IDP MOVEMENT INTENTIONS STUDY
DOHUK GOVERNORATE AUGUST 2017
Location Kurdistan Region of Iraq Month, Year August 2017 Author Chris Stadler / Programs Unit WHH Iraq Study Area Duhok Governorate
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 INTRODUCTION 4 KEY FINDINGS 4 INTRODUCTION TO STUDY 9 STUDY DESCRIPTION & OBJECTIVES 9 STUDY FINANCING 9 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 9 LITERATURE REVIEW 9 RESEARCH TOOLS 13 IDP HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE SIZE 14 SURVEY AREA SELECTION 15 SURVEY SCHEDULE 16 SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS 17 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS 18 ANALYSIS OF IDP HOUSEHOLDS 19 OVERVIEW 19 IDP HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 20 PRE-DISPLACEMENT SITUATION 26 POST-DISPLACEMENT SITUATION 33 AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON AREA OF ORIGIN 60 VOLUNTARY RETURN INTENTIONS 74 ALTERNATIVE MOVEMENT INTENTIONS 90 ASSISTANCE REQUESTED 102 RECOMMENDATIONS 112 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 112
2 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AOD — Area of Displacement
AOO — Area of Origin
CIHL — Customary International Humanitarian Law
DTM — Displacement Tracking Matrix
GiZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit/ German Development Agency)
HH — Household
HoH — Head of Household
IHRP — Iraq Humanitarian Response Plan
IASC — Inter Agency Standing Committee
ICRC — International Committee of the Red Cross
IDP — Internally Displaced Person
IED — Improvised Explosive Device
ISF — Iraqi Security Forces
ISIL — Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
IOM — International Organization of Migration
KSF — Kurdish Security Forces
KRG — Kurdish Regional Government
KRI — Kurdistan Region of Iraq
OCHA — Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
PDS — Public Distribution System
UXO — Unexploded Ordinance
UN — United Nations
WHH — Welthungerhilfe
3 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The emergence of the armed opposition group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in late 2013 and its subsequent takeover over much of the Iraq’s Western and Northern territory in 2014 led to one of the worst ongoing humanitarian crises in country’s modern history. As of July 2017, over 3 million IDPs are displaced throughout the Republic of Iraq, making them the third largest IDP population in world after Syria (7.6 million) and Colombia (6 million).
The Kurdish Region of Iraq (hereafter KRI), a semi-autonomous region in Northern Iraq consisting of Dohuk, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah Governorates, currently hosts an estimated 145,000 IDP households (approximately 875,000 individuals) that were mostly displaced due to the emergence of and conflict with ISIL.1 The majority of IDP households originate from the surrounding Ninewa, Anbar, Salah Al Din, and Diyala Governorates that border the KRI.
Since late 2014, Iraqi and Kurdish Security Forces have retaken areas from ISIL, enabling the return of many IDP households (approximately 1.9 million IDP individuals to date).2 On October 17th 2016, Iraqi and Kurdish security forces launched joint military operations to retake the remaining areas in Iraq still under ISIL control. After enduring three years of displacement, many IDP households will be able to consider returning to their origins as more areas are retaken and become accessible and recovery efforts can be mobilized. At the same time, the security situation and access to basic services in many of these newly accessible areas remains precarious. As the political landscape quickly changes across Iraq, more information is needed on the movement intentions of IDP households and the assistance they require in overcoming the challenges they face with their decision.
KEY FINDINGS
For this study, 417 on-camp and off-camp households were surveyed about their planned movement intentions. Among all households,
• 68% were intending to return to their area of origin • 18% were intending to integrate into their current area of displacement • 10% were intending to migrate abroad • 1% were to relocate to another area of origin (see Diagram 1). If these figures are reflective of the greater IDP population in Dohuk Governorate, humanitarian and governmental agencies should plan for the eventual return of the majority of on-camp and off-camp households to their areas of origin. Nonetheless a significant percentage of on-camp and off-camp households also reported that they intend to integrate into their current area of displacement. After more than three years of displacement, it is understandable that many on- camp and off-camp households have already begun the process of integrating into their communities and do not wish to be start over (even if that would mean to return to their original homes and communities). Many households also reported improved access to basic
1 IOM Iraq Displacement Tracking Matrix July 2017 IDP Master List 2 IOM Iraq Displacement Tracking Matrix July 2017 Returnee Master List 4 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
services in their areas of displacement compared to their pre-displacement situation in their areas of origin (55% on-camp / 52% off-camp) (see Diagrams 34 & 35). It is understandably difficult to relinquish improved living standards and return to areas where basic services are inadequate. Furthermore, it appears that nearly all areas of displacement provided adequate levels of basic services, livelihoods, and security that only a small percentage of households intended to relocate to another area of displacement. This likely signifies that once established, households, prefer not to relocate and start over. Finally, of the 10% of on-camp and off-camp households who indicated that they were intending to migrate abroad, it is not known when or to what extent households will be able to fulfill this movement intention. Further research is required to see how possible migrating abroad is for IDP households and what type of support they require.
DIAGRAM 1
Movement Intentions 80% 68% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%
% of % Total HHs 18% 20% 10% 10% 1% 3% 0% Return Integrate Migrate Relocate Do not know Options
The question then switches from “if” IDP households intend to return, to “when?” High percentages of on-camp (48%) and off-camp households (36%) reported being uncertain about when they might be able to return. Equally high percentages of on-camp (27%) and off-camp (36%) households reported they will return from sometime between 1-2+ years (see Diagrams 72 and 73). If this is the case, both on-camp and off-camp households will require continued assistance in their various displacement locations for the short and long-term until they able to return.
The challenges faced in returning also substantiate the long timeframes needed before IDP households are able to return. When asked what the main obstacles were that prevented their household from returning, the most reported issues among on-camp and off-camp households were: the unstable security situation in their areas of origin (65% on-camp / 68% off-camp), unavailability of basic services (34% on-camp / 30% off-camp), and damaged housing (13% on- camp / 25% off-camp) (see Diagrams 80 & 81). Restoring access to basic services such as clean water, electricity, and rehabilitating public and private infrastructure in every conflict-affected area will require significant time and resources from governmental and humanitarian agencies.
5 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
Even more challenging will be restoring security to regions where the political situation remains uncertain between the KRG and GOI. Furthermore, the presence of numerous non-state armed groups in many areas of origin evoke legitimate concerns about their political agendas and how they will interact with returning civilian families. Supporting livelihood opportunities in remote areas of origin will also be challenging where economies and supply-chains have been disrupted, and consumer markets are close to non-existent. For many areas of origin, restoring security, livelihood opportunities, public/private infrastructure to their pre-displacement levels could easily be a 2+ year endeavor before they are suitable for IDPs to return to.
Given the fact that many IDP families will remain in displacement for the foreseeable future (in addition to those intending to integrate), humanitarian and governmental agencies should continue to look for ways to improve the situations of IDPs in their various on-camp and off- camp situations until they are able to fulfill their intended movement decision. When asked what were the main issues they faced in their areas of displacement, large percentages of on-camp IDPs households indicated housing conditions (26%), availability of clean water (35%), lack of electricity (21%), and lack of livelihood opportunities (17%). Off-camp households reported on the lack of livelihood opportunities (48%), housing conditions (22%), lack of healthcare services/medicine (15%), and insufficient food/hunger (15%) to be the biggest challenges in their areas of displacement (see Diagrams 44 and 45). One positive aspect observed was that high percentages of on-camp (82%) and off-camp (91%) households reported that all job opportunities were potentially available to IDPs in their specific areas of displacement. Humanitarian and governmental agencies should therefore focus on supporting job-creation in various displacement locations.
In general, what can be said about the movement intentions of IDP households in Dohuk and if they qualify as voluntary, safe, dignified, and informed? In regards to whether they could be considered voluntary or not, the vast majority of on-camp households and off-camp households reported having experienced no pressure or external expectations that they undertake their intended movement intention decision. This is hopefully indicative that the IDP households will be able to pursue the movement intention of their choice and according to their time frame.
In terms of safety, 82% of on-camp and 85% off-camp IDP households reported having concerns about current security situation in their areas of origin. Among those households, the most reported concerns were the present/future political situation of their areas of origin, the presence of armed groups, extra-judicial killings, kidnappings, and areas contaminated by IEDs or UXOs (see Diagrams 58- 63). Setting aside the validity of these concerns in all of their areas of origin, the fact that so many households have remaining concerns is disheartening. More needs to be done before returns can qualify as safe. Furthermore, nearly all households reported their current displacement locations were safer than their areas of origin. As, such IDP households should only have to make the decision to return only after lasting political and security solutions and recovery efforts can be mobilized to all areas of origin.
In regards to qualifying as dignified, many returns, if they were to happen currently, could be not considered dignified given the fact that only 8% of on-camp and 6% of off-camp reported their homes to be accessible and undamaged (see Diagrams 52 & 53). As mentioned earlier, many areas of origin still have limited or no access to basic services, markets, and livelihood opportunities. Given the current status of many of these places, it is not advisable that IDPs return until better living standards can be restored. On-camp and off-camp IDP households trying to fully integrate into their current areas of displacement will also require additional support. Among on-camp IDP households, the most reported needs were access to clean water
6 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
(54%), increased access to electricity (46%), and livelihood opportunities (25%) (see diagram 44). For off-camp households, the most reported needs were cash (65%), livelihood opportunities (33%), food items (25%), and shelter improvement (18%) (see Diagram 45). Many of these issues faced by households looking to integrate could be supported via cash assistance livelihood support that provide households with the income needed to improve their living standards.
In terms of information, there is a high need among on-camp and off-camp households for reliable, regularly updated information regarding the availability of basic services, the ongoing security situation, IED/UXO contamination, as well as the status of markets. For many IDPs, the only sources of information about the status of their areas of origin were personal visits conducted by themselves or from others who had visited. There were also significant percentages of on-camp and off-camp households who did not know the status of their housing, property, and land. The overall difficulty in receiving regularly updated information is of course to be expected given the remote and sometimes newly-retaken nature of many places that surveyed IDP households come from. Better information services are needed in order to assist IDP households, particularly those in remote off-camp locations, about their areas of origin. Furthermore, given the individual effects that conflict can have on housing, property, and land, IDP households should have the opportunity for an organized trip to be provided to them. Multiple, regularly scheduled trips might be necessary in order to ensure information remains updated.
The findings from this study suggest that the majority of IDPs will plan to either return to their areas of origin or integrate into their current area of displacement. Governmental and humanitarian agencies should adjust their programming to support these intentions, but with the understanding that mobilizing recovery efforts will be a long, arduous process. Returning to the area of origin should not be encouraged if it cannot be considered safe, dignified, informed, and voluntary. All actors working with IPD populations should research their movement intentions and verify whether they meet these four minimum standards. In the interim, all IDPs in on-camp and off-camp locations must be supported for the foreseeable future (at least 2 years), when hopefully the political/security/recovery situation has improved enough to support returning. One of the most requested, and likely most impactful, form of assistance that could be provided to all IDPs in displacement and upon return would be livelihood support. But supporting livelihoods and income-generating opportunities, humanitarian and governmental actors will improve the ability for displaced and returned households to support themselves, and address many of the other issues that were raised (food insecurity, inadequate shelter, access to clean water, etc.).
7 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
FIGURE 1: BETWEEN TENT SHELTERS AT BAJED KANDALA IDP CAMP
FIGURE 2: WHH ENUMERATOR INTERVIEWING A FEMALE HH RESPONDENT
8 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
INTRODUCTION TO STUDY
STUDY DESCRIPTION & OBJECTIVES
This IDP Intentions Study emerged out of the desire by WHH to understand the movement intentions of IDP households in Dohuk Governorate (where WHH Iraq is based) as more areas of origin are retaken and foreseeably become accessible in the near future. It is hoped that this study will provide WHH an indication of future movement intentions of IDP households. In addition to movement intentions, it is also critical to understand what challenges IDPs face with their decisions, what assistance is most needed, and whether their current intentions would meet the minimal standards of a durable solution. This study is therefore comprised of four main objectives meant to analyze the different factors involved in IDP movement intentions:
Objective 1: Understand the future movement intentions of IDP households displaced in Duhok Governorate.
Objective 2: Understand the remaining challenges IDP households face with their movement intentions.
Objective 3: Understand what assistance is required to support IDP households with their movement intentions.
Objective 4: Understand whether each IDP household’s movement intention is dignified, safe, voluntary, and informed.
STUDY FINANCING
This study is financed by the GIZ-funded project, titled “Improving livelihoods and basic conditions for returnees and the local population in Ninewa province, Northern Iraq” (hereafter Project IRQ 1005). Project IRQ 1005 seeks to support returnee households throughout Ninewa Governorate by providing basic infrastructure construction and rehabilitation services through various cash for work schemes. It is hoped that by improving the basic infrastructure (e.g. schools, health clinics, parks, roads, etc.) in newly accessible areas of Ninewa Governorate, WHH Iraq can support already returned families with improved services, but also contribute the voluntary, safe, dignified, and informed return of IDP families who have not yet returned to their areas of origin in Ninewa.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
LITERATURE REVIEW
RIGHT TO RETURN It should be understood that all returns-related assistance provided to IDPs is grounded in human rights law and rights-based programming. The right for IDPs to return to their areas of origin is an internationally recognized right within Customary International Humanitarian Law (CIHL). According to CIHL Rule 132 (Return of Displaced Persons), “all displaced persons have
9 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
a right to voluntary return in safety to their homes or places of habitual residence as soon as the reasons for their displacement cease to exist.”3 The international adoption of Rule 132 by national governments and duty bearer stakeholders “establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. The right to return applies to those who have been displaced, voluntarily or involuntarily, on account of the conflict and not to non-nationals who have been lawfully expelled.”4 Rule 132 is additionally supported by numerous internationally ratified documents including Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (of which the Republic of Iraq is a signatory), Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Principles 28-30 of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.
In addition to IHL and human rights law, the 2005 Iraq Constitution upholds the right for displaced Iraqi citizens to return to their areas of origin. According to Article 44, Section 2, “No Iraqis may be exiled, displaced, or deprived from returning to the homeland.” 5 In this sense, all Iraqi citizens have the right to not be arbitrarily displaced as well as not be prevented from returning to their place of origin after a period of displacement. The right to return should be upheld and enforced by the competent and authorities consisting of the federal Government of Iraq (GOI) and Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) over all Iraqi citizens under their administration.
ALTERNATIVE DURABLE SOLUTIONS Despite the fact that displaced Iraqi citizens have both universal human rights and constitutional rights to return to their areas of origin, the ability to return in a voluntary, safe, dignified, and informed manner is not always immediately possible.
The 2010 IASC Durable Solutions Framework addresses this issue and highlights the existence of two durable solutions, in addition to returning to an area of origin, that national governments should adhere to in situations of displacement.
According to the framework, alternative durable solutions besides returning can be achieved through:
• Sustainable local integration at the area of displacement (local integration) • Sustainable integration in another part of the country (relocation and resettlement) The framework highlights that regardless of the “option chosen by IDPs for their durable solution, IDPs will commonly continue to have residual needs and human rights concerns linked to their displacement…”6 This recognizes the fact that the mere act of integrating, or resettling does not fully redress all the needs caused by the displacement. The national government and humanitarian community should also account for the residual needs caused by the original displacement. Therefore, a durable solution is only “achieved when IDP’s no longer have specific
3 ICRC Customary IHL Database. Rule 132. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary- ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule132 4 ICRC Customary IHL Database. Rule 132. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary- ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule132 5 Zaid Al-Ali English translation of the 2005 Iraqi Constitution http://zaidalali.com/resources/constitution- of-iraq/ 6 IASC Framework On Durable Solutions For Internally Displaced Persons. 2010 10 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
assistance and protection needs that are linked to their displacement and such persons can enjoy their human rights without discrimination resulting from displacement.”7
MOVEMENT INTENTIONS AND DECISIONS This study will utilize the following terminology to discuss the desires and plans of IDP households in their individual pursuit to finding a durable solution to their displacement.
In this report, a movement intention is defined as one of the following options:
• Returning to the area of origin • Integrating into the current area of displacement • Relocating to another area of displacement • Migrating abroad to another country
A movement decision would be the realization of the movement intention, i.e. the physical act of returning, integrating, relocating, or migrating. This study makes this decision because despite the intentions of IDP households, they may not always be able to carry out their plans. Despite the fact that migrating abroad is not considered a “durable solution” per the IASC Framework, this study’s researchers were also interested in seeing whether IDP households were considering this option and what support they might require.
VOLUNTARY, SAFE, DIGNIFED, AND INFORMED DECISION-MAKING Movement decisions should be conducted on the premise that they are voluntary, safe, dignified, and informed. These four principles are described in detail in the Iraq Protection Cluster’s “Aide Memoire on Principles of Voluntary Return in Safety and Dignity,” but are also upheld by OCHA’s Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement as well as the IASC Framework On Durable Solutions For Internally Displaced Persons. Although the Aide Memoire concerns itself with returning, its definitions can also extend to the other movement decisions. This study will use the following definitions in order to assess whether surveyed households’ movement intentions fall under these conditions.
Voluntary
The decision to integrate, relocate, migrate abroad, or return should be the primary decision of those who are displaced. Displaced people should never be pressured, forced, or falsely incentivized to conduct a movement decision if they feel it is against their best interest. As per the Aide Memoire, “IDPs should not be induced to return by indications of withholding humanitarian assistance, reducing humanitarian assistance, confiscation of documentation, closing of IDP camps or sites, or expulsion/eviction from temporary accommodation or arbitrary arrest/detention. In case IDPs decide to not return and choose another durable solution, this should be respected without negative consequences for the IDPs.”8
It is also best practice that that IDPs have ownership over their movement decision and are “consulted and participate extensively in the planning and management of the processes
7 IASC Framework On Durable Solutions For Internally Displaced Persons. 2010 8 Iraq Protection Cluster. “Aide Memoire on Principles of Voluntary Return in Safety and Dignity.” 11 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
supporting a durable solution.9” The IASC Framework stresses that “national and local authorities and humanitarian and development actors should base their durable solution programming on the actual preferences of IDPs and work towards providing them with a meaningful and realistic choice of durable solutions.”10
Safe
Conducting a movement decision should never jeopardize the physical or legal safety of the IDP. As emphasized in the Aide Memoire, “the government in collaboration with other relevant actors has the responsibility to ensure that places of return are safe: free from any military activities, free of mines or unexploded ordnance, and the physical safety of IDPs is provided by the state security forces. This includes villages and houses, access roads, and areas where the populations are known to conduct their livelihoods.” In addition, the Memoire also emphasizes the legal safety of the IDP should be upheld. Returning individuals should also be able to “exercise their basic civil, political and economics rights” as well as be able to “register their return and access civil status and property documentation.”11
Dignified
IDPs should have access to basic services and suitable living conditions in the area associated with their chosen durable solution. As mentioned in the Aide Memoire, “returning IDPs should have access to basic services and available public utilities without discrimination…notably access in the early phases of return to means of survival and basic services, such as potable water, health services and education.”12
Furthermore, movement decisions to areas that where basic services are unavailable should not be promoted by national authorities or humanitarian actors. According to the IASC Framework, “even when return, local integration or settlement elsewhere in the country are entirely voluntary, they should not be promoted if they endanger the life, safety, liberty, or health of IDPs or is minimum standard of agreeable living conditions bearing in mind local conditions cannot be ensured.”13
Informed
According to the IASC Framework, before a movement decision can be considered as informed, IDPs should be aware of the “conditions in places of return, local integration or settlement elsewhere in the country, including degrees of destruction, access to housing, land, livelihoods, landmine risks, employment, and other economic opportunities, availability of public services (public transport, healthcare, education, means of communication, etc.); conditions of buildings of infrastructure for schools, health clinics, roads, bridges, and sanitation systems,; and assistance from national international, and private actors.”14 In addition, information should be made accessible to all members of an IDP community including “men, women, and children of a certain age and maturity” in order to avoid privileging certain subgroups of a community, Security permitting, IDPs should also have the right to visit to their area of origin in order to help them make an informed decision. To add to this, the Aide Memoire also recommends that
9 IASC Framework On Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons. 2010 10 IASC Framework On Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons. 2010 11 Iraq Protection Cluster. “Aide Memoire on Principles of Voluntary Return in Safety and Dignity.” 12 Iraq Protection Cluster. “Aide Memoire on Principles of Voluntary Return in Safety and Dignity.” 13 IASC Framework On Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons. 2010 14 IASC Framework On Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons. 2010 12 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
“the overall return plan and process of return should be provided as early as possible to an actual return movement. The information should include an explanation of procedures, any registration required, assistance provided upon return, as well as an explanation of the rights of IDPs.”15
RESEARCH TOOLS
IDP HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE A unique IDP household questionnaire was developed for this study. Other IDP intention studies were analyzed from different displacement contexts in the development of the questionnaire. Feedback provided by the Iraq Returns Working Group was also integrated into the finalized questionnaire. The questionnaire was digitized and uploaded to tablets to help facilitate the survey process. Survey enumerators fluent in Arabic and Kurdish were trained in household surveying techniques given the sensitivity of this study. During all surveying trips, the study’s enumerators were under the supervision of a trained project officer to ensure for quality control.
Household surveys were selected as the data-collection tool for this study given the highly individualistic nature involved in selecting a movement intention. Deciding upon a movement intention is a complicated matter that involves both the realities on the ground, how IDP households perceive those realities, and what degree of power they have to act on their desires. Even surveying two households that were displaced from the same area of origin might yield different movement intentions. As an example, one household might view a particular area as safe to return to, or the availability of basic services to be sufficient for its needs, while another may not. Household surveys provide an overview of the distinct challenges IDP households face in finding a durable solution to their displacement.
It was also important to provide survey respondents a private space where they could speak freely about the challenges they faced with their movement intentions. Other data collection methods, such as focus group discussions, were ruled out as they might not have provided respondents the needed environment to speak freely.
15 Iraq Protection Cluster. “Aide Memoire on Principles of Voluntary Return in Safety and Dignity.” 13 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
FIGURE 3: WHH ENUMERATOR INTERVIEWING A MALE HH RESPONDENT
IDP HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE SIZE
The sample size indicated below is based on Dohuk Governorate’s total IDP household population according to IOM Iraq’s Displacement Tracking Matrix Round 70 Data Set, which has been counting and mapping IDP displacements in Iraq since 2014.
Dohuk Governorate IDP Population: 64,926 HHs
Confidence Level: 95%
Margin of Error: 5%
Intended Survey Sample Size: 400 HHs16
Intended HH Respondents: (200 male/200 female household respondents)
This study also sought to reflect the reality of the on-camp and off-camp IDP populations currently displaced in Dohuk Governorate. According to the IOM DTM Round 70 data set, 60% of Dohuk’s IDP population live off-camp, while 40% live on-camp. In order to replicate this 40:60
16 The total sample size was increased from 382 HHs to 400 HHs in order to provide equal HH survey quotas for each IDP location. 14 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
on-camp/off-camp ratio, a minimum of 32 households were surveyed per location in on-camp locations, and a minimum of 48 households were surveyed per location in off-camp locations.
SURVEY AREA SELECTION
Five on-camp and five off-camp IDP locations were randomly selected for surveying. All on-camp and off-camp locations featured in the IOM DTM Round 70 Dataset with IDP populations greater than 30 HHs were included in the survey area selection process.
All suitable on-camp and off-camp locations were separated into two lists, and each IDP location was assigned a specific number (hereafter IDP location number). The range of IDP location numbers was entered into a random number generator, from which on-camp and off-camp locations were selected according to which numbers were generated.
For Dohuk Governorate, the following IDP locations were randomly selected:
• On-Camp IDP Locations: o Bajed Kandala IDP Camp, Sumel District o Bersive 2 IDP Camp, Zakho District o Dawodiya IDP Camp, Amedi District o Khanke IDP Camp, Sumel District o Rwanga Community IDP Camp, Sumel District
• Off-Camp Locations: o Bajed Kandala Village, Sumel District o Chamanke Village, Amedi District o Darkar Village, Zakho District o Duhok City, Duhok District o Mangesh Village, Dohuk District
15 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
FIGURE 4: MAP OF DOHUK GOVERNORATE ON-CAMP LOCATIONS
FIGURE 5: MAP OF DOHUK GOVERNORATE OFF-CAMP LOCATIONS
SURVEY SCHEDULE
16 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
Table 1 shows the data-collection schedule as it was conducted by this study’s survey team. On- camp locations required only one day to survey the intended sample size. Off-camp locations required between two to three days to survey the intended sample size, as IDP households were often further spread out from one another.
TABLE 1: IDP STUDY SURVEY SCHEDULE
Dates of Surveying IDP Displacement Location July 4th Khanke IDP Camp July 5th Bajed Kandala IDP Camp July 6th Rwanga Community IDP Camp July 9th Bersive 2 IDP Camp July 10th Dawudiya IDP Camp July 13th, 16th Bajed Kandala Village July 18th, 19th Mangesh Village July 23rd, 24th Chamanke Village July 25th, 26th, 27th Duhok City August 1st, 2nd Darkar Village
SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS
Table 2 shows the number of respondents according to gender at each displacement location.
TABLE 2: IDP STUDY RESPONDENT TYPE & GENDER
IDP Male HH Female HH Total Displacement Respondents Respondents Location Khanke IDP Camp 16 19 35 Bajed Kandala IDP 14 19 33 Camp Rwanga Community 16 17 33 IDP Camp Bersive 2 IDP Camp 14 20 34 Dawudiya IDP Camp 9 24 33 ON-CAMP 60 99 168 TOTAL Bajed Kandala 20 31 51 Village Mangesh Village 28 21 49
Chamanke Village 21 28 49
17 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
Duhok City 20 30 50 Darkar Village 23 27 50 OFF-CAMP 112 137 249 TOTAL COMBINED 172 236 417 TOTAL
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS
Although this study strove to survey equal numbers of adult female and male household members, adult males were occasionally absent from this survey’s randomly selected households. Male enumerators were given the flexibility to survey willing adult females if an adult male was unavailable to be surveyed. This resulted in higher numbers of surveyed adult female household respondents compared to male respondents.
For off-camp locations, WHH worked with each area’s Sub-District Mayor Office to identify IDP community focal points who could assist WHH surveyor teams in locating IDP households. IDP focal points were present during surveying dates and guided WHH enumerators to the houses of IDPs in each area. In this case, IDP households were not able to be randomly selected as in camp locations.
Additionally, in some off-camp locations, WHH had to expand its geographic coverage outside of the immediate area in order to achieve its household quota. This was due to the fact that some villages did not have the IDP household populations indicated in the IOM DTM Round 70 data set.
18 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
FIGURE 6: WHH ENUMERATOR INTERVIEWING A MALE RESPONDENT
ANALYSIS OF IDP HOUSEHOLDS
OVERVIEW
This survey’s findings are divided into the following sections:
• Household Profile • Pre-Displacement Situation • Post-Displacement Situation • Information About Area of Origin • Voluntary Return Intentions • Alternative Movement Intentions • Assistance Requested
Each section includes multiple sub-sections with side-by-side comparisons of on-camp and off- camp IDP households. On-camp and off-camp household data were separated in order to compare whether on-camp and off-camp situations correlate with different post-displacement situations and movement decisions trends.
This study’s IDP household questionnaire is a conditional questionnaire, which utilizes branch logic. Respondents who answered “yes” or “no” to certain questions would be prompted with distinct follow-up questions. In addition, respondents who indicated that their household’s primary movement intention was not to return home were prompted to answer the additional “Alternative Movement Intentions” section.
19 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
IDP HOUSEHOLD PROFILE
GENDER & AGE RANGE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS As can be seen in Table 3, for both gender groups the majority of respondents (79%) were between the age ranges “25-39” and “40-59.” In addition, 59% of surveyed on-camp respondents were women compared to the remaining 41% who were men.
TABLE 3
Respondent Gender Age Range Total % Female Male
18-24 6% 3% 9%
25-39 30% 15% 45%
40-59 19% 15% 34%
60+ 4% 8% 12%
Total 59% 41% 100%
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
HOUSEHOLD GENDER & POSITION OF SURVEY RESPONDENT
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS For surveyed on-camp households, the majority of female respondents were spouses of the head of household. There were however some instances of female respondents being household heads themselves. Male respondents were almost exclusively household heads and in no cases were they the spouse of the household head (see Table 4).
20 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4
Respondent Gender Household Position Total % Female Male
Head of Household 8% 38% 46% (HoH)
Offspring of HoH 8% 2% 10%
Parent of HoH 0% 1% 1%
Spouse of HoH 43% 0% 43%
Total 59% 41% 100%
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS For surveyed off-camp households, ages and genders were very similar to the on-camp respondents. Once again, the majority of household respondents were female (60%) compared to male respondents (40%). In addition, the majority (81%) of male and female respondents were in the two age groups “25-39” and “40-59” (see Table 5).
TABLE 5
Respondent Gender Age Range Total % Female Male
18-24 6% 1% 7%
25-39 27% 14% 41%
40-59 19% 22% 41%
60+ 8% 3% 11%
Total 60% 40% 100%
HOUSEHOLD MEMBER SEX & AGE RANGE ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
21 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
The majority on-camp households did not have male or female members under the ages of 5 or 60+. In contrast, most households were comprised of one to three male or female members in the age range groups “6-17” and “18-59”(see Table 6).
TABLE 6
Sex & Age Range Percentage of HHs (With Number of Members)
0 1 2 3 4 5+ Males (Under 5) 68% 23% 8% 1% 0% 0% Females (Under 5) 67% 24% 7% 2% 0% 0% Males (6-17) 42% 19% 23% 10% 5% 2% Females (6-17) 46% 21% 15% 7% 9% 2% Males (18-59) 8% 56% 18% 11% 4% 4% Females (18-59) 6% 60% 14% 11% 7% 3% Males (60+) 83% 16% 1% 0% 0% 0% Females (60+) 87% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0%
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Off-camp households exhibited the same trend as their on-camp counterparts. The majority of off-camp households did not have any male or female members under the age of 5 or 60+. Once again, off-camp households were mostly comprised of 1-3 male and female members in “6-17” and “18-59” age range groups (see Table 7).
TABLE 7
Sex & Age Range Percentage of HHs With Number of Members
0 1 2 3 4 5+ Males (Under 5) 63% 27% 9% 1% 0% 0% Females (Under 5) 67% 23% 7% 2% 0% 0% Males (6-17) 49% 20% 17% 7% 4% 2% Females (6-17) 42% 26% 17% 7% 6% 2% Males (18-59) 7% 64% 14% 9% 3% 2% Females (18-59) 5% 69% 16% 8% 1% 1% Males (60+) 87% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% Females (60+) 88% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0%
22 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
TOTAL HOUSEHOLD SIZE ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS In regards to total household size, the largest percentage of surveyed on-camp households had five members (17%). When expanded to include other total household sizes, slightly over half (54%) of all on-camp households had between five to eight members (see Diagram 2).
DIAGRAM 2
Number of Members per HH
18% 17%
16% 14% 14% 12% 12% 11%
10% 8% 8% 7%
% of % HHs 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 19 Total No. of Members per HH
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The total household size for off-camp households followed a similar pattern to on-camp households, albeit with some minor differences. The most frequently reported off-camp household size was 7 members (17%). In addition, there were higher percentages of off-camp households with only 3 (11%) or 4 (15%) members. When grouping household sizes together, 65% of all off-camp households had between 3-7 members (see Diagram 3).
23 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 3
Number of Members per HH 18% 17% 16% 15% 14% 12% 11% 12% 10% 10% 7% 8% 6% % of % HHs 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total No. of Members per HH
NUMBER OF MEMBERS WITH REDUCED MOBILITY, SPECIAL NEEDS, OR HEALTH ISSUES ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The vast majority (85%) of on-camp interviewees reported that their households did not have any members with reduced mobility, special needs, or health issues. A small percentage of respondents (15%) reported having between 1-2 members with the issues mentioned above (see Diagram 4).
DIAGRAM 4
Number of Members with Reduced Mobility, Special Needs, or Health Issues
2% 13% 0 1 2 85%
24 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Similar to the on-camp findings, 75% of surveyed off-camp households had no members with reduced mobility, special needs, or health issues. Slightly higher percentages of off-camp households (25%) had between 1-2 members with reduced mobility, special needs, or health issues was observed (see Diagram 5). The higher percentage of off-camp households with members with the reduced mobility/special needs/health issues does not necessarily signify better living conditions than in off-camp settings. It was not learned whether living off-camp afforded IDP households with added advantages for living with such members..
DIAGRAM 5
Number of Members with Reduced Mobility, Special Needs, or Health Issues
4% 21% 0 1 2 75%
NUMBER OF PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING WOMEN ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among on-camp interviewees, 93% reported that their households did not have any female members who were currently pregnant or breastfeeding (see Diagram 6).
25 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 6
Number of Pregnant or Breastfeeding Women
7%
0 1
93%
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Off-camp households showed similar findings to their on-camp counterparts. The majority of households (87%) had no women who were currently pregnant or breastfeeding. The remaining 13% of households had between 1-2 women who were either pregnant or breastfeeding (see Diagram 7).
DIAGRAM 7
Number of Pregnant or Breastfeeding Women
1% 12% 0 1 2 87%
PRE-DISPLACEMENT SITUATION
AREA OF ORIGIN (GOVERNORATE & DISTRICT)
26 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS All on-camp interviewees reported their households to be originally from Ninewa Governorate. This is not surprising as 99% of all IDP households displaced in Dohuk Governorate originate from Ninewa.17 Within Ninewa Governorate, the vast majority of surveyed households originated from Sinjar District (89%), followed by Hamdaniya District (8%), Tal Afar District (2%), and Mosul District (1%) (see Diagram 8).
DIAGRAM 8
District of Origin
100% 89% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%
40% % of % HHs 30% 20% 8% 10% 1% 2% 0% Hamdaniya District, Mosul District, Sinjar District, Tal Afar District, Ninewa Ninewa Ninewa Ninewa District of Origin
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS For off-camp IDP households, 99% reported originating from Ninewa Governorate. In regards to their district of origin, off-camp IDP households were more diverse than their on-camp counterparts. Only 67% of off-camp households were originally from Sinjar District. Sizeable percentages of IDP households also originated from Hamdaniya District (16%) and Mosul District (12%) (see Diagram 9).
17 IOM DTM Round 75 Master List. July 15th 2017 27 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 9
District of Origin, 80% 67% 70% 60% 50% 40%
30% % of % HHs 16% 20% 12% 10% 4% 0% 2% 0% Hamdaniya Fallujah Mosul Sinjar Tal Afar Til Kaif District, District, District, District, District, District, Ninewa Anbar Ninewa Ninewa Ninewa Ninewa District of Origin
PRE-DISPLACEMENT AVERAGE MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS For surveyed on-camp IDPs, household incomes were fairly distributed across all income ranges. When grouping income ranges together, more than half (57%) of all households earned between 0 to 500,000 IQD on a monthly basis, with the remaining 43% of households earning between 501,000 to 1,000,000+ IQD (see Diagram 10).
28 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 10
Pre-Displacement Monthly Household Income
20% 18% 17% 18% 16% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 8% 7% 7% 8% 5% 6% % of % HHs 6% 5% 4% 2% 2% 2% 0%
Options
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Surveyed off-camp households showed a similar distribution of pre-displacement incomes to their on-camp counterparts. For off-camp IDPs, the most selected monthly household income range was “1,000,000+ IQD” (17%), followed closely by “400,001 – 500,000 IQD.” When grouping income ranges together, 41% of households earned between 0-500,000 IQD per month, and 59% earned between 501,000-1,000,000+ IQD per month (see Diagram 11).
29 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 11
Pre-Displacement Monthly Household Income
20% 17% 18% 16% 16% 14% 11% 11% 12% 10% 10% 10% 8% 8% 7% % of % HHs 6% 5% 4% 2% 3% 2% 0%
Options
PRE-DISPLACEMENT PRIMARY LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were asked to select all livelihood activities that members of their households were involved in prior to their displacement. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The following livelihoods had the were selected by the largest percentages of households: construction (27%), agricultural farming (24%), official security forces (20%), and small private businesses (14%). Smaller percentages of households were involved in livestock management (5%) and civilian administration (9%) (see Diagram 12).
30 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 12
Pre-Displacement Livelihoods
Agriculture (Farming) 24%
Agriculture (Livestock Management) 5% Civilian Administration (Local Government 9% Agencies) Construction 27%
Large Private Business 4%
Non-Official Security Forces 1%
Official Security Forces 20% Options Other 1%
Service Industry (Hotel, Restaurant) 1%
Small Private Business 14%
Transportation/Shipping 3%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% % of HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS For off-camp housheolds, the following activities were the most selected pre-displacement livelihoods: civillian administration (22%), official security forces (20%), small private businesses (19%), construction (17%), agricultural farming (16%), and livestock management (10%) (see Diagram 13). In comparison to their on-camp counterparts, the higher percentages of households involved in activities such as civilian administration and small private businesses might also be a reflection of their more urban location such as areas in like Mosul or Hamdaniya Districts.
31 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 13
Pre-Displacement Livelihoods
Agriculture (Farming) 16%
Civilian Administration (Local Government 22% Agencies)
Construction 17%
Healthcare 2%
Large private business 5%
Livestock Management 10%
Official Security Forces 20% Options Other 4%
Service Industry (Hotel, Restaurant) 2%
Small private business 19%
Transportation/Shipping 6%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% % of HHs
DATE OF DISPLACEMENT
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The vast majority (97%) of on-camp respondents reported their households being displaced from their areas of origin during August 2014, which corresponds with the time that ISIL entered and took control of Sinjar District (see Diagram 14).
32 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 14
Date of Displacement (Month, Year) 120% 97% 100% 80% 60%
% of % HHs 40% 20% 1% 1% 1%
0%
Jun-17 Jun-14 Jun-15 Jun-16
Feb-15 Feb-16 Feb-17
Apr-16 Apr-15 Apr-17
Aug-14 Oct-14 Aug-15 Oct-15 Aug-16 Oct-16
Dec-14 Dec-15 Dec-16 Date of Displaceemnt
Jun-14 Aug-14 Apr-15 Jul-17
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS In comparison to on-camp households, a smaller percentage of off-camp households reported being displaced in August 2014 (87%). Higher percentages reported earlier displacements in June (8%) and July (3%) 2014, which corresponds with the time ISIL entered and gained control over Hamdaniya and Mosul Districts (see Diagram 15).
DIAGRAM 15
Date of Displacement ( Month, Year) 100% 87% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%
40% % of % HHs 30% 20% 8% 10% 0% 3% 1%
0%
Jul-14
Jan-15
Jun-14 Jun-15
Sep-14
Feb-14 Feb-15
Apr-14 Apr-15
Aug-14 Oct-14
Mar-14 Mar-15
May-14 May-15
Dec-14 Nov-14 Date of Displacement
POST-DISPLACEMENT SITUATION
33 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
NUMBER OF DISPLACEMENT LOCATIONS ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS When asked how many displacement locations they had settled in after displacement, over half (51%) of all on-camp respondents reported their households had lived in two locations. 33% of respondents reported that the camp location itself was the only location they had settled in since displacement. A smaller minority (16%) of households reported having settled in three or more locations since becoming displaced (see Diagram 16).
DIAGRAM 16
Number of Displacement Locations
5% 11% One Location 33% Two Locations Three Locations 3+ Locations 51%
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Similar percentage were observed among off-camp household and the number of displacement locations they had visited since becoming displaced. A slightly higher percentage (40%) of respondents indicated they had remained in their first area of displacement. The remaining 60% of households reported to have been changed displacement locations two or more times (see Diagram 17).
34 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 17
Number of Displacement Locations
8% 10% One location 40% Two locations Three Locations 42% 3+ Locations
PRIMARY REASONS FOR SETTLING IN CURRENT AREA OF DISPLACEMENT For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were asked to select up to three reasons why their household had decided to settle in their current area of displacement. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS For on-camp respondents, a fairly even distribution can be seen across all selected reasons. Options selected by the largest percentages of households included “host community shares same ethnicity as household” (21%), “humanitarian assistance and basic services are accessible” (17%), and “community leadership decision” (15%) (see Diagram 17).
35 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 18
Primary Reasons For Settling In AOD
Area of displacement is geographically close to 6% area of origin
Followed community leadership decision 15%
Host community is supportive of IDP’s here 1%
Host community shares same ethnicity as 21% household Host community shares the same religion as 8% household Humanitarian assistance and basic services are 17%
accessible here Options I have an established family/social network here 14%
I was encouraged to relocate here 10%
Other 14%
Do not know 1%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% % of HHs
Household respondents were also provided with an “other” option to explain why their household settled in their on-camp location. The two most indicated reasons were that the on- camp location was the “only available displacement location” (5%) and that it provided “better living and housing conditions” (5%) compared to other displacement locations (see Diagram 19).
36 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 19
"Other" Indicated Reasons
Better living and housing conditions 5%
Lower cost of living 1%
Only available displacement location 5%
Proximity to a large city
Options 1%
Safety 1%
Settled here by governmental authorities 1%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% % of HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Off-camp respondents indicated different reasons for settling in their current areas of displacement. The most selected reasons for choosing the location were: the “host community shares the same ethnicity as the family” ( 20%), an “existing family/social network was in the location” (21%), and their households were “encouraged to relocate to the current area of displacement” from an external source (14%) (see Diagram 19). Another interesting observation was the fact that community leaders did not seem to play as large a role in selecting off-camp locations, whereas 15% of on-camp households did indicate they were told by the their community leaders to settle in on-camp locations.
37 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 20
Primary Reasons For Settling In AOD
Area of displacement is geographically close to my area 2% of origin
Followed community leadership decision 1%
Host community is supportive of IDP’s here 5%
Host community shares the same ethnicity as my family 20%
Host community shares the same religion as my family 8%
Options Humanitarian assistance and basic services are 13% accessible here
I have an established family/social network here 21%
I was encouraged to relocate here 14%
Other (Enter Text) 16%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% % of HHs
Among households who reported “other” reasons for settling in their current area of displacement, the most indicated reason was that area’s “lower cost of living” (7%) (see Diagram 21).
DIAGRAM 21
"Other" Indicated Reasons
Better living and housing conditions 4%
Lower cost of living 7%
Options Only available displacement location 3%
Presence of livelihood/income-generating 2% opportunities
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% % of HHs
38 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
SHELTER SITUATION ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The majority (60%) of surveyed on-camp households were living in tent units, with the remaining 40% living prefabricate caravan units (see Diagram 21). Tent and caravan shelters ranged in size, services directly provided to the shelter (i.e. electricity, water, kitchen units, etc.), and number rooms within the shelter.
DIAGRAM 22
Shelter Type In AOD
40% Caravan Tent 60%
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among off-camp households, 54% were living in finished, privately-rented apartments or houses. Another 39% of off-camp households were living in unoccupied houses or unfinished buildings, where it was uncertain if they were paying rent. A small percentage (4%) of off-camp houses were living in a prefabricate caravan commune that was established on the property of a church in one area of displacement (see Diagram 23).
39 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 23
Shelter Type in AOD
60% 54%
50%
40%
30% 25% % of % HHs 20% 14%
10% 4% 1% 2% 0%
Options
CONDITION OF SHELTER ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS More than half (58%) of all on-camp interviewees reported that their shelter units were in “good” or “very good” condition, with the remaining 42% as being in “okay” or “bad” condition (see Diagram 24), where the condition correlated to the level of needed repairs. All four categories contained both caravan and tent shelter units.
40 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 24
Chart Title 40% 34% 35% 30% 24% 25% 22% 19% 20%
15% % of % HHs 10% 5% 0% Bad (in need of Okay (in need of Good (in need of Very good (in need major some small-medium some minor repairs of no repairs or repairs/renovation) repairs or or rehabilitations) rehabilitations) rehabilitations) Options
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS When asked the overall condition of their shelter, 68% of off-camp interviewees reported that their shelters were in good or very good condition. Only 12% of interviewees reported their shelter units were in bad condition and in need of major repairs/renovations (See Diagram 25). Of the shelter units deemed as being in bad condition, 40% were unoccupied homes, 23% were unifinished buildings, and 37% were privately rented homes. This suggests that ongoing shelter rehabilitation interventions should not solely focus upon unoccupied/unfinished shelter units, but also ensure that privately rented homes are also assessed.
41 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 25
Condition of Shelter 40% 35% 35% 33% 30%
25% 20% 20%
% of % HHs 15% 12% 10% 5% 0% Bad (in need of major Good (in need of Okay (in need of Very good (in need of repairs/renovation) some minor repairs some small-medium no repairs or or rehabilitations) repairs or rehabilitations) rehabilitations) Options
FREEDOM TO WORK ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The vast majority (82%) of on-camp respondents indicated that all types of jobs were potentially available to IDPs in their area of displacement, suggesting a high level of optimism, and perhaps even experience, that IDPs would not be discriminated against based on their displacement status. A smaller percentage (15%) indicated that while IDPs have the freedom to work in their areas of displacement, the only jobs that IDPs were allowed to have were day-labor jobs. Only 2% of respondents indicated that IDPs had no freedom to work in their area of displacement (See Diagram 26).
42 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 26
Freedom To Work 90% 82% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%
% of % HHs 30% 20% 15% 10% 2% 2% 0% No (Not allowed Yes, Partially (Only Yes, Fully (All jobs Do not know to have any type of day labor jobs) are potentially employment) available) Options
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS In comparison to on-camp households, 91% of off-camp respondents indicated that all jobs were potentially available for IDPs in their various areas of displacement. This suggests an even higher level of optimism/past experience that IDPs would not be discriminated against based on their displacement status. The remaining 8% of respondents indicated that only day-labor opportunities were potentially available (see Diagram 27). The higher percentage of households who believed all jobs were potentially available (compared to on-camp respondents) might indicate a greater degree of access to livelihood opportunities, compared with on-camp populations. It might also suggest a greater degree of integration and networking of off-camp IDPs into their respective host communities.
DIAGRAM 27
Freedom to Work In AOD
100% 91% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% % of % HHs 30% 20% 8% 10% 0% 0% 0% No (Not allowed to Yes, Partially (Only Yes, Fully (All jobs Do not know have any type of day labor jobs) are potentially employment) available) Options
43 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
AVAILABLE LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES IN AOD For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select all available livelihood opportunities in their current area of displacement. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Livelihood opportunities selected by the highest percentage of on-camp households were agricultural farming (23%), construction (18%), small-private businesses (14%), and official security forces (7%). In addition, 35% of all on-camp interviewees indicated that there were no jobs available for on-camp IDP households in their area of displacement, suggesting that finding any type of employment still remains a challenge for many IDP households (see Diagram 28).
DIAGRAM 28
Available Livelihood Options in AOD
Agriculture (Farming) 23% Civilian Administration 5% Construction 18% Healthcare 0% Large private business 0% Livestock Management 1% No jobs available 35% Non-Governmental Organization 2% Non-Official Security Forces 0%
Options Official Security Forces 7% Other 1% Service Industry (Hotel, Restaurant) 0% Small Private Business 14% Transportation/Shipping 1% All of the above 1% Do not know 2% Refuse to answer 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% % of HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS In general, lower percentages of off-camp IDP households reported available livelihood opportunities in their areas of displacement compared to on-camp households. The most widely selected livelihood opportunities were construction (14%), small private businesses (14%), civil administration (7%), agricultural farming (6%), and official security forces (6%). Furthermore, nearly half (43%) of all respondents indicated there were no jobs available in their area of
44 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
displacement compared to 31% for on-camp respondents (see Diagram 29). This might suggest that while there are little to no issues regarding discrimination, there simply are not enough jobs available for either IDP or host community residents.
DIAGRAM 29
Available Livelihood Opportunities in AOD Agriculture (Farming) 6%
Civilian Administration (Local Government Agencies) 7%
Construction 14%
Healthcare 0%
Livestock Management 2%
No jobs available 43%
Non-Governmental Organization 1%
Non-Official Security Forces 2%
Official Security Forces 6% Options
Other (Enter Text) 1%
Service Industry (Hotel, Restaurant) 2%
Small Private Business 14%
Transportation/Shipping 2%
All of the above 1%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% % of HHs
AVERAGE POST-DISPLACEMENT MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS More than 95% of on-camp households reported earning 600,000 IQD or less per month. When narrowed further, more than half (62%) of on-camp households were earning 200,000 IDQ or less per month (See Diagram 30). This helps show the very limited monthly incomes on-camp households have available to them, and as will be discussed later in this report, perhaps why IDP households often have no savings prepared to assist them in returning.
45 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 30
Average Monthly Household Income 30% 26% 25% 22% 20% 14% 14% 15% 9%
% of % HHs 10% 5% 5% 5% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0%
Options
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS In general, monthly incomes among off-camp households were similar to their on-camp counterparts. 87% of-camp households were earning 600,000 IQD or less per month. The remaining 13% of households reported earning more than 600,000, IQD per month than on- camp households (See Diagram 31). This is interesting given the fact that higher percentages of off-camp households reported that no livelihood opportunities were available in their areas of displacement.
46 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 31
Average Monthly Household Income 19% 20% 18% 16% 16% 13% 12% 14% 11% 12% 10% 10% 8% 6%
% of % HHs 4% 6% 3% 2% 4% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0%
Options
CURRENT SECURITY SITUATION IN AOD COMPARED WITH AOO ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Almost all (98%) of surveyed on-camp households reported that the current security situation in their area of displacement was more stable than in their area of origin. Only 2% of on-camp households reported the current security sitation in their area of origin was equal to the security situation in their camp location. No on-camp households reported that the current security situation was better in the area of origin compared to their area of displacement (see Diagram 32).
47 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 32
Current Security Situation in AOD Compared To AOO
2% More stable than area of 0% origin Equally Stable as area of origin Less stable than area of 98% origin
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The findings for off-camp households were nearly identical to their on-camp counterparts. 100% of off-camp respondents indicated that the current security situation in their area of displacement was more stable than their area of origin (see Diagram 33).
DIAGRAM 33
Current Security Situation In AOD Compared To AOO 0% 0%
More stable than area of origin Equally Stable as area of origin Less stable than area of 100% origin
48 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
FIGURE 7: INSIDE AN IDP-MANAGED MARKET NEXT OF BAJED KANDALA CAMP
LIVING STANDARDS/ACCESS TO BASIC SERVICES IN AOD COMPARED WITH PRE-DISPLACEMENT AOO
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS More than half (55%) of all on-camp respondents reported that their households had better living standards/access to basic services in their area of displacement compared to their pre- displacement situation in their area of origin. Approximately a third of respondents (34%) reported their households had worse living standards/access to basic services compared to their pre-displacement situation. Only 10% of respondents reported their household’s living standards were equal to their pre-displacement situations (see Diagram 34). All surveyed on-camp locations provided their reisdents electricity, water, shelter units, solid waste removal services, WASH facilities, and local markets, schools, and camp security personnel.
49 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 34
Living Standards/Acess to Basic Services AOD vs AOO
Better living standards/access to basic services than in area of 0% origin Equal living standards/access to 34% basic services as area of origin
55% Worse living standards/access to basic services than in area of origin 11% Refuse to answer
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Once again, more than half (52%) of off-camp reported that they had better living standards/access to basic services in their areas of displacement compared to their pre- displacement situation in their area of origin. Approximately one-third (30%) of off-camp households indicated they had worse living standards compared to their pre-displacement situation. The remaining 18% of households reported having equal access to basic services as before (see Diagram 35). As will be discussed later in this study, the higher access to basic services many IDP households experienced in their on-camp and off-camp locations is one of the reasons why a high percentage of households are intending to integrate into their displacement locations.
50 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 35
Living Standards/Acess to Basic Services AOD vs AOO
Better living standards/access to basic services than in area of origin 30% Equal living standards/access to basic services as area of origin 52%
18% Worse living standards/access to basic services than in area of origin
ACCESS TO LIVELIHOOD/INCOME GENERATING OPPORTUNINTGS IN AOD COMPARED WITH PRE-DISPLACEMENT AOO ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS More than half (66%) of all on-camp household respondents reported having equal or better access to livelihood/income-generating opportunities in their area of displacment versus their pre-displacement situations. 34% reported having worse access to livelihood opportunities compared to their areas of origin (see Diagram 35).
DIAGRAM 36
Chart Title
Worse access to livelihood/income- generating opportunities than in area of 34% origin
Equal access to livelihood/income- 16%
generating opportunities as area of origin Options
Better access to livelihood/income- generating opportunities than in area of 50% origin
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % of HHs
51 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS A higher percentage (46%) of off-camp interviewees reported that their households had worse access to livelihood opportunities in their areas of displacement than their on-camp counterparts. A significant percentage (41%) of off-camp interviewees did however report having improved access to livelihood opportunities than their pre-displacement situations (see Diagram 40).
DIAGRAM 37
Access To Livelihood Opportunities in AOD vs AOO
Do not know 0%
Worse access to livelihood/income-generating 46% opportunities than in area of origin
Options Equal access to livelihood/income-generating 13% opportunities as area of origin
Better access to livelihood/income-generating 41% opportunities than in area of origin
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% % of HHs
HOST COMMUNITY PERCEPTION OF IDPS IN AOD
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS A significant majority (96%) of on-camp interviewees reported that the host community had a positive perception of IDPs in their areas of displacement. Only 4% of interviewees believed the surrounding host community to have either a neutral or negative perception of IDPs in their respective locations (see Diagram 38).
52 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 38
Host Community Perception of IPDs in AOD
Positive (Welcoming/Supportive of 2% IDP’s residing here) 2% Neutral (Not positive or negative of IDP’s residing here)
96% Negative (Un- welcoming/would prefer IDP’s return/relocate to another area)
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The results for off-camp households were nearly identical to those of the on-camp households. Once again, 96% of off-camp respondents reported that that the host community had an overall positive perception of IDPs in their respective areas of displacement. Despite the fact that off- camp IDPs likely compete for resources and livelihood opportunities with their host- communities than on-camp households, the perception remained almost entirely positive. Only 1% of off-camp households perceived the host community to have a negative perception of IDPs (see Diagram 39).
53 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 39 Host Community Perception of IDPs in AOD
1% 3%
Positive (Welcoming/Supportive of IDP’s residing here) Negative (Un-welcoming/would prefer IDP’s return/relocate to another area) Neutral (Not positive or negative of IDP’s residing here) 96%
ACCESS TO BASIC SERVICES COMPARED WITH HOST COMMUNITY IN AOD
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The majority of on-camp households (62%) reported having greater or equal access to basic services compared to the surrounding host community. Only 29% of on-camp households felt their access to basic services was less (either partial or extremely limited access) than the host community (see Diagram 40).
54 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 40
Access To Basic Services Compared To Host Community
Extremely Limited/No access to basic services 9% compared to host community Partial access to basic services compared to the 20% host community Equal access to basic services compared to the 39% host community Greater access to basic services compared to 23% Options the host community Do not know 8%
Refuse to answer 1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% % of HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among off-camp interviewees, the vast majority (39%) reported that their households had equal or greater access to basic services compated to the host community, followed by 23% who reported having greater access (see Diagram 41). The higher percentage of off-camp households who felt they had equal or greater access to basic services (61%) compared to on-camp households is perplexing. It might be explained because off-camp households inherited the same type, amount, and frequency of basic services that were already available to the host community when they settled in their various areas of displacement. For on-camp populations, parallel basic service systems needed to be established. Greater discrepancies in service type, amount, and frequency might therefore be observeable between camp settings and the surrounding host communities.
55 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 41
Access To Basic Services Compared To Host Community In AOD
Extremely Limited/No access to basic services 4% compared to host community Partial access to basic services compared to the host 6% community Equal access to basic services compared to the host 71% community Greater access to basic services compared to the
Options 18% host community
Do not know 1%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% % of HHs
ACCESS TO LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES COMPARED TO HOST COMMUNITY IN AOD
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS A fairly equal selection of options was observed among on-camp IDP households. As such, no conclusive trend emerged regarding whether on-camp IDP households had reduced access to livelihood opportunities versus members of the host community. 45% of on-camp households reported having equal or greater access to livelihood opportunities than the surrounding host community, compared to the 48% of households that felt they had partial or extremely limited access to livelihood opportunities compared to the host community (see Diagram 42).
56 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 42
Access to Livelihood Opportunities Compared To Host Community
Extremely Limited/No access to livelihood 24% opportunities compared to host community Partial access to livelihood opportunities compared 24% to the host community Equal access to livelihood opportunities compared 27% to the host community Greater access to livelihood opportunities
Options 18% compared to the host community
Do not know 6%
Refuse to answer 1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% % of HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS In comparison to on-camp households, a more noticeable trend of having less access to livelihood opportunities (compared to the host community) was observed among off-camp households. 62% of off-camp respondents reported that their households had either partial or extremely limited livelihood opportunities compared to the host community. Despite the fact that the vast majority (91%) off-camp households reported that all job opportunities were potentially available, the majority do feel that they have limited access compared to the host community. This might signify a greater level of displacement-based discrimination occurring in off-camp settings, where competition for jobs between IDP and host community residents might be more common. This could also simply be the fact that IDPs are still in the process of integrating into displacement locations, where job opportunities are already likely incredibly limited. Only 35% of off-camp reported having equal or greater access to livelihood opportunities (see Diagram 43).
57 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 43
Access To Livelihood Opportunities Compared To Host Community
Extremely Limited/No access to livelihood 37% opportunities compared to host community Partial access to livelihood opportunities 25% compared to the host community Equal access to livelihood opportunities compared 27% to the host community Greater access to livelihood opportunities
Options 8% compared to the host community
Do not know 3%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% % of HHs
MAIN CHALLENGES FACED IN AOD For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were asked to select up to three main challenges that their households face in their area of displacement. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among on-camp households, the following options were most selected as the main challenges in their camp locations: lack of clean water (35%), housing conditions (26%), lack of electricity (21%), and lack of livelihood opportunities (17%) (see Diagram 44). It should be mentioned that all surveyed households had received shelter units, and were regularly receiving water trucking, and electricity in their on-camp locations, but were most likely highlighting either the quality or frequency of the services provided.
58 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 44
Main Challenges Faced In AOD 40% 35% 35%
30% 26% 25% 21% 20% 17%
% of % HHs 15% 10% 10% 7% 5% 5% 2% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Options
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among off-camp locations, the challenges most selected by household were lack livelihood/income-earning opportunities (48%), housing conditions (22%), hunger/insufficient food (15%), and lack of healthcare services/medicine (15%) (see Diagram 45).
59 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 45
Main Challenges Faced In AOD
Housing conditions 22% Hunger/insufficient food 15% Inability to purchase clothes 0% Inability to purchase school items 0% Lack of clean water 9% Lack of educational services 2% Lack of educational services for children 2% Lack of electricity 6% Lack of furniture 5%
Options Lack of healthcare services/medicine 15% Lack of hygiene and sanitation services 1% Lack of livelihood opportunities/income 48% Lack of Safety 0% Other 5% Payment of debts 8% Do not know 0% Refuse to answer 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % of HHs
AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON AREA OF ORIGIN
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The vast majority (80%) of on-camp interviewees reported that their households had access to information about their areas of origin (see Diagram 45). Of the interviewees which reported having no access to information about their area of origin, 91% reported being from either a peri-urban or rural location, highlighting the need for increased information services to cover smaller villages and towns.
60 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 46
Access To Information About AOO
1% 19% Yes No Do Not Know 80%
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS A slightly higher percentage of off-camp households (85%) reported having access to information about their area of origin (see Diagram 47). This likely means that are little differences in regarding access to information between on-camp and off-camp locations, particularly when considering the primary sources of information in Diagrams 48 & 49.
DIAGRAM 47
Access to Information About AOO
1%
14% Yes No Do not know 85%
SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON AOO
61 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Of the interviewees which reported having access to information about their areas of origin, approximately half (45%) claimed the source to be from personal visits or from other IDPs who had visited the area of origin (44%) (see Diagram 48). This reflects the reality that for many IDP households, the only means to receive specific, targeted information about one’s area of origin is to undertake an in-person visit.
DIAGRAM 48
Source of Information About AOO 50% 44% 45% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% % of "Yes" of % "Yes" HHs 10% 7% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0%
Options
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The same findings were observed for off-camp households in regards to sources of information about areas of origin. Once again, the most frequently mentioned sources of information were personal visits to the area of origin (47%) or the accounts of others who visited the area of origin (33%). In addition, 13% of off-camp households also selected media reports, perhaps suggesting that off-camp household have more access to media outlets than on-camp households (see Diagram 49).
62 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 49
Source of Information About AOO 50% 47% 45% 40% 33% 35% 30% 25% 20% 13% 15% % of "Yes" of % "Yes" HHs 10% 7% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Options
INTEREST IN ORGANIZED VISIT TO AOO ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among on-camp respondents, 78% indicated their households would be interested in an organized visit to their area of origin (see Diagram 50). Despite the fact that many households had already personally visited their areas of origin, there was a general desire to revisit their locations through an organized visit. This might highlight the fact that in order to make an informed decision, repeated visits are required to investigate different aspects (housing, land, property, basic services, surrounding community, etc.), or allow IDPs to track developments in the overall security situation and recovery efforts. Furthermore, an organized visit, might provide additional resources, such as the presence of civil engineers, to help IDPs understand the damage and what is needed to restore their homes and communities to pre-displacement levels.
63 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 50
Interest In Organized Visit To AOO
1% 21% No Yes Do not know 78%
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS A similar percentage (70%) of off-camp households were interested in having an organized visit to their area of origin. Slightly more off-camp households reported not being interested in having an organized visit (29%) (see Diagram 51). This might be due to the fact that more off- camp households were intending to integrate into their areas of displacement and saw less to revisit their areas of origin.
DIAGRAM 51
Interest In Organized Visit To AOO
1%
29% No Yes Do not know 70%
STATUS OF HOUSING IN AOO
64 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among on-camp households, 81% reported various levels of damage or IED/UXO contamination in their private homes, with a significant proportion indicating that their home was completely destroyed (34%). Only 8% of households reported that their homes were accessible and undamaged. (see Diagram 52).
DIAGRAM 52
Status of Housing In AOO 40% 34% 35%
30%
25% 19% 20% 18%
% of % HHs 15% 10% 10% 8% 6% 4% 5%
0% Do not know Not accessible Not accessible Not Accessible Accessible but Accessible but Accessible and (Contaminated (Completely (Occupied by a Heavily damaged Partially Undamaged by IED’s/UXO’s) destroyed/In non-owner) (In need of damaged (In need of major repairs) need of minor reconstruction) repairs) Options
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS No major differences were observed among off-camp households, when \ asked what the status of their housing in their area of origin was. 43% of off-camp interviewees reported it was inaccessible for various reasons (IED/UXOs, completely destroyed, occupied). An additional 41% reported that their households were accessible, but either partially or heavily damaged. Only 6% of interviewees reported that their households were accessible and undamaged (see Diagram 53).
DIAGRAM 53
65 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
Status of Housing In AOO 40% 38%
35%
30%
25% 23%
20% 18%
% of % HHs 15% 11% 10% 6% 5% 4% 1% 0%
% of HHs
STATUS OF BELONGINGS FROM AOO ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS In total, 86% of on-camp respondents reported that their household’s belongings from the area of origin were unaccounted for (either lost or stolen) since becoming displaced. Only 5% of respondents indicated that their household’s belongings (with varying levels of damage) were accounted for either in their area of origin or displacement (see Diagram 54).
66 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 54
Status of Belongings From AOO
Accessible in AOO and in good condition 1%
Accessible in AOO but partially damaged 3%
All belongings are with HH in AOD 1% Options
Not Accessible (Lost or Stolen) 86%
Do not know 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The findings for off-camp households were roughly the same as with on-camp households. Among off-camp respondents, 89% reported their belongings were either lost or stolen. The remaining 2% reported their belongings were accessible, but partially damaged and in need of some repair (see Diagram 56).
DIAGRAM 55
Status of Belongings From AOO
Do not know 8%
Not Accessible (Lost or Stolen) 89%
All belongings are with me in area of 0%
displacement Options Accessible but partially damaged 2%
Accessible and in good condition 0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of HHs
67 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
STATUS OF LAND IN AOO ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among on-camp households, 55% reported owning some amount of land, with the rest having no land-holdings prior to displacement. Furthermore, 26% of households claimed the land they owned was inaccessible either due to IED/UXO contamination or because it was in the possession of a non-owner. Only 10% of households claimed their land would be accessible and safe to use upon return. Another large percentage of households (18%) claimed that they did not know about the status of their land, highlighting the particular difficulty in knowing the status of land and whether any IED/UXO contamination assessments have been conducted (See Diagram 56).
DIAGRAM 56
Status of Land in AOO
HH does not own land 45%
Not accessible (in the possession by a non- 10% owner)
Accessible but not safe to use (possible 16%
contamination by IEDs/UXOs) Options
Accessible and safe to access/use 10%
Do not know 18%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% % of HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among off-camp households, 20% reported not knowing about the status of their land, once again highlighting the need for additional IED/UXO contamination assessments. Another 13% reported that their land was inaccessible due to IED/UXO contamination or by possession of a non-owner. The majority of off-camp households (55%) reported owning no land (see Diagram 57).
68 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 57
Status of Land in AOO
I don’t own land 55%
Not accessible (in the possession by a non- 5% owner)
Accessible but not safe to use 8%
(contaminated by IEDs/UXOs) Options
Accessible and safe to access/use 12%
Do not know 20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % of HHs
SECURITY CONCERNS IN AOO For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple options. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among on-camp respondents, 82% reported that their households had concerns about the ongoing security situation in their areas of origin (See Diagram 58).
69 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 58
Security Concerns in AOO
4% 14% Do not know No Yes 82%
Among on-camp households with security concerns, the main reported issues were the suspected presence of IEDs/UXOs (36%), the unstable political situation of their area of origin (26%), dangerous infrastructure or debris (8%), and the presence of armed group/militias (7%) (see Diagram 59 & 60). Households whose concerns were not a included in the options were allowed to select “other” and indicate what the concern was.
DIAGRAM 59
Specific Security Concerns 50% 44% 45% 40% 36% 35% 30% 25% 22% 20% 15%
% of "Yes" of % "Yes" HHs 8% 10% 5% 0% 0% Dangerous Suspected All of the above Other Refuse to infrastructure presence of answer and debris IEDs/UXOs Other
70 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 60
"Other" Indicated Concerns
Armed groups or militias present in AOO 7% Basic services not restored/IDP community hasn't 1% returned to AOO
Extra-judicial killing/kidnapping attempts in AOO 1%
Other ethnic groups in AOO 2%
Present/future political instability in AOO 26% Indicated Indicated Concerns Recurring violence by ISIL militants 4%
Reduced social cohesion among AOO residents 1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% % of "Yes" HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Similar to on-camp households, 85% of off-camp households reported having concerns about the current security situation in their various areas of origin (see Diagram 61).
DIAGRAM 61
Security Concerns In AOO
6% 9%
Do not know
No
Yes 85%
71 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
The most commonly reported concerns were extra-judicial killings (25%), presence of IEDs/UXOs (20%), and recurring violence by ISIL militants (14%) (see Diagrams 62 and 63).
DIAGRAM 62
Security Concerns In AOO 70% 60% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 19%
20% % of "Yes" of % "Yes" HHs 8% 10% 0% 0% Dangerous IED’s/UXO’s All of the Other (Enter Refuse to infrastructure above Text) answer and debris Options
DIAGRAM 63
Other "Indicated Concerns"
Armed groups or militias present in 8% AOO Extra-judicial killing/kidnapping 25% attempts in AOO Lack of security forces in AOO 2%
Other ethnic groups in AOO
Options 2% Present/future political instability in 8% AOO Recurring violence by ISIL militants 14%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% % of "Yes" HHs
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDED ABOUT AOO For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple options. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
72 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS When asked what additional information their households needed about their areas of origin, 69% of on-camp interviewees reported needing to know more about the security situation. 24% of interviewees indicated needing to know more about what basic services were available, and 13% reported needing information about all topics (see Diagram 64). This once again highlights the need for organized visits to be provided to IDP households to their various areas of origin (pending accessibility) in order to assess the ongoing situation.
DIAGRAM 64
Additional Information Needed About AOO
Basic Services (water, health, electricity, etc.) 24%
House, Belongings, Land 5%
IED/UXO Situation 8%
Livelihood and income-earning opportunities 1% Markets (available food, non-food items, and 6%
services) Options No need for additional information 2%
Security Situation 69%
All Topics 13%
Do not know 1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% % of HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among off-camp households, the most requested types of information needed were the current security situation (72%), available basic services (16%), the situation of one’s housing, land, property (13%), and the IED/UXO situation (10%) (see Diagram 65).
73 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 65
Additional Information Needed About AOO
Basic Services (water, health, electricity, education and 16% basic infrastructure)
IED / UXO Situation 10%
Livelihood and income-earning 4%
Markets (available food, non-food items, and services) 1%
Security Situation 72%
Options Situation regarding House, Belongings, Land. 13%
All of the above 7%
Other 6%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% % of HHs
VOLUNTARY RETURN INTENTIONS
HH INTENTION TO RETURN TO AOO ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS When asked if they were intending to return to their area of origin, 64% of on-camp respondents indicated that they were intending to return home. In contrast, 30% of on-camp households indicated they were not intending to return home (see Diagram 66).
74 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 66
Intention to Return TO AOO
30% No Do not know
64% 6% Yes
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among off-camp interviewees, the a slightly higher percentage (71%) reported that their households were intending to return to their area of origin. Only 28% reported that their households were not intending to return. In general, living on-camp or off-camp not seem to have a major effect on whether a household was intending to return or not (see Diagram 67).
DIAGRAM 67
Intention To Return TO AOO
1%
28% No Yes Do not know 71%
MAIN REASONS HH INTENDS TO RETURN TO AOO
75 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple options. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among on-camp interviewees who reported their households intended to return, the most popular reasons were to reclaim housing, belongings, property (41%), followed by an emotional commitment to returning (31%). Other reasons for returning included the perception of better living standards in the area of origin compared with their on-camp location (14%) and to reunite with already-returned family members (11%) (see Diagram 68).
DIAGRAM 68
Main Reasons For Intending To Return
Better living conditions/standards than in area of 14% displacement
Cohabitation issues with host community 5%
Emotional commitment to returning 31% Improved chance at having a livelihood/income- 7% earning opportunities
Other 2%
Options Reclaim house, belongings, property 41%
Reunite with returned community network 6%
Reunite with returned family members 11%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% % of "Return" Households
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Off-camp households selected similar reasons for intending to return including: having an emotional commitment to returning (55%), reclaiming housing, land, property (33%), improved chance of having livelihood/income-earning opportunities (23%), and better living conditions (10%) (see Diagram 69).
76 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 69
Main Reasons For Intending To Return
Better living conditions/standards than in area of 10% displacement
Cohabitation issues with host community 1%
Emotional commitment to returning 55%
Improved chance at having a livelihood/income- 23% earning opportunities
Other 1%
Options Reclaim house, belongings, property 33%
Reunite with returned community network 1%
Reunite with returned family members 4%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % of "Return" HHS
INTENTION TO RETURN IN IMMEDIATE FUTURE (4 WEEKS OR LESS) ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS When asked whether they had “immediate” intentions to return (i.e. in four weeks or less), only 18% of “return” households reported yes. The vast majority of interviewees (82%) reported their households were either unsure or were not immediately intending to return (See Diagram 70).
77 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 70
Immediate Intention to Return
18% 37% Do not know No Yes 45%
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS In comparison to on-camp households, the vast majority (72%) of off-camp “return” households reported they would not return to their area of origin in the immediate future. A small minority (15%) did indicate they were intending to return in the next four weeks (see Diagram 71).
DIAGRAM 71
Immediate Intention To Return
15% 13%
Do not know No Yes
72%
NON-IMMEDIATE INTENTIONS TO RETURN (8 WEEKS OR MORE) ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
78 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
Among on-camp households with no immediate intention to return, nearly half (48%) were unable to provide an estimated timeframe for when they would be able to return home (even with the option to select more than two years). As the second largest group, 17% of on-camp IDP households reported that they would most likely be able to return to their areas of origin within 1-2 years. Nearly one-fourth (24%) of on-camp households estimated they would be able to return within the next twelve months (see Diagram 72).
DIAGRAM 72
Non-Immediate Intentions To Return
8—12 weeks 8%
3— 6 months 6%
6—12 months 10% Option 1— 2 years 17%
2+ years 10%
Do not know 48%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % of HHs with no immediate intention to return
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Like their on-camp counterparts, there was a high percentage (36%) of off-camp households who were also uncertain when they would return. In addition, 24% interviewees reported that their households would be able to return between 1-2 years and 13% reported 2+ years. 24% of interviewees did indicate their households would return in 12 months or less (see Diagram 73).
79 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 73
Non-Immediate Intentions To Return
8—12 weeks 6%
3— 6 months 7%
6—12 months 15%
Options 1— 2 years 24%
2+ years 13%
Do not know 36%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% % of HHs with no immediate intentions to return
AVAILABLE SAVINGS TO ASSIST IN RETURNING
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS When asked whether they had any personal savings to assist their household in returning, 77% of on-camp interviewees reported having no savings” Only 13% of on-camp interviewees were able to confirm that their household had some amount of savings set aside to assist their return process (see Diagram 74). This highlights the fact that many households will likely not be able to cover all the expenses related to returning home (transportation, replacement of lost/damaged items, etc.).
80 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 74
Savings To Assist In Returning
13% 10%
Do not know No Yes
77%
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Almost all (96%) off-camp “return” households reported having no available savings to assist them in returning to their areas of origin. Only 3% of off-camp “return” households reported having some saving (see Diagram 75). It is suspected that the higher percentage of off-camp households with no savings is likely due to the added expenses that come with living off-camp locations (rent, food, water, electricity, etc.).
DIAGRAM 75 Savings To Assist In Returning
1%
3%
Do not know No Yes
96%
ABILITY TO RESUME LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES IN AOO AFTER RETURNING
81 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among on-camp “return” households, 77% of respondents indicated their families would need partial to full assistance in restarting their livelihood activities. Only 20% of respondents said they would be able to fully restart their livelihood activities by themselves and no assistance would be needed (see Diagram 76).
DIAGRAM 76
Ability To Restart Livelihoods In AOO
Yes (Fully able to restart livelihoods No assistance 20% needed.)
Yes (Partially able to restart livelihoods. Some 33% assistance would be needed.)
Options No (Full assistance would be needed to restart 43% livelihoods)
Do not know 5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% % of "Return" HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS For off-camp “return” households, 84% reported needing partial to full assistance in restarting their livelihood activities when they return home. Only 13% indicated they would not need any assistance in restarting their livelihood activities when they return (see Diagram 77).
82 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 77
Ability To Restart Livelihood Activities In AOO
Yes (Fully) 13%
Yes (Partially. Some assistance would be 36% needed to restart livelihoods)
No (Full assistance would be needed to
Axis Title 48% restart livelihoods)
Do not know 3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Axis Title
MAIN DECISION MAKER IN RETURNING TO AOO ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS When asked who the primary decision maker would be in returning home, on-camp interviewees selected a wide range of options, with no single option standing out. 27% of interviewees reported the decision would be at the intra-community level and 38% reported it would be at the intra-household level. Only 26% of interviewees believed that the decision would likely be made by more external sources such as local authorities from the area of displacement or area of origin (see Diagram 78).
83 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 78
Primary Decision Maker
Community Decision (HH would wait until the 15% majority of the IDP community collectively returns) Community Leader Decision (HH would wait until 12% community leader approved HHs to return) Head of Household Decision (HoH would individually 17% make the decision for the HH to return) Household Decision (HH members would internally 21% make the decision for HH to return)
Options Local Authorities Decision from AOD 19%
Local Authority Decision from AOO 7%
Other 1%
Do not know 8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% % of "Return" HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among off-camp households 44% of households reported the decision would be intra- household, 28% reported it would be intra-community, and 28% reported the decision would likely come external groups like the authorities from the area of origin or displacement (See Diagram 79).
84 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 79
Primary Decision Maker
Community Decision (HH would wait until the 17% majority of the IDP community collectively… Community Leader Decision (HH would wait until 11% community leader approved HHs to return) Head of Household Decision (HoH would 21% individually make the decision for the HH to… Household Decision (HH members would 22%
internally make the decision for HH to return) Options Local Authorities from Area of Displacement 23%
Local Authority Decision from Area of Origin 5%
Do not know 1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% % of "Return" HHs
MAIN CHALLENGES FACED IN RETURNING TO AOO For this question, all households were invited to answer what they believed to be the main challenges in returning to their area of origin (regardless of their indicated movement intention).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS When asked what the main challenges were in returning to their areas of origin, the three most selected obstacles by on-camp interviewees were that the security situation had not fully stabilized (65%), basic services were not fully available (34%), and housing was damaged/destroyed (13%) (see Diagram 80).
85 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 80
Main Challenges In Returning to AOO
Basic services are not enough/available (electricity, 34% water, food, health, education, etc.) House has been damaged/destroyed 13%
House is currently occupied 3%
Household assets have been damaged/stolen 4% Legal ownership issues surrounding house and 0% property Livelihood/income generating activities are not 2% possible/have not resumed Local markets are not functioning 0% Local security forces/local authorities prohibit HHs 0%
returning to the area Options No financial means to return and restart 4%
No personal identification documents 0%
No transportation available to return home 2%
Other 2%
Presence of IED’s and UXO’s 5%
Security situation is not fully stable 65%
Do not know 1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% % of HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The following challenges to returning home were the most selected by off-camp households: security situation not fully stable (68%), basic services are not enough/available (30%), house has been damaged or destroyed (25%), and livelihood opportunities are not possible (15%). In general, there were no major differences in challenges reported between off-camp and on-camp households (see Diagram 81). Above all else, the most widespread challenge in returning home for on-camp and off-camp households is the precarious/unstable security situation in may former areas of origin. This might further explain the long timeframes reported by IDP households in returning, as many are waiting to see how the political and security situation develops.
86 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 81
Main Challenges In Returning To AOO
Basic services are not enough/available (electricity, 30% water, food, health, education, etc.)
House has been damaged/destroyed 25%
House is currently occupied 1%
Household assets have been damaged/stolen 6%
Lack of security forces 0%
Legal ownership issues surrounding house and property 1% Livelihood/income generating activities are not 15% possible/have not resumed
Local markets are not functioning 0% Local security forces/local authorities prohibit HHs
Options 0% returning to the area
No financial means to return and restart 1%
No personal identification documents 0%
No transportation available to return home 0%
Other 2%
Presence of IED’s and UXO’s 6%
Security situation is not fully stable 68%
Do not know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% % of HHs
EXTERNAL EXPECATIONS THAT HH RETURNS TO AOO & SOURCE ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS There was a strong consensus (93%) among on-camp respondents that there was no external pressure or expectations being placed upon their household to return to their area of origin. A small minority (5%) of interviewees responded that they did feel some sort pressure to return (see Diagram 82).
87 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 82
External Expectations To Return
2% 5%
Do not know No Yes
93%
Of interviewees who reported they had experienced pressure to return home, 60% identified the source as being their community leader and 20% indicated they were feeling pressure from the humanitarian community (see Diagram 83).
DIAGRAM 83
Sources of Expectations
70% 60% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 20% 20%
% of "Yes" of % "Yes" HHs 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Options
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among surveyed off-camp households, no respondents indicated they had felt any pressure or external expectations that they return to their area of origin (see Diagram 83).
88 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 84 External Expectations To Return
0%
Do not know No Yes
100%
EXTERNAL EXPECATIONS TO NOT RETURN TO AOO & SOURCES ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Similar results were observed among on-camp interviewees regarding whether their households were under any pressure or expectations to not return to their areas of origin. A slightly smaller percentage, 90%, reported not feeling any pressure to return (see Diagram 85). Of the 6% of interviewees which did report feeling an expectation to not return, most reported that an armed militia now present in the area of origin or fellow village residents were expecting that they did not return.
DIAGRAM 85
External Expectations To Not Return
4% 6%
Do not know No Yes
90%
89 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS When asked whether their households were facing any external pressure or expectations to not return to their areas of origin, 96% of off-camp respondents reported “no“ (see Diagram 86). Only 4% of respondents indicated that their households had encountered pressure or expectations to not return. When asked the source of the expectations, respondents mentioned cited authorities from the area of origin, neighboring ethnic groups around the area of origin, and fellow residents from the area of origin.
DIAGRAM 86
External Expectations To Not Return 0%
4%
Do not know No Yes
96%
ALTERNATIVE MOVEMENT INTENTIONS
ALTERNATIVE MOVEMENT INTENTIONS ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among on-camp respondents who indicated their households were not intending to return to their areas of origin, 47% reported that they were planning to integrate into their current area of displacement, and another 47% intend to ultimately migrate abroad. The remaining 6% of respondents reported either not knowing their household’s intentions, or that their household was planning to relocate to another area of displacement (see Diagram 87). It is assumed that households who plan to integrate most likely intend to stay in their camp location for as long as possible (pending how long the IDP camps remain open) before finding an off-camp alternative. The high percentage of households who intend to migrate abroad can likely be explained because the majority of surveyed households belonged to the Yezidi ethno-religious group, which has been provided with special immigration assistance since the UN-declaration that the
90 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
group was a victim of genocide by ISIL. Already since 2014 more than 90,000 Yazidis have already immigrated abroad according to one Al-Monitor news article.18
DIAGRAM 87
Alterative Movement Intentions
Integrate into current AOD 47%
Migrate abroad 47%
Options Relocate to another AOD 2%
Do not know 4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% % of "No-Return" HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among off-camp households who indicated that they were not intending to return to their area of origin, when asked what their alternative movement intention was, 72% reported integrating into their current area of displacement, 25% reported migrating abroad, and 3% reported relocating to another area of displacement (see Diagram 88). In comparison to on-camp households, a significantly greater portion of off-camp households were intending to integrate into their current area of displacement. It is likely that off-camp households have already begun integrating into their current area of displacement and likely want to continue doing so. On- camp households will at some point have to make the transition to off-camp living, which will require partially restarting over. This eventual transition might further encourage on-camp households to migrate abroad in search of better living standards.
18 Al Monitor. “For many of Iraq’s Yazidis, going home is not an option.” June 14 2017 http://al- monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/06/yazidis-iraq-minorities-sinjar-kkp-pmu.html 91 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 88
Alternative Movement Intentions
Relocate 3%
Integrate into current area of 72% displacement
Options Migrate abroad 25%
Do not know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% % of "No-Return" HHs
MAIN REASONS FOR INTENDING TO INTEGRATE INTO AOD For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple options. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS When asked what their main reasons were for wanting to integrate into their current area of displacement, 29% of on-camp “integrate” respondents indicated that their households had become emotionally attached and committed to integrating, 25% indicated that no better movement intentions exist, 13% reported not wanting to have to start over, and 13% reported being satisfied with the livelihood opportunities in their current area of displacement (see Diagrams 89 & 90).
92 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 89
Main Reasons For Integrating Into AOD
AOD is geographically close to AOO 0%
Do not want to relocate to another AOD and 13% start over HH has emotionally committed to integrating 29% in current AOD
Other 38%
Satisfied with basic services in AOD 8%
Options Satisfied with educational services for children 4% in AOD
Satisfied with livelihood opportunities in AOD 13%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% % of "Integrate" HHs
DIAGRAM 90
"Other" Reasons
Afraid of neighboring ethnic groups in 4% AOO
Better security situation in AOD than 8%
AOO Options
No better alternative solution exists 25%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% % of "Integrate" HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
93 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
When asked what were the main reasons for planning to integrate into their current area of displacement, the most selected options by off-camp households were having emotionally committed to integrating into the area of displacement (39%), being satisfied with the available basic services (12%), and “other” (39% (see Diagram 90). The most reported “other” reasons were that the security situation was better in the current area of displacement than the area of origin (20%), and no better alternative exists (16%) (see Diagram 91). In general, on-camp and off-camp households who were planning to integrate did so because they had already started to integrate into their current areas of displacement and had “committed” to staying.
DIAGRAM 91
Reasons For Integrating Into AOD
Do not want to relocate and start over 6%
HH has committed to integrating in current area of 39% displacement
Other 39%
Satisfied with educational services for children in area 6% of displacement
Options Satisfied with basic services in area of displacement 12%
Satisfied with livelihood opportunities in area of 6% displacement
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% % of "Integrate" HHs
94 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 92
"Other" Reasons
Better security situation in AOD than AOO 20%
Host community shares the same ethnicity as my 2% family
Opptions No better alternative solution exists 16%
No personal identification documents to return 2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% % of "Integrate" HHs
REASONS FOR INTENDING TO RELOCATE TO ANOTHER AOD For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple options. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among on-camp households, only one interviewee indicated that their household was intending to relocate to another area of displacement. When asked what were the main reasons behind this intention, the interviewee indicated “other,” and specified that its household was in search of better housing conditions (See Diagram 93).
95 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 93
Reasons For Relocating To Another AOD
Cohabitation issues with host community 0%
Other 100%
Reunite with family network elsewhere 0%
Reunite with immediate family members elsewhere 0%
Seek better basic services than in AOD 0%
Options Seek better educational services for children than in 0% AOD Seek better security situation than in AOD 0%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% % of "Relocate" HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Similar to on-camp households, only 2 off-camp household reported they were intending to relocate to another area of displacement. When asked what were their reasons for relocating, the households reported seeking better livelihood opportunities (100%) and educational services for children (50%) (see Diagram 94).
96 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 94
Reasons for Relocating To Another AOD
Cohabitation issues with host community 0%
Other 0%
Reunite with family network 0%
Reunite with immediate family members 0%
Seek better basic services than in area of 0% displacement Seek better educational services for children than
Options 50% in area of displacement
Seek better livelihood opportunities 100%
Seek better security situation than in area of 0% displacement
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% % of "Relocate HHs"
MAIN REASONS FOR INTENDING TO MIGRATE ABROAD For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple options. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among on-camp households that reported they were intending to migrate abroad, when asked what were the main reasons behind their decision, more than half (58%) reported they were in search of a better security situation than their current area of displacement (See Diagram 95). This is likely not an indication that their particular on-camp location was unsafe, but more a feeling of concern about the future security situation in the country at large. It is assumed that households the only way to seek a better security situation, would be to leave the country entirely. The second-most selected reason for migrating abroad was to seek better livelihood opportunities than the current area of displacmeement. Once again, this answer most likely extends beyond the immediate camp location and reflects the difficulty many IDPs face in finding sustainable livelihood opportunities within the whole of Dohuk and Northern Iraq region. In addition, 13% of households who selected “other,” all of which reported wanting to migrate to countries with stronger human rights norms.
97 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 95
Reasons For Migrating Abroad
Cohabitation issues with host community 0%
Other 13%
Reunite with family network 0%
Reunite with immediate family members 0%
Seek better basic services than in AOD 13% Seek better educational services for children
Options 0% than in AOD Seek better livelihood opportunities than in 21% AOD
Seek better security situation than in AOD 58%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% % of "Migrate" HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS When asked what were the main reasons for migrating abroad, 67% of households reported wanting to seek a better security situation than in their current area of displacement, 17% reported wanting to seek better livelihood opportunities, 11% reported wanting better access to basic services. The 6% of households who reported an “other” reason all indicated they wanted to live in a country with stronger human rights norms (see Diagram 96).
98 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 96
Reasons For Migrating Abroad
Cohabitation issues with host community 0%
Other 6%
Reunite with family network 0%
Reunite with immediate family members 0%
Seek better basic services than in area of displacement 11% Seek better educational services for children than in
Options 0% area of displacement
Seek better livelihood opportunities 17% Seek better security situation than in area of 67% displacement
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% % of "Migrate" HHs
EXTERAL EXPECTATIONS FOR INTEGRATING INTO AOD & SOURCE ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS The vast majority (92%) of on-camp households who intend to integrate into their current area of displacement reported feeling no pressure or external expectations to carry out this decision. Only two households (8%) reported feeling pressure to integrate into their on-camp location (see Diagram 97).
99 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 97
Expectations To Integrate
0% 8%
Do not know No Yes
92%
Among the 2 households who reported feeling pressure to integrate, when asked the source, one household reported that an armed militia group in their area of origin was expecting that they integrate into their current area of displacement. This reason probably was more related to not returning as opposed to integrating into the area of displacement. The other household which reported feeling pressure indicated that it was from all listed sources (humanitarian works, host community, and IDP community leaders) to integrate into its area of displacement.
DIAGRAM 98
Sources of Expectations
Host Community 0%
Humanitarian Workers 0%
IDP Community Leaders 0%
Other 50%
Options All of the above 50%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % of "Yes" HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS 10 0 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
Among off-camp households who intended to integrate into their current area of displacement, when asked whether they had encountered any pressure or external expectations to make that decision, 100% reported “no.”
EXTERNAL EXPECTATIONS FOR RELOCATING TO ANOTHER AOD & SOURCE ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS According to the one on-camp interviewee whose household was intending to relocate to another area of displacement, there was no external pressure or expectations placed upon the household to make the decision.
OFF -CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among the two off-camp households who intended to relocate to another area of displacement, when asked whether they had encountered any pressure to make that decision, both reported “no.”
EXTERNAL EXPECTATIONS FOR MIGRATING ABROAD & SOURCE ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among on-camp respondents who indicated their households intended to migrate abroad, 92% reported feeling no external pressure or expectations exerted upon their household to do so (see Diagram 99). Two respondents (8%) did report feeling pressure or expectations to migrate abroad. One respondent indicated the source of pressure to be “Arabs”, while the other did not know the exact source of pressure (see Diagram 100). It is likely that the particular household who cited Iraqi Arabs as the source of pressure was speaking generally about the lack of belonging that Yezidis might feel in Iraq, rather than their household having received direct pressure to migrate abroad.
10 1 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 99
Expectations for Migrating Abroad
8% 0% Do not know No Yes 92%
DIAGRAM 100
Sources of Expectations
Host Community 0%
Humanitarian Workers 0%
IDP Community Leaders 0%
Other 50% Options All of the above 0%
Do not know 50%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % of "Yes" HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS Among off-camp households who intended to migrate abroad, when asked whether they had encountered any pressure to make that decision, 100% reported “no.”
ASSISTANCE REQUESTED
10 2 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
MAIN TYPES OF ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO INTEGRATE INTO AOD For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were asked to select up to three options. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS When asked what assistance is needed to fully integrate their household into their current area of displacement, the most selected options by interviewees were improved access to clean water (54%), improved access to electricity (46%), improved access to livelihood/income generating opportunities (25%) (see Diagram 101). For on-camp families, the question of integration is challenging to consider as it remains uncertain how long the IDP camps in Dohuk Governorate will continue to operate. The answers selected by interviewees likely indicate what assistance is most needed to improve integration into their current on-camp setting, but likely do not consider what would be needed to fully integrate in an off-camp setting in the nearby host community. Additional research is needed to examine different off-camp scenarios involving on-camp IDPs who wish to integrate into their surrounding host communities in Dohuk Governorate, and how that transition from on-camp to off-camp can best facilitated.
10 3 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 101
Assistance Needed To Integrate
Adult Education services (professional development 0% trainings) Cash 13% Child Education Services (Schooling, Facilities, 0% materials) Clean Water 54%
Electricity 46%
Food items 17%
Furniture Items 0% Legal assistance needed regarding Housing/Property 0% Ownership Livelihood/income generating opportunities 25%
Non-Food Items 0%
Other 0% Options
Personal Identification Documents 0%
Primary Healthcare 13%
Psychosocial Services 0% Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms, handwashing 0% stations) Shelter Improvement (rehabilitation/reconstruction 4% of shelter Transportation Services 0%
Women’s Healthcare Services 0%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % of "Integrate" HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS When asked what were the main types of assistance their off-camp households would need to fully integrate into their current area of displacement, the most selected options were: cash assistance (65%), livelihood/income-earning opportunities (33%), food items (25%), and shelter improvement (18%) (see Diagram 102). The requested assistance reflects the fact that many IDPs have been living in their areas of displacement for an extended period of time and are no
10 4 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
longer in the emergency phase. Almost of the above requested assistance could be solved with sustainable income-earning activities (such as shelter improvement or food items).
DIAGRAM 102
Assistance Needed To Integrate
Adult Education services (professional development 4% trainings) Cash 65% Child Education Services (Schooling, Facilities, 4% materials) Clean Water 14%
Electricity 12%
Food items 25%
Furniture Items 0% Legal assistance needed regarding Housing/Property 0% Ownership Livelihood/income generating opportunities 33%
Non-Food Items 6%
Other 0% Options
Personal Identification Documents 0%
Primary Healthcare Services 4%
Psychosocial Services 0% Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms, handwashing 2% stations) Shelter Improvement (rehabilitation/reconstruction of 18% shelter units) Transportation Services 2%
Women’s Healthcare Services 0%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% % of "Integrate" HHs
MAIN TYPES OF ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO RELOCATE TO ANOTHER AOD
10 5 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select up to three options. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS For the single on-camp IDP household which indicated it was intending to relocate to another area of displacement, when asked what assistance would be needed most, improved access to sanitation facilities was indicated. In this particular case, the IDP interviewee clarified that the off-camp location it was intending to relocate to needed improvements in its WASH facilities (see Diagram 103).
DIAGRAM 103
Asssitance Needed To Relocate
Adult Education services (professional… Cash Child Education Services (Schooling, Facilities,… Clean Water Electricity Food items Furniture Items Legal assistance needed regarding… Livelihood/income generating opportunities Non-Food Items Other Personal Identification Documents Primary Healthcare Services Psychosocial Services Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms,… Shelter Improvement… Transportation Services Women’s Healthcare Services Do not know Refuse to answer
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
10 6 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
When asked what were the main types of assistance the 2 off-camp households would need to relocate to another area of displacement, the most selected options were cash assistance (100%), shelter improvement (100%), electricity (50%), and livelihood/income-generating activities (50%) (see Diagram 104). Once again, cash assistance and livelihood activities play a key role in IDPs being able to find a durable solution. It assumed that the shelter improvement and electricity assistance would be for the house location in new area of displacement.
DIAGRAM 104
Assistance Needed To Relocate
Adult Education services (professional 0% development trainings) Cash 100% Child Education Services (Schooling, Facilities, 0% materials) Clean Water 0%
Electricity 50%
Food items 0%
Furniture Items 0% Legal assistance needed regarding 0% Housing/Property Ownership Livelihood/income generating opportunities 50%
Non-Food Items 0%
Other 0% Options
Personal Identification Documents 0%
Primary Healthcare Services 0%
Psychosocial Services 0% Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms, 0% handwashing stations) Shelter Improvement 100% (rehabilitation/reconstruction of shelter units) Transportation Services 0%
Women’s Healthcare Services 0%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% % of HHs
10 7 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO RETURN TO AOO For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were asked to select up to three options. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS For the on-camp IDP households who indicated they were intending to return to their areas of origin, the most selected forms of assistance needed to help them with their movement intention were improved access to clean water (56%), improved access to clean water (49%), presence of security forces (29%), and shelter reconstruction/rehabilitation (21%), and cash (14%) (see Diagram 105). The options reflect the high-level of damage much of the public and private infrastructure suffered across the various areas of origin that prevents IDPs from returning home. Also interesting was the request for the presence of additional security forces, which highlights the perception that the security situation in many of these areas remains unstable.
10 8 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 105
Assistance Needed To Return To AOO
Access to information on the current situation of the 8% area of origin Adult Education services (professional development 3% trainings) Cash 14% Child Education Services (Schooling, Facilities, 3% materials) Clean Water 49%
Electricity 56%
Food items 2%
Furniture Items 1% Legal assistance needed regarding Housing/Property 0% Ownership Livelihood/income generating opportunities 8%
Non-Food Items 0%
Other 0% Options
Personal Identification Documents 0%
Presence of security forces 29%
Primary Healthcare 6%
Psychosocial Services 0% Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms, handwashing 1% stations) Shelter Improvement (rehabilitation/reconstruction of 21% shelter Transportation Services 0%
Women’s Healthcare Services 1%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % of "Return" HHs
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
10 9 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
Among off-camp household who indicated they intend to return, the most selected types of requested assistance were: shelter improvement (46%), cash (32%), electricity 30%), clean water (20%), and access to information on the current situation (18%), and livelihood activities (13%) (see Diagram 106). As can be seen, many of the areas of origin are still very much in the recovery phase, and before households can return, private housing and basic infrastructure must be rehabilitated.
11 0 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
DIAGRAM 106
Asssitance Needed To Return To AOO Access to information on the current situation of the 18% area of origin Adult Education services (professional development 0% trainings) Cash 32%
Child Education Services (Schooling, Facilities, materials) 0%
Clean Water 20%
Electricity 30%
Food items 3%
Furniture Items 5% Legal assistance needed regarding Housing/Property 0% Ownership Livelihood/income generating opportunities 13%
Non-Food Items 2%
Other 0%
Personal Identification Documents 0%
Presence of security forces 8%
Primary Healthcare Services 4%
Psychosocial Services 0% Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms, handwashing 1% stations) Shelter Improvement (rehabilitation/reconstruction of 46% shelter units) Transportation Services 0%
Women’s Healthcare Services 1%
Do not know 0%
Refuse to answer 0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
11 1 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations should be considered by governmental and humanitarian agencies as they look to support IDPs with their movement intentions.
1. Improve access to information about areas of origin, pending security, by providing organized visits (including visits to housing, land, and property). Broader information campaigns about the status of areas of origin should also be made more available in camp and off-camp locations.
2. To avoid creating pull-factors to areas of origin that are unsafe or unsuitable for returning, governmental and humanitarian agencies should carefully consider when, where, and how they provide assistance to IDP households as they consider returning.
3. Assess and support IDPs with movement intentions that meet the minimum standards of being voluntary, safe, dignified, and informed.
4. Mobilize rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts in areas where public infrastructure (water, electricity, education/administrative/health facilities) and private property have been damaged in order to expedite returns.
5. Advocate for the presence of official, non-partisan security forces in newly retaken areas. According to surveyed households, there are numerous armed groups and militias that are present in the many former areas of origin. KRG and GOI officials should look to replace these groups with official security forces that will not pose a security threat to returnee households.
6. Compensate IDP households for the replacement/rehabilitation/decontamination of housing, land, and property in their areas of origin.
7. Support “return” and “integrate” intending households with income-generating livelihood assistance in order to support their movement decision, as well as improve their ability to be self-sufficient and provide for their families. Many reported issues like food insecurity, shelter conditions, and access to clean water could be addressed if households were able to increase their monthly incomes.
8. Given the unstable security situation, and political uncertainty for many areas of origin, IDPs will likely remain in their displacement locations for 1, 2, 2+ years. Governmental and humanitarian agencies should plan to continue supporting on-camp and off-camp IDPs in their displacement locations for the foreseeable future. IDP households remaining in displacement, especially remote locations, should not be overlooked, as many areas have no available livelihood opportunities and households still struggle to be self-sufficient.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Welthungerhilfe Iraq would like to extend its sincere gratitude to the following parties who helped in the completion of this study:
11 2 WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY AUGUST 2017
• The 417 on-camp and off-camp IDP households who opened their homes to WHH surveyors and provided their time and personal information to this study,
• Dohuk Governorate’s Board of Relief of Humanitarian Affairs (BRHA) and Camp Management personnel for providing this study’s researchers with permission to survey all on-camp and off-camp locations.
• The Sub District Mayor’s Offices of Batel, Chamanke, Darkar Duhok, and Mangesh for organizing focal points from the IDP community in each respective area to help surveyors in locating IDP households, as well as the IDP focal points the themselves.
• The Iraq Returns Working Group for assisting WHH in the development of its IDP Household Questionnaire.
• All WHH staff and enumerators who assisted the research team with their time, expertise, and support.
11 3