February 2019 MAP: DISTRICTOFORIGINWITHINANBAR DISPLACEMENT DEMOGRAPHICS al-Din and governorates. Sulaymaniyah and al-Din Anbar, , Dahuk, Diyala, , Kerbala, , Ninewa, Salah A total of 4,300 households were interviewed across 49 formal camps in place between30Januaryand28February2019. identified formal camps with 100 or more households. CCCM Cluster, conducted a fourth round of intentions survey in all the with partnership in ToREACH, from. gap, information this address understand as well as the extent to which intentions vary based on where IDPs are better to intentions return, voluntary and safe for conditions requisite returning, to barriers for movement need on the highlighted information has greater trend This (AoO) down. Origin slowed of Iraq Area their across to return of rates IDP 2018, Throughout be residingin109formalcampsacrossthecountry. 2019. internally displaced persons (IDPs) identified acrossmillion Iraq1.7 aswith ofdisplacement, February scale large north and in resulted in has Iraq central conflict of intensification 2017, and 2013 late Between CONTEXT ANDMETHODS 5 4 3 2 1 Withaminimum90%confidenceleveland10%margin oferrorinordernottobeindicative. According tothe Formal campswereselectedbasedoncamplistsprovided byCCCM. IOM, Displacement Tracking Matrix(February 2019). National CCCMClusterReporting,asofFebruary2019. 1,2 71+ Of these, approximately 90,000 households are estimated to estimated are households 90,000 approximately these, Of Iraq HumanitarianResponsePlan2018 21+17H 21% 71% 7% 1% Do notknow Move toanotherlocation Return to AoO Remain incurrentlocation MOVEMENT INTENTIONSDURINGTHE12MONTHS

Households were sampled to sampled were Households 3

FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION 4 The survey took ANBAR Full details on the methodology are included in the only. error, of margin wider level, confidence lower a have may population the of subset a to relating Findings population. error. This of surveyed entire the to apply 10% margin that questions all for guaranteed is level maximum and confidence of level 95% minimum a with generalizable are findings levels, origin of district and origin of governorate interviewed. the were from At governorate Anbar originate to reporting households 581 of possible. Atotal where origin of district by and origin, of governorate by level, the AoO at presented governorate. camps Anbar informal from originating IDPs reported all that for findings presents factsheet This 10% marginoferroratthecamplevel. and confidence of level 95% a with generalizable be to findings allow collection, 6%within3months. return totheir AoO within12monthsfollowingdata 21% ofIDP householdsreportedthattheyintendedto REACH-CCCM withIDP populationsacrossIraqsince2017. of part was survey This 7 as theyareindicativeonly. 6 + IDPAREASOFORIGIN Findings forFallujahareindicativeonly(66IDP householdsindicatedtheywerefromthedistrict). ‘Other’ includesDiyala,Erbil,Sulaymaniyah. ‘Other’ ‘Other’ includes Ana, , Heet, , Rutba and Ru’ua districts. Findings for these districts are not reported not are districts these for Findings districts. Ru’ua and Rutba Ramadi, includes Heet, ‘Other’ Haditha, Ana, Other Falluja Qaim District ofOrigin Governorate ofdisplacement: Other Baghdad Ninewa Anbar

6 7 +

netos survey intentions GOVERNORATE

25% 27% 48% 94% 1% 2% 3% 48+28+24 94+3+2+1 s otnl cnutd by conducted routinely 5 or may be indicative be may or Terms of Reference idns are Findings . Intentions Survey: IDP Areas of Origin, February 2019 ANBAR, p.2 MOVEMENT INTENTIONS BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN

Movement intentions of IDP households during the 12 months following data collection:

Remain in current location Return to AoO Move to another location Do not know Qaim 65% 28% 1% 6% Falluja+ 72% 18% 0% 10% Governorate level 71% 21% 1% 7%

REASONS NOT TO RETURN TO AOO

Top three reasons for not intending to return (among IDP households not intending to return):* 52% 53% 51% 47% No financial means to return 42% 39% 41% 36% 37% House damaged or destroyed in AoO Lack of livelihood generating opportunities

Qaim + Governorate level NEEDS TO RETURN TO AOO 51+4236+ 52+4739+ 53+4137+ Top four needs that households reported could enable return to their AoO:* 69% 60% 64% 55% 52% Rehabilitation / Reconstruction of homes in AoO 43% 36% 35% 34% 34% Increased safety and security in AoO 31% 30% Livelihood opportunities in AoO Information on the conditions in AoO 55+69Qaim31+36+ 60+43Fallujah35+34+ 64+Governorate5234+30 level+ PERCEPTIONS OF SHELTER CONDITIONS IN AOO

Reported level of damage to home in AoO: Proportion of households reporting their home to be completely destroyed or heavily damaged: 91+80 89% Completely destroyed/heavily damaged Qaim 91% 11% Partially damaged Fallujah+ 80% 0% Undamaged 89+11H 0% Do not know/decline to answer

Shelter and livelihood conditions in AoO were frequently cited as influencing intentions to return by IDP households from Anbar. A high proportion indicated that their home was completely destroyed or heavily damaged (89%), with 91% from Qaim district. This was reflected in the high proportion of IDP households that cited rehabilitation / reconstruction of homes in AoO as a need to enable return (64%), as well as almost half (41%) reporting their house being damaged or destroyed as a reason to not return. Meanwhile, lack of livelihood opportunities, combined with lack of financial means to return, were also frequently cited as well as reasons for not intending to return (53% and 37% respectively). In addition, more than a third (34%) cited livelihood opportunities in AoO as a need to enable return. These findings underline the priority for rehabilitation and livelihood interventions in Anbar.

* Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. +Findings are indicative only as they relate to a small subset of the population. Intentions Survey: IDP Areas of Origin, February 2019 ANBAR, p.3 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CONDITIONS IN AOO, BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN

Proportion of IDP households that reported having concerns about safety in their AoO:*

Have no or little concerns Have concerns about safety Do not know Decline to answer Qaim 48% 44% 8% 0% Fallujah+ 68% 22% 10% 0% Governorate level 63% 30% 7% 0%

Top three reasons for having safety concerns (among IDP with concerns):* Sporadic clashes Gender-based violence Poor infrastructure 69% 61% Almost a third of IDP households reported having 51%51% concerns about safety in Anbar governorate (30%). 47% 50% Concerns about safety were comparatively higher for Qaim (44%) than for Fallujah (22%). Across all districts, fear of 24% 20% 24% sporadic clashes and gender-based violence were cited as the most frequently identified safety concerns. 47+Qaim50+24 + 69+ Fallujah6120+ + Governorate51+5124+ level

PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE IN AOO BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN Reported availability of basic services in AoO: Reported availability of livelihood opportunities in AoO: Qaim Qaim

76% 85% At the governorate level, 22% of IDP 12% At the governorate level, 34% of IDP 14% households reported that livelihood households reported that basic services opportunities were available in their AoO. 12% 1% + 76+12H were available in their AoO. However, this 84+151H This was comparatively higher in Fallujah varied considerably by district, ranging from (33%), than in Qaim (14%). Fallujah+ 12% (Qaim) to 58% (Fallujah+). Fallujah+ At the governorate level, the most frequently 31% At the governorate level, the most frequently 67% reported available employment sectors were: 58% reported available services were: electricity 33% agriculture (76%), construction (57%), and (99%) and water (99%), followed by government (39%).* 31+5811H 11% healthcare (35%) and waste disposal (35%).* 67+330H 0% Governorate level Governorate level 56% None available 77% None available 34% Some available 22% Some available Do not know Do not know 56+3410H 10% 77+221H 1%

Reported availability of assistance in AoO: Qaim Fallujah+ Governorate level At the governorate level, 29% of households reported that assistance was provided in their AoO. Trends across districts of 64% 53% 56% origin differed, ranging from 18% (Qaim) to 33% (Fallujah). 18% 33% 29% 18% 14% 15% At the governorate level, the most frequently reported types of 64+18H 53+3314H 56+2915H assistance were: food assistance (97%), cash distribution (52%), and NFI distribution (14%).* None available Some available Do not know

* Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. +Findings are indicative only as they relate to a small subset of the population. February 2019 MAP: DISTRICTOFORIGINWITHINDIYALA DISPLACEMENT DEMOGRAPHICS 3 2 1 CONTEXT ANDMETHODS al-Din and Sulaymaniyah governorates. Sulaymaniyah and al-Din Anbar, Baghdad, Dahuk, Diyala, Erbil, Kerbala, Kirkuk, Ninewa, Salah A total of 4,300 households were interviewed across 49 formal camps in place between30Januaryand28February2019. identified formal camps with 100 or more households. Iraq CCCM Cluster, conducted a fourth round of intentions survey in all the with partnership in ToREACH, from. gap, information this address understand as well as the extent to which intentions vary based on where IDPs are better to intentions return, voluntary and safe for conditions requisite returning, to barriers for movement need on the highlighted information has greater trend This (AoO) down. Origin slowed of Iraq Area their across to return of rates IDP 2018, Throughout be residingin109formalcampsacrossthecountry. 2019. internally displaced persons (IDPs) identified acrossmillion Iraq1.7 aswith ofdisplacement, February scale large north and in resulted in has Iraq central conflict of intensification 2017, and 2013 late Between According tothe IOM, Displacement Tracking Matrix(February 2019). National CCCMClusterReporting,asofFebruary2019. 1,2 59 Of these, approximately 90,000 households are estimated to estimated are households 90,000 approximately these, Of Iraq HumanitarianResponsePlan2018. +9+32H 32% 59% 0% 9% MOVEMENT INTENTIONSDURINGTHE12MONTHS Do notknow Move toanotherlocation Return to AoO Remain incurrentlocation

Households were sampled to sampled were Households FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION 3

4 The survey took DIYALA 6 5 4 remain intheirareaofdisplacementthe12months Over halfofIDP householdsreportedtheyintendedto uncertainty Meanwhile, intended toreturnwithin12months,and6%3months. following datacollection(59%). hs uvy a pr of part was survey This REACH-CCCM withIDP populationsacrossIraqsince2017. Full details on the methodology are included in the only. error, of margin wider level, confidence lower a have may population the of subset a to relating Findings population. error. This of surveyed entire the to apply 10% margin that questions all for guaranteed is level maximum and confidence of level 95% minimum a with generalizable are findings levels, origin of district and interviewed. were governorate Diyala from origin of governorate the At originate to reporting households 303 of possible. Atotal where origin of district by and origin, of governorate by level, the AoO at presented governorate. camps Diyala informal from originating IDPs reported all that for findings presents factsheet This 10% marginoferroratthecamplevel. and confidence of level 95% a with generalizable be to findings allow Withaminimum90%confidenceleveland10%margin oferrorinordernottobeindicative. Formal campswereselectedbasedoncamplistsprovided byCCCM. Findings forthisdistrictarenotreportedastheyindicative only IDP AREASOFORIGIN almost athird(32%)ofIDP households reported regarding theirmovementintentions.

Kirkuk Sulaymaniyah ofdisplacement: Ba’quba Muqdadiya District ofOrigin:

6

GOVERNORATE

netos survey intentions 94% 31% 65% 2% 4% 4% 65+31+3 94+4+2 Only 9%reportedthey . s otnl cnutd by conducted routinely 5 or may be indicative be may or Terms of Reference idns are Findings . Intentions Survey: IDP Areas of Origin, February 2019 DIYALA, p.2 MOVEMENT INTENTIONS BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN

Movement intentions of IDP households during the 12 months following data collection:

Remain in current location Return to AoO Move to another location Do not know Khanaqin 58% 15% 0% 27% Muqdadiya 58% 7% 0% 35% Governorate level 59% 9% 0% 32%

REASONS NOT TO RETURN TO AOO

Top four reasons for not intending to return (among IDP 74% households not intending to return):* 54% 56% Fear and trauma associated with AoO 48% 48% 50% 40% Lack of security forces in AoO 34% 35% 29% House damaged or destroyed in AoO 26% 16% No financial means to return 7454Khanaqin+26+ +16+ 4848Muqdadiya+40+34+ 56Governorate50+35+ level29+ NEEDS TO RETURN TO AOO

Top four needs that IDP households reported could enable return to their AoO:* Over half of IDP households (60%) reported that

60+50+36+25 increased safety and security in their AoO could Increased safety and security in AoO 60% enable their return, and half cited the need for Rehabilitation/reconstruction of homes in AoO 50% rehabilitation and reconstruction of homes (50%). Access to information on conditions in AoO 36% Meanwhile, over a third reported the need for better Availability of healthcare services in AoO 25% access to information on the current situation in their AoO (36%), which echoes the high proportion reporting uncertainty regarding their movement intentions (32%).

PERCEPTIONS OF SHELTER CONDITIONS IN AOO

Reported level of damage to home in AoO: Proportion of IDP households reporting their home was completely destroyed or heavily damaged:

87% Completely destroyed/heavily damaged 88+88 9% Partially damaged Muqdadiya 88% 1% Undamaged Khanaqin 88% 87+91+3H 3% Do not know/Decline to answer

Only 9% of IDP households from Diyala reported that they intended to return to their AoO in the 12 months following data collection. The top two main reasons for not intending to return were related to security: fear and trauma, and lack of security forces. Although indicative, fear and trauma was reported by a comparatively higher proportion for Khanaqin (78%) than Muqdadiya (48%). Furthermore, over half of IDP households reported increased safety and security as a factor that could enable their return. These findings suggest that the main reasons why IDP households from Diyala did not intend to return are related to security. In addition, 87% of IDP households reported that their home in AoO was heavily damaged or destroyed, while half cited the need for rehabilitation or reconstruction of homes as a factor that could enable their return (50%), hence suggesting the need for shelter based interventions in Diyala.

* Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. + Findings are indicative only as they relate to a small subset of the population. Intentions Survey: IDP Areas of Origin, February 2019 DIYALA, p.3 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CONDITIONS IN AOO BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN

Proportion of IDP households that reported to have concerns about safety in their AoO:*

Have no or little concerns Have concerns about safety Do not know Decline to answer Khanaqin 23% 60% 17% 0% Muqdadiya 12% 50% 38% 0% Governorate level 15% 55% 30% 0%

Top three reasons for having safety concerns (among IDP households with concerns):* 61% Only 12% to 23% of IDP households in Diyala reported having little or no 42% 41% safety concerns in their AoO, while 35% 33% 38%33% Sporadic clashes 30% 31% 50% to 60% reported they did. Nearly Fear of armed actors all IDP households reported security- related issues as the main reason Close to conflict for having safety concerns, including 30+ Muqdadiya3531+ 61+ Khanaqin4233+ + Governorate41+3533+ level sporadic clashes, fear of armed actors and being too close to the conflict.

PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE IN AOO BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN

Reported availability of basic services in AoO: Reported availability of livelihood opportunities in AoO:

Khanaqin Muqdadiya Governorate level Khanaqin Muqdadiya Governorate level 44% 28% 35% 49% 47% 48% 25% 15% 19% 32% 27% 29% 52+1335H 31% 28+1557H 57% 35+1946H 46% 49+32+19H19% 47+2726H26% 48+2923H23% None available Some available Do not know None available Some available Do not know

At the governorate level, 19% of IDP households At the governorate level, 29% of households reported reported that basic services were available in that livelihood opportunities were available in their AoO. Among them, the most frequently reported their AoO. Among them, the most frequently reported services were: electricity (98%), water (97%) and employment sectors were: agriculture (57%), healthcare (59%).*,+ government (43%) and construction (25%).*,+

At the governorate level, only 7% of households reported Reported availability of assistance in AoO: that assistance was available in their AoO. Trends across main districts of origin were similar. Among them, Muqdadiya Khanaqin Governorate level the most frequently reported types of assistance were: food assistance (88%), cash distribution (25%) and NFI 34% 48% 40% distribution (5%).*,+ 8% 5% 7% The high proportion of IDP households that reported 58% 47% 53% 34+858H 48+1339H 40+753H not knowing whether basic services (46%) or assistance (53%) was available in their AoO echoes the comparatively None available Some available Do not know high proportion that cited need for better access to information on their AoO (36%) as a need to enable return.

* Respondents could select multiple options. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. +Findings are indicative only as they relate to a small subset of the population. IDP AREAS OF ORIGIN

February 2019 CONTEXT AND METHODS Between late 2013 and 2017, intensification of conflict in north and allow findings to be generalizable with a 95% level of confidence and central Iraq has resulted in large scale displacement, with 1.7 million 10% margin of error at the camp level. internally displaced persons (IDPs) identified across Iraq as of February 2019.1,2 Of these, approximately 90,000 households are estimated to This factsheet presents findings for all IDPs in formal camps that be residing in 109 formal camps across the country.3 reported originating from Erbil governorate. Findings are presented at the governorate of origin level. A total of 75 households reporting to Throughout 2018, IDP rates of return to their Area of Origin (AoO) originate from Erbil governorate were interviewed. At the governorate across Iraq slowed down. This trend has highlighted the need for of origin level, findings are generalizable with a minimum 95% level of greater information on movement intentions to better understand confidence and maximum 10% margin of error. This level is guaranteed barriers to returning, requisite conditions for safe and voluntary return, for all questions that apply to the entire surveyed population. Findings as well as the extent to which intentions vary based on where IDPs are relating to a subset of the population may have a lower confidence from. To address this information gap, REACH, in partnership with the level, wider margin of error,5 or may be indicative only. Iraq CCCM Cluster, conducted a fourth round of intentions survey in all identified formal camps with 100 or more households.4 The survey took place between 30 January and 28 February 2019. Full details on the methodology are included in the Terms of Reference. This survey was part of intentions surveys routinely conducted by A total of 4,300 households were interviewed across 49 formal camps in REACH-CCCM with IDP populations across Iraq since 2017. Anbar, Baghdad, Dahuk, Diyala, Erbil, Kerbala, Kirkuk, Ninewa, Salah al-Din and Sulaymaniyah governorates. Households were sampled to

MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION

75% Remain in current location 0% of IDP households from Erbil governorate intended 2% Return to AoO to return to their AoO during the 3 months following data 0% Move to another location collection, and only 2% during the 12 months. 75+2+23H 23% Do not know DISPLACEMENT DEMOGRAPHICS MAP: DISTRICT OF ORIGIN WITHIN ERBIL

District of Origin 99+1 Makhmur 99% Erbil 1%

Governorates of displacement 68+32+ Erbil 68% Ninewa 32%

1 According to the Iraq Humanitarian Response Plan 2019. 4 Formal camps were selected based on camp lists provided by CCCM. 2 IOM, Displacement Tracking Matrix (February 2019). 5 With a minimum 90% confidence level and 10% margin of error in order not to be indicative. 3 National CCCM Cluster Reporting, as of February 2019. Intentions Survey: IDP Areas of Origin, February 2019 ERBIL, p.2 REASONS NOT TO RETURN TO AOO NEEDS TO RETURN TO AOO Top four reasons for not intending to return (among IDP Top four needs that IDP households reported households not intending to return):* could enable return to their AoO:* 44+41+33+30 58+53+49+40 Lack of livelihood opportunities in AoO 44% Increased safety and security in AoO 58% House damaged or destroyed in AoO 41% Rehabilitation/reconstruction of homes in AoO 53% Fear and trauma associated to AoO 33% Livelihood/income generating activities in AoO 49% Basic services not enough in AoO 30% Availability of basic services in AoO 40%

A wide range of issues were cited as influencing intentions not to return, including housing concerns, and more systemic and security related concerns. Over half of IDP households (53%) cited rehabilitation or reconstruction of homes as a need that could enable return to their AoO, which reflects the large proportion (67%) of IDP households that reported that their home was either completely destroyed or heavily damaged, and the 40% that reported their house being damaged or destroyed as a reason for not intending to return. These findings suggest that one of the main reasons for IDP households from Erbil governorate not intending to return is related to housing conditions.

PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CONDITIONS IN AOO

Proportion of IDP households that reported having concerns Top three reasons for safety/security concerns (among IDP about safety in their AoO:* households with concerns):*,+ 44+32+30+

62% Have concerns about safety in AoO Close to conflict 44% 30% Have no or little concerns about safety Fear of extremists 32% 62+308H 8% Do not know Sporadic clashes 30%

PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE IN AOO Reported availability of basic services in AoO: Reported availability of livelihood opportunities in AoO:

42% None available 50% None available 41% Some available 44% Some available 42+4117H 17% Do not know 50+446H 6% Do not know Among IDP households that reported availability of basic services Among IDP households that reported availability of livelihood in their AoO, the top three services were: water (36/36), electricity opportunities in their AoO, the top three employment sectors were: (34/36), and waste disposal (15/36).*,+ government (16/30), and agriculture (8/30).*,+

Reported availability of assistance in AoO:

53% None available Overall, less than half of IDP households from Erbil 16% Some available governorate reported availability of basic services 31% Do not know/Decline to answer (41%), and livelihood opportunities (44%) along with low 53+1631H availability of assistance (16%) in their AoO. This fits with Among IDP households that reported that assistance was provided the reported need for basic services (40%) and livelihood in their AoO, the top two types of assistance were: food assistance generating activities to enable return (49%). (13/14), and NFI distribution (10/14).*,+

* Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. +Findings are indicative only as they relate to a small subset of the population. IDP AREAS OF ORIGIN

February 2019 CONTEXT AND METHODS Between late 2013 and 2017, intensification of conflict in north and al-Din and Sulaymaniyah governorates. Households were sampled to central Iraq has resulted in large scale displacement, with 1.7 million allow findings to be generalizable with a 95% level of confidence and internally displaced persons (IDPs) identified across Iraq as of February 10% margin of error at the camp level. 2019.1,2 Of these, approximately 90,000 households are estimated to be residing in 109 formal camps across the country.3 This factsheet presents findings for all IDPs in formal camps that reported originating from Kirkuk governorate. Findings are Throughout 2018, IDP rates of return to their Area of Origin (AoO) presented at the governorate of origin level. A total of 322 households across Iraq slowed down. This trend has highlighted the need for reporting to originate from Kirkuk governorate were interviewed. At the greater information on movement intentions to better understand governorate of origin level, findings are generalizable with a minimum barriers to returning, requisite conditions for safe and voluntary return, 95% level of confidence and maximum 10% margin of error. This as well as the extent to which intentions vary based on where IDPs are level is guaranteed for all questions that apply to the entire surveyed from. To address this information gap, REACH, in partnership with the population. Findings relating to a subset of the population may have Iraq CCCM Cluster, conducted a fourth round of intentions survey in all a lower confidence level, wider margin of error,5 or may be indicative identified formal camps with 100 or more households.4 The survey took only. place between 30 January and 28 February 2019. Full details on the methodology are included in the Terms of Reference. A total of 4,300 households were interviewed across 49 formal camps in This survey was part of intentions surveys routinely conducted by Anbar, Baghdad, Dahuk, Diyala, Erbil, Kerbala, Kirkuk, Ninewa, Salah REACH-CCCM with IDP populations across Iraq since 2017.

MOVEMENT INTENTIONS OF HOUSEHOLDS DURING THE 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION

67% Remain in current location A majority of IDP households that intended to return intended 9% Return to AoO to do so in the short term: 6% within 3 months following data 2% Move to another location collection, compared to 9% within 12 months following data 67+9+2+22H 22% Do not know collection. DISPLACEMENT DEMOGRAPHICS MAP: DISTRICT OF ORIGIN WITHIN of Origin 91+9++ Hawiga 92% Other6 8%

Governorate of Displacement 42+35+20+2+1 Kirkuk 41% Ninewa 36% Salah al-Din 16% Erbil 5% Sulaymaniyah 2%

1 According to the Iraq Humanitarian Response Plan 2018. 4 Formal camps were selected based on camp lists provided by CCCM. 2 IOM, Displacement Tracking Matrix (February 2019). 5 With a minimum 90% confidence level and 10% margin of error in order not to be indicative. 3 National CCCM Cluster Reporting, as of February 2019. 6 ‘Other’ includes Dabes, , Kirkuk. Findings for this district are not reported as they are indicative only. Intentions Survey: IDP Areas of Origin, February 2019 KIRKUK, p.2 REASONS NOT TO RETURN TO AOO: NEEDS TO RETURN TO AOO Top five reasons for not intending to return (among IDP Top five needs that households reported could enable return to households not intending to return):* their AoO:* 54+52+36+28+25 46+44+37+28+20 No financial means to return 46% Rehabilitation/Reconstruction of homes 54% House damaged or destroyed in AoO 44% Increased safety/security in AoO 52% Lack of livelihood opportunities in AoO 37% Livelihood opportunities in AoO 36% Presence of mines in AoO 28% Information on conditions in AoO 28% Fear/trauma associated to AoO 20% Furniture and non-food items 25%

PERCEPTIONS OF SHELTER CONDITIONS IN AOO PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CONDITIONS IN AOO

Reported level of damage to home in AoO: Proportion of IDP households that reported to have concerns about safety in their AoO:

72% Completely destroyed/heavily damaged 44% Have concerns about safety 18% Partially damaged 44% Have no or little concerns about safety 8% Undamaged 12% Do not know/Decline to answer 72+188+2H 2% Do not know/Decline to answer 44+4412H

A large majority of IDP households reported their home in AoO was completely damaged or destroyed (72%) and just under half (44%) indicated they had concerns about safety in their AoO. The main reasons reported for safety concerns were: being too close to the conflict (49%), land being contaminated by mines (31%), and fear of extremists (26%). This was reflected in half of IDP households that reported need for rehabilitation/reconstruction of homes (54%) and for increased safety/security in AoO (52%) to enable return.

PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE IN AOO:

Reported availability of basic services in AoO: Reported availability of livelihood opportunities in AoO:

23% None available 59% None available 59% Some available 35% Some available 23+5918H 18% Do not know 59+356H 6% Do not know

Almost two thirds of IDP households (59%) reported some At the governorate level, 35% of households reported some availability of basic services. The most frequently reported livelihood opportunities to be available in their AoO. Among services were: electricity (100%), water (89%), and them, the most frequently reported employment sectors were: healthcare (50%).* agriculture (76%), government (33%), and construction (24%).*

Reported availability of assistance in AoO:

Less than a third (29%) of IDP households reported assistance 44% None available to be available in their AoO. Among them, the most frequently 29% Some available reported types of assistance were: food assistance (92%), NFI 44+2927H 27% Do not know distribution (48%) and cash distribution (12%).* * Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. IDP AREAS OF ORIGIN

February 2019 NINEWA GOVERNORATE CONTEXT AND METHODS Between late 2013 and 2017, intensification of conflict in north and allow findings to be generalizable with a 95% level of confidence and central Iraq has resulted in large scale displacement, with 1.7 million 10% margin of error at the camp level. internally displaced persons (IDPs) identified across Iraq as of February 2019.1,2 Of these, approximately 90,000 households are estimated to This factsheet presents findings for all IDPs in formal camps be residing in 109 formal camps across the country.3 that reported originating from Ninewa governorate. Findings are presented at the AoO level, by governorate of origin, and by district of Throughout 2018, IDP rates of return to their Area of Origin (AoO) origin where possible. A total of 2,755 households reporting to originate across Iraq slowed down. This trend has highlighted the need for from Ninewa governorate were interviewed. At the governorate of origin greater information on movement intentions to better understand and district of origin levels, findings are generalizable with a minimum barriers to returning, requisite conditions for safe and voluntary return, 95% level of confidence and maximum 10% margin of error. This as well as the extent to which intentions vary based on where IDPs are level is guaranteed for all questions that apply to the entire surveyed from. To address this information gap, REACH, in partnership with the population. Findings relating to a subset of the population may have Iraq CCCM Cluster, conducted a a fourth round of intentions survey in a lower confidence level, wider margin of error,5 or may be indicative all identified formal camps with 100 or more households.4 The survey only. took place between 30 January and 28 February 2019. A total of 4,300 households were interviewed across 49 formal camps in Full details on the methodology are included in the Terms of Reference. Anbar, Baghdad, Dahuk, Diyala, Erbil, Kerbala, Kirkuk, Ninewa, Salah This survey was part of intentions surveys routinely conducted by al-Din and Sulaymaniyah governorates. Households were sampled to REACH-CCCM with IDP populations across Iraq since 2017.

MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION

62% Remain in current location Over a third of IDP households did not know whether they 3% Return to AoO intended to return during the 12 months following data 1% Move to another location collection. Meanwhile, only 3% intended to return during the 12 months. Most that intended to do so intended to return 34% Do not know 62+3+134H during the first three months (2%). DISPLACEMENT DEMOGRAPHICS MAP: DISTRICT OF ORIGIN WITHIN NINEWA District of Origin 52+21+13+7+6+1 52% 21% Ba’aj 13% Other6 7% Telafar 6% Hamdaniyah 1%

Governorates of displacement 60+35+2+3 Ninewa 58% Dahuk 38% Erbil 2% Other7 2%

1 According to the Iraq Humanitarian Response Plan 2018. 5 With a minimum 90% confidence level and 10% margin of error in order not to be indicative. 2 IOM, Displacement Tracking Matrix (February 2019). 6 ‘Other’ includes , Shikhan and Tilkaif. Findings for these districts are not reported as the subset population 3 National CCCM Cluster Reporting, as of February 2019. figures were too small and therefore findings are indicative only. 4 Formal camps were selected based on camp lists provided by CCCM. 7 ‘Other’ includes Baghdad, Kerbala, Kirkuk, Salah al-Din and Sulaymaniyah. Intentions Survey: IDP Areas of Origin, February 2019 NINEWA, p.2 MOVEMENT INTENTIONS BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN

Movement intentions of IDP households during the 12 months following data collection:

Remain in current location Return to AoO Move to another location Do not know Hamdaniyah 70% 5% 1% 24% Telafar 64% 5% 0% 31% Mosul 57% 4% 1% 38% Sinjar 69% 3% <1% 28% Ba’aj 51% 2% 0% 47% Governorate level 62% 3% 1% 34%

Reported intentions to return during the 12 months following data collection were low for all main districts of origin: 5% or less of IDP households reported that they intended to return, both at the governorate and district of origin levels. The lowest proportion was for Ba’aj, for which only 2% of IDP households intended to return.

REASONS TO RETURN TO AOO

Top three reasons for intending to return (among IDP households intending to return):*

48+34+25+20 Among the 3% of IDP households that intended to return, Security in AoO stable 48% almost half reported that stabilization of security in AoO Emotional desire to return 34% was the primary reason driving their intention to return (48%), and a quarter cited AoO cleared of UXOs. Emotional AoO cleared of unexploded ordnance (UXO) 25% desire and securing house and land in AoO were also among Secure house and land in AoO 20% the top four reasons for IDP households for intending to return.

REASONS NOT TO RETURN TO AOO The most frequently cited reason for IDP households that did not intend to return to their AoO in Ninewa was damage Top five reasons for not intending to return (among IDP or destruction of their home. This was particularly the case households not intending to return):* for Hamdaniyah (64%). However, at the governorate level, a range of reasons were reported by notable minorities, including House damaged or destroyed in AoO financial needs and security concerns as well. The frequency Lack of security forces in AoO with which these reasons were cited varied across districts. No financial means to return Lack of financial means to return was particularly prevalent Presence of mines in AoO for IDP households in Ba’aj, Hamdaniyah, Mosul and Telafar. Fear of discrimination Meanwhile, almost half of IDP households in Sinjar (42%) cited presence of mines as a reason for not intending to return. Overall, security-related reasons were frequently cited in most districts of origin.

64%

46% 44% 43% 41% 42% 39% 37% 36%37% 37% 34% 33% 30% 29% 28%27% 15% 16% 20% 14% 11% 10% 13% 11% 10% 4% 7% 6% 5% 37+3637Ba’aj+15+14+ 64+4Hamdaniyah34+7+6+ 43+11Mosul46+5+10+ 33+41Sinjar13+42+29+ 39+11Telafar44+16+10+ 37+Governorate3028+27+ level20+ * Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. Intentions Survey: IDP Areas of Origin, February 2019 NINEWA, p.3 NEEDS TO RETURN TO AOO Reflecting the reasons reported for not intending to return, Top four needs that households reported could enable return to a comparatively higher proportion of IDP households their AoO:* from Sinjar reported the need to increase safety and security in their AoO to enable return (82%). Rehabilitation/ Increased safety and security in AoO reconstruction of homes, and availability of basic services were Rehabilitation/reconstruction of homes frequently reported needs in all districts of origin: from 24% to 69%. Availability of basic services in AoO Livelihood opportunities in AoO 82% 69% 66% 60%60% 62% 57% 58% 50% 53% 51% 55% 45% 46% 48% 39% 42% 42% 36% 37% 33% 27% 26% 24%

6060+ Ba’aj45+36+ 50Hamdaniyah69+53+39+ 3757+ Mosul27+42+ 8251+ Sinjar62+26+ 4258+Telafar24+46+ Governorate6655+48+33 + level PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CONDITIONS IN AOO BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN

Households that reported having concerns about safety in their AoO:* Have no or little concerns Have concerns about safety Do not know Decline to answer Sinjar 14% 74% 12% 0% Ba’aj 39% 45% 16% 0% Telafar 63% 25% 12% 0% Hamdaniyah 68% 23% 9% 0% Mosul 69% 22% 9% 0% Governorate level 35% 53% 12% 0%

Top three reasons for having safety concerns (among IDP households with concerns):*

Fear of mine contamination 53% 53% Fear of armed actors 47% 38% 43% 40% 33% 38% 29% 29% 31% Close to conflict 24% 26% 24% 22% 17% 10% 2% 38+29Ba’aj53+ +2+Hamdaniyah5322++++ 10+Mosul3324+ +47+Sinjar4326+ +17+Telafar2429+ + 40+Governorate3831+ level The proportion of IDP households that reported having concerns about safety in their AoO varied across districts, ranging from 22% (Mosul) to 74% (Sinjar). This continues to suggest that barriers around security are particularly prevalent for IDP households from Sinjar. At the governorate level, over half of IDP households indicated they had concerns about safety in their AoO, mainly citing fear of armed actors, the closeness to the conflict, as well as fear of mine contamination. The most frequently cited security concern varied by district of origin. IDP households from Ba’aj most frequently reported proximity to the conflict (53%), while those from Hamdaniyah cited fear of armed actors (53%).Additionally, fear of mine contamination was reportedly highest in Sinjar (47%) and Ba’aj (38%).

* Respondents could select multiple options. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. +Findings are indicative only as they relate to a small subset of the population. Intentions Survey: IDP Areas of Origin, February 2019 NINEWA, p.4 PERCEPTIONS OF SHELTER CONDITIONS IN AOO

Reported level of damage to home in AoO: Proportion of households reporting their home to be completely destroyed or heavily damaged, by district of origin: 78+77+75+71+66 Mosul 78% 76% Completely destroyed/heavily damaged Ba’aj 77% 13% Partially damaged Sinjar 75% 5% Undamaged Telafar 71% 76+1356H 6% Do not know/decline to answer Hamdaniyah 66%

PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE IN AOO BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN:

Reported availability of basic services in AoO: Reported availability of livelihood opportunities in AoO:

Mosul Hamdaniyah Ba’aj Mosul Hamdaniyah Ba’aj 22% 47% 63% 59% 57% 74% 61% 28% 15% 34% 33% 12% 22+6117H 17% 47+2825H 25% 63+1522H 22% 59+347H 7% 57+3310H 10% 74+12+14H 14% Sinjar Sinjar 56% 65% 16% 16% At the governorate level, 21% of IDP 28% At the governorate level, 28% of IDP 19% 56+1628H 65+1619H households reported that livelihood households reported that basic services Telafar Telafar opportunities were available in their were available in their AoO. This varied 60% AoO. This varied between districts, 14% considerably by district, ranging from 15% ranging from 16% in Sinjar to 34% in 49% in Ba’aj to 61% in Mosul. Among them, 32% Mosul. Among them, the most frequently the most frequently reported services 8% 14+4937H 37% 60+328H reported employment sectors were: were: electricity (95%), water (85%) and Governorate level Governorate level agriculture (61%), government (43%) education (64%).* 47% 65% and construction (19%).* 28% 21% 47+2825H 25% 65+2114H 14% None available Some available Do not know None available Some available Do not know

Reported availability of assistance in AoO:

Ba’aj Hamdaniyah Mosul Sinjar Telafar Governorate level 53% 67% 35% 52% 33% 46% None available 5% 11% 32% 11% 24% 17% Some available 53+542H42% 67+1122H22% 35+3233H33% 52+1137H37% 33+2443H43% 46+1737H37% Do not know

At the governorate level, 17% of IDP households reported that assistance was provided in their AoO. This varied considerably by district, ranging from 5% in Ba’aj to 32% in Mosul. Among them, the most frequently reported types of assistance were: food assistance (93%), NFI distribution (30%) and cash distribution (24%).*

* Respondents could select multiple options. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. IDP AREAS OF ORIGIN GOVERNORATE

February 2019 SALAH AL-DIN

CONTEXT AND METHODS Between late 2013 and 2017, intensification of conflict in north and allow findings to be generalizable with a 95% level of confidence and central Iraq has resulted in large scale displacement, with 1.7 million 10% margin of error at the camp level. internally displaced persons (IDPs) identified across Iraq as of February 2019.1,2 Of these, approximately 90,000 households are estimated to This factsheet presents findings for all IDPs in formal camps that be residing in 109 formal camps across the country.3 reported originating from Salah Al-Din governorate. Findings are presented at the AoO level, by governorate of origin, and by district of Throughout 2018, IDP rates of return to their Area of Origin (AoO) origin where possible. A total of 581 households reporting to originate across Iraq slowed down. This trend has highlighted the need for from Salah Al-Din governorate were interviewed. At the governorate greater information on movement intentions to better understand of origin and district of origin levels, findings are generalizable with barriers to returning, requisite conditions for safe and voluntary return, a minimum 95% level of confidence and maximum 10% margin of as well as the extent to which intentions vary based on where IDPs are error. This level is guaranteed for all questions that apply to the entire from. To address this information gap, REACH, in partnership with the surveyed population. Findings relating to a subset of the population Iraq CCCM Cluster, conducted a fourth round of intentions survey in all may have a lower confidence level, wider margin of error,5 or may be identified formal camps with 100 or more households.4 The survey took indicative only. place between 30 January and 28 February 2019. A total of 4,300 households were interviewed across 49 formal camps in Full details on the methodology are included in the Terms of Reference. Anbar, Baghdad, Dahuk, Diyala, Erbil, Kerbala, Kirkuk, Ninewa, Salah This survey was part of intentions surveys routinely conducted by al-Din and Sulaymaniyah governorates. Households were sampled to REACH-CCCM with IDP populations across Iraq since 2017.

MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION

45% Remain in current location Almost half of IDP households did not know whether they intended to return in the 12 months following data 8% Return to AoO collection (47%). Overall, 4% intended to return during the 0% Move to another location 3 months following data collection, and 8% in total (within 12 45+8+47H 47% Do not know months). DISPLACEMENT DEMOGRAPHICS MAP: DISTRICT OF ORIGIN WITHIN SALAH AL-DIN District of Origin 44+28+20+8 Shirqat 54% Balad 26% 16% Other6 4%

Governorate of Displacement 58+25+8+7+2 Ninewa 58% Sulaymaniyah 25% Salah al-Din 8% Kirkuk 7% Erbil 2%

1 According to the Iraq Humanitarian Response Plan 2018. 5 With a minimum 90% confidence level and 10% margin of error in order not to be indicative. 2 IOM, Displacement Tracking Matrix (February 2019). 6 ‘Other’ includes Daur, Fares, , Thethar, , and Tooz. Findings for these districts are not reported as they 3 National CCCM Cluster Reporting, as of February 2019. are indicative only. 4 Formal camps were selected based on camp lists provided by CCCM. Intentions Survey: IDP Areas of Origin, February 2019 SALAH AL-DIN, p.2 MOVEMENT INTENTIONS BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN Movement intentions of IDP households during the 12 months following data collection:

Remain in current location Return to AoO Move to another location Do not know Balad 41% 11% 0% 48% Shirqat 46% 8% 0% 46% Baiji 46% 4% 0% 50% Governorate level 45% 8% 0% 47%

REASONS TO RETURN TO AOO Top five reasons for intending to return (among IDP households that intend to return):*,+ 62+51+28+20+20 Among the 8 % of IDP households that Security stable in AoO 62% reported intending to return, over half of Emotional desire to return 51% IDP households in all districts cited stabilization of security as a reason Necessary to secure house and land in AoO 28% to return to their AoO (62%), and 20% AoO cleared of unexploded ordnances (UXO) 20% cited their AoO being cleared of UXOs. 20% Meanwhile, half also referred to emotional Limited livelihood opportunities in area of displacement desire to return (51%).

REASONS NOT TO RETURN TO AOO Top three reasons for not intending to return (among IDP households that did not intend to return):* 60% 55% No financial means to return 43% 44% House damaged or destroyed 38% 40% 36%36% 32% 28% 26% 24% 26% Fear/trauma associated to AoO 20% 19% 20% 25% 16% 20% Lack of livelihood opportunities in AoO 11% Lack of security forces in AoO 55+4320Baiji+32+11+ 19+2060Balad+26++4438+40Shirqat16+24+20+ 36+Governorate3628+26+ level25+ NEEDS TO RETURN TO AOO Top four needs that households reported could enable return to AoO:* 74%

58% Increased safety and security in AoO 53% 51% 56% 43% 49% 52% Rehabilitation/Reconstruction of homes 39% 42% 35% 35% 37% 38% Information on conditions in AoO 29% 22% Basic services in AoO 39+58Baiji35+43+ 74+53Balad42+35+ 51+49Shirqat37+22+ Governorate56+5238+ level29+ PERCEPTIONS OF SHELTER CONDITIONS IN AOO Reported level of damage to home in AoO: Proportion of households reporting their home to be completely destroyed or heavily damaged: 82+72+65 76% Completely destroyed/heavily damaged Shirqat 82% 16% Partially damaged Baiji 72% 5% Undamaged Balad 65% 76+1653H 3% Do not know/refuse to answer

* Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. +Findings are indicative only as they relate to a small subset of the population. Intentions Survey: IDP Areas of Origin, February 2019 SALAH AL-DIN, p.3 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CONDITIONS IN AOO BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN

Proportion of IDP households that reported to have concerns about safety in their AoO: Have no or little concerns Have concerns about safety Do not know Balad 31% 51% 18% Baiji 53% 34% 9% Shirqat 72% 25% 4% Governorate level 57% 34% 9%

Top three reasons for having safety concerns (among IDP * At the govenorate and district levels, over a third of IDP households with concerns): households reported having safety concerns, with the Close to conflict Fear of extremists Fear of land contamination exception of IDP households from Shirqat, where the proportion was comparatively slightly lower (25%).

63% 65% At the governorate level, security reasons were mostly 48% 48% reported as reasons for concerns, including being close to conflict (48%) and fear of extremists (31%), as well as 30%33% 32% 31% 25% 27% fear of land contamination (27%). Being close to conflict 20% 16% was reported by a comparatively higher proportion of IDP households from Shirqat (65%), while for Baiji it was fear of 48+ 25Baiji63+ + 30+ 33Balad20+ 65+ Shirqat3216+ + + Governorate48+3127+ level+ extremists (63%). PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE IN AOO BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN Reported availability of basic services in AoO: Reported availability of livelihood opportunities in AoO: Baiji Baiji At the governorate level, 37% of 30% At the governorate level, 53% of 73% households reported that livelihood 47% households reported that basic 25% opportunities were available in their 30+4723H 23% services were available in their AoO, 73+252H 2% AoO. However, this was comparatively Balad although this varied considerably by Balad higher in Balad (48%) than Baiji (25%) district, ranging from 23% (Balad) to and Shirqat (35%). Among them, the 36% 46% 69% (Shirqat). Among them, the most most frequently reported available 23% frequently reported available services 48% employment sectors were: agriculture 36+2440H 41% were: electricity (95%), water (92%) 46+486H 6% (77%), government (31%) and Shirqat and ecucation (50%).* Shirqat construction (21%).* 14% 60% 69% 35% 17% 5% 14+6917H None available 60+355H None available Governorate level Some available Governorate level Some available 23% Do not know 58% Do not know 53% 37% 23+53+24H 24% 58+375H 5% Reported availability of assistance in AoO: None available Some available Do not know At the governorate level, 25% of households reported that assistance was provided in their AoO. However, this varied 33% 46% 37% 39% widely by district: from 9% (Balad) to 33% (Shirqat). The most 24% 9% 33% 25% frequently reported types of assistance were: food assistance (87%), cash distribution (25%) and NFI distribution (17%).* 43% 45% 30% 36% 33+2443H 47+944H 37+3330H 39+2536H Assistance was mainly reported to have been provided by Baiji Balad Shirqat Governorate level humanitarian actors.

* Respondents could select multiple options. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. +Findings are indicative only as they relate to a small subset of the population.