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 itsterm, 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