Humanitarian Snapshot (March 2021)

HRP 2020 Response Gap Analysis TURKEY Gaps by cluster

Out-Of-Camp IDPs 4 1 Number of clusters reporting 4 Out-Of-Camps IDPs # of times a cluster Total response gap In March 2021, the Iraq Inter-Cluster Coordination Group completed a response gap in a district 2 4 2 Returnees reported the highest an analysis of the 2020 humanitarian response, which summarized 4 4 5 gap in a district IDPs Returnees gaps in the response and identified associated challenges in 3 8 ERBIL implementing humanitarian activities in line with the 2020 Humanitarian NINEWA 5 1 Health 22 180K 228K Response Plan (HRP). The summary is based on inputs by eight 12 SYRIA 5 AL- IRAN clusters and two sub-clusters. 2 6 4 1 WASH 7 36K 148K In the 2020 HRP, partners set out to cover the critical needs of 1.8 million 2 1 4 6 5 people living in 63 out of Iraq’s 101 districts. Despite the onset of SALAH AL-DIN 1 Education 4 69K 74K 5 7 the COVID-19 pandemic, humanitarian partners reached 1.4 million 1 1 7 Food Security 2 94K 80K people (81 per cent of the target), with 95 per cent of funding 2 DIYALA requirements having been met. However, the response gaps were found 6 2 4 General Protection 4 - 257K to be more pronounced for certain population groups and locations. AL-ANBAR 1 BAGHDAD 1 While partners managed to reach all IDPs living in camps, the response 5 6 4 Shelter & NFI 75K 25K gap was particularly high among out-of-camp IDPs in acute need JORDAN WASSIT KERBALA BABIL (291,000 people out of 429,000 people targeted were reached, or 2 2 Child Protection 5 86K 119K 68 per cent) and returnees in acute need (878,000 people out of the AL-QADISSIYA MAYSAN 1 1.2 million people targeted were reached, or 74 per cent). SAUDI ARABIA Gender Based Violence 2 40K 180K

All clusters experienced some gaps in their response; at a district level, # clusters with a response gap AL- THI QAR (by district) Emergency livelihood - 27K the highest response gaps were most frequently reported by the Health, 1 - + Food Security, Protection (including HLP, Mine Action, GBV and Child 1 AL-BASRAH Gaps by activity Protection), Shelter/NFI and WASH Clusters. AL-MUTHANNA Returnees TURKEY 28% of activities Out-of-camp IDPs reached KUWAIT Number of clusters reporting DUHOK 128 30 achieved less than 50 a response gap in a district HRP Activities per cent of the target 100 1 8 7 429K 2 5 PEOPLE TARGETED 1 ERBIL Gaps were attributed to five broad categories: lack of funding, lack of 291 K NINEWA 5 1 access, lack of partner presence, reprioritization of beneficiaries, or 200 K 5 5 AL-SULAYMANIYAH challenges related to COVID-19. Some gaps may also be attributable to SYRIA 4 IRAN 145 K 149 K 155 K KIRKUK challenges in reporting and adjusting the modality of response. 1 6 7 5 The highest response gaps for out-of-camp IDPs were observed in Erbil 26 K SALAH AL-DIN 4 4 district, followed by Sumail district in Duhok and Al- Sulaymaniyah district. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2 2 4 As there are no persistent access or administrative problems present in 5 DIYALA 4 2 the governorates in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, further review was

Returnees Reached 4 recommended by the gap analysis report into the reasons behind this lack AL-ANBAR 6 BAGHDAD 6 7 of humanitarian services. For returnees, the highest response gaps were observed in Telafar, followed by Al Hawiga in Kirkuk and Tilkaef in 3 JORDAN WASSIT 1.2M KERBALA BABIL Ninewa. In some districts, the response gaps were primarily within PEOPLE TARGETED 878 K one or two clusters, while in others nearly all clusters observed 639 K AL-QADISSIYA significant gaps. With some exceptions, most of the gaps in the response SAUDI ARABIA MAYSAN 447 K to out-of-camp IDPs were attributed to lack of partners, while the primary 318 K 231 K # clusters with a response gap AL-NAJAF THI QAR reason for the gap in the returnee response was reported to be COVID-19 131 K (by district) restrictions. Overall, access issues were the least reported set of - + challenges. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec AL-BASRAH

The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. The data for this map has a limited number of sources. The data is not independently verified and is subject to error or omission, deliberate or otherwise by various sources. Sources : 2020 HRP Response Gap Analysis, Iraq Inter-Cluster Coordination Group, 18 March 2021, https://bit.ly/3upcML4 Creation date: 01 April 2021 Feedback: [email protected], iraq.humanitarianresponse.info, www.reliefweb.int