Comparing the experiences of internally displaced persons in urban vs. rural areas: Findings from a longitudinal study in Iraq, 2015-2017 Rochelle Davis, Salma Al-Shami, Grace Benton, Jake Moran, Caila McHugh, Nicole Ruggiero, Moez Hayat Background paper to the main report 2 Comparing the Experiences of Internally Displaced Persons in Urban vs. Rural Areas: Findings from a Longitudinal Study in Iraq, 2015-20171 Rochelle Davis, Salma Al-Shami, Grace Benton, Jake Moran, Caila McHugh, Nicole Ruggiero, Moez Hayat 2 I. INTRODUCTION: As part of sustainable development goals, the UN’s New Urban Agenda commits to “[f]ully respect the rights of refugees, migrants and internally displaced persons regardless of their migration status.”3 Today, more displaced people live in urban rather than rural areas and have been found to be more vulnerable than the urban poor.4 The full scope of both the challenges faced by those displaced to urban areas and the opportunities they utilize to survive and contribute to urban development is becoming more of a focus for development and aid policies and practices, but still remains largely unmapped.5 More and better data and analyses of urban policies that take into consider the solutions that displaced people access will make it possible to assess if and how the rights of such groups are in fact fully respected. In seeking to contribute to such a mapping, this study nuances the understanding of “urban” displacement and relies on a new, unique longitudinal study of internal displacement in Iraq. This paper thus details the experiences of a non- camp population of IDPs through a comparison of those displaced to urban versus rural areas. In the framing of locations of displaced populations, there is a conceptual ambiguity in the term “urban displacement.” Much of the humanitarian aid framing breaks down IDPs into to “urban” versus “camp” populations. This false dichotomy, however, confounds two separate issues: whether IDPs are living in camps or not, and whether those non-camp populations are displaced to urban or rural areas. Not all non- camp IDPs are displaced to urban areas and some camps are located in (or have become with time) urban areas. While studies that compare “urban” displacement to “camp” displacement are keen to recognize that urban IDPs are harder to identify and serve,6 this is true more generally to non-camp IDPs, regardless of the area to which they were displaced.7 By untangling the concept of “urban” displacement in this way, this paper seeks to make inroads into discussions of urban displacement studying only non-camp IDPs and asking how and to what extent do the 1 Data and research used in this publication comes from a longitudinal study conducted by the International Organization for Migration in Iraq and Georgetown University on Iraqi IDPs’ Access to Durable Solutions. All views and perspectives expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect IOM's position. Funding for this research comes from the United States Government's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. 2 All authors are affiliated with Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA. Rochelle Davis, Associate Professor and Director, Center for Contemporary Arab Studies; Salma Al-Shami, Research Associate/Data Analyst; Grace Benton, student, School of Law; Jake Moran, Caila McHugh, Nicole Ruggiero, Moez Hayat are all undergraduate students in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. 3 UN Sustainable Development Goals, 20 October 2016. The New Urban Agenda: Key Commitments. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/10/newurbanagenda/ 4 IDMC, February 2018. Urban Myths? Debunking Claims About Displacement in Cities. http://www.internal- displacement.org/expert-opinion/urban-myths-debunking-claims-about-displacement-in-cities; see also Lauren Wyman, February 2018. City of Challenge and Opportunity: Employment and livelihoods for internally displaced people in Maiduguri, Borno State. IDMC. http://www.internal-displacement.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/20180209-idmc-nigeria-case-study.pdf . 5 IDMC, 11 October 2016. Leaving No One Behind: Internal Displacement and the New Urban Agenda. http://www.internal- displacement.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/20161011-new-urban-agenda.pdf 6 Karen Jacobsen, August 2008. Internal Displacement to Urban Areas: the Tufts-IDMC Profiling Study. Khartoum, Sudan: Case 1. http://www.internal-displacement.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/200809-af-sudan-urban-displacement-khartoum-country- en.pdf. 7 One consequence of semantically collapsing these two distinctions into one term is a curtailed spectrum of comparisons that can be made among different IDP subpopulations. While comparisons of non-camp, urban-displaced IDPs to camp-based IDPs yield important insights, non-camp IDPs displaced to rural areas are, by definition, excluded from the analysis, and as such, so too are more nuanced understandings of salient characteristics specific to non-camp IDPs displaced to urban areas by comparison. 3 needs, opportunities, challenges, and self-engineered solutions of non-camp IDPs vary between those displaced to urban versus rural areas, and what are the ensuing implications for policy interventions? To answer this question, this paper explores the experiences of Iraqi IDPs across four key realms: livelihoods, standard of living, security, and social cohesion. In each realm, we explore how IDPs themselves make decisions about and respond to their circumstances and how host communities and authorities accommodate them. To do so, we analyze qualitative and quantitative data from the panel study Access to Durable Solutions Among IDPs in Iraq, which is conducted by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Georgetown University and tracks the experiences of the same families over time. 8 We found that experiences of IDPs varied not only according to the location of displacement, but also on whether they were displaced to a city but were originally from a rural or urban area. Specifically, with respect to feelings of safety, the ability to provide for basic needs, feelings of acceptance, and rationale for staying in their current locations, the experiences of those displaced to urban areas differed based on whether they were originally from a rural or urban area. While we highlight salient differences between non-camp urban and rural IDPs throughout, we focus mainly on the experiences of urban IDPs. Our key data and findings are as follows: With respect to livelihoods: ● Most IDPs found employment in the informal sector--which is both unreliable and temporary--and those living in urban areas do so at higher rates than those living in rural ones. In contrast, higher shares of rural IDPs were able to access public sector jobs. ● In the absence of agricultural opportunities and microfinance schemes to bolster business ventures, IDPs relied on personal resources and connections to find jobs. With respect to standard of living: ● Majorities of both urban and rural IDPs reported being able to provide for their basic needs, but among those displaced to cities, those originally from rural areas are more able to do so than those from urban areas. ● Both urban and rural IDPs reduced types and amounts of food and other expenses and borrowed money to survive. Though upwards of 90% reported needing to borrow money, less than half of each group are able to do so. ● Access to humanitarian aid poses a significant problem. Over 90% of IDPs reported not getting regular aid, and when they do, both groups indicated it is intermittent, a finding that was more frequently reported among rural IDPs. ● Standards of living in displacement are worse than what they were prior to displacement. When asked about their current living standards in comparison to the host community, both rural and urban IDPs reported that the host community was better off. Higher shares of rural IDPs reported this than urban IDPs. With respect to security: ● Almost all IDPs reported feeling safe in their host communities, but the degree of safety varies between urban and rural IDPs. Only one third of urban IDPs, compared to nearly half of rural IDPs, reported feeling completely safe. The majority of urban IDPs reported feeling moderately safe. ● In the absence of personal networks or tribal affiliations to solve problems when they arose, IDPs instead turned to state institutions. But trust in state institutions to seek justice for regular crimes was significantly lower among urban IDPs. 8 For more information on this study, please see: International Organization for Migration and Georgetown University, 2017. Access to Durable Solutions among IDPs in Iraq: Part I. https://www.iom.int/news/access-durable-solutions-among-idps-iraq-un- migration-agency-georgetown-university-publish. 4 With respect to social cohesion: ● Majorities of both urban and rural IDPs suggested they felt strongly or somewhat accepted by the host community, though strong feelings of acceptance were higher among rural IDPs. IDPs from rural areas living in urban areas reported feeling accepted at lower rates than urban-urban IDPs. ● The extent of IDP integration into host communities varied widely. Among urban IDPs, pre-existing familial ties, humanitarian gestures initiated by host community members, and the urban environment itself were commonly mentioned as factors that facilitated assimilation. Meanwhile, IDPs mentioned that legal hurdles, discrimination, and cultural and linguistic barriers impeded their