An In-Depth Analysis of the Main Districts of Displacement

PROTRACTED DISPLACEMENT STUDY: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN DISTRICTS OF DISPLACEMENT

IOM IRAQ PROTRACTED DISPLACEMENT STUDY: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN DISTRICTS OF DISPLACEMENT

KEY FINDINGS

• DistrictsThe opinions with higher expressed concentration in the report of IDPs: are The those two of districts the authors and• Movement do not necessarily and intentions: refl ect theIn general, views of IDPsthe in the main 32 of MosulInternational and Erbil Organization are the “main” for recipientsMigration (IOM).of current The IDPs:designations employeddistricts areand not the (orpresentation only very slowly)of material moving out of their togetherthroughout they thehost report around do notone imply third the of theexpression total caseload of any opinion whatsoeverlocation ofon displacement the part of IOM (15%concerning have theleft their district of 3 of legalout-of-camp status of IDPs.any country, Another territory, third of city out-of-camp or area, or of IDPs its authorities, displacement or concerning sinceits frontiers May 2018). or boundaries. This fi gure aligns with are settled in the fi ve districts of Kirkuk, Sulaymaniyah, the assessed intentions to return in the short-medium Sumel,IOM isTikrit committed and Zakho to the (denoted principle as that“medium” humane recipients, and orderly migrationterm benefi(the national ts migrants fi gure and is society. 13%). ItAs shows an how, despite eachintergovernmental hosting a share organization,between 3% IOMand acts7%). with The itsremaining partners in the internationalthe strong community will to return to: assistin the in long meeting term (74%),4 staying thirdthe is operational hosted in 25 challenges districts – of denoted migration; as “low” advance recipients, understanding ofappears migration to be issues; the most encourage realistic social solution and for nearly 90% eacheconomic hosting development below 3% of through the total migration; IDPs. and uphold the humanof di gnityIDPs, and at least well-being over the of migrants. next 12 months.

• Ethno-religious composition: All the districts display • Stationary versus dynamic districts: Signifi cant diff erences homogeneity,The information to a degree, contained with in regard this report to the is main for general charac- informationin purposesthe rate of only. change Names were and noted boundaries at district level. Aside teristicson DTM of informationhosted IDPs, products given that do notthe implybulk of offi IDPs cial endorsementare from or acceptance the district by of IOM. Chamchamal The information in Sulaymaniyah, IDPs Arabin theSunnis. DTM One portal of the and strongest in this report pull factor is the for result clustering of data collectedare by not IOM (or fi onlyeld teamsvery slowly) and complements moving out of the Kurdistan is ethno-religiousinformation provided affi liation. and generated In 20 districts, by governmental over 80% ofand other entitiesRegion in of Iraq. Iraq IOM (KRI), Iraq making endeavors those to keep districts stationary. thethis population information belongs as up toto dateone groupand accurate (18 districts as possible, Arab but makesOther no claimstationary —expressed districts or include implied— Al-Musayab, on Ba’quba, Sunnis,the completeness, 1 Turkmen Shia accuracy and 1 andYazidi), suitability while in of another the information 10 providedKirkuk, through Falluja, this Khanaqin, report. ChallengesMosul, Sinjar that and Tooz. On the thereshould is a beprevalent taken into group account accounting when using for betweenDTM data 51% in Iraq includeother the hand,fl uidity a of rapid the displaceddecrease populationin the number of IDPs was andmovements 79% of households. along with2 repeated emergencies and limited or no accessassessed to parts in all ofdistricts the country. of Baghdad, In no eventKifri and Tikrit in Salah will IOM be liable for any loss or damage, whether direct, indirect oral-Din, consequential, Ramadi in related Anbar to and the Telafaruse of this in Ninewa, making • Districts of origin: Six districts could be rated as “homoge- report and the information provided herein. them dynamic districts. neous” in terms of the IDPs’ districts of origin – 80% or more of the population originates from the same district • Obstacles to return: The analysis of main obstacles to

– namelyIOM Iraq Akre, thanks Al-Fares, the United Al-Musayab, Kingdom’s Balad, Department Najaf forand International return Development helps understand (DFID) for the its supportextreme in variability in the Tooz;completing and another this project. 11 rated In addition, as "fairly IOM homogeneous" Iraq also thanks – the Unitedrate States of change Department and the of “gap”State, betweenBureau of intentions in the Al-Shikhan,Population, Daquq, Refugees Diwaniya, and Migration Falluja, (PRM)Kerbala, for Khanaqin,its continued support.short-medium IOM Iraq also andexpresses long its term, gratitude especially to if stationary Mosul,IOM Iraq’sSinjar, Rapid Sumel, Assessment Tikrit and Tilkaifand Response – where Teama consistent (RART) membersand for theirdynamic work districts in collecting are thecompared. data, often IDPs in stationary prevalentin very diffi group cult is circumstances; present (between their 51%tireless and eff 79%).orts are The the groundworkdistricts of this were report. more likely to report the destruction of remaining districts host a mixed population. former residences, the lack of HLP documentation and fear due to the ethno-religious change in their location • Lenght of displacement: Three districts are “homoge- International Organization for Migration of origin.5 In contrast, IDPs in dynamic districts generally neous” – Kerbala, Mosul and Sinjar – meaning they have The UN Migration Agency - Iraq Mission reported lower levels of residential damage and better displaced populations that have near identical durations Main Offi ce in Baghdad security in their location of origin – their greatest obstacle of displacement while 13 are "fairly homogeneous” – UNAMI Compound (Diwan 2) to return is the lack of employment/livelihood opportu- Akre, Al-Musayab, Al-Shikhan, Ba’quba, Dahuk, Diwaniya, International Zone, Baghdad, Iraq nities in their location of origin. Falluja, Khanaqin, Najaf, Ramadi, Sinjar, Sumel and Tooz. Tel: + 3908 3105 2600 In most cases, they match with homogeneous districts E-mail: [email protected] according to origin, outlining how similar groups of IDPs Website: www.iomiraq.net may have fl ed together.

Report design and layout by Connard Co – www.connard.co

2 There is evidence of clustering of IDPs in locations of displacement: Sunnis in Erbil; Shias in Diwaniya, Kerbala and Najaf; Turkmens in Kirkuk and Tooz;© AprilYazidis 2019 in Sumel International and Sinjar, Organization Christians and for Kakais Migration in Dahuk (IOM) and Erbil; Shabak Sunnis in Akre and Al-Shikhan. 3 The variability of displacement was assessed through the rate of change in the number of IDPs between Round 107 (December 2018) and ILA III (MayAll rights 2018). reserved. Districts whereNo part displaced of this householdspublication are may not be or reproduced, are very slowly stored moving in outa retrieval of their locationsystem, ofor displacement transmitted have been rated as “stationary”in any form (the or rate by of any change means, is between electronic, -10% mechanical, and +10%) or photocopying, “fairly stationary” recording, (rate of change or otherwise = 10%-20%); without while the districts prior where families are moving out at a faster pace were rated as “fairly dynamic” (rate of change =20%-30%) or “dynamic” (rate of change > 30%). written permission of the publisher. 4 The intentions to integrate within the host community in the long-term was reported more frequently in the three districts of Baghdad, generally in KRI and also in Kerbala and Kirkuk. 5 In stationary districts, one in two families ﬂ ed during summer 2014 (versus one in ﬁ ve in dynamic districts), and Kurdish Sunnis, Yazidis, Shabaks and Christians represent one third of the population (versus 6% in dynamic districts).

102 IOM IRAQ REFERENCE NOTE INTRODUCTION

In November 2018, the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) Unit, the Returns Working Group (RWG), and Social Inquiry, with input and support from the Ministry of Migration and Displacement (MoMD) within the Federal Government of Iraq, published an in-depth analysis on “Reasons to Remain: Categorizing Protracted Displacement in Iraq”. The aim of this report was to build a categorization framework for protracted displacement as the basis for future study, monitoring and policy development in relation to the resolution of internal displacement across all populations affected by the conflict in Iraq.

While the report defined categories of obstacles to return and provided estimates of the proportion of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) falling in each of the categories, it did not identify where the IDPs facing these obstacles can be found, and most importantly, where they are from. To address this, IOM DTM completed an analysis of the remaining out-of-camp IDP population in areas of displacement along multiple indicators, which allowed for the identification of their reasons and obstacles for non-return as well as their displacement situation. DTM also completed a similar and complementary analysis on IDPs’ main areas of origin, presented in the document “Protracted Displacement Study: An In-Depth Analysis of the Main Districts of Origin”. Although some of the analysis touches upon the situation of in-camp IDPs, two factors led to the decision to focus most of the analysis on out-of-camp IDPs. Firstly, the secondary data review showed that the knowledge base on in-camp IDPs was significantly greater than that of out-of-camp IDPs. Moreover, our analysis showed that these two groups face quite different displacement situations, leading to the decision to analyze them separately and prioritize analysis of the situation of out-of-camp IDPs.

As IDPs are dispersed across over 3,000 locations in more than 100 districts of displacement, the analysis focused on the districts containing the majority of the IDP caseload Using the latest available DTM dataset at the time of the analysis (Dec 2018), it was found that 83% of all out-of-camp IDPs can be found in the top 21 districts of displacement, and 90% in the top 32 districts across 14 governorates. While all 32 districts were analyzed to better understand protracted displacement, only the top 21 will presented here as the main districts of displacement in the format of a factsheet following a common structure to facilitate comparison. This reference note, containing an overall presentation of the analyzed indicators and key findings, aims to explain and complement the factsheets. PROTRACTED DISPLACEMENT STUDY: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN DISTRICTS OF DISPLACEMENT

ACRONYMS KEY FINDINGS

DTM Displacement Tracking Matrix • Districts with higher concentration of IDPs: The two districts • Movement and intentions: In general, IDPs in the main 32 of Mosul and Erbil are the “main” recipients of current IDPs: districts are not (or only very slowly) moving out of their FHHtogether they Female-Headed host around one Household third of the total caseload location of displacement (15% have left their district of of out-of-camp IDPs. Another third of out-of-camp IDPs displacement since May 2018).3 This fi gure aligns with are settled in the fi ve districts of Kirkuk, Sulaymaniyah, the assessed intentions to return in the short-medium HH Household Sumel, Tikrit and Zakho (denoted as “medium” recipients, term (the national fi gure is 13%). It shows how, despite each hosting a share between 3% and 7%). The remaining the strong will to return in the long term (74%),4 staying HLPthird is hosted Housing, in 25 districts Land –and denoted Property as “low” recipients, appears to be the most realistic solution for nearly 90% each hosting below 3% of the total IDPs. of IDPs, at least over the next 12 months.

•HoH Ethno-religious Head composition: of Household All the districts display • Stationary versus dynamic districts: Signifi cant diff erences homogeneity, to a degree, with regard to the main charac- in the rate of change were noted at district level. Aside teristics of hosted IDPs, given that the bulk of IDPs are from the district of Chamchamal in Sulaymaniyah, IDPs IDPArab Sunnis. InternallyOne of the Displaced strongest pull Persons factor for clustering are not (or only very slowly) moving out of the Kurdistan is ethno-religious affi liation. In 20 districts, over 80% of Region of Iraq (KRI), making those districts stationary. ILAthe population Integrated belongs Locationto one group Assessment (18 districts Arab Other stationary districts include Al-Musayab, Ba’quba, Sunnis, 1 Turkmen Shia and 1 Yazidi), while in another 10 Kirkuk, Falluja, Khanaqin, Mosul, Sinjar and Tooz. On the there is a prevalent group accounting for between 51% other hand, a rapid decrease in the number of IDPs was IQDand 79% of households. Iraqi Dinar 2 assessed in all districts of Baghdad, Kifri and Tikrit in Salah al-Din, Ramadi in Anbar and Telafar in Ninewa, making • Districts of origin: Six districts could be rated as “homoge- them dynamic districts. IOMneous” in terms International of the IDPs’ Organization districts of origin for Migration – 80% or more of the population originates from the same district • Obstacles to return: The analysis of main obstacles to KI – namely Akre, Key Al-Fares,Informant Al-Musayab, Balad, Najaf and return helps understand the extreme variability in the Tooz; and another 11 rated as "fairly homogeneous" – rate of change and the “gap” between intentions in the Al-Shikhan, Daquq, Diwaniya, Falluja, Kerbala, Khanaqin, short-medium and long term, especially if stationary KRIMosul, Sinjar, Kurdistan Sumel, Tikrit Region and Tilkaif of Iraq – where a consistent and dynamic districts are compared. IDPs in stationary prevalent group is present (between 51% and 79%). The districts were more likely to report the destruction of remaining districts host a mixed population. former residences, the lack of HLP documentation and MCNA Multi-Cluster Needs Assessment fear due to the ethno-religious change in their location • Lenght of displacement: Three districts are “homoge- of origin.5 In contrast, IDPs in dynamic districts generally neous” – Kerbala, Mosul and Sinjar – meaning they have MoMD Ministry of Migration and Displacement reported lower levels of residential damage and better displaced populations that have near identical durations security in their location of origin – their greatest obstacle of displacement while 13 are "fairly homogeneous” – to return is the lack of employment/livelihood opportu- RWGAkre, Al-Musayab, Returns Al-Shikhan, Working Ba’quba, Group Dahuk, Diwaniya, nities in their location of origin. Falluja, Khanaqin, Najaf, Ramadi, Sinjar, Sumel and Tooz. In most cases, they match with homogeneous districts according to origin, outlining how similar groups of IDPs may have fl ed together.

104 IOM IRAQ PROTRACTED DISPLACEMENTPROTRACTED STUDY: AN IN-DEPTH DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS STUDY: OF THE AN IN-DEPTHMAIN DISTRICTS ANALYSIS OF DISPLACEMENTOF THE MAIN DISTRICTS OF DISPLACEMENT

DEFINITIONS KEY FINDINGS

Female-Headed Household (FHH) – The head of the household Location – The unit of reference or the observation unit in is• aDistricts female withand ishigher recognized concentration by the ofmembers IDPs: The of two the districts house- •the Movement Master Lists and andintentions: assessments, In general, where IDPs datain the collection main 32 holdof asMosul the andhead Erbil of the are unit.the “main” recipients of current IDPs: takes place. A location is defi ned as a camp, a village in rural districts are not (or only very slowly) moving out of their together they host around one third of the total caseload areaslocation or a quarterof displacement (neighbourhood) (15% have in urban left their areas district and itsof Household (HH) – A domestic unit consisting of present of out-of-camp IDPs. Another third of out-of-camp IDPs boundariesdisplacement are determined since May 2018).on the3 basisThis fiof gure key alignsinformants with and absent members who are related by blood or law (i.e. are settled in the fi ve districts of Kirkuk, Sulaymaniyah, andthe teams’ assessed knowledge. intentions to return in the short-medium marriage, adoption) who live together or used to live together Sumel, Tikrit and Zakho (denoted as “medium” recipients, term (the national fi gure is 13%). It shows how, despite before the crisis in the same dwelling and share meals. The Rate of Change – The percentage decrease/increase in the each hosting a share between 3% and 7%). The remaining the strong will to return in the long term (74%),4 staying average household size in Iraq consists of six members, as number of IDPs settled within a district between May 2018 third is hosted in 25 districts – denoted as “low” recipients, appears to be the most realistic solution for nearly 90% per the government’s estimates. and December 2018. each hosting below 3% of the total IDPs. of IDPs, at least over the next 12 months. Head of Household (HoH) – The individual in the household Rate of Return – The proportion of returnees originally from a • Ethno-religious composition: All the districts display • Stationary versus dynamic districts: Signifi cant diff erences who provides support and maintenance to one or more indi- governorate/district to the sum of returnees and IDPs orig- homogeneity, to a degree, with regard to the main charac- in the rate of change were noted at district level. Aside viduals related to him/her by blood or law ties. inally from the same governorate/district. teristics of hosted IDPs, given that the bulk of IDPs are from the district of Chamchamal in Sulaymaniyah, IDPs InternallyArab Sunnis. Displaced One Persons of the strongest (IDP) – According pull factor to for the clustering Guiding Returneeare not – (or All only those very previously slowly) moving displaced out of since the Kurdistan January Principlesis ethno-religious on Internal affi Displacement, liation. In 20 districts, internally over displaced 80% of 2014 who returned to their location of origin, irrespective Region of Iraq (KRI), making those districts stationary. personsthe population are “persons belongs or groups to one of grouppersons (18 who districts have beenArab of Otherwhether stationary they have districts returned include to their Al-Musayab, former residence Ba’quba, forced or obliged to fl ee or to leave their homes or places Sunnis, 1 Turkmen Shia and 1 Yazidi), while in another 10 or to another shelter type. The defi nition of returnee is not Kirkuk, Falluja, Khanaqin, Mosul, Sinjar and Tooz. On the of habitualthere is aresidence, prevalent in group particular accounting as a result for betweenof or in order 51% relatedother to hand, the criteria a rapid of decrease returning in inthe safety number and ofdignity, IDPs wasnor to avoid the eff ects of armed confl ict, situations of gener-and 79% of households.2 with a defi ned strategy of durable solution.assessed in all districts of Baghdad, Kifri and Tikrit in Salah alized violence, violations of human rights or natural or al-Din, Ramadi in Anbar and Telafar in Ninewa, making • Districts of origin: Six districts could be rated as “homoge- Vulnerable & Extra-Vulnerable Household – Household that human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an inter- them dynamic districts. neous” in terms of the IDPs’ districts of origin – 80% or exhibits a special vulnerability, such as female-headed nationally recognized state border” (United Nations, 1998). more of the population originates from the same district •household, Obstacles minor-headed to return: The household, analysis of household main obstacles including to In the current context, DTM considers all Iraqis who were – namely Akre, Al-Fares, Al-Musayab, Balad, Najaf and at leastreturn one helps member understand with disabilities, the extreme and household variability wherein the forced to fl ee from 1 January 2014 onwards and are living in Tooz; and another 11 rated as "fairly homogeneous" – morerate than of change two to andthree the of “gap”members between are dependantsintentions in (less the a diff erent location than of origin as IDPs. Al-Shikhan, Daquq, Diwaniya, Falluja, Kerbala, Khanaqin, than 14 years old or over 60). A household where more than short-medium and long term, especially if stationary Intra-DistrictMosul, Sinjar, Displacement Sumel, Tikrit – IDPs and who Tilkaif are – settledwhere a within consistent their oneand of dynamicthe above districts conditions are compared. applies were IDPs considered in stationary as districtprevalent of origin. group is present (between 51% and 79%). The extra-vulnerable.districts were more likely to report the destruction of remaining districts host a mixed population. former residences, the lack of HLP documentation and Intra-Governorate Displacement – IDPs who are settled within fear due to the ethno-religious change in their location their• Lenght governorate of displacement: of origin. Three districts are “homoge- of origin.5 In contrast, IDPs in dynamic districts generally neous” – Kerbala, Mosul and Sinjar – meaning they have Key Informant (KI) – The DTM collects data on numbers and reported lower levels of residential damage and better displaced populations that have near identical durations locations of IDPs and returnees using an extended network security in their location of origin – their greatest obstacle of displacement while 13 are "fairly homogeneous” – of over 9,500 key informants. Community leaders, mukhtars, to return is the lack of employment/livelihood opportu- Akre, Al-Musayab, Al-Shikhan, Ba’quba, Dahuk, Diwaniya, local authorities and security forces make up most of the nities in their location of origin. Falluja, Khanaqin, Najaf, Ramadi, Sinjar, Sumel and Tooz. key informants. In most cases, they match with homogeneous districts according to origin, outlining how similar groups of IDPs may have fl ed together.

105 IOM IRAQ 5 PROTRACTED DISPLACEMENT STUDY: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN DISTRICTS OF DISPLACEMENT

DISTRICT PROFILING KEY FINDINGS Each factsheet creates a profi le of the district based on multiple • Districts with higher concentration of IDPs: The two districts • Movement and intentions: In general, IDPs in the main 32 indicators,of Mosul and such Erbil are as the its “main” IDP recipients population of current size, IDPs: the ratedistricts of change are not (or in only IDP very slowly) moving out of their together they host around one third of the total caseload location of displacement (15% have left their district of 3 population,of out-of-camp and IDPs. the Another demographics third of out-of-camp of the IDPs IDPs in displacementterms of their since Maydistricts 2018). This fi gure aligns with are settled in the fi ve districts of Kirkuk, Sulaymaniyah, the assessed intentions to return in the short-medium ofSumel, origin, Tikrit length and Zakho of (denoteddisplacement, as “medium” and recipients, ethno-religious term (thecomposition. national fi gure Theis 13%). It shows how, despite each hosting a share between 3% and 7%). The remaining the strong will to return in the long term (74%),4 staying profithird ling is hosted categories in 25 districts and – denoted criteria as “low” are recipients, defi ned as follows:appears to be the most realistic solution for nearly 90% each hosting below 3% of the total IDPs. of IDPs, at least over the next 12 months.

• Ethno-religious composition: All the districts display • Stationary versus dynamic districts: Signifi cant diff erences Districthomogeneity, IDP Population to a degree, with regard to the main charac- in the rate of change were noted at district level. Aside teristics of hosted IDPs, given that the bulk of IDPs are from the district of Chamchamal in Sulaymaniyah, IDPs HighArab recipient Sunnis. One of the strongestDistrict hosting 10% or more of the total caseload of out-of-ca pull factor for clustering are not (or only very slowly)mp IDPs. moving out of the Kurdistan is ethno-religious affi liation. In 20 districts, over 80% of Region of Iraq (KRI), making those districts stationary. Mediumthe population recipient belongs toDistrict hosting between 3% and 10% of the total caseload of ou one group (18 districts Arab Other stationary districtst-of-camp IDPs. include Al-Musayab, Ba’quba, Sunnis, 1 Turkmen Shia and 1 Yazidi), while in another 10 Kirkuk, Falluja, Khanaqin, Mosul, Sinjar and Tooz. On the there is a prevalent group accounting for between 51% other hand, a rapid decrease in the number of IDPs was Low recipient District hosting less than 3% of the total caseload of out-of-camp IDPs. and 79% of households.2 assessed in all districts of Baghdad, Kifri and Tikrit in Salah al-Din, Ramadi in Anbar and Telafar in Ninewa, making • Districts of origin: Six districts could be rated as “homoge- them dynamic districts. neous” in terms of the IDPs’ districts of origin – 80% or more of the population originates from the same district • Obstacles to return: The analysis of main obstacles to Rate of Change in IDP Population – namely Akre, Al-Fares, Al-Musayab, Balad, Najaf and return helps understand the extreme variability in the Relates to the proportion of IDPs who have moved in or out of the district of displacement between May and December 2018. Tooz; and another 11 rated as "fairly homogeneous" – rate of change and the “gap” between intentions in the A minus (-) sign in front of the percentage indicates a decrease of IDPs while a plus (+) sign indicates in infl ow of IDPs during Al-Shikhan, Daquq, Diwaniya, Falluja, Kerbala, Khanaqin, short-medium and long term, especially if stationary theMosul, reporting Sinjar, period. Sumel, Tikrit and Tilkaif – where a consistent and dynamic districts are compared. IDPs in stationary prevalent group is present (between 51% and 79%). The districts were more likely to report the destruction of remaining districts host a mixed population. former residences, the lack of HLP documentation and District with a rate of change for the displaced population of fear due to the ethno-religiousless than 10%, indicating that change in their location • StationaryLenght of displacement: Three districts are “homoge- IDPs are not (or only very slowly) movingof outorigin. of 5their In contrast, location IDPs of displacement. in dynamic districts generally neous” – Kerbala, Mosul and Sinjar – meaning they have reported lower levels of residential damage and better displaced populations that have near identical durations Fairly stationary District with a rate of change for the displaced population betsecurity in their locationween 10% and 20%. of origin – their greatest obstacle of displacement while 13 are "fairly homogeneous” – to return is the lack of employment/livelihood opportu- Akre, Al-Musayab, Al-Shikhan, Ba’quba, Dahuk, Diwaniya, Fairly dynamic District with a rate of change for the displaced population betnities in their location ofween 20% and 30%. origin. Falluja, Khanaqin, Najaf, Ramadi, Sinjar, Sumel and Tooz. In most cases, they matchDistrict with a rate of change for the displaced population abo with homogeneous districts ve 30%, indicating that IDPs Dynamic according to origin, outlininghave how been similar rapidly groups or very of IDPs rapidly moving out of their location of displacement. may have fl ed together.

106 IOM IRAQ PROTRACTED DISPLACEMENTPROTRACTED STUDY: AN IN-DEPTH DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS STUDY: OF THE AN IN-DEPTHMAIN DISTRICTS ANALYSIS OF DISPLACEMENTOF THE MAIN DISTRICTS OF DISPLACEMENT

IDP Districts of Origin

KEYHomogeneous FINDINGSDistrict in which 80% or more of the IDPs come from the same district of origin.

• FairlyDistricts homogeneous with higher concentrationDistrict in which 50% to 80% of the IDPs come from the same dis of IDPs: The two districts • Movement and intentions: Intrict of origin. general, IDPs in the main 32 of Mosul and Erbil are the “main” recipients of current IDPs: districts are not (or only very slowly) moving out of their Heterogeneoustogether they host around Districtone third with of theno majoritytotal caseload group found inlocation terms of of district displacement of origin. (15% have left their district of of out-of-camp IDPs. Another third of out-of-camp IDPs displacement since May 2018).3 This fi gure aligns with are settled in the fi ve districts of Kirkuk, Sulaymaniyah, the assessed intentions to return in the short-medium Sumel, Tikrit and Zakho (denoted as “medium” recipients, term (the national fi gure is 13%). It shows how, despite each hosting a share between 3% and 7%). The remaining the strong will to return in the long term (74%),4 staying IDP Length of Displacement third is hosted in 25 districts – denoted as “low” recipients, appears to be the most realistic solution for nearly 90% each hosting below 3% of the total IDPs. of IDPs, at least over the next 12 months. Homogeneous District in which 80% or more of the IDPs were displaced within the same time period. • Ethno-religious composition: All the districts display • Stationary versus dynamic districts: Signifi cant diff erences Fairlyhomogeneity, homogeneous to a degree, withDistrict in which 50% to 80% of the IDPs were displaced within regard to the main charac- in the rate of change werethe same time period. noted at district level. Aside teristics of hosted IDPs, given that the bulk of IDPs are from the district of Chamchamal in Sulaymaniyah, IDPs Arab Sunnis. One of the strongest pull factor for clustering are not (or only very slowly) moving out of the Kurdistan Heterogeneous District with no majority group found in terms of length of displacement. is ethno-religious affi liation. In 20 districts, over 80% of Region of Iraq (KRI), making those districts stationary. the population belongs to one group (18 districts Arab Other stationary districts include Al-Musayab, Ba’quba, ProtractedSunnis, 1 Turkmendisplacement Shia andIDPs who fl ed between January 2014 and March 2016 - i.e. during the fi rst 5 waves. 1 Yazidi), while in another 10 Kirkuk, Falluja, Khanaqin, Mosul, Sinjar and Tooz. On the there is a prevalent group accounting for between 51% other hand, a rapid decrease in the number of IDPs was and 79% of households.2 assessed in all districts of Baghdad, Kifri and Tikrit in Salah al-Din, Ramadi in Anbar and Telafar in Ninewa, making • Districts of origin: Six districts could be rated as “homoge- them dynamic districts. IDPneous” Ethno-Religious in terms of theComposition IDPs’ districts of origin – 80% or more of the population originates from the same district • Obstacles to return: The analysis of main obstacles to Homogeneous– namely Akre, Al-Fares, Al-Musayab,District in which 80% or more of the IDPs belong to the same et Balad, Najaf and return helps understandhno-religious group. the extreme variability in the Tooz; and another 11 rated as "fairly homogeneous" – rate of change and the “gap” between intentions in the FairlyAl-Shikhan, homogeneous Daquq, Diwaniya,District in which 50% to 80% of the IDPs belong to the same eth Falluja, Kerbala, Khanaqin, short-medium and longno-religious group. term, especially if stationary Mosul, Sinjar, Sumel, Tikrit and Tilkaif – where a consistent and dynamic districts are compared. IDPs in stationary prevalent group is present (between 51% and 79%). The districts were more likely to report the destruction of Heterogeneous District with no majority group found in terms of ethno-religious composition. remaining districts host a mixed population. former residences, the lack of HLP documentation and fear due to the ethno-religious change in their location • Lenght of displacement: Three districts are “homoge- of origin.5 In contrast, IDPs in dynamic districts generally neous” – Kerbala, Mosul and Sinjar – meaning they have reported lower levels of residential damage and better displaced populations that have near identical durations IDP Intentions security in their location of origin – their greatest obstacle of displacement while 13 are "fairly homogeneous” – to return is the lack of employment/livelihood opportu- Akre, Al-Musayab, Al-Shikhan, Ba’quba, Dahuk, Diwaniya, Short/medium term Refers to a defi nite time period, in this case within 12 months of the assessment.nities in their location of origin. Falluja, Khanaqin, Najaf, Ramadi, Sinjar, Sumel and Tooz. In most cases, they match with homogeneous districts Long term Refers to an indefi nite time period, in this case 12 months or more after the assessment according to origin, outlining how similar groups of IDPs may have fl ed together.

107 IOM IRAQ 7 PROTRACTED DISPLACEMENT STUDY: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN DISTRICTS OF DISPLACEMENT

METHODOLOGY KEY FINDINGS

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES • Districts with higher concentration of IDPs: The two districts • Movement and intentions: In general, IDPs in the main 32 Theof Mosul primary and Erbil objective are the “main” of recipients this analysis of current is IDPs: to supportdistricts durable are not solutions (or only very by slowly) moving out of their together they host around one third of the total caseload location of displacement (15% have left their district of 3 contributingof out-of-camp to IDPs. the Another knowledge third of out-of-camp base on IDPsprotracted displacement displacement. since May 2018). This fi gure aligns with are settled in the fi ve districts of Kirkuk, Sulaymaniyah, the assessed intentions to return in the short-medium Sumel, Tikrit and Zakho (denoted as “medium” recipients, term (the national fi gure is 13%). It shows how, despite The target population is the displaced population in the 1. Complement the categorisation framework for each hosting a share between 3% and 7%). The remaining the strong will to return in the long term (74%),4 staying 32 main districts of displacement. The main focus is on protracted displacement by providing a geographical and third is hosted in 25 districts – denoted as “low” recipients, appears to be the most realistic solution for nearly 90% out-of-camp IDPs, although a brief profi le of in-camp IDPs demographic component to ensure it is actionable and each hosting below 3% of the total IDPs. of IDPs, at least over the next 12 months. is also provided. usable by the humanitarian community. • Ethno-religious composition: All the districts display • Stationary versus dynamic districts: Signifi cant diff erences To provide an overview of the issues these population groups 2. Provide a more granular picture of the main districts homogeneity, to a degree, with regard to the main charac- in the rate of change were noted at district level. Aside are facing with regard to returning to their location of origin, of displacement, allowing us to better understand the teristics of hosted IDPs, given that the bulk of IDPs are from the district of Chamchamal in Sulaymaniyah, IDPs the assessment sought to achieve the following objectives: specifi c push and pull factors IDPs are facing, as well as Arab Sunnis. One of the strongest pull factor for clustering are not (or only very slowly) moving out of the Kurdistan the socio-demographic characteristics of the IDP caseload is ethno-religious affi liation. In 20 districts, over 80% of Region of Iraq (KRI), making those districts stationary. for each analysed district. the population belongs to one group (18 districts Arab Other stationary districts include Al-Musayab, Ba’quba, Sunnis, 1 Turkmen Shia and 1 Yazidi), while in another 10 Kirkuk, Falluja, Khanaqin, Mosul, Sinjar and Tooz. On the there is a prevalent group accounting for between 51% other hand, a rapid decrease in the number of IDPs was and 79% of households.2 assessed in all districts of Baghdad, Kifri and Tikrit in Salah DATA SOURCES al-Din, Ramadi in Anbar and Telafar in Ninewa, making • Districts of origin: Six districts could be rated as “homoge- Diff erent data sources were used to conduct this analysis, namely the DTM Baselines (Round 107, Round 106 and Round 96), them dynamic districts. neous” in terms of the IDPs’ districts of origin – 80% or the Integrated Location Assessment (ILA) III, the Return Index (Round 2 – October 2018) and Multi Cluster Needs Assessment more of the population originates from the same district • Obstacles to return: The analysis of main obstacles to (MCNA) VI implemented by REACH in collaboration with 18 operational partners between July and August 2018. – namely Akre, Al-Fares, Al-Musayab, Balad, Najaf and return helps understand the extreme variability in the MainTooz; characteristics and another of 11 each rated data as source "fairly arehomogeneous" summarized in– the belowrate table. of change and the “gap” between intentions in the Al-Shikhan, Daquq, Diwaniya, Falluja, Kerbala, Khanaqin, short-medium and long term, especially if stationary Mosul, Sinjar, Sumel, Tikrit and Tilkaif – where a consistent and dynamic districts are compared. IDPs in stationary COMPLETION prevalentDATA group OFis present (between 51% and 79%). The districts were more likely to report the destruction of METHODOLOGY POPULATION COVERAGE INDICATORS SOURCEremaining districtsDATA host a mixed population. former residences, the lack of HLP documentation and COLLECTION fear due to the ethno-religious change in their location • Lenght of displacement: Three districts are “homoge- of origin.5 In contrast, IDPs in dynamic districts generally neous” – Kerbala, Mosul and Sinjar – meaning they have District of displacement, district reported lower levels of residential damage and better displaced populations that have near identical durations of origin, length of displacement security in their location of origin – their greatest obstacle of displacement while 13 are "fairly homogeneous”248,632 out-of- – 99% of (wave), ethno-religious composition, ILA III May 2018 Key informants to return is the lack of employment/livelihood opportu- Akre, Al-Musayab, Al-Shikhan, Ba’quba, Dahuk, Diwaniya,camp IDP HHs locations intentions in the long term, obstacles nities in their location of origin. Falluja, Khanaqin, Najaf, Ramadi, Sinjar, Sumel and Tooz. to return and reasons to stay, rate of In most cases, they match with homogeneous districts change 209,254 out-of- according to origin, outlining how similar groups of IDPs District of displacement, district of Round December camp IDP HHs; 99% of may have fl ed together. Key informants origin, length of displacement (wave), 107 2018 91,218 in-camp locations shelter type, rate of change IDP HHs

Round 217,997 out-of- 97% of District of displacement, October 2018 Key informants 2 There106 is evidence of clustering of IDPs in locations of displacement:camp IDP Sunnis HHs in Erbil;locations Shias in Diwaniya, Kerbala andrate Najaf; of change Turkmens in Kirkuk and Tooz; Yazidis in Sumel and Sinjar, Christians and Kakais in Dahuk and Erbil; Shabak Sunnis in Akre and Al-Shikhan. 3 The variability of displacement was assessed through the rate of change in the number of IDPs between Round 107 (December 2018) and ILA RoundIII (May 2018). Districts where displaced households are99,655 in-camp not or are very slowly moving98% of out of their locationDistrict of displacement of displacement have been rated as May 2018 Key informants “stationary”96 (the rate of change is between -10% and +10%) orHHs “fairly stationary”locations (rate of change = 10%-20%);for while camp districts population where families are moving out at a faster pace were rated as “fairly dynamic” (rate of change =20%-30%) or “dynamic” (rate of change > 30%). 4 The intentions to integrate within the host community in the long-term was reported more frequently in the three districts of Baghdad, generally Return 694,220 98% of Blocked returns, in KRI and alsoOctober 2018 in Kerbala and Kirkuk.Key informants Index #2 returnee HHs locations severity index 5 In stationary districts, one in two families ﬂ ed during summer 2014 (versus one in ﬁ ve in dynamic districts), and Kurdish Sunnis, Yazidis, Shabaks and Christians represent one third of the population (versus 6% in dynamic districts).

108 IOM IRAQ PROTRACTED DISPLACEMENTPROTRACTED STUDY: AN IN-DEPTH DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS STUDY: OF THE AN IN-DEPTHMAIN DISTRICTS ANALYSIS OF DISPLACEMENTOF THE MAIN DISTRICTS OF DISPLACEMENT

COMPLETION DATA OF METHODOLOGY POPULATION COVERAGE INDICATORS KEYSOURCE FINDINGSDATA COLLECTION

• Districts with higher concentration of IDPs: The two districts • Movement and intentions:All socio-demographic fi gures In general, IDPs in the main 32 of Mosul and Erbil are the “main” recipients of current IDPs: districts are not (orincluding only very living slowly) conditions moving (i.e. out median of their 97% of together they host around one third of the total caseload location of displacementmonthly (15% HH have income left pertheir capita, district of districts (Ba'aj of out-of-camp IDPs. Another third of out-of-camp IDPs displacement sincemain May income 2018). 3sources, This fi gure obstacles aligns towith and Al Fares are settled in the fi ve districts of Kirkuk, Sulaymaniyah,5,148 out-of- the assessed intentionsfi nd work) and main vulnerabilities to return in the short-medium were not Sumel, Tikrit and Zakho (denoted as “medium” recipients,camp IDP HHs; term (the national fi (i.e.gure female-headed is 13%). It shows households, how, despite surveyed). each hosting a share between 3%Household and 7%). The remaining3,494 in-camp the strong will to returnhouseholds in the long with term members (74%), with4 staying MCNA August 2018 Findings with third is hosted in 25 districts – denotedsurvey as “low” recipients,IDP HHs and appears to be the mostdisabilities, with more than 2/3 realistic solution for nearly 90% 90% confi - each hosting below 3% of the total IDPs. 2,833 returnee of IDPs, at least overdependents, the next 12 months.at risk of eviction, dence and HHs missing HLP documentation, missing • Ethno-religious composition: All the districts display • Stationary10% margin versus dynamic districts: Signifi cant diff erences civil documentation, priority needs, homogeneity, to a degree, with regard to the main charac- ofin errorthe rate at the of change were noted at district level. Aside children not attending education, and teristics of hosted IDPs, given that the bulk of IDPs are fromdistrict the level district of Chamchamal in Sulaymaniyah, IDPs vaccination coverage), intentions in Arab Sunnis. One of the strongest pull factor for clustering are not (or only very slowly) moving out of the Kurdistan the short term and obstacles to return is ethno-religious affi liation. In 20 districts, over 80% of Region of Iraq (KRI), making those districts stationary. the population belongs to one group (18 districts Arab Other stationary districts include Al-Musayab, Ba’quba, Sunnis, 1 Turkmen Shia and 1 Yazidi), while in another 10 Kirkuk, Falluja, Khanaqin, Mosul, Sinjar and Tooz. On the there is a prevalent group accounting for between 51% other hand, a rapid decrease in the number of IDPs was CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS and 79% of households.2 assessed in all districts of Baghdad, Kifri and Tikrit in Salah al-Din, Ramadi in Anbar and Telafar in Ninewa, making The• Districts use of of origin: diff Sixerent districts data could sources be rated asyields “homoge- challenges related to the diff erent data them dynamic districts. neous” in terms of the IDPs’ districts of origin – 80% or collectionmore of the methods, population originates timings from and the defi same nitionsdistrict of indicators• Obstacles to for return: each The source.analysis of main obstacles to – namely Akre, Al-Fares, Al-Musayab, Balad, Najaf and return helps understand the extreme variability in the IndicatorsTooz; and from another DTM sources 11 rated rely ason "fairlya KI methodology, homogeneous" which – long term (within 12 months). For clarity, intentions collected rate of change and the “gap” between intentions in the provides the prevalent fi gure at location level (weighted with Al-Shikhan, Daquq, Diwaniya, Falluja, Kerbala, Khanaqin, in MCNA have been grouped under the label "short/medium" short-medium and long term, especially if stationary theMosul, overall Sinjar, number Sumel, of IDPs Tikrit or and returnees Tilkaif – present where a at consistent the loca- and intentions collected in ILA were labelled as "long-term". and dynamic districts are compared. IDPs in stationary tion), while indicators from the MCNA are weighted estimates prevalent group is present (between 51% and 79%). The As for obstacles, the list of categories is slightly diff erent districts were more likely to report the destruction of of aremaining statistically districts representative host a mixed household population. survey adminis- with MCNA, including more options compared to ILA and a former residences, the lack of HLP documentation and tered across 72 districts within 16 governorates. Diff erent specifi c category for endured “fear/trauma”.fear due to the ethno-religious change in their location • Lenght of displacement: Three districts are “homoge- timings and diff erent defi nitions of indicators (in particular of origin.5 In contrast, IDPs in dynamic districts generally neous” – Kerbala, Mosul and Sinjar – meaning they have The integration of fi ndings must therefore be handled with for intentions and obstacles to return) also highlighted reported lower levels of residential damage and better displaced populations that have near identical durations extreme care. This is particularly important for dynamic discrepancies/inconsistencies in the information provided security in their location of origin – their greatest obstacle of displacement while 13 are "fairly homogeneous” – districts where the situation is rapidly evolving and the by the main sources. For example, long-term intentions in to return is the lack of employment/livelihood opportu- Akre, Al-Musayab, Al-Shikhan, Ba’quba, Dahuk, Diwaniya, population of interest – IDPs who have not yet returned ILA are defi ned as “over 12 months”, whereas MCNA collects nities in their location of origin. Falluja, Khanaqin, Najaf, Ramadi, Sinjar, Sumel and Tooz. – may have changed greatly since the assessment/data intentions in the short term (less than 3 months) and in the In most cases, they match with homogeneous districts collection took place.1 according to origin, outlining how similar groups of IDPs may have fl ed together.

14 EvidenceThe intentions from toprevious integrate ILAs within suggests the hostthat communityit is often more in the vulnerable long-term IDPswas reportedwho are leftmore behind frequently permanently in the three in displacement districts of Baghdad, due to their generally poor conditionsin KRI and alsoi.e. they in Kerbala have lost and everything Kirkuk. back home and/or have no means to return. Hence, the conditions of current IDPs may be worse than those portrayed in ILA III. 5 In stationary districts, one in two families ﬂ ed during summer 2014 (versus one in ﬁ ve in dynamic districts), and Kurdish Sunnis, Yazidis, Shabaks and Christians represent one third of the population (versus 6% in dynamic districts).

109 IOM IRAQ 9 PROTRACTED DISPLACEMENT STUDY: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN DISTRICTS OF DISPLACEMENT

KEY FINDINGS

• Districts with higher concentration of IDPs: The two districts • Movement and intentions: InIn general, IDPs in the main 32 general, IDPs in the main 32 ofof Mosul and Erbil are the “main” recipients of current IDPs: Mosul and Erbil are the “main” recipients of current IDPs: districts are not (or only very slowly) moving out of their together they host around one third of the total caseload locationlocation of displacement (15% have left their district of of displacement (15% have left their district of of out-of-camp IDPs. Another third of out-of-camp IDPs displacementdisplacement since May 2018). since May 2018).3 This fi gure aligns with This fi gure aligns with areare settled in the fi ve districts of Kirkuk, Sulaymaniyah, settled in the fi ve districts of Kirkuk, Sulaymaniyah, the assessed intentions to return in the short-medium Sumel, Tikrit and Zakho (denoted as “medium” recipients, termterm (the national fi gure is 13%). It shows how, despite (the national fi gure is 13%). It shows how, despite eacheach hosting a share between 3% and 7%). The remaining hosting a share between 3% and 7%). The remaining thethe strong will to return in the long term (74%), strong will to return in the long term (74%),4 staying thirdthird is hosted in 25 districts – denoted as “low” recipients, is hosted in 25 districts – denoted as “low” recipients, appearsappears to be the most realistic solution for nearly 90% to be the most realistic solution for nearly 90% eacheach hosting below 3% of the total IDPs. hosting below 3% of the total IDPs. ofof IDPs, at least over the next 12 months. IDPs, at least over the next 12 months.

• Ethno-religious composition: All the districts display • Stationary versus dynamic districts: SignifiSignifi cant diff erences cant diff erences homogeneity, to a degree, with regard to the main charac- in the rate of change were noted at district level. Aside teristics of hosted IDPs, given that the bulk of IDPs are fromfrom the district of Chamchamal in Sulaymaniyah, IDPs the district of Chamchamal in Sulaymaniyah, IDPs ArabArab Sunnis. One of the strongest pull factor for clustering Sunnis. One of the strongest pull factor for clustering are not (or only very slowly) moving out of the Kurdistan isis ethno-religious affi liation. In 20 districts, over 80% of ethno-religious affi liation. In 20 districts, over 80% of Region of Iraq (KRI), making those districts stationary. the population belongs to one group (18 districts Arab OtherOther stationary districts include Al-Musayab, Ba’quba, stationary districts include Al-Musayab, Ba’quba, Sunnis,Sunnis, 1 Turkmen Shia and 1 Yazidi), while in another 10 1 Turkmen Shia and 1 Yazidi), while in another 10 Kirkuk,Kirkuk, Falluja, Khanaqin, Mosul, Sinjar and Tooz. On the Falluja, Khanaqin, Mosul, Sinjar and Tooz. On the therethere is a prevalent group accounting for between 51% is a prevalent group accounting for between 51% other hand, a rapid decrease in the number of IDPs was andand 79% of households. 79% of households.2 assessedassessed in all districts of Baghdad, Kifri and Tikrit in Salah in all districts of Baghdad, Kifri and Tikrit in Salah al-Din, Ramadi in Anbar and Telafar in Ninewa, making • Districts of origin: Six districts could be rated as “homoge- them dynamic districts. neous”neous” in terms of the IDPs’ districts of origin – 80% or in terms of the IDPs’ districts of origin – 80% or more of the population originates from the same district • Obstacles to return: The analysis of main obstacles to –– namely Akre, Al-Fares, Al-Musayab, Balad, Najaf and namely Akre, Al-Fares, Al-Musayab, Balad, Najaf and return helps understand the extreme variability in the Tooz;Tooz; and another 11 rated as "fairly homogeneous" – and another 11 rated as "fairly homogeneous" – rate of change and the “gap” between intentions in the Al-Shikhan, Daquq, Diwaniya, Falluja, Kerbala, Khanaqin, short-medium and long term, especially if stationary Mosul, Sinjar, Sumel, Tikrit and Tilkaif – where a consistent and dynamic districts are compared. IDPs in stationary prevalentprevalent group is present (between 51% and 79%). The group is present (between 51% and 79%). The districts were more likely to report the destruction of remaining districts host a mixed population. former residences, the lack of HLP documentation and fear due to the ethno-religious change in their location • Lenght of displacement: Three districts are “homoge- of origin.5 In contrast, IDPs in dynamic districts generally neous” – Kerbala, Mosul and Sinjar – meaning they have reported lower levels of residential damage and better displaced populations that have near identical durations security in their location of origin – their greatest obstacle ofof displacement while 13 are "fairly homogeneous” – displacement while 13 are "fairly homogeneous” – to return is the lack of employment/livelihood opportu- Akre,Akre, Al-Musayab, Al-Shikhan, Ba’quba, Dahuk, Diwaniya, Al-Musayab, Al-Shikhan, Ba’quba, Dahuk, Diwaniya, nities in their location of origin. Falluja, Khanaqin, Najaf, Ramadi, Sinjar, Sumel and Tooz. In most cases, they match with homogeneous districts according to origin, outlining how similar groups of IDPs maymay have fl ed together. have fl ed together.

10 IOM IRAQ PROTRACTED DISPLACEMENTPROTRACTED STUDY: AN IN-DEPTH DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS STUDY: OF THE AN IN-DEPTHMAIN DISTRICTS ANALYSIS OF DISPLACEMENTOF THE MAIN DISTRICTS OF DISPLACEMENT

KEY FINDINGS • Risk of pushed returns: It should be observed that decreases • High share of female-headed households (FHH): in the number of IDPs do not correlate with voluntary – The high number of Iraqi casualties in the confl ict years • Districtsand successful with higher – returns concentration in all cases. of IDPs: According The two districts to ILA • Movement– the vast majority and intentions: of whom In general,have been IDPs males in the – have main also 32 ofIII, MosulIDPs inand dynamic Erbil are districts the “main” were recipients more likely of current to report, IDPs: districtsimpacted are on notthe (orshare only of veryfemale-headed slowly) moving households out of their in a together"pushed returns, evictions, and/or suspended salaries they host around one third of the total caseload locationcontext where of displacement female participation (15% have in the left labour their district force has of ofcompared". The issue of pushed returns is particularly out-of-camp IDPs. Another third of out-of-camp IDPs displacementhistorically been since and May is still 2018). low, 3and This where fi gure females aligns withwho aresignificant settled in in the Abu fi ve Ghraib districts and of Adhamia, Kirkuk, Sulaymaniyah, in Baghdad thelead assessed households intentions face heightened to return bureaucratic in the short-medium obstacles Sumel,Governorate, Tikrit and where Zakho the (denoted evidence as of “medium” unstable recipients, returns – termand social (the national stigma fiin gure the isreturn 13%). process.It shows Accordinghow, despite to eachi.e. IDPs hosting who aare share displaced between again 3% andafter 7%). returning The remaining to their theMCNA, the national fi gure of FHH for out-of-camp IDPs strong will to return in the long term (74%),4 staying thirdlocation is hosted of origin in 25 – was districts also –assessed. denoted as “low” recipients, appearsis 16%, with to be peaks the most of 33% realistic among solution families for nearly settled 90% in each hosting below 3% of the total IDPs. ofAbu-Ghraib IDPs, at least and overTikrit. the8 next 12 months. • Intra-district displacement: Another important catego- • Ethno-religiousrization relates composition:to intra-district All displacement, the districts i.e.display IDPs • Stationary Population versus in camps: dynamic If vulnerabilities districts: Signifi cantimpact diff erenceson the homogeneity,settled within to their a degree, district with of regardorigin. to In the nine main districts charac- – inIDPs’ the will rate to of return change to weretheir notedlocation at ofdistrict origin, level. particular Aside teristicsAl-Musayab, Balad, Daquq, Khanaqin, Mosul, Sinjar, Tilkaif, of hosted IDPs, given that the bulk of IDPs are fromattention the districtshould ofalso Chamchamal be given to in households Sulaymaniyah, living IDPs in ArabTelafar and Tooz – their share is between 47% and 99% Sunnis. One of the strongest pull factor for clustering areformal not camp (or only settings. very slowly) Although moving in-camp out ofIDPs the have Kurdistan been isof ethno-religioustotal IDPs. Despite affi beingliation. so In geographically 20 districts, over close, 80% these of Regionin displacement for less time than IDPs out of camps (43% of Iraq (KRI), making those districts stationary. theIDPs population are not (or belongs only very to oneslowly) group returning (18 districts home: Arab the Otherfor 3 years or more versus 61% for IDPs out of camps), stationary districts include Al-Musayab, Ba’quba, Sunnis,rate of change since May 2018 in these districts is -10%. 1 Turkmen Shia and 1 Yazidi), while in another 10 Kirkuk,they are more stationary – only 8% have moved out since Falluja, Khanaqin, Mosul, Sinjar and Tooz. On the thereWith the is a exception prevalent of group Mosul accounting – where the for physical between conse- 51% otherMay 2018. Of all the 32 main districts of displacement, hand, a rapid decrease in the number of IDPs was andquences of the confl ict on the western side of the city 79% of households.2 assessedonly in Daquq, in all districts Karkh, Ramadi, of Baghdad, Tikrit Kifri and and Tilkaif Tikrit have in Salah over triggered a signifi cant intra-city displacement towards al-Din,40% of IDPs moved out since last spring. The MCNA Ramadi in Anbar and Telafar in Ninewa, making • Districts of origin: Six districts could be rated as “homoge- the eastern side – one common factor can be observed: themindicated dynamic that districts.the highest proportion of households neous” in terms of the IDPs’ districts of origin – 80% or these locations have a higher likelihood of experiencing with humanitarian needs can be found among IDPs in more of the population originates from the same district • Obstacles to return: The analysis of main obstacles to community tensions, including fear of revenge or retali- camps, who are also the least likely to cite employment – namely Akre, Al-Fares, Al-Musayab, Balad, Najaf and return helps understand the extreme variability in the atory acts that may prevent some groups from returning. as a primary source of income and who are dependent Tooz; and another 11 rated as "fairly homogeneous" – rate of change and the “gap” between intentions in the In fact, the contextual situation in these districts makes on various types of assistance. Al-Shikhan, Daquq, Diwaniya, Falluja, Kerbala, Khanaqin, short-medium and long term, especially if stationary the IDPs’ return subject to changes in local dynamics. Mosul, Sinjar, Sumel, Tikrit and Tilkaif – where a consistent and dynamic districts are compared. IDPs in stationary • prevalentVulnerability: group Other characteristics of IDPs in protracted is present (between 51% and 79%). The districts were more likely to report the destruction of remainingdisplacement districts are challenging host a mixed to categorize population. and point to the former residences, the lack of HLP documentation and fact that it is often the most vulnerable who are left behind. fear due to the ethno-religious change in their location • Lenght of displacement: Three districts are “homoge- Not only have many families lost everything back home of origin.5 In contrast, IDPs in dynamic districts generally neous” – Kerbala, Mosul and Sinjar – meaning they have (including property and assets),6 but also the limited access reported lower levels of residential damage and better displaced populations that have near identical durations to employment (31% of HHs reported obstacles to fi nd security in their location of origin – their greatest obstacle of displacement while 13 are "fairly homogeneous” – work) makes them particularly vulnerable, dependent on to return is the lack of employment/livelihood opportu- Akre, Al-Musayab, Al-Shikhan, Ba’quba, Dahuk, Diwaniya, community/friends/family assistance (14%), savings (13%) nities in their location of origin. Falluja, Khanaqin, Najaf, Ramadi, Sinjar, Sumel and Tooz. and loans/debts (19%); in other words, unable to return.7 In most cases, they match with homogeneous districts according to origin, outlining how similar groups of IDPs may have fl ed together.

2 There is evidence of clustering of IDPs in locations of displacement: Sunnis in Erbil; Shias in Diwaniya, Kerbala and Najaf; Turkmens in Kirkuk and Tooz; Yazidis in Sumel and Sinjar, Christians and Kakais in Dahuk and Erbil; Shabak Sunnis in Akre and Al-Shikhan. 3 The variability of displacement was assessed through the rate of change in the number of IDPs between Round 107 (December 2018) and ILA III (May 2018). Districts where displaced households are not or are very slowly moving out of their location of displacement have been rated as “stationary” (the rate of change is between -10% and +10%) or “fairly stationary” (rate of change = 10%-20%); while districts where families are 6 moving According out to at MCNA, a faster one pace in two were families rated asreported “fairly damage/destructiondynamic” (rate of change of former =20%-30%) homes or(with “dynamic” peaks of (rate around of change 85% among > 30%). IDPs settled in Kerbala and Tooz) and one in ten damage/theft of assets (42% in Kerbala and 27% in Tooz). 4 The intentions to integrate within the host community in the long-term was reported more frequently in the three districts of Baghdad, generally 7 in According KRI and toalso MCNA, in Kerbala over one and in Kirkuk. two families settled in Falluja and Telafar reported loans/debts among main sources of income; the fi gure is one in three families in Chamchamal, Ramadi and Sinjar. 5 In stationary districts, one in two families fl ed during summer 2014 (versus one in fi ve in dynamic districts), and Kurdish Sunnis, Yazidis, Shabaks 8 and According Christians to 2018 represent Multiple one Indicator third of Clusterthe population Survey (MICS6), (versus 6%the innational dynamic fi gure districts). for female-headed households in Iraq is 9%.

1011 IOM IRAQ 11 PROTRACTED DISPLACEMENT STUDY: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN DISTRICTS OF DISPLACEMENT Table 1: IDP population and characteristics of 32 main district s displacement Total Caseload Sulaymaniyah Sulaymaniyah Sulaymaniyah Salah al-Din Salah al-Din Salah al-Din Salah al-Din Salah al-Din Qadis-siya Ninewa Ninewa Ninewa Ninewa Ninewa Ninewa Najaf Kirkuk Kirkuk Kerbala Diyala Diyala Diyala Dahuk Dahuk Dahuk Baghdad Baghdad Baghdad Babylon Anbar Anbar GOVERNORATE Sulaymaniyah Kalar Chamchamal Tooz Tikrit Samarra Balad Al-Fares Diwaniya Tilkaif Telafar Sinjar Mosul Al-Shikhan Akre Najaf Kirkuk Daquq Kerbala Kifri Khanaqin Ba'quba Zakho Sumel Dahuk Karkh Adhamia Abu Ghraib Al-Musayab Ramadi Falluja DISTRICT 209,254 13,178 3,761 1,525 4,933 7,093 5,318 1,819 1,253 1,234 2,546 1,970 4,049 30,789 3,822 5,467 1,567 14,065 1,446 2,469 1,545 1,768 3,948 9,445 14,750 6,151 4,714 1,244 1,225 2,537 931 1,577 IDP HH # OF

s OUT-OF-CAMP OUT-OF-CAMP 90% 6% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 15% 2% 3% 1% 7% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 5% 7% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% % OF IDPs

Medium Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Low POPULATION SIZE IDP RATE OF CHANGE Stationary Fairly stationary Fairly dynamic Stationary Dynamic Fairly stationary Fairly stationary Fairly stationary Fairly stationary Fairly dynamic Dynamic Stationary Stationary Fairly stationary Stationary Dynamic Fairly stationary Fairly stationary Fairly dynamic Dynamic Stationary Stationary Stationary Stationary Stationary Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Stationary Dynamic Stationary Mixed Mixed Mixed Homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Mixed Homogeneous Homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Mixed Fairly homogeneous Homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Mixed Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Mixed Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Mixed Mixed Fairly homogeneous Homogeneous Mixed Fairly homogeneous DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICTS Mixed Mixed Mixed Fairly homogeneous Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Fairly homogeneous Mixed Mixed Homogeneous Homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Mixed Mixed Homogeneous Mixed Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Mixed Mixed Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous DISPLACEMENT LENGTH OF Homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Mixed Fairly homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Fairly homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION 64 2 1 2 1 2 1 10 2 2 6 7 1 4 6 6 1 3 3 CAMPS # OF

73,191 2,747 338 935 0 73 95 32,160 324 192 2,213 1,164 149 8,975 15,743 0 0 513 6,354 IN-CAMP IDP HH # OF

s 80% 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 35% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 10% 17% 0% 0% 1% 7% IN-CAMP IDP HH % OF

12 IOM IRAQ PROTRACTED DISPLACEMENT STUDY: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN DISTRICTS OF DISPLACEMENT Table 2: Additional indicators of 32 main districts displace ment Total Sulaymaniyah Sulaymaniyah Sulaymaniyah Salah al-Din Salah al-Din Salah al-Din Salah al-Din Salah al-Din Qadissiya Ninewa Ninewa Ninewa Ninewa Ninewa Ninewa Najaf Kirkuk Kirkuk Kerbala Erbil Diyala Diyala Diyala Dahuk Dahuk Dahuk Baghdad Baghdad Baghdad Babylon Anbar Anbar GOVERNORATE Sulaymaniyah Kalar Chamchamal Tooz Tikrit Samarra Balad Al-Fares Diwaniya Tilkaif Telafar Sinjar Mosul Al-Shikhan Akre Najaf Kirkuk Daquq Kerbala Erbil Kifri Khanaqin Ba'quba Zakho Sumel Dahuk Karkh Adhamia Abu Ghraib Al-Musayab Ramadi Falluja DISTRICT 209,254 IDP HH 13,718 30,789 14,065 29,974 14,750 3,761 1,525 4,933 7,093 5,318 1,819 1,253 1,234 2,546 1,970 4,049 3,822 5,467 1,567 1,446 2,469 1,545 1,768 3,948 9,445 6,151 4,714 1,244 1,225 2,537 1,577 # OF 931

s SHORT-MEDIUM RETURN INTENTION RETURN 13% 29% 13% 16% 14% 10% 0% 2% 0% 5% 8% 7% 8% 3% 4% 1% 4% 9% 5% 3% 9% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 8% 2% 6% LONG 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 74% 99% 90% 77% 89% 53% 94% 77% 81% 95% 70% 72% 59% 90% 25% 88% 95% 67% 68% 64% 36% 78% 76% 8% 0% 0% 5% DISPLACEMENT PROTRACTED HH IN 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 61% 65% 70% 57% 95% 19% 98% 84% 52% 76% 98% 98% 60% 74% 79% 65% 96% 96% 74% 96% 98% 88% 85% 93% 21% 91% 5% MONTHLY INCOME (PER CAPITA) IN HH MEDIAN 150,000 116,667 100,000 61,111 64,286 81,666 42,857 58,571 50,000 88,750 33,333 25,000 40,000 50,000 75,000 58,333 35,182 50,000 83,333 87,500 46,428 41,667 56,250 71,429 83,333 41,667 70,000 58,333 5,278 IQD 88 18 SOURCES OF INCOME DEBTS / LOANS AMONG MAIN 19% 20% 30% 27% 13% 23% 51% 36% 14% 17% 18% 16% 20% 12% 23% 27% 26% 17% 23% 14% 31% 62% 3% 1% 0% 6% 8% 0% 2% 0% 9%

OBSTACLES TO WORK 31% 33% 17% 24% 44% 28% 10% 39% 62% 87% 33% 34% 12% 40% 32% 25% 19% 29% 10% 38% 38% 37% 10% 10% 42% 50% 5% 9% 5% 8% 8%

ONE MEMBER WITH ONE MEMBER HH s WITH AT LEAST DISABILITIES 25% 12% 27% 26% 20% 10% 23% 26% 33% 20% 14% 15% 14% 26% 18% 33% 13% 13% 10% 24% 24% 27% 21% 19% 26% 24% 9% 6% 7% 9% 4%

FHH 16% 16% 13% 12% 13% 33% 21% 17% 15% 21% 26% 18% 18% 20% 22% 11% 11% 24% 13% 13% 20% 19% 33% 21% 16% 23% 8% 5% 6% 9% 9% s MISSING CIVILMISSING DOCUMENTS 15% 14% 19% 23% 36% 14% 10% 14% 16% 8% 6% 0% 5% 9% 7% 6% 4% 3% 7% 4% 4% 2% 7% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 0% DOCUMENTS MISSING HLPMISSING 100% 100% 48% 72% 26% 76% 58% 27% 16% 84% 71% 62% 67% 55% 53% 46% 54% 14% 21% 57% 82% 68% 66% 12% 58% 21% 21% 79% 3% 8% 8% NOT IN SCHOOL CHILDREN AGED 17% 16% 21% 31% 19% 38% 31% 37% 46% 35% 15% 14% 24% 26% 39% 32% 21% 32% 12% 12% 11% 17% 11% 26% 6-11 9% 5% 8% 5% 6% 9% 6%

CRITICAL SHELTER HH IN 11% 14% 44% 41% 46% 22% 11% 15% 25% 39% 19% 15% 42% 79% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 3% 5% 5% 8% 7% 1% 1% 4% 6% 1% 1% 5% 0% 0%

13 IOM IRAQ TABLE OF CONTENTS

Anbar Governorate, Falluja 1

Babylon Governorate, Al-Musayab 2

Baghdad Governorate, Karkh 3

Dahuk Governorate

Dahuk 4

Sumel 5

Zakho 6

Diyala Governorate, Ba'quba 7

Erbil Governorate, Erbil 8

Kerbala Governorate, Kerbala 9

Kirkuk Governorate, Kirkuk 10

Ninewa Governorate

Akre 11

Al-Shikhan 12

Mosul 13

Sinjar 14

Tilkaif 15

Telafar 16

Salah al-Din Governorate

Samarra 17

Tikrit 18

Tooz 19

Sulaymaniyah Governorate

Kalar 20

Sulaymaniyah 21 DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 1

Also a main district of origin FALLUJA DISTRICT, ANBAR Factsheet available Out-of-Camp IDPs in Falluja District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

1,577 Households Medium Recipient (1% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -5% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

Homogeneous 69% Al-Musayab 29% Falluja Fairly Homogeneous 2% Ramadi Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

Homogeneous District of Number of IDPs District Boundary 91% Protracted Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 63% Apr 2015 – Mar 2016 Country Boundary Fairly Homogeneous 22% Sept 2014 – Mar 2015 15% Other Heterogeneous

IDP MOVEMENT IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION

Falluja is a “stationary” district. Only 5% of IDPs have left the Homogeneous location of displacement since May 2018 and these movements are mainly intra-district. Most of IDPs in Fallujah 100% Arab Sunni Fairly Homogeneous are from Babylon and nearly all IDPs in the district are in Heterogeneous protracted displacement. Their movements are related to the military operations that occurred in October 2014 in Babylon and to the secondary movement of IDPS from Anbar up until the spring of 2016.

IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 78 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

78% want to stay 100 100 Long Term (more than 12 months)

100% want to return

15 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 1 FALLUJA DISTRICT, ANBAR Out-of-Camp IDPs in Falluja District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 79 100 100 23 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

23% 79%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 79 100 100 3 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

79% 5,278 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 24 100 100 62 Households Where at Least One Member Has a Disability Taking on Loans or Debts

24% 62%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, returns of Al-Musayab IDPs are Households who remain in Falluja appear to be particu- still not permitted due to tribal and political issues related to larly vulnerable. These families have one of the lowest the population composition of the area. Returns to around monthly median income of all districts: IQD 5,278 (76% of 70% of locations in Falluja and around 50% of those in HHs reported a monthly family income per capita below Ramadi are also obstructed by security forces, and families 20,000 IQD) and key informants report that nearly all fami- are prevented from returning due to perceived affi liation to lies lack the funds necessary to return. Obstacles to work extremist groups. When directly assessed, families reported were reported by half of families; only 44% currently receive home destruction/damage (57%), discrimination (38%) and income through employment, 62% are taking on loans and fear/trauma (31%) as reasons not to return. debts and only 8% still rely on savings. Around one third are supported by families/friends, 13% by NGOs/charities and Key Obstacles to Return 7% by social services. Regarding housing, 79% are settled in Social Cohesion critical shelters (according to MCNA, mostly tents) and 21% are hosted by other families. Other coping strategies used House Destruction Mental Health by some IDPs are selling assistance that they have received Livelihoods and Services Security (4%) and/or household assets (2%).

These households also exhibit many other vulnerabilities: Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return one in four is headed by a female and the same share has

� � at least one member with disabilities. Nearly all (79%) are

House in Place of missing HLP documentation and 16% do not have civil docu- 57% Origin is Destroyed mentation. In addition, 21% of children under two years have � not received the Penta3 vaccine, 15% of those under ﬁ ve Discrimination 38% years have not been vaccinated against measles and 12%

� have not been vaccinated against polio; 26% of children aged 6–11 years are not attending mandatory education. Fear / Trauma 31% � � PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs Presence of Mines 20% Districts of Origin

� 3 Camps in district 33% Falluja No Money 17% 6,354 Households 31% Al-Ka'im (6.97% of total in-camp IDPs) 14% Ana -12% Rate of Change 11% Ra'ua (May – Dec 2018) 7% Ramadi

16 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 2

Also a main district of origin AL-MUSAYAB DISTRICT, BABYLON Factsheet available Out-of-Camp IDPs in Al-Musayab District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

2,537 Households Medium Recipient (1% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary +1% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

Homogeneous 99% Al-Musayab Fairly Homogeneous 1% Others Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

Homogeneous District of Number of IDPs District Boundary 100% Protracted Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 77% Jun – Jul 2014 Country Boundary Fairly Homogeneous 19% Aug 2014 4% Other Heterogeneous

IDP MOVEMENT IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION The displacement situation in the district appears to be Homogeneous "stationary": the only change assessed since May 2018 is a 97% Arab Sunni minimal increase in the number of IDPs (1%). Nearly all the 2% Turkmen Shia Fairly Homogeneous displacement occurred during two consecutive waves: 77% 1% Arab Shia Heterogeneous during June-July 2014 and 19% in August 2014.

As of December 2018, Babylon Governorate remains the IDP INTENTIONS

only governorate that has not experienced any return of 100 86 its displaced population – most of them originating from Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months) Jurf al-Shakhar and Iskandria areas. Virtually all intra-dis- 86% want to stay trict IDPs from this area are Sunni Arabs and have been

displaced for more than four years. Returns to their areas 100 95 Long Term (more than 12 months) of origin remains contingent on the security conﬁ guration

present there. 95% plan to stay

17 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 2 AL-MUSAYAB DISTRICT, BABYLON Out-of-Camp IDPs in Al-Musayab District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 0 100 100 21 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

21% 0%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 21 100 100 36 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

21% 70,000 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 11 100 100 14 Children Aged 6 – 11 Not Attending Education Taking on Loans or Debts

11% 14%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

The main reason why IDPs do not intend to return is linked The median monthly income (per capita) is 70,000 IQD. to the situation in Jurf al-Sakhar, their town of origin. The Employment is one of the main sources of income for nearly town was retaken in October 2014, and residents have not 80% of households, only 10% reported obstacles to fi nd work been allowed back due to tribal and political issues related and no families are living in critical shelters. However, 14% to the population composition of the area. As a result, mentioned debts and loans among their main sources of returns to their location of origin are neither allowed nor income. This points to the fact that families may be fi nancially safe. According to key informants, blocked returns are the exhausted by the long years of displacement (nearly all fami- top obstacle. Families also mentioned house destruction/ lies fl ed in summer 2014) and – even if some have resettled damage (55%), fear/trauma (29%), lack of money (28%) and with relatives and friends – they are hardly hosted for free discrimination (24%) as obstacles to return. but have to bear the costs of a rent (96%).

Key Obstacles to Return PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs Social Cohesion No in-camp IDPs House Destruction Mental Health

Livelihoods and Services Security

Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return � ��

House Damaged / Destroyed 55% �

Fear / Trauma 29% �

No Money 28% � �

Discrimination 24% �

No Livelihood Generating Income 16%

18 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 3 KARKH DISTRICT, BAGHDAD Out-of-Camp IDPs in Karkh District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

4,714 Households Medium Recipient (2% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -47% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

Homogeneous 38% Ramadi 14% Mosul 19% Al-Ka’im 12% Other Fairly Homogeneous 17% Falluja Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

District of Number of IDPs District Boundary 88% Protracted Homogeneous Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 23% Jun – Jul 2014 Country Boundary 25% Apr 2015 – Mar 2016 Fairly Homogeneous 17% Sept 2014 – Apr 2015 15% Pre-Jun 2014 20% Other Heterogeneous IDP MOVEMENT

The IDPs' initial displacements can be mainly linked to the ﬁ rst major movement of people from Anbar and successive IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION

waves of displacement during the retaking of that governo- Homogeneous rate from ISIL, including continuing displacement movements 94% Arab Sunni of Anbar IDPs. Karkh can be considered a “dynamic” district 4% Turkmen Shia Fairly Homogeneous 2% Arab Shia as the situation of IDPs has changed a lot. Since the spring Heterogeneous of 2018 nearly half of IDPs have moved out – especially those from Al-Ka’im, Mosul and Telafar.

IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 64 According to both key informants and families, destruction of Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months) former residence, together with lack of money and employ- 64% want to stay ment/livelihood prospects at the location of origin are the top

three obstacles to return. Consequently, the loss of “everything 100 64 Long Term (more than 12 months) back home” coupled with better services in displacement are the main reasons to stay – often in addition to the lack of 64% plan to stay money to pay for the return trip and, to a lesser extent, the presence of relatives/friends who also relocated in Karkh.

19 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 3 KARKH DISTRICT, BAGHDAD Out-of-Camp IDPs in Karkh District

VULNERABILITIES 1 100 100 100 100 20 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

20% 1%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 8 100 100 50 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

8% 100,000 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 17 100 100 100 100 21 Households withWhere More at Least Than OneTwo Memberor Three Has Dependents a Disability Taking on Loans or Debts

21% 17%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, house destruction/damage, Living conditions seem better than average: the median lack of employment opportunities at their location of origin monthly income is IQD 100,000, around 40% are hosted and lack of funds are the top three obstacles to return. by other families, there are few obstacles to work (8%) and During household surveys, families also reported house employment is one of the main sources of income for 90% of destruction/damage (63%), no money (49%) and no liveli- households. Less than 20% are borrowing money or buying hood-generating income (28%) as obstacles to return. on credit and 15% are supported by family/friends.

Key Obstacles to Return Overall, there was a lower share of households with speciﬁ c vulnerabilities/concerns. Nevertheless, 20% of households Social Cohesion are female headed and 21% have at least one member House Destruction Mental Health with disabilities.

Livelihoods and Services Security PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs

Districts of Origin Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return 0 Camps All IDPs left camps in district � ��

House Damaged / 63% Destroyed 0 Households � (0% of total in-camp IDPs)

No Money 49%

� -100% Rate of Change No Livelihood (May – Dec 2018) Generating Income 28% � �

Living Conditions Better in Displacement 20% �

Assets Stolen / Damaged 16%

20 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 4 DAHUK DISTRICT, DAHUK Out-of-Camp IDPs in Dahuk District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

6,151 Households Medium Recipient (3% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -7% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

Homogeneous 50% Mosul 30% Sinjar Fairly Homogeneous 20% Other Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

Homogeneous District of Number of IDPs District Boundary 98% Protracted Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 51% Aug 2014 Fairly Homogeneous Country Boundary 46% Jun – Jul 2014

3% Other Heterogeneous

IDP MOVEMENT IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION

Dahuk appears to have a "stationary" population, as only 7% 59% Kurdish Sunni Homogeneous of IDPs have moved out since the spring of 2018 – mostly 18% Arab Sunni Fairly Homogeneous from Al-Hamdaniya and a few from Mosul and Sinjar. 11% Yazidi 12% Other Heterogeneous IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 76 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

76% want to stay 100 100 65 Long Term (more than 12 months)

64% want to return

21 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 4 DAHUK DISTRICT, DAHUK Out-of-Camp IDPs in Dahuk District

VULNERABILITIES 6 100 100 100 100 13 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

13% 6%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 66 100 100 36 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

66% 71,429 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 37 100 100 27 Reporting Obstacles to Employment Households with at Least One Disabled Member

37% 27%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

The top three obstacles to return reported by both key Living conditions in Dahuk are slightly better than in other informants and families were: widespread destruction districts: access to education is very high (only 6% of children of former homes, fear/trauma and lack of security at the aged 6–11 years are not attending school) and the median location of origin. Around 35% of families also mentioned monthly income per capita is above average at IQD 71,429. discrimination and 27% the presence of mines. Resettling However, the cost of living in KRI is high – 88% of households in the district has been supported by incentives provided by are living in rented housing and shelter (rent and utilities) was government authorities. reported as the primary reason to take on debts. Moreover, access to employment is diffi cult: around 40% of house- Key Obstacles to Return holds reported that at least one member faced obstacles to Social Cohesion ﬁ nd work. As a result, families struggle to sustain expenses and 26% of households are taking on loans/debts, 23% are House Destruction Mental Health supported by family/friends, 15% are spending their savings Livelihoods and Services Security and 4% are selling household assets.

Another source for concern is the high percentage of house- Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return holds with at least one family member with disabilities (27% versus an overall average of 19%). It should also be noted � � � that 66% of households are missing HLP documents and Lack of Security Forces 41% 14% have no civil documentation (the national averages are

� 50% and 8% respectively). House Damaged / Destroyed 37% PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs �

Fear / Trauma 34% No in-camp IDPs �

Discrimination 34% �

Presence of Mines 27%

22 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 5 SUMEL DISTRICT, DAHUK Out-of-Camp IDPs in Sumel District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

14,750 Households Medium Recipient (7% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -7% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

Homogeneous 50% Sinjar 5% Telafar 31% Mosul 4% Tilkaif Fairly Homogeneous 10% Al-Ba'aj Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

Homogeneous District of Number of IDPs District Boundary 96% Protracted Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 68% Aug 2014 Country Boundary Fairly Homogeneous 28% Jun – Jul 2014 4% Post-Jul 2017 Heterogeneous

IDP MOVEMENT IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION The situation in the district can be deﬁ ned as "stationary". Homogeneous Only 7% of IDPs have left since the spring of 2018 including 56% Yazidi 33% Kurdish Sunni all of the families originally from Al-Hamdaniya, half of those Fairly Homogeneous 9% Arab Sunni from Telafar and one quarter of those from Al-Ba’aj. However, 2% Christian families from Al-Ba’aj have presumably not returned home Heterogeneous but moved to other areas of Sinjar, where they can enjoy a safer security situation.

IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 68 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

68% want to stay 100 100 67 Long Term (more than 12 months)

67% want to return

23 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 5 SUMEL DISTRICT, DAHUK Out-of-Camp IDPs in Sumel District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 42 100 100 13 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

13% 42%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 68 100 100 28 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

68% 56,250 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 38 100 100 27 Reporting Obstacles to Employment Taking on Loans or Debts

38% 27%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

The ﬁ ndings regarding key obstacles to return are related The median monthly income per capita is IQD 56,250, to the ethno-religious affi liation of IDPs. The district hosts obstacles to work are widespread (reported by 38% of house- Yazidis (56%), Kurdish Sunnis (33%), Arab Sunnis (9%) and holds), 27% of families are taking on loans/debts and 42% Christians (2%). According to key informants, the main obsta- live in critical shelters. On the other hand, access to educa- cles to return are “fear linked to the changed ethno-religious tion seems good – only 6% of children aged 6–11 years are composition at the place of origin”, house destruction/ not attending school. damage and fear of losing humanitarian assistance. When Another source for concern is the high percentage of house- directly assessed, families mainly reported house damage holds that lack HLP documentation (68% versus an overall (46%), lack of security forces at the location of origin (42%) average of 50%), which is linked to the high share of IDPs orig- and fear/trauma (34%). inally from Sinjar, an area which has a documented history of Key Obstacles to Return property rights issues. Around 10% of families also reported that they did not have any civil documentation. Households Social Cohesion in Sumel were also slightly more likely to report the presence House Destruction Mental Health of family members with disabilities (24% versus 19% overall).

Livelihoods and Services Security PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs

Districts of Origin Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return 6 Camps 83% Sinjar � � � in district

House Damaged / Destroyed 46% 16% Al-Ba'aj 15,743 Households � (17.26% of total in-camp IDPs) 1% Telafar Lack Of Security Forces 42%

� 1% Rate of Change (May – Dec 2018) Fear / Trauma 34% � �

No Livelihood Generating Income 29% �

Discrimination 26%

24 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 6 ZAKHO DISTRICT, DAHUK Out-of-Camp IDPs in Zakho District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

9,445 Households Medium Recipient (5% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -2% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

43% Sinjar Homogeneous 30% Telafar Fairly Homogeneous 26% Mosul 1% Tilkaif Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

District of Number of IDPs District Boundary Displacement per districts of origin Homogeneous Governorate Boundary 74% Protracted Country Boundary 50% Aug 2014 26% Post-Jul 2017 Fairly Homogeneous 22% Jun – Jul 2014 2% Post-Apr 2015 Heterogeneous IDP MOVEMENT

Only 2% of IDPs have moved out since the spring of 2018 IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION and there have only been small changes to the composition of IDPs. All IDPs from Al Ba’aj have left, presumably 73% Kurdish Sunni Homogeneous embarking on secondary displacement as return to Al Ba’aj 18% Yazidi is very diffi cult. It is highly likely that families originally from 4% Arab Sunni Fairly Homogeneous Al-Ba’aj are moving to other areas of Sinjar, where they can 4% Christian enjoy a safer security situation, instead of returning to their 1% Turkmen Sunni Heterogeneous location of origin.

IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 87 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

87% want to stay 100 100 67 Long Term (more than 12 months)

67% want to return

25 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 6 ZAKHO DISTRICT, DAHUK Out-of-Camp IDPs in Zakho District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 15 100 100 9 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

9% 15%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 82 100 100 20 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

82% 41,667 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 20 100 100 30 Taking on Loans or Debts Reporting Obstacles to Employment

23% 38%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, the destruction of former The living conditions of IDPs in Zakho appear to be worse residences, “fear linked to the changed ethno-religious compo- compared to other districts and also to other IDPs settled sition” and lack of security at the place of origin are the main in Dahuk. The median monthly income per capita is 41,667 obstacles to return. There is also evidence that returns to IQD and employment revenues seem insuffi cient as 23% of around 40% of locations in Telafar are being obstructed, 15% households are taking on loans/debts and 11% are spending of those in Mosul and 15% of those in Sinjar – the three main their savings. There are frequent barriers to employment: districts of origin of IDPs in Zakho. When directly assessed, over in 38% of households at least one family member reported 80% of families reported that they lacked HLP documentation, obstacles to ﬁ nd work. Families also reported sale of house- while nearly 60% stated the lack of security forces at origin as hold assets (2%) and illegal or socially degrading activities one of the main obstacles to their return. (1%) among main income sources, two options that were hardly reported in other districts. Moreover, 15% of house- Key Obstacles to Return holds are settled in critical shelters; however, families do not Social Cohesion seem at risk of eviction.

House Destruction Mental Health In general, access to education is good (around 90% of chil-

Livelihoods and Services Security dren aged 6–11 years are attending school). One of the main vulnerabilities is the high share of households with at least one family member with a disability (24% versus 19% overall). Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs � �

Districts of Origin Lack of Security Forces 58% 4 Camps � in district 82% Sinjar Basic Services Not Functioning 32% 17% Al-Ba'aj � 8,975 Households House Damaged / (9.84 % of total in-camp IDPs) 1% Mosul Destroyed 28% � � -1% Rate of Change Fear / Trauma 27% (May – Dec 2018) �

Discrimination 20%

26 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 7 BA’QUBA DISTRICT, DIYALA Out-of-Camp IDPs in Ba’quba District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

3,948 Households Medium Recipient (2% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -4% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

50% Khanaqin Homogeneous 27% Al-Muqdadiya Fairly Homogeneous 12% Al-Khalis 11% Other Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

District of Number of IDPs District Boundary Displacement per districts of origin Homogeneous Governorate Boundary 96% Protracted Country Boundary 72% Sept 2014 – Apr 2015 Fairly Homogeneous 14% Aug 2014 14% Other Heterogeneous IDP MOVEMENT

The population movement can be defined as "fairly IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION stationary". Only 4% of IDPs have left since May 2018, mainly families from Khanaqin and Tikrit, while the number of IDPs Homogeneous 92% Arab Sunni from Al-Khalis and Al-Muqdadiya have increased. Nearly all Fairly Homogeneous households live in protracted displacement (96% ﬂ ed before 8% Arab Shia April 2015). Heterogeneous

IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 99 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

99% want to stay 100 100 95 Long Term (more than 12 months)

95% want to return

27 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 7 BA’QUBA DISTRICT, DIYALA Out-of-Camp IDPs in Ba’quba District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 4 100 100 24 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

24% 4%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 57 100 100 23 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

57% 46,429 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 32 100 100 54 Children Aged 6 – 11 Not Attending Education Relying on Savings

32% 54%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, returns to the main locations of The living conditions of displaced families in the district are very origin are obstructed, due to tribal confl ict at the location of poor: the median monthly income per capita is IQD 46,429; origin (mainly Al-Muqdadiya district and Saadiya and Jalawla nearly 55% of households are relying on their savings and sub-districts) as well as security clearance issues. Other top 12% taking on loans or debts to supplement the revenues obstacles to return reported by key informants include house from employment – one of the main sources of income for destruction/damage and lack of employment opportunities 79% of HHs. Displaced families also reported a very low at origin (80% for both). When directly assessed, 80% of fami- access to education (32% of children aged 6–11 years are lies mentioned fear/trauma as a key obstacle to return. not attending mandatory education). These fi ndings refl ect the poor public service provision in Diyala compared to other Key Obstacles to Return governorates. In addition, 57% of households are missing Social Cohesion HLP documentation, 24% are headed by women and females are over-represented in Ba’quba as they account for 55% of House Destruction Mental Health the population (vs. 49% overall) Livelihoods and Services Security PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs

Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return Districts of Origin 1 Camp � �� in district 68% Khanaqin Fear / Trauma 80% 20% Al-

� 149 Households Muqdadiya (0.16% of total in-camp IDPs) 7% Al-Khalis No Money 13% � -14% Rate of Change 3% Baiji Discrimination 12% (May – Dec 2018) ��

Lack of Security Forces 11%

Living Conditions Better In Displacement 8%

28 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 8 ERBIL DISTRICT, ERBIL Out-of-Camp IDPs in Erbil District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

29,974 Households Medium Recipient (14% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -8% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

Homogeneous 37% Mosul 6% Kirkuk 24% Ramadi 7% Tikrit Fairly homogeneous 8% Falluja 18% Other Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

District of Number of IDPs District Boundary 79% Protracted Homogeneous Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 37% Jun – Jul 2014 Country Boundary 17% Apr 2015 – Mar 2016 Fairly Homogeneous 15% Pre-Jun 2014 11% Oct 2016 – Jul 2017 20% Other Heterogeneous IDP MOVEMENT

Population movements in the district can be deﬁ ned as "stationary": only 8% of IDPs have moved out since May 2018, IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION

mainly IDPs originally from Kirkuk but also some families Homogeneous from Anbar. 83% Arab Sunni 13% Kurdish Sunni Fairly Homogeneous 3% Christian IDP INTENTIONS Heterogeneous 100 100 83 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

83% want to stay 100 100 90 Long Term (more than 12 months)

90% want to return

29 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 8 ERBIL DISTRICT, ERBIL Out-of-Camp IDPs in Erbil District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 1 100 100 11 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

11% 1%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 14 100 100 60 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

14% 116,667 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 20 100 100 32 Children Aged 6–11 Not Attending School Taking on Loans or Debts

32% 20%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

Delayed returns result from many interconnected reasons. The median monthly income per capita in Erbil District is the In general, like other districts in KRI, families are staying second highest of all districts: IQD 116,667. Nevertheless in because they can enjoy better living conditions in displace- around 40% of households at least one member reported ment than at home. Three quarters have had their home obstacles to ﬁ nd work. There are also high living costs, destroyed/damaged (73%), 46% still perceive their home particularly as 88% of households are living in rented accom- location as “not safe” due to the lack of security forces, 39% modation. As a result, 20% of households are taking on loans as lacking employment or livelihood opportunities and 38% and debts, 22% are relying on savings and 15% receive assis- reported fear/trauma. In addition, key informants noted that tance from relatives/friends. This can have an impact on their many IDPs in Erbil still rely on humanitarian assistance (and ability to access education (32% of children aged 6–11 years are afraid to lose it). are not attending mandatory education).

Key Obstacles to Return PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs Social Cohesion Districts of Origin House Destruction Mental Health 4 Camps in district 42% Al-Ba'aj Livelihoods and Services Security 28% Mosul 1,216 Households Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return (1.33% of total in-camp IDPs) 14% Sinjar � � �� -23% Rate of Change 8% Al-Hamdaniya House Damaged / Destroyed 73% (May – Dec 2018) 4% Telafar

Lack of Security 46% Forces � �

No Livelihood Generating Income 39% � �

Fear / Trauma 38% �

No Money 16%

30 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 9 KERBALA DISTRICT, KERBALA Out-of-Camp IDPs in Kerbala District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN OUT-OF-CAMP IDP CASELOAD

Low Recipient

2,469 Households Medium Recipient (1% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -21% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

63% Telafar Homogeneous 13% Al-Hamdaniya Fairly Homogeneous 9% Tilkaif 15% Other Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

District of Number of IDPs District Boundary Displacement per districts of origin Homogeneous Governorate Boundary 100% Protracted Country Boundary 89% Jun – Jul 2014 Fairly Homogeneous 9% Pre-Jun 2016 2% Aug 2014 Heterogeneous

IDP MOVEMENT IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION Kerbala can be considered as a "fairly dynamic” district. One in ﬁ ve families have left the district since the spring of 70% Turkmen Shia Homogeneous 2018: all of the households originally from Al-Shikhan, and 15% Shabak Shia between 15% and 50% of those from Dabes, Mosul and 8% Arab Shia Fairly Homogeneous Telafar. All IDPs are in a situation of protracted displacement, 4% Turkmen Sunni with most of them (90%) having ﬂ ed in June and July 2014. 3% Arab Sunni Heterogeneous Accordingly, their movements can be mainly linked with the initial advance of ISIL into Ninewa.

IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 78 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

78% want to stay 100 100 58 Long Term (more than 12 months)

58% want to return

31 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 9 KERBALA DISTRICT, KERBALA Out-of-Camp IDPs in Kerbala District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 7 100 100 22 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

22% 7%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 100 100 26 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

100% 50,000 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 33 100 100 25 Households Where at Least One Member Has a Disability At Risk of Eviction

33% 25%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, the top three obstacles to Families wishing to permanently relocate consider Kerbala return are destruction/damage of former residence, and as a safe location, and in most cases, they can also benefi t lack of funds and economic prospects at origin. When directly from the presence of relatives/friends who moved with assessed, households confi rmed the loss of their former them. These IDPs may have chosen to displace into Kerbala house and assets (86% and 42% respectively) together with because the host community is predominantly Shia. Only the poor situation at the location the origin (around 20% 10% of households mentioned the availability of housing reported the lack of services and the same share the lack of and jobs. Living conditions of IDPs seem worse than the employment/livelihood opportunities) as obstacles to return. average: the median monthly income per capita is quite low (IQD 50,000) and obstacles to work were also reported by Key Obstacles to Return around one in fi ve families (19%). Only 64% of households Social Cohesion can count on employment as one of their main sources of income and as many as 46% of households are receiving House Destruction Mental Health support by family/friends. This puts these families at high risk Livelihoods and Services Security of eviction, a major concern of 25% of households.

The district also hosts a high share of households reporting Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return vulnerable members: 33% have at least one member of their

� �� family with disabilities and 22% are female-headed. In addi-

House Damaged / tion, all families are missing HLP documents. Destroyed 86% � PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs Assets Stolen / 42% Damaged No in-camp IDPs �

Basic Services Not Functioning 23% � �

No Livelihood 20% Generating Income �

Living Conditions Better in Displacement 19%

32 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 10

Also a main district of origin KIRKUK DISTRICT, KIRKUK Factsheet available Out-of-Camp IDPs in Kirkuk District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

14,065 Households Medium Recipient (7% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -18% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

Homogeneous 45% Al-Hawiga 9% Mosul 13% Tooz 22% Other Fairly Homogeneous 11% Kirkuk Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

District of Number of IDPs District Boundary 60% Protracted Displacement per districts of origin Homogeneous Governorate Boundary 19% Sept 2014 – Apr 2015 Country Boundary 18% Apr 2015 – Mar 2016 16% Oct 2016 – Jul 2017 Fairly Homogeneous 13% Post-Mar 2016 12% Jun – Jul 2014 IDP MOVEMENT 11% Post-Jul 2017 Heterogeneous 11% Other The situation can be deﬁ ned as "fairly stationary": 18% of IDPs have moved out since May 2018, mostly families from Baiji, Daquq and Al-Muqdadiya. Most of these IDPs origi- IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION nally displaced between September 2014 and March 2016. An additional 16% left due to movements along the Mosul 88% Arab Sunni Homogeneous corridor and 11% displaced during the change in the security 6% Turkmen Sunni Fairly Homogeneous and administration conﬁ guration in the disputed territories. 4% Turkmen Shia 2% Arab Shia Heterogeneous IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 61 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

61% want to stay 100 100 70 Long Term (more than 12 months)

70% want to return

33 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 10 KIRKUK DISTRICT, KIRKUK Out-of-Camp IDPs in Kirkuk District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 8 100 100 18 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

18% 8%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 46 100 100 27 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

46% 58,333 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 26 100 100 26 Children Aged 6 – 11 Not Attending Education Households with at Least One Disabled Member

26% 26%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, security issues in the location Living conditions of displaced families in the district are diffi - of origin and destruction/damage of former homes are the cult. Although nearly 90% of households rely on employment main obstacles to return. When directly assessed, families as one of their main sources of revenue, their median monthly mainly reported house destruction/damage (57%), fear/ income per capita is only IQD 58,333. Moreover, obstacles to trauma (49%) and the presence of mines in their location of work were reported by around one third of families. origin (33%). Another issue may be the lack of documents: The low median income may indicate that much of of this 46% of households are missing HLP documents and 14% income is generated by minors who are working. This hypoth- civil documentation. esis is conﬁ rmed by the high share of children and adolescents Key Obstacles to Return aged 12–14 and 15–17 years who are not attending formal education (32% and 61% respectively). Nearly one in ﬁ ve Social Cohesion families is female-headed, one in four has a family member House Destruction Mental Health with disabilities and one in three has more than two to three

Livelihoods and Services Security dependents. Finally, 10% of children aged 0–5 years have not been vaccinated against measles and polio.

Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs

� � No in-camp IDPs House Damaged / Destroyed 57% �

Fear / Trauma 49% �

Presence of Mines 33% �

Living Conditions Better in Displacement 14% �

Assets Stolen / Damaged 14%

34 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 11 AKRE DISTRICT, NINEWA1 Out-of-Camp IDPs in Akre District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

5,467 Households Medium Recipient (3% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -5% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

Homogeneous 83% Mosul 12% Al-Hamdaniya Fairly Homogeneous 5% Other Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

Homogeneous District of Number of IDPs District Boundary 98% Protracted Displ acement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 55% Jun – Jul 2014 Country Boundary Fairly Homogeneous 43% Aug 2014 2% Other Heterogeneous

IDP MOVEMENT IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION The district can be deﬁ ned as having a "stationary" popula- Homogeneous tion as only 5% of IDPs have left since the spring of 2018. 64% Kurdish Sunni 21% Shabak Sunni However, the composition of IDPs has changed. Families Fairly Homogeneous 13% Shabak Shia originally from Sinjar, Telafar, Tilkaif and Hatra have mostly 2% Christian moved out, those from Al-Hamdaniya have stayed, while there Heterogeneous has been an increase in the number of IDPs from Mosul and they now account for over 80% of all IDPs. Delayed returns are strongly linked to the wave of ISIL-related violence in the summer of 2014 (when nearly all IDPs ﬂ ed).

IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 76 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

76% want to stay 100 100 81 Long Term (more than 12 months)

81% want to return

1 The information contained in this report is for general information purposes only. Names and boundaries on DTM information products do not imply oﬃ cial endorsement or acceptance by IOM.

35 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 11 AKRE DISTRICT, NINEWA Out-of-Camp IDPs in Akre District

VULNERABILITIES 5 100 100 100 100 26 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

26% 5%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 55 100 100 38 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

55% 75,000 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 61 100 100 33 Children Aged 15 – 17 Not Attending Education Households with More Than Two or Three Dependents

61% 33%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, fear due to the changed The living conditions of IDPs in Akre appear to be better than ethno-religious composition and lack of security/safety in average. The median monthly income per capita is IQD 75,000, their place of origin are among the top three obstacles to in 84% of households one of the primary sources of income return, together with home destruction/damage. During is from employment and obstacles to ﬁ nd work are not household surveys, families mentioned fear/trauma, lack of common (12%). Only 5% of households are currently settled security forces at the location of origin and the presence in critical shelters, while 79% live in rented accommodation of mines (65%, 65% and 30%) as other obstacles to return. (with a long-term rental agreement).

Key Obstacles to Return Nevertheless, IDPs in Akre still display a number of vulnerabilities. The lack of HLP documentation appears to be one Social Cohesion of the most important, aﬀ ecting 55% of households. There House Destruction Mental Health is a greater-than-average number of female-headed house-

Livelihoods and Services Security holds (26%) and, accordingly, of households reporting more than two to three dependents (33%). This ﬁ nding has another important consequence that may explain the high share of Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return income from employment: as much as 29% of children aged

� � � 12–14 years and 61% of those aged 15–17 years are not enrolled in formal education. Fear / Trauma 65%

� PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs Lack of Security Forces 65% Districts of Origin

� 2 Camps in district 94% Mosul Presence of Mines 30%

� � 6% Tilkaif House Damaged / 324 Households Destroyed 27% (0.36% of total in-camp IDPs) �

Discrimination 25% -4% Rate of Change (May – Dec 2018)

36 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 12 AL-SHIKHAN DISTRICT, NINEWA1 Out-of-Camp IDPs in Al-Shikhan District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

3,822 Households Medium Recipient (2% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -11% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

Homogeneous 60% Mosul 33% Sinjar Fairly Homogeneous 7% Other Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

Homogeneous District of Number of IDPs District Boundary 98% Protracted Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 62% Aug 2014 Country Boundary Fairly Homogeneous 36% Jun – Jul 2014 2% Post-Jul 2017 Heterogeneous

IDP MOVEMENT IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION In terms of IDP movement, the situation in the district is "fairly stationary": 11% of IDPs have left since May 2018, 38% Yazidi Homogeneous 32% Kurdish mainly those originally from the disputed districts of Tilkaif (16% Sunni 16% Shia) and Al-Hamdaniya. Families from Sinjar have mostly stayed, Fairly Homogeneous 21% Shabak while the number of IDPs from Mosul has increased (+25%, (14% Sunni 7% Shia) 439 households) and they now represent the main group. 9% Other Heterogeneous

IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 99 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

99% want to stay 100 100 80 Long Term (more than 12 months)

80% want to return

1 The information contained in this report is for general information purposes only. Names and boundaries on DTM information products do not imply oﬃ cial endorsement or acceptance by IOM.

37 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 12 AL-SHIKHAN DISTRICT, NINEWA Out-of-Camp IDPs in Al-Shikhan District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 25 100 100 6 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

6% 25%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 67 100 100 25 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

67% 50,000 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 17 100 100 34 Taking on Loans or Debts Reporting Obstacles to Employment

17% 34%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, lack of security and fear due to The impact of protracted displacement is refl ected in living the changed ethno-religious composition at their location of conditions of IDPs: the median monthly income per capita origin are the major obstacles to return, together with house is IQD 50,000. Even though 85% of households cite employ- destruction/damage. During household assessments, families ment as one of their main income sources, obstacles to fi nd mentioned the lack of security and fear/trauma (53% and 41%) work are widespread (reported by 34% of households). In and then lack of livelihood, lack of basic services, presence fact, nearly 20% of households are relying on their savings of mines, and discrimination (around 25% each) as obstacles and another 20% are taking on loans or debts. It is also to return. Nearly 70% of households are missing HLP docu- important to note that one in four families currently live in ments and 24% have had their former residence destroyed. critical shelters. This high percentage of IDPs missing HLP documentation may be because Yazidis make up the largest segment of IDPs in the PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs district and in general did not have HLP documentation before Districts of Origin the confl ict due to long-standing discrimination. 5 Camps in district 75% Sinjar Key Obstacles to Return

Social Cohesion 24% Al-Ba'aj 5,273 Households House Destruction Mental Health (6% of total in-camp IDPs) 2% Mosul

Livelihoods and Services Security 3% Rate of Change (May – Dec 2018) Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return � ��

Lack of Security Forces 53% � �

Fear / Trauma 41% � �

No Livelihood Generating Income 27% � �

House Damaged / Destroyed 24% � �

Presence of Mines 22%

38 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 13

Also a main district of origin MOSUL DISTRICT, NINEWA Factsheet available Out-of-Camp IDPs in Mosul District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

30,789 Households Medium Recipient (15% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -8% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

93% Mosul .Homogeneous 3% Sinjar Fairly Homogeneous Dahuk 2% Telafar MOSUL 2% Al-Ba’aj IDPs DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN Heterogeneous

Telafar Number of IDPs per districts of origin

82 IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT 600 - 616 Sinjar 617 - 924 Erbil Mosul Homogeneous District of 28,634 Number of IDPs District Boundary Ninewa Displacement per districts of origin 5% Protracted Governorate Boundary Fairly Homogeneous Country Boundary 94% Oct 2016 – July 2017 Al-Ba'aj 6% Other District of displacement SulaymaniyahHeterogeneous

District Boundary Kirkuk Governorate Boundary IDP MOVEMENTCountry Boundary IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION DTM Round 107 (Nov- Dec 2018) Administrative Boundaries : OCHA (Modi ed) The situation in Mosul can be deﬁ ned as "stationary": only 0 55 110 Homogeneous Kilometers 8% of IDPs have left since May 2018. While there are returns, 99% ArabTikrit Sunni Fairly Homogeneous IOM IRAQ DTM Salah Al-Din these are only to the eastern part of the city, whichAnbar was 1% Turkmen Sunni Diyala This map is for illustration purpose only. The boundar- Heterogeneous the ﬁ rst area to be retaken from ISIL (January 2017). The ies and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply ocial endoresement or acceptance by the International Organization for Migration

eastern Created neighbourhoods by Riju Stephen ([email protected]) ) of Mosul City host more than Date of creation 03/04/2019 half of the IDPs in the district, with the remaining located

mainly in the other side of the city. Very few IDPs are in the IDP100 62 INTENTIONS more rural subdistricts of Mosul.The physical consequences Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

of the confl ict in the city, especially in the western neigh- 62% want to stay bourhoods, triggered a signifi cant intra-city displacement towards the eastern side, which suff ered to a lesser extent 100 94 Long Term (more than 12 months) the destruction of housing and public infrastructure. In addition, Mosul District includes a very extended area consisting 94% want to return of the subdistricts of Hamam al-Aleel, Shoura, Muhalabiya, Qayyara, and Bashiqa. Displacement from these areas has been signifi cant, with many returns still pending.

39 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 13 MOSUL DISTRICT, NINEWA Out-of-Camp IDPs in Mosul District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 3 100 100 25 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

21% 3%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 62 100 100 40 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

62% 40,000 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 17 100 100 35 Children Aged 6 – 11 Not Attending School At Risk of Eviction

35% 17%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to both key informants and families, the wide- Living conditions are difficult in Mosul. Families have a spread home destruction/damage, coupled with the lack median monthly income per capita of IQD 40,000, 5% of HHs of employment/livelihood opportunities and services at the reporting a monthly family income per capita below 20,000 location of origin, are the main obstacles to return. More than IQD. Barriers to employment are common: in one third of 40% of families also reported lack of money as an obstacle. households at least one family member reported obstacles to ﬁ nd work. As a result, 14% of families are taking on loans Key Obstacles to Return and debts and 17% are at risk of evictions. Over 60% are also Social Cohesion missing HLP documents.

House Destruction Mental Health About 35% of children aged 6–11 years are not attending

Livelihoods and Services Security mandatory education. Around 20% of households exhibit one vulnerability: either they are female headed, have one family member with disabilities, or have more than two or Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return three dependents. � � �

House Damaged / PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs Destroyed 62% Districts of Origin � 10 Camps No Money 42% in district 28% Mosul � 23% Hatra No Livelihood Generating Income 30% 32160 Households (35.26% of total in-camp IDPs) � � 14% Al-Ba'aj

Assets Stolen / 19% Damaged -5% Rate of Change 10% Al-Shirqat � (May – Dec 2018) 10% Telafar Discrimination 14%

40 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 14

Also a main district of origin SINJAR DISTRICT, NINEWA Factsheet available Out-of-Camp IDPs in Sinjar District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

4,049 Households Medium Recipient (2% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary +5% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

Homogeneous 61% Sinjar Fairly Homogeneous 39% Al-Ba’aj Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

Homogeneous District of Number of IDPs District Boundary Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 100% Protracted Fairly Homogeneous Country Boundary 100% Aug 2014 Heterogeneous

IDP MOVEMENT IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION

The situation in Sinjar can be defined as "fairly stationary": Homogeneous the number of IDPs has slightly increased (+5%) since the 100% Yazidi Fairly Homogeneous spring of 2018; however, the composition of the displaced population has changed. Around one third of IDPs from Heterogeneous Sinjar have left the location of displacement, while those originally from Al-Ba’aj have arrived from other places of IDP INTENTIONS displacement but have not yet returned to their locations 100 86 of origin. Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

All IDPs in Sinjar district are Yazidi and have been displaced 86% undecided for more than four years. More than half of them are 100 100 53 currently displaced in several locations within Sinuni subdis- Long Term (more than 12 months) tricts, with other relevant pockets in Sinjar Mountain and 53% want to return Sinjar Centre. Returns in the southern parts of the district, in Sinjar Centre and Qairawan subdistrict, remain very low due to security concerns and the lack of reconciliation eﬀ orts between the tribes.

41 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 14 SINJAR DISTRICT, NINEWA Out-of-Camp IDPs in Sinjar District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 15 100 100 15 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

15% 15%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 100 100 13 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

100% 24,698 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 33 100 100 23 Households Where at Least One Member Has a Disability Missing Civil Documentation

33% 23%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, the main obstacles to the IDPs' Living conditions in Sinjar are very poor. Families have one of return are lack of security forces and house destruction/ the lowest median monthly incomes per capita of all districts damage. When directly assessed, families conﬁ rmed these (IQD 24,698), 61% of HHs reported a monthly family income ﬁ ndings with 70% of households reporting the presence per capita below 20,000 IQD. Barriers to employment were of mines and 58% house destruction. Around half of fami- reported by nearly all families (87%), only 55% generate lies also mentioned fear/trauma as an obstacle to return. income through employment, 36% are taking on loans and/or Among families willing to locally resettle (14% in the long debts and 15% are living in critical shelters. However, these term), security and common ethno-religious affi liation of the families receive support: 85% are hosted by other families, host community are the main pull factors. 12% receive money from relatives/friends, 6% from NGOs/ charities and 3% from social services. Key Obstacles to Return It is also important to note that all families are missing HLP Social Cohesion documentation (and one in four are missing civil documents). House Destruction Mental Health This is a widespread issue in Sinjar, well known and previ-

Livelihoods and Services Security ously documented. These households are also more likely to have family members with disabilities (33% versus an overall average of 19%). As many as 46% of children aged 6–11 years Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return are not attending mandatory education. According to key

� �� informants, at the time of the assessment, many schools in Sinjar were not open due to damage/destruction. Presence of Mines 70%

� PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs House Damaged/ 58% Destroyed No in-camp IDPs �

Fear/Trauma 48% �

Basic Services Not Functioning 24% �

Lack of Security Forces 23%

42 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 15

Also a main district of origin TELAFAR DISTRICT, NINEWA Factsheet available Out-of-Camp IDPs in Telafar District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

1,970 Households Medium Recipient (1% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -36% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

Homogeneous 47% Telafar 4% Hatra 41% Sinjar 1% Al-Ba'aj Fairly Homogeneous 7% Mosul Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

District of Number of IDPs District Boundary 76% Protracted Homogeneous Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 35% Sept 2014 – Apr 2015 Country Boundary 35% Apr 2015 – Mar 2016 Fairly Homogeneous 24% Jul 2017 6% Aug 2018 Heterogeneous

IDP MOVEMENT

The population movement in the district is "dynamic" and IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION

blocked returns (one of the main obstacle to return according Homogeneous to key informants in the spring of 2018) are becoming less of 88% Arab Sunni an issue. One third of families have moved out since the spring 10% Kurdish Sunni Fairly Homogeneous 2% Turkmen Sunni of 2018: over 80% of IDPs from Al-Ba’aj, over 60% of those from Heterogeneous Mosul, 40% of those from Telafar and around 20% of those from Sinjar. It should nonetheless be noted that these movements do not necessarily mean that families have returned IDP INTENTIONS

to their location of origin – it is highly likely that families from 100 62 Al-Ba’aj and from west Mosul have embarked on continued Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

displacement (as returns to these areas are very compli- 62% undecided cated). In addition, according to key informants, returns to the 100 100 89 western side of Rabbia and Ayadhiya subdistricts (in Telafar Long Term (more than 12 months) District) remain subjected to restrictions due to community tensions, particularly related to the alleged participation of 89% want to return some members of these tribes in the violations against the neighbouring Yazidi population.

43 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 15 TELAFAR DISTRICT, NINEWA Out-of-Camp IDPs in Telafar District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 11 100 100 17 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

17% 11%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 71 100 100 13 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

71% 25,000 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 37 100 100 51 Children Aged 6 – 11 Not Attending Education Taking on Loans or Debts

37% 51%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, destruction/damage of houses, In terms of the living conditions of IDPs, the median monthly lack of security, no job opportunities and fear due to the income per capita is very low (IQD 25,000), 46% of HHs ethno-religious change in their location of origin are the reported a monthly family income per capita below 20,000 main obstacles to return. When directly assessed, families IQD. Moreover, 60% of households reported obstacles to fi nd confi rmed these fi ndings, mentioning destruction/damage work and only 56% reported that employment is one of their of homes (64%) as well as discrimination (47%), fear/trauma main income sources, one of the lowest fi gures nationwide. (36%), lack of security forces (21%) and presence of mines Telafar also has the highest proportion of IDPs taking on (12%) in their location of origin as obstacles to return. loans/debts (51%) and spending their savings (37%). Nearly a quarter of families are being fi nancially supported by rela- Key Obstacles to Return tives/ friends (23%); 11% are settled in critical shelters. Social Cohesion In addition, around 70% are missing HLP documentation, House Destruction Mental Health and one in four families is at risk of eviction. Around half the

Livelihoods and Services Security households exhibit at least one vulnerability: 17% are female headed; 26% have one family member with disabilities and 22% have more than two or three dependents (versus 17%, Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return 19% and 18% overall). Access to education is very low: 37%

� �� of children aged 6–11 years are not attending mandatory

House Damaged / education (versus 21% overall). Destroyed 64% � PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs Discrimination 47% No in-camp IDPs �

Fear / Trauma 36% � �

Lack of Security Forces 25% �

Assets Stolen / Damaged 14%

44 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 16

Also a main district of origin TILKAIF DISTRICT, NINEWA Factsheet available Out-of-Camp IDPs in Tilkaif District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

2,546 Households Medium Recipient (1% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -28% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

51% Tilkaif Homogeneous 29% Sinjar Fairly Homogeneous 19% Mosul 1% Al-Ba’aj Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

District of Number of IDPs District Boundary 52% Protracted Homogeneous Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 49% Aug 2014 Country Boundary 34% Oct 2016 – Jul 2017 Fairly Homogeneous 14% Post-Jul 2017 3% Other Heterogeneous

IDP MOVEMENT

The population movement in the district can be deﬁ ned as IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION "fairly dynamic" as around one third of IDPs have moved out Homogeneous since May 2018 (-28%). This includes mainly families originally 56% Arab Sunni from Mosul and, to a lesser extent, Sinjar. 23% Yazidi Fairly Homogeneous 17% Christian A signiﬁ cant proportion of the intra-district IDPs consist of 4% Kurdish Sunni the Christian population originally from Tilkaif Centre and Heterogeneous currently displaced in majority Christian locations such as Tel Asquf and Alqosh. The district remains divided with the southern half controlled by the ISF and the northern half by IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 47 the KSF, where these two locations are situated. Given this Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months) military division, returns to Tilkaif Centre and other towns such as Batnaya by the Christian IDPs remain extremely 47% want to stay

limited. By the end of 2018, the road connecting Tilkaif 100 77 Centre and Tel Asquf had reopened but no new wave of Long Term (more than 12 months) returns was recorded. 77% want to return

45 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 16 TILKAIF DISTRICT, NINEWA Out-of-Camp IDPs in Tilkaif District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 22 100 100 5 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

5% 22%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 84 100 100 17 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

84% 33,333 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 31 100 100 39 Children Aged 6 – 11 Not Attending Education Reporting Obstacles to Employment

31% 39%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, the main obstacles to return Living conditions for IDPs in Tilkaif are diffi cult. Families seem linked to the lack of security and services in their place have a median monthly income per capita of IQD 33,333, of origin and widespread house destruction/damage. When revenues are often insuffi cient (23% of HHs are taking on directly assessed, families stated house destruction/damage loans/debts and 12% spending their savings) and barriers (56%) and lack of services (19%) together with fear/trauma to employment are frequent – in 39% of households at least (33%), assets stolen/damaged (22%) and lack of money (21%) one member reported obstacles to ﬁ nd work. There are as obstacles to return. As many as 84% of households do 22% of households living in critical shelters and 11% are at not have any HLP documents. This situation is likely to be risk of eviction. prevalent among IDPs from Sinjar, as lack of property is a Nevertheless, many families receive support: 43% are well-known and previously documented issue in the area, but hosted by other families, 12% receive money from rela- also for Sunni Arabs and Christians internally displaced from tives/friends, 9% from social services and 1% receive cash other areas of Tilkaif. assistance. Compared to other districts, a very low share Key Obstacles to Return of female-headed households were assessed (5%). Around one in four households have at least one family member Social Cohesion with disabilities and one in ﬁ ve more than two or three House Destruction Mental Health dependents. Around one third of children aged 6–11 years

Livelihoods and Services Security are not attending mandatory education.

PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return Districts of Origin � �� 1 Camps House Damaged / in district 62% Mosul Destroyed 54%

� 32% Tilkaif 95 Households Fear / Trauma 33% (0.1% of total in-camp IDPs) 4% Sinjar �

Assets Stolen/ 2% Al-Hamdaniya Damaged 22% -41% Rate of Change

� (May – Dec 2018)

No Money 21% �

Basic Services Not Functioning 19%

46 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 17

Also a main district of origin SAMARRA DISTRICT, SALAH AL-DIN Factsheet available Out-of-Camp IDPs in Samarra District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

5,318 Households Medium Recipient (3% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -17% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

44% Balad Homogeneous 36% Samarra Fairly Homogeneous 11% Al-Thethar 9% Other Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

District of Number of IDPs District Boundary Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 98% Protracted Homogeneous Country Boundary 33% Apr 2015 – Mar 2016 24% Sept 2014 – Apr 2015 Fairly Homogeneous 22% Jun – Jul 2014 19% Aug 2014 IDP MOVEMENT 2% Other Heterogeneous

Samarra can be described as a "fairly stationary” district as the situation has not changed much since the spring of IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION 2018. The 17% of IDPs who have left are mainly from Balad. Homogeneous

IDP INTENTIONS 100% Arab Sunni Fairly Homogeneous 100 100 69 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months) Heterogeneous

69% want to stay 100 100 Long Term (more than 12 months)

100% want to return

47 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 17 SAMARRA DISTRICT, SALAH AL-DIN Out-of-Camp IDPs in Samarra District

VULNERABILITIES 41 100 100 100 100 21 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

21% 41%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 16 100 100 45 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

16% 88,750 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 38 100 100 28 Children Aged 6 – 11 Not Attending Education Reporting Obstacles to Employment

38% 28%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, the main obstacle to return – in Although nearly all families are living in a situation of addition to widespread house destruction/damage and lack protracted displacement, their living conditions are better of employment/livelihood opportunities – is the blockage of than the average: their median monthly income per capita IDPs by security forces, which aff ects groups from Balad and is IQD 88,750 and 89% of households can count on employ- Samarra. IDPs from the sub-districts of Yathrib and Markaz- ment among main sources of income. However, obstacles Al-Balad are particularly at risk as tribal and ethno-religious to work are widespread (reported by 28% of households), issues were reported at their location of origin. When directly 19% of families are relying on savings and 13% are taking assessed, 37% of families also reported lack of money as an on loans/debts. obstacle to return. The main source of concern is that 41% of households are Key Obstacles to Return living in critical shelters, such as unfi nished/abandoned build- ings, informal settlements and schools. In addition, nearly Social Cohesion 40% of children aged 6–11 years are not attending manda- House Destruction Mental Health tory education and 19% of children under fi ve years have not

Livelihoods and Services Security been vaccinated against measles.

PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return No in-camp IDPs � �

House Damaged / Destroyed 52% �

No Money 37% �

No Livelihood Generating Income 32% � �

Fear / Trauma 22% �

Living Conditions Better in Displacement 20%

48 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 18

Also a main district of origin TIKRIT DISTRICT, SALAH AL-DIN Factsheet available Out-of-Camp IDPs in Tikrit District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

7,093 Households Medium Recipient (3% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -42% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

64% Baiji Homogeneous 25% Al-Hawiga Fairly Homogeneous 9% Al-Shirqat 2% Other Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

District of Number of IDPs District Boundary Homogeneous Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 19% Protracted Country Boundary 41% Mar 2016 – Oct 2016 Fairly Homogeneous 37% Oct 2016 – Jul 2017

22% Other Heterogeneous

IDP MOVEMENT IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION The population movement in the district can be deﬁ ned as "dynamic". Since May 2018, 42% of IDPs have left and Homogeneous outﬂ ows are continuing (although at a slightly slower pace, 100% Arab Sunni Fairly Homogeneous -11% between October and December 2018). Heterogeneous IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 47 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

47% want to stay 100 100 Long Term (more than 12 months)

100% want to return

49 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 18 TIKRIT DISTRICT, SALAH AL-DIN Out-of-Camp IDPs in Tikrit District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 44 100 100 33 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

33% 44%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 27 100 100 20 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

27% 50,000 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 31 100 100 27 Children Under 2 Years Have Not Received Penta3 Vaccine Taking on Loans or Debts

31% 27%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, the main obstacles to return Living conditions of IDPs in the district are slightly lower than the seem linked to the lack of economic prospects and security average – their median monthly income per capita is IQD 50,000. at the place of origin, coupled with the fear of losing human- Displaced families in Tikrit were also more likely to report itarian assistance. Moreover, returns to 81% of locations of obstacles to work (44% of households) and, as main sources Baiji and 98% of location of Al-Shirqat – which are the districts of income, using up savings (20%), taking loans/debts (27%) of origin of 73% of IDPs – are still obstructed due to secu- selling humanitarian assistance (5%), of household items (1%) rity as well as community and tribal issues. When directly and even illegal or socially degrading activities (1%). Around assessed, most families reported also house destruction/ 45% of households are settled in critical shelters and 28% are damage (70%) as an obstacle to return. at risk of eviction (one of the highest ﬁ gures of all districts). Hence, 1% of families are considering moving to another Key Obstacles to Return displacement location. Social Cohesion Other sources of concern are the high share of female- House Destruction Mental Health headed households (33% versus an overall average of 17%).

Livelihoods and Services Security In addition, 20% of households have one family member with disabilities, and 31% of children under two years of age have not received the Penta3 vaccine. Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return

� � PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs

House Damaged / Districts of Origin Destroyed 70% 2 Camps � in district 46% Baiji Lack of Security Forces 24% 48% Al-Hawiga � 935 Households No Livelihood (1.03% of total in-camp IDPs) 6% Al-Shirqat Generating Income 24% � � 1% Falluja Fear / Trauma -49% Rate of Change 22% (May – Dec 2018) �

Living Conditions Better in Displacement 21%

50 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 19

Also a main district of origin TOOZ DISTRICT, SALAH AL-DIN Factsheet available Out-of-Camp IDPs in Tooz District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

4,933 Households Medium Recipient (2% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -9% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

Homogeneous 88% Tooz 2% Mosul 4% Al-Khalis 3% Other Fairly Homogeneous 3% Ramadi Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

Homogeneous District of Number of IDPs District Boundary 95% Protracted Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 61% Aug 2014 Country Boundary Fairly Homogeneous 25% Jun – Jul 2014 14% Other Heterogeneous

IDP MOVEMENT IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION

Tooz is classiﬁ ed as a "stationary" district: only 9% of IDPs Homogeneous have moved out since May 2018 – mainly those from Mosul 76% Arab Sunni and from within the district. However, a small inﬂ ux of IDPs 22% Turkmen Sunni Fairly Homogeneous moving while still in displacement from Ba’quba, Daquq and 2% Kurdish Sunni Heterogeneous Ramadi was recorded, mostly Arab Sunnis.

Dynamics in Tooz have been greatly impacted by severe IDP INTENTIONS 56 social tensions among the diﬀ erent ethno-religious commu- 100 38 nities. In addition, competition between rival security groups Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

remains high and several clashes between them have been 38% want to stay 56% undecided recorded since ISIL was expelled in 2016. The IDP population currently assessed is hosted mainly in Tooz Centre specif- 100 99 Long Term (more than 12 months) ically in the Kurdish-majority neighbourhoods within this mixed town. This indicates that the displaced population is 99% want to return likely ﬂ eeing mixed areas and concentrating in places where their ethno-religious group is in the majority. In addition, returns to most areas in Suleiman Beg and Amerli subdistricts remain blocked by security forces.

51 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 19 TOOZ DISTRICT, SALAH AL-DIN Out-of-Camp IDPs in Tooz District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 14 100 100 13 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

13% 14%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 58 100 100 29 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

58% 58,572 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 40 100 100 26 Households with More Than Two or Three Dependents Households Where at Least One Member Has a Disability

40% 26%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, the main obstacles to return are Living conditions for IDPs in Tooz are similar to the overall average. home destruction/damage, lack of security and employment/ Families have a median monthly income per capita of IQD 58,572, livelihood opportunities at the place of origin and, to a lesser employment is one of the main sources of income for around extent, fear due to the ethno-religious change. When directly 80% of households, very few (1%) are taking on loans/debts, assessed, families confirmed widespread house damage/ only 8% are spending their savings and 11% are ﬁ nancially destruction (85%) together with lack/loss of HLP documenta- supported by relatives/friends. tion (58%) and loss/damage to assets (27%) as obstacles to However, 1% of households are coping by selling house- return. As for security, around 40% reported the presence of hold assets and 1% are getting income from illegal or socially mines, 22% the lack of security forces at the location of origin, degrading activities, two options that were hardly reported 15% mentioned fear/trauma and 10% discrimination. Returns among main sources of income in other districts. Around to Suleiman Beg and Amerli subdistricts in Tooz remain blocked. 14% of families are also living in critical shelters. Key Obstacles to Return The most striking vulnerability is the high percentage of fami- Social Cohesion lies with more than two or three dependents (40%). IDPs in Tooz are the youngest of all districts – with 48% of the House Destruction Mental Health population younger than 15 years (it is 40% overall). This Livelihoods and Services Security vulnerability has an important impact on access to education: one third of children aged 6–11 years are not attending

Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return mandatory education. In addition, 26% of households have at least one family member with a disability. � ��

House Damaged / PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs Destroyed 85% � No in-camp IDPs

Presence of Mines 37% �

Assets Stolen / Damaged 27% � �

Basic Services Not Functioning 26% �

Lack Of Security Forces 22%

52 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 20 KALAR DISTRICT, SULAIMANIYAH Out-of-Camp IDPs in Kalar District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

3,761 Households Medium Recipient (2% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary -13% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

37% Khanaqin Homogeneous 19% Al-Muqdadiya Fairly Homogeneous 14% Tooz 30% Other Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

District of Number of IDPs District Boundary Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 70% Protracted Homogeneous Country Boundary 24% Jun – Jul 2014 19% Post-Jul 2017 Fairly Homogeneous 17% Sept 2014 – Apr 2015 12% Pre-Jun 2014 IDP MOVEMENT 28% Other Heterogeneous

The fi rst IDPs arrived before June 2014, fl eeing intense fi ghting in Anbar (12%), but were joined shortly after by those IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION escaping the spread of the confl ict to Ninewa, Diyala, Salah Homogeneous al-Din and Kirkuk. One in fi ve families currently in the district 53% Arab Sunni are also recent IDPs who fl ed the disputed territories after 46% Kurdish Sunni Fairly Homogeneous October 2017 due to changes in the security and adminis- 1% Turkmen Sunni tration confi guration. Population movements in the district Heterogeneous can be defi ned as "fairly stationary": 13% of IDPs have left since May 2018 (mainly IDPs originally from Tooz, and to a lesser extent from Al-Musayab and Mada’in).

IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 87 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

87% want to stay 100 100 Long Term (more than 12 months)

100% want to stay

53 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 20 KALAR DISTRICT, SULAIMANIYAH Out-of-Camp IDPs in Kalar District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 0 100 100 13 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

13% 0%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 26 100 100 41 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

26% 81,667 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 19 100 100 12 Children Aged 6 – 11 Not Attending Education Households Where at Least One Member Has a Disability

9% 12%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

According to key informants, all families are staying in the Similar to other IDPs settled in KRI, living conditions of the district in the long term because they can enjoy safer living displaced population seem better than the average: the median conditions and better services than they would at home. monthly income per capita is slightly higher, with IQD 81,667, Intentions in the medium term are consistent and only 2% of only 3% of families are taking on debts/loans (versus 19%), families plan to leave the location within the next 12 months. obstacles to ﬁ nd work are also less frequent (17% versus During household surveys, families mentioned lack of secu- 28%) and access to education is widespread (only 9% of chil- rity in their area of origin, fear/trauma and discrimination as dren aged 6–11 years are not attending education). These the top three obstacles to their return. households also exhibit lower rates of vulnerabilities than most districts: 13% are female headed, 12% have at least one Key Obstacles to Return family member with disabilities and 13% have more than two Social Cohesion or three dependents.

House Destruction Mental Health PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs Livelihoods and Services Security Districts of Origin

1 Camps 42% Al- Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return in district Musayab 13% Al- � �� 338 Households Muqdadiya Lack of Security Forces 52% (0.37% of total in-camp IDPs) 11% Balad �

11% Al-Fares Fear / Trauma 50% -14% Rate of Change (May – Dec 2018) � 8% Falluja

Discrimination 38% � �

No Money 15% �

Presence of Mines 12%

54 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 21 SULAYMANIYAH DISTRICT, SULAYMANIYAH Out-of-Camp IDPs in Sulaymaniyah District

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN DISTRICT IDP POPULATION

Low Recipient

13,178 Households Medium Recipient (6% of total out-of-camp IDPs)

High Recipient

RATE OF CHANGE IN IDP POPULATION

Stationary +7% IDPs in the District Fairly Stationary (May – Dec 2018) Fairly Dynamic

Dynamic

IDP DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN

Homogeneous 12% Falluja 8% Ramadi 10% Kirkuk 60% Other Fairly Homogeneous 10% Mahmoudia Heterogeneous

IDP LENGTH OF DISPLACEMENT

District of Number of IDPs District Boundary 65% Protracted Homogeneous Displacement per districts of origin Governorate Boundary 19% Jun – July 2014 Country Boundary 19% Post-Jul 2017 16% Sept 2014 – Apr 2015 Fairly Homogeneous 12% Aug 2014 11% Post-Apr 2015 IDP MOVEMENT 23% Other Heterogeneous

Population movements in the district can be defined as "stationary". However, it is important to note that the number of IDPs has slightly increased since spring 2018 IDP ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION (+7%). The district hosts a very mixed population in terms Homogeneous of places of origin: the first IDPs arrived before June 2014 81% Arab Sunni 15% Kurdish Sunni Fairly Homogeneous because of fighting in Anbar (7%), but were soon joined 4% Yazidi by those escaping the spreading of the conflict to Ninewa, Heterogeneous Diyala, Salah al-Din and Kirkuk. One in five families are also recent IDPs who fled the disputed territories after October 2017 due to changes in the security and administrative configuration.

IDP INTENTIONS 100 100 80 Short/Medium Term (less than 12 months)

80% want to stay 100 100 92 Long Term (more than 12 months)

92% plan to stay

55 IOM IRAQ DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT PROFILE 21 SULAYMANIYAH DISTRICT, SULAYMANIYAH Out-of-Camp IDPs in Sulaymaniyah District

VULNERABILITIES 100 100 0 100 100 16 Female Head of Household (FHH) Displaced Population Living in Critical Shelters

16% 0%

dotted line represents national average 100 100 46 100 100 32 Missing Housing, Land, and Property (HLP) Documents Median Monthly Household Income (Per Capita)

72% 64,286 IQD

scale is represented from 0-200k IQD 100 100 20 100 100 33 Taking on Loans or Debts Reporting Obstacles to Employment

20% 33%

OBSTACLES TO RETURN CONDITIONS IN DISPLACEMENT

Over 70% of families reported fear/trauma as the main reason The living conditions of IDPs in Sulaymaniyah are close to the for staying – the highest ﬁ gure of all districts. Most fami- national average: families have a median monthly income per lies agree that their location of origin is not secure enough, capita of IQD 64,286, three quarters of families rely on employ- mainly due to the lack of security forces (47% of households), ment and 12% on pensions as one of their main sources of when compared to the district of Sulaymaniyah. Nearly three income. However, as in other districts of KRI, there are frequent quarters of families do not have HLP documentation and obstacles to work (33%) and rent expenses may be exhausting 42% reported that their former home is destroyed. the income of families (99% are living in rented accommodation) as 20% of HHs are taking on loans/debt; and 13% are Key Obstacles to Return relying on support from families/friends. Social Cohesion Access to education is fairly good, with around 15% of chil- House Destruction Mental Health dren aged 6–11 years not attending mandatory education, and

Livelihoods and Services Security nearly all children have received the vaccine against measles and polio (97% both) and the Penta3 vaccine (90%). However, one in four households has at least one family member with Figure 1. Key Obstacles to Return disabilities (the national ﬁ gure is 19%). � � � PRESENCE OF IN-CAMP IDPs Fear / Trauma 71% Districts of Origin � � 2 Camps Lack of Security Forces 47% in district 62% Balad � � 30% Al-Fares House Damaged / 2,747 Households Destroyed 42% (3.01% of total in-camp IDPs)

� � 7% Sinjar

Discrimination 27% -1% Rate of Change � (May – Dec 2018) Assets Stolen / Damaged 18%

56 IOM IRAQ PROTRACTED DISPLACEMENT STUDY: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN DISTRICTS OF DISPLACEMENT

IOM IRAQ

International Organization for Migration + 3908 3105 2600 The UN Migration Agency - Iraq Mission Main Office in Baghdad iraqdtm.iom.int UNAMI Compound (Diwan 2) iraq.iom.int International Zone, Baghdad, Iraq [email protected] [email protected]

@IOMIraq

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