Series (41). LSE Middle East Centre, London, UK. 9 RETURNS IN IRAQ: 2020 OVERVIEW

SERVICES

Access to services remained good among all hotspots in Anbar and was recorded in Al-Siniya, Markaz al-Balad and Al-Amerli subdistricts, Baghdad governorates, and among some hotspots in Salah al-Din Salah al-Din Governorate. Very few hotspots recorded a significant Governorate. Elsewhere, severity remained high, most notably in improvement in access to services over the course of 2020, though Sinjar district, Ninewa Governorate, where all hotspots reported some districts such as Telafar, Ninewa Governorate, had low severity high severity with regard to services. Significant worsening in severity for services across all hotspots.

Figure 15. Variation in severity for services in all hotspots (December 2019 to December 2020)

GOVERNORATE DISTRICT SUB-DISTRICT Low severity High severity Al-Ka'im Markaz Al-Ka'im Falluja Al-Amirya Falluja Al-Garma Anbar Heet Al-Baghdady Heet Al-Forat Heet Markaz Heet Ramadi Husaibah Al-Sharqiah Baghdad Abu Ghraib Al-Nasir Walsalam Al-Muqdadiya Abo Sayda Al-Muqdadiya Markaz Al-Muqdadiya Diyala Khanaqin Jalula Kifri Qara Tabe Al-Ba'aj Al-Qahtaniya Al-Ba'aj Markaz Al-Ba'aj Mosul Hamam al Aleel Sinjar Al-Shamal Ninewa Sinjar Markaz Sinjar Sinjar Qaeyrrawan Telafar Ayadiya Telafar Markaz Telafar Telafar Zummar Al-Daur Markaz Al-Daur Al-Shirqat Markaz Al-Shirqat Baiji Al-Siniya Baiji Markaz Baiji Balad Al-Eshaqi Balad Markaz Al-Balad Salah al-Din Balad Yathreb Samarra Al-Moatassem Samarra Markaz Samarra Tuz Khurmatu Al-Amerli Tuz Khurmatu Markaz Tuz Khurmatu Tuz Khurmatu Suleiman Beg

Low (Dec 20) Medium (Dec 20) High (Dec 20) Low (Dec 19) Medium (Dec 19) High (Dec 19)

10 IOM IRAQ RETURNS IN IRAQ: 2020 OVERVIEW

SOCIAL COHESION

While there was limited variation in social cohesion over the course of Two hotspots in Tuz Khurmatu district, Salah al-Din Governorate, 2020, there was a pronounced escalation in severity recorded in May and witnessed significant improvement – moving from high to medium June. For the most part, this increase in severity can be attributed to a severity. Similarly, Markaz Telafar, Ninewa Governorate, improved worsening in daily public life and limited freedom of movement associated from medium to low severity. with the restriction measures introduced to curb the spread of COVID- 19. Across most hotspots, this sharp increase in severity related to daily public life returned to pre-COVID levels of severity.

Figure 16. Variation in severity for social cohesion in all hotspots (December 2019 to December 2020)

Low (Dec 20) Medium (Dec 20) High (Dec 20) Low (Dec 19) Medium (Dec 19) High (Dec 19)

11 IOM IRAQ RETURNS IN IRAQ: 2020 OVERVIEW

SAFETY AND SECURITY

Overall, more hotspots recorded high severity for safety and security assessed by the Return Index in 2020. Most hotspots in Ninewa driver than for any other driver. Three hotspots in Anbar Governorate Governorate improved in severity related to safety and security, most recorded significant worsening of severity, driven by rising concerns notably in Markaz Sinjar and Qaeyrrawan, both in Sinjar district, which over sources of violence, reported blocked returns and violent moved from high to medium severity. Hotspots across Salah al-Din non-state actors in control of checkpoints. There were no significant Governorate vary significantly in severity related to safety and security, variations in severity for hotspots in Diyala Governorate, although all with those in Tuz Khurmatu district recording the highest severity. remained high severity, except for one subdistrict which was newly

Figure 17. Variation in severity for safety and security in all hotspots (December 2019 to December 2020)

Low (Dec 20) Medium (Dec 20) High (Dec 20) Low (Dec 19) Medium (Dec 19) High (Dec 19)

12 IOM IRAQ Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IOM concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries.

IOM IRAQ

UNAMI Compound (Diwan 2), International Zone, Baghdad/Iraq

iraq.iom.int

[email protected]

@IOMIraq

This report was developed with support from the COMPASS project funded by the Government of the Netherlands. Data in this report was collected through a project funded by the US State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM).

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher.

13 IOM IRAQ