September 2020  4 3 2 1 2020. Available  Map 1.DistrictsoforiginIDPhouseholdrespondentsdisplacedinformalcamps • • • camp closuresresumedwithspeedinOctober2020. their return. While the COVID-19pandemicstagnated this process, the of campsinordertostabilisetheIDPs’ situationinIraqbyencouraging for peopleinprotracteddisplacement. To addressthisongoingneed, intentions andvulnerabilitiesmayfacilitatesafedurablesolutions conditions thatenablevoluntaryreturns.UnderstandingIDPs’ movement for comprehensiveinformationonbarrierstoreturnandrequisite This constantlychangingsituationhighlightsthecontinuousneed in displacement. their areasoforigin(AoO)hasslowlyincreased;however, manyremain Since 2018,therateofreturninternallydisplacedpersons(IDPs)to individuals livedin43camps. collection, therewereintotal1.3millionIDPsIraq,ofwhich261,854 International OfficeforMigration (IOM)IDP Masterlist. August2020. CCCM, 2020.IraqOperationalPortal:July International OfficeforMigration(IOM),Displacement Tracking Matrix United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). : Humanitarian Bulletin, October Bulletin, Humanitarian Iraq: (OCHA). Affairs Humanitarian of Coordination the for Office Nations United

¯ 0 CONTEXT ANDMETHODS KEY BARRIERSTORETURN rus 4%, er f re atr (0) coe rxmt to proximity close (40%), actors armed of fear (46%), groups which most households reported it to be due to the fear of extremist Safety conditions:56%perceivedtheir AoO tobeunsafe, returning totheir AoO. were reported asbarrierspreventingIDP households from with their (37%), andfearortraumaassociated AoO Damage toshelter(43%),lackoflivelihoodopportunities 12 monthsfollowingdatacollection. the in return to intent reporting 14% and collection, data following were relativelylow: IDPOverall, households’ intentionstoreturntheir AoO here. 100 1 The Iraqigovernmenthasslowlystartedtheclosure 200 CampMasterListandPopulationFlow 5% reporting intent to return in the 3 months Al-Rutba Al-Kaim Km 3, 4 9 23 Al-Anbar Al-Baaj 259 Ana 955 5 Available . Available Ninewa Al- Telafar 1 111 59 Heet here. here. 15 Al- Al- . Available Beygee Tilkaef Al-Shirqat 2 At thetimeofdata 287 48 14 23 less than20surveys thathad *Districts considerednotindicative 24 Al-Hamdaniya Makhmour here. Al-Shikhan Al- 96 Al-Hawiga 5 Al-Falluja 6 Kerbala 52 Balad 104 4 31 148 Al-Mussyab (31%) Dibis Al-Kadhmiyah Al-Din Salah 1 2 5 34 Baghdad Kirkuk Al-Khalis of Babil Al-Muqdadiya 5 3 2 Baquba Al-Qadissiya 109 * Baquba, Beygee,Daquq,Dibis,Haditha,Heet, Al-, Kirku,Samarra, Tikrit, and Tilkaef districts. 7 6 5 • • • Al- Reference. precision. Fulldetailsonthemethodologyareincludedin generalizable totheoverallpopulationofinterestwithaknownlevel previous assessments. Consequently, findings are indicative and are not measures, householdswereremotelyinterviewedandselectedfrom across 40campsin10governorates.DuetoCOVID-19preventive REACH conductedatotalof2,547phone-basedhouseholdinterviews focuses onthemovementintentionsofIDPsbytheir AoO. IDP households,from18 August to10September2020. in formalIDPsurvey camp intentions containing 100ormore camps Management (CCCM)Cluster, conductedaseventhroundofthein- REACH, inpartnershipwiththeIraqCampCoordinationand ‘Other’ includesKalar, ‘Other’ Aqra, Tikrit, Baquba, Al-Risafa, Al-Hindiya, and Al-Kadhmiyah districts. Formalcampswereselectedbasedoncamplistsprovided byCCCM.

Al-Muthanna Respondentscouldprovidemultiplereasons. Therefore, resultsmayexceed100%.

‘Other’ includes Al-Kadhmiyah, Al-Kaim, Al-Khalis, Al-Mussyab, Al-Ramadi, Al-Rutba,Al-Shikhan,Al-Shirqat,Ana, Al-Kaim, Al-Khalis,Al-Mussyab, Al-Kadhmiyah, includes ‘Other’ Khanaqin Diyala 107 public sector(25%).* or government and (46%), agriculture in jobs of availability the livelihood opportunitiesintheir AoO, Livelihood opportunities: 68% reported the availability of completely destroyed,and25%heavilydamaged. Shelter conditionsin AoO: 48%reportedtheirhousingwas conflict (24%),andthefearofcommunityviolence(20%). (22%). disposal waste and (37%), education (51%), services healthcare their AoO. in available were services 49% reportednobasic Basic services: IDPs Wassit Iran Thi Qar district oforigin % ofhouseholdsby INFORMALCAMPS Governorate boundary District notassessed *Not indicative 11% -20% 6% -10% 1% -5% 0% 21% -54% The services least reported to be available were reported tobeavailable least The services Syria Saudi Arabia Maysan Al-Basrah AREAS OFORIGIN Iran

Other Al- Al-Khanaqin Erbil Al-Falluja Makhmour Kirkuk Al-Sulaymaniyah Al-Shikhan Al-Hamdaniya Al-Mosul Sumail Districts ofdisplacement: Other Al-Hawiga Al-Falluja Al-Hamdaniya Telafar Makhmour Al-Hatra Balad Al-Mosul Al-Baaj Sinjar Districts oforigin: ofwhichmostreported 7 6

5 This factsheet This Terms of 54+12+10+4+3+2+2+2+2+2+6 29+16+14+11+10+4+3+3+3+2+2+1+2 * 10% 14% 16% 29% 10% 12% 54% 11%

2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 6% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% ¯ Intentions Survey of IDP Households in Formal Camps September 2020 MOVEMENT INTENTIONS AND BARRIERS TO RETURN

 Proportion of IDP households reporting intending to stay in their current area of displacement in the 3 months following data collection

TURKEY At the national level, 5% of IDP ¯ TURKEY households reported intending to return SYRIA IRAN to their AoO within the 3 months after Zakho Al-Amadiya data collection. The highest proportions Duhok Al-Zibar Sumail Duhok of those IDP households were from Al- Al-Shikhan Rawanduz Telafar Tilkaef Aqra Shirqat (41%), Al-Ramadi (20%), and Al- Erbil SAUDI ARABIA Kaim (20%). The lowest proportions of Sinjar Al-Hamdaniya Pshdar Rania IDP households reporting intending to Al-Mosul Erbil Koysinjaq return were from the districts of Sinjar Ninewa Dokan SYRIA Makhmour Al-Baaj (3%), Al-Baaj (2%), Makhmour (1%), Dibis Al-Hatra Al-Shirqat Al-Sulaymaniyah Balad (<1%), and Hawiga (0%). Nearly Al-Hawiga Kirkuk IRAN all IDP households from Al-Hawiga Kirkuk Derbendikhan (100%), Balad (97%), Al-Baaj (97%), and Daquq % of IDP HHs reported Beygee Tooz Kalar intending to stay in their Makhmour (97%) intended to stay in Tikrit Khurmato current area of displacement the camp of displacement within the 3 Ana Salah Al-Din in the 3 months following Al-Daur data collection months following data collection. Al-Kaim Samarra Khanaqin 0% Haditha Al-Khalis 1% - 25% Balad Al-Muqdadiya Heet 26% - 50% Baquba Al-Anbar 51% - 75% Al-Kadhmiyah Baladruz 76% - 82% Al-Ramadi Al-Mada'in Diyala Baghdad *Not indicative Al-Rutba Al-Mahmoudiya Badra Al-Falluja Al-Suwaira District not assessed Al-Mussyab Maysan 0 10050 Al-Mahaweel Wassit Country boundary Km *Districts considered not indicative that Al- Kerbalahad lessBabil than 20 surveys Al-Namaniya GovernorateAli boundary Al-Hashimiya Al-Gharbi

 Proportion of IDP households reporting perceiving their AoO to be unsafe

TURKEY The districts of origin deemed to be the ¯ TURKEY most insecure according to households’ SYRIA IRAN reports were Al-Hawiga (83%), Sinjar Zakho Al-Amadiya (64%), Al-Baaj (61%), Makhmour (51%), Duhok Al-Zibar Sumail Duhok Al-Hatra (47%), Beygee (43%), and Al- Al-Shikhan Rawanduz Telafar Aqra Tilkaef Muqdadiya (40%). The security situation Erbil SAUDI ARABIA Sinjar Shaqlawa Al-Hamdaniya in these districts is diverse and often Pshdar Al-Mosul Rania overlapping. This includes sporadic clashes Ninewa Erbil Koysinjaq Dokan due to the disputed territories between SYRIA Makhmour Al-Baaj Sharbazher the Kurdistan Regional Goverment Dibis Al-Hatra Al-Shirqat Al-Sulaymaniyah (KRG) and the Government of Iraq (GoI) Al-Hawiga Kirkuk Chamchamal IRAN in Sinjar and Makhmour districts; persistent Derbendikhan Kirkuk presence of Islamic State of Iraq and the Daquq Beygee Tikrit Tooz Kalar Levant (ISIL) remnants in Al-Baaj, Al- Khurmato % of IDP HHs reporting Kifri perceiving their AoO to be Hatra, Beygee, Makhmour, Al-Hawiga, and Ana Salah Al-DinAl-Daur unsafe Muqdadiya district; the fighting between Al-Kaim Samarra Khanaqin 0% Haditha Al-Khalis Turkish and Kurdish forces against 1% - 25% Balad Al-Muqdadiya the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) Heet 26% - 50% Baquba or affiliated groups in , as Al-Anbar 51% - 75% Al-Kadhmiyah Baladruz well as fear of community violence and 76% - 83% 8,9,10,11 Al-Mada'in Diyala retaliation in Al-Hawiga district. Al-Ramadi *Not indicative BaghdadAl-Mahmoudiya Al-Rutba Badra Al-Falluja Al-Suwaira District not assessed Al-Mussyab Wassit 0 10050 Al-Mahaweel MaysanCountry boundary *Districts considered not indicative that Al-Kut Km Kerbala Governorate boundary had lessBabil than 20 surveys Al-Namaniya Ali Al-Hashimiya Al-Gharbi

8 Kurdistan 24 - Yezidis criticize Turkish airstrikes in Shingal, fearing it could hamper return of civilians. 15 June 2020. 11 More information about the security situation at the time of data collection available here: ISHM: August 6- August 13, Available here. 2020; ISHM: August 13- August 20, 2020; ISHM: August 20- August 27, 2020; ISHM: August 27- September 3, 2020; 9 Rudaw - American forces raid Islamic State hideouts on Qarachogh mountain: witnesses. 8 March 2020. Available here. and ISHM: September 3 - September , 2020. 10 ALDEBARAN. Threat consultants. Interactive map. Available here. Intentions Survey of IDP Households in Formal Camps September 2020

 Proportion of IDP households reporting perceiving their housing to be completely destroyed in their AoO

TURKEY At the national level, 48% of IDP ¯ TURKEY households reported their housing in SYRIA IRAN their AoO was completely destroyed. Zakho Al-Amadiya The districts of origin where households Duhok Al-Zibar Sumail Duhok were more likely to report having property Al-Shikhan Rawanduz Telafar Aqra completely destroyed were from Al- Tilkaef Erbil SAUDI ARABIA Sinjar Shaqlawa Shirqat (61%), Sinjar (54%), and Al- Al-Hamdaniya Pshdar Al-Mosul Rania Khanaqin (51%). This was followed by Ninewa Erbil Koysinjaq households from the districts of Al- Dokan SYRIA Makhmour Al-Baaj Sharbazher Muqdadiya (49%), Al-Baaj (48%), Hatra Dibis Al-Hatra Al-Shirqat Al-Sulaymaniyah (47%), and Al-Hamdaniya (46%). In Al-Hawiga Kirkuk Chamchamal IRAN addition, households in Al-Hawiga (87%) Kirkuk Derbendikhan and Al-Kaim (64%) reported their housing Daquq Beygee Tikrit Tooz Kalar to be heavily damaged. The rehabilitation Khurmato % of IDP HHs that reported Kifri that their property in AoO and reconstruction of damaged shelter was Ana Salah Al-DinAl-Daur was completely destroyed. often reported as a precondition for IDPs' Al-Kaim Samarra Khanaqin 0% Haditha Al-Khalis return to their AoO (46% of IDP households 1% - 15% Balad Al-Muqdadiya at the national level). The districts with the Heet 16% - 30% Baquba highest percentage of IDP households Al-Anbar 31% - 45 Al-Kadhmiyah Baladruz reporting the need for rehabilitation and 46% - 61% Al-Ramadi Al-Mada'in Diyala reconstruction of housing in order to Baghdad *Not indicative Al-Rutba Al-Mahmoudiya Badra return were Al-Hawiga (96%), Beygee Al-Falluja Al-Mussyab Al-Suwaira MaysanDistrict not assessed (69%), Al-Khanaqin (67%), and Al-Hatra Al-Mahaweel Wassit Country boundary 0 10050 (61%). Km Kerbala*Districts considered not indicative that Al-Kut had lessBabil than 20 surveys Al-Namaniya GovernorateAli boundary Al-Hashimiya Al-Gharbi

 Proportion of IDP households reporting perceiving basic services were unavailable in their AoO

TURKEY At the national level, 49% of IDP ¯ TURKEY households reported no basic services SYRIA IRAN were available in their AoO. The lack Zakho Al-Amadiya of basic services was most commonly Duhok Al-Zibar Sumail Duhok reported by IDP households from the Al-Shikhan Rawanduz Telafar Tilkaef Aqra districts of Al-Hawiga (69%), Al-Baaj Erbil SAUDI ARABIA Esri, USGS Shaqlawa (56%), Sinjar (53%), Beygee (53%), Al- Sinjar Al-Hamdaniya Pshdar Rania Hatra (48%), Balad (43%), and Al-Falluja Al-Mosul Erbil Koysinjaq Ninewa Dokan (42%). The services most commonly SYRIA Makhmour Al-Baaj Sharbazher available across all districts were electricity Dibis Al-Hatra Al-Shirqat Al-Sulaymaniyah (94%), and water (83%), whereas the Al-Hawiga Kirkuk Chamchamal IRAN services reported less often to be available Derbendikhan Kirkuk were education (37%) and waste disposal Daquq Beygee Tooz Kalar services (22%). These findings highlight the Tikrit Khurmato % of IDP HHs that reported basic services were not Ana Salah Kifri need to improve availability and access to Al-Daur available in their AoO. basic services in IDP households’ AoO. Al-Kaim Al-Din Khanaqin Samarra 0% Haditha Al-Khalis 1% - 15% Balad Al-Muqdadiya Heet 16% - 30% Baquba Al-Anbar Al-Falluja 31% - 45% Al-Kadhmiyah Baladruz 46% - 69% Al-Ramadi Baghdad Al-Mada'in Diyala Al-Mahmoudiya *Not indicative Al-Rutba Badra Al-Suwaira District not assessed Al-Mussyab 0 10050 Al-Mahaweel Wassit MaysanCountry boundary Km *Districts considered not indicative that Al-Kut Esri, USGS Kerbalahad lessBabil than 20 surveys Al-Namaniya GovernorateAli boundary Al-Hashimiya Al-Gharbi Intentions Survey of IDP Households in Formal Camps September 2020

 Proportion of IDP households reporting perceiving a lack of livelihood opportunities in their AoO

TURKEY At the national level, 32% of IDP ¯ TURKEY households reported a lack of livelihood SYRIA IRAN opportunities in their AoO. The highest Zakho DuhokAl-Amadiya Al-Zibar proportions of IDPs reporting a lack Sumail Duhok of livelihood opportunities were IDPs Al-Shikhan Rawanduz Telafar Aqra Tilkaef originating from Al-Hawiga (64%), Balad Erbil SAUDI ARABIA Sinjar Al-Hamdaniya Shaqlawa (38%), Beygee (37%), Sinjar (36%), Pshdar Al-Mosul Rania Al-Kaim (33%), Al-Falluja (33%), Al- Ninewa Erbil Koysinjaq Dokan Muqdadiya (31%), Al-Hatra (31%), and SYRIA Makhmour Al-Baaj Sharbazher Al-Ramadi (30%). Livelihood opportunities Dibis Al-Hatra Al-Shirqat Al-Sulaymaniyah in the agricultural sector were reportedly Al-Hawiga Kirkuk Chamchamal IRAN the most commonly available across all Derbendikhan Kirkuk districts (at the national level, 46% of Daquq Beygee Tooz Kalar Tikrit Khurmato IDP households reported livelihood % of IDP HHs that reported Kifri opportunities in the agricultural sector). Ana Salah Al-DinAl-Daur perceiving a lack of livelihood opportunities in their AoO However, the limited economic resources Al-Kaim Samarra Khanaqin 0% Haditha Al-Khalis of in-camp IDP households, the need of 1% - 15% Balad Al-Muqdadiya liquidity to invest in raw materials and Heet 16% - 30% Baquba machinery for farming before having Al-Anbar 31% - 45% Al-Kadhmiyah Baladruz revenue, as well as the lack of land of their 46% - 64% Al-Mada'in Diyala Al-Ramadi own to farm, may pose serious barriers for Al-Rutba BaghdadAl-Mahmoudiya *Not indicative Badra IDPs to make a living through agricultural Al-Falluja Al-Suwaira District not assessed Al-Mussyab opportunities in their AoO. 0 10050 Al-Mahaweel Wassit MaysanCountry boundary Km Kerbala*Districts considered not indicative that Al-Kut had lessBabil than 20 surveys Al-Namaniya GovernorateAli boundary Al-Hashimiya Al-Gharbi

 Proportion of IDP households reporting perceiving humanitarian assistance not to be available in their AoO

TURKEY The districts where households most ¯ TURKEY commonly reported to perceive a lack SYRIA IRAN of humanitarian assistance were Al- Zakho Al-Amadiya Ramadi (78%), Al-Kaim (73%), Al-Hatra Duhok Al-Zibar Sumail Duhok (72%), and Al-Hawiga districts (71%). Al-Shikhan Rawanduz Telafar Aqra Tilkaef These reports were followed by households Erbil SAUDI ARABIA Sinjar Al-Hamdaniya Shaqlawa from the districts of Falluja (69%), Balad Pshdar Al-Mosul Rania (65%), Makhmour (64%), and Mosul (63%). Ninewa Erbil Koysinjaq Dokan SYRIA Makhmour Al-Baaj Sharbazher Dibis Al-Hatra Al-Shirqat Al-Sulaymaniyah Al-Hawiga Kirkuk Chamchamal IRAN Kirkuk Derbendikhan Daquq Beygee Tikrit Tooz Kalar Khurmato % of IDP HHs that reported Kifri humanitarian assistance was Ana Salah Al-DinAl-Daur not provided in their AoO Al-Kaim Samarra Khanaqin 0% Haditha Al-Khalis 1% - 20% Balad Al-Muqdadiya Heet 21% - 40% Baquba Al-Anbar 41% - 60% Al-Kadhmiyah Baladruz 61% - 78% Al-Mada'in Diyala Al-Ramadi Baghdad *Not indicative Al-Rutba Al-Mahmoudiya Badra Al-Falluja Al-Suwaira District not assessed Al-Mussyab Maysan 0 10050 Al-Mahaweel Wassit Country boundary Km Kerbala*Districts considered not indicative that Al-Kut had lessBabil than 20 surveys Al-Namaniya GovernorateAli boundary Al-Hashimiya Al-Gharbi 42% of

% 47+30+13+9 12,13 87+5+3+2+3 9% 47% 30% 13% % 3% 5% 3% 2% 87% and 20% completely destroyed. and 20% completely Remain in current location Return to AoO Move to another location Do not know 16 15 141,572 180 970 7% 16% 58% 19% Governorate Al-Anbar Baghdad Al-Sulaymaniyah Diyala Other District name Al-Kaim Al-Falluja Al-Ramadi Other AREAS OF ORIGIN OF AREAS District of Origin: Governorate of Displacement: FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION FOLLOWING DATA THI QAR MAYSAN 14 WASSIT MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 12 MONTHS MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE Safety in AoO: 14% of IDP households reported having security having security households reported 14% of IDP AoO: Safety in (37%), groups extremist of fear reported mostly which of concerns, closeness to conflict (41%), and fear of armed actors (25%), which correlates with current reports on the security situation in the area: attacks operations and some militias’ ongoing counterterrorism Security Forces (ISF). against coalition and Iraqi livelihood opportunities available: Basic services and Al-Falluja district reported basic services were households from IDP not available in their AoO. At the governorate level, AoO. 46% a lack of livelihoods in their households reported perceiving of IDP shelter was heavily damaged, shelter was DIYALA IN FORMAL CAMPS FORMAL s IN IDP AL-SULAYMANIYAH 58+197+16H Ana, Heet, and Al-Rutba districts. Ana, Heet, and Al-din. Ninewa and Salah AL-MUTHANNA

 0% Assessed governorate Other governorate 1% -10% - 20% 11% 21% - 30% 31% - 47% • • 15 16 AL-QADISSIYA AL-ANBAR GOVERNORATE BABIL District of origin % of IDPs BAGHDAD KIRKUK ERBIL 30% KERBALA Al-Falluja AL-NAJAF SALAH AL-DIN SALAH here. (August 2020). DISPLACEMENT DEMOGRAPHICS 13% Available Available Heet Al-Ramadi 3%  Master list 0% IDP Haditha NINEWA Ana 4% Remain in current location Return to AoO Move to another location Do not know here. Interviewed in-camp IDP HHs from Al-Anbar governorate from HHs Interviewed in-camp IDP HHs interviewed individuals of IDP Total Total in and out of camp IDPs from Al-Anbar governorate in and out of camp IDPs from Total 0% 1% 2% AL-ANBAR 11% 47% 88% Al-Kaim Al-Rutba

¯ , and lack of financial means to return (35%). Km 160 FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION FOLLOWING DATA 80

MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 3 MONTHS MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE KEY BARRIERS TO RETURN KEY BARRIERS

Returns: 11% of IDP households reported intending to return intending to households reported of IDP Returns: 11% reported 19% and data collection, 3 months following during the following data collection. do so in the 12 months intending to Shelter conditions: 54% of IDP households reported their reported households IDP 54% of conditions: Shelter Barriers to return: The most reported barriers to return were most reported barriers to return were Barriers to return: The fear or trauma associated AoO (40%), shelter damage in their AoO (37%) with their enable returns, households the need for improved reported To (53%), more information about access to basic services and the (45%), improved safety conditions (42%), AoO their homes (19%). rehabilitation of their International Office for Migration (IOM), Displacement Tracking Matrix, International Office for Migration (IOM), Displacement

0

88+111H Enabling Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC). ISHM: December 3 -December 10, 2020. ALDEBARAN. Threat Consultants. Story map available ALDEBARAN.

 DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN OF IDP HOUSEHOLDS ORIGINATING FROM ORIGINATING DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN OF IDP HOUSEHOLDS 14 12 13 • • •

GOVERNORATE AL-ANBAR AL-ANBAR  September 2020 2020 September Intentions Survey of IDP Households in Formal Camps Governorate of Origin: Al-Anbar, September 2020  MOVEMENT INTENTIONS BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN Movement intentions of IDP households during the 12 months following data collection: Remain in current location Return to AoO Move to another location Do not know Al-Falluja 50% 32% 1% 17% Al-Kaim 60% 23% 0% 18% Other17 26% 64% 2% 7% Governorate level 58% 19% 7% 16%  REASONS NOT TO RETURN TO AREA OF ORIGIN Among IDP households not intending to return to their AoO, the four most commonly reported reasons were:* 42+22+42+16 32+38+55+33 40+37+36+35 Governorate level Al-Falluja Al-Kaim Other8+24+24+4 House was damaged or destroyed 40% 42% 32% 8% Fear or trauma associated with AoO 37% 22% 38% 24% Lack of financial means to return 36% 42% 55% 24% Perceived lack of security forces in AoO 35% 16% 33% 4%

 NEEDS IN ORDER TO RETURN TO AREA OF ORIGIN The four most commonly reported needs that would enable IDP households to return to their AoO:* 48+46+38+9 51+32+23+33 53+45+42+29 Governorate level Al-Falluja Al-Kaim46+45+46+34 Other Improved access to basic services in AoO 53% 51% 46% 48% Information about the situation in AoO 45% 32% 45% 46% Improved safety conditions in AoO 42% 23% 46% 38% Rehabilitation and reconstruction of homes 29% 33% 34% 9% The main reported reasons for IDPs not to return were their house being damaged or destroyed (40%), fear or trauma associated with AoO (37%), lacking the financial means to return (36%), and perceived lack of security forces (35%). As needs to enable returns, households mostly reported the improved access to basic services in AoO (53%), more information about the situation in their AoO (45%), and the improvement of the safety and security conditions (42%). The most commonly reported need in Al-Falluja was the need for improved basic services (51%), and in Al-Kaim the most commonly reported need was for improved safety and security (46%).  PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CONDITIONS IN AREA OF ORIGIN

Proportion of IDP households that reported having concerns about safety in their AoO:* Have no or little concern Have concerns about safety Do not know Al-Falluja 58% 31% 11% Al-Kaim 97% 0% 3% Other 80% 15% 5% Governorate level 76% 14% 10%

Among IDP households with safety concerns related to their AoO, the three most commonly reported reasons were:* 62+62+4 48+41+25 Governorate level Al-Falluja56+34+21 Al-Kaim Other Fear of extremist groups 37% 39% 0% 2% Closeness to conflict 25% 27% 0% 3% Fear of armed actors 25% 22% 0% 3% Overall, 14% of IDP households had security concerns in their AoO. Households from Al-Falluja most commonly reported concerns about the safety and security conditions in their AoO (31%), which included fear of extremist groups (39%), exploitative work conditions (32%), and closeness to conflict (27%). In addition, six households from Al-Falluja reported security concerns due to gender-based violence. Al-Kaim households did not report safety or security concerns despite these households often reporting the need to improve safety and security conditions in their AoO to enable IDPs returns (46%). The perceived security situation is most likely related to the ongoing counterterrorist operations in Al- Anbar Governorate, especially in Al-Falluja district and in the desertic regions bordering Syria.18 In addition, some militias reportedly conducted attacks against Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). 19 * Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. 18 ALDEBARAN. Threat Consultants. Story map available here. 17 Findings for “other” include Al-Ramadi, Al-Rutba, Ana, Heet, and Haditha districts. These district are based on a 19 Enabling Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC). ISHM: December 3 -December 10, 2020. Available here. small subset of the sample population and should be considered less indicative. Intentions Survey of IDP Households in Formal Camps Governorate of Origin: Al-Anbar, September 2020  PERCEPTIONS OF SHELTER CONDITIONS IN AREA OF ORIGIN

Reported level of damage to shelter in AoO: Overall, 54% of IDP households reported their house was heavily 20% Completely destroyed damaged, and 20% completely destroyed. Reported levels of damage 54% Heavily damaged to housing were similar across all districts. Much of the destruction 9% Partially damaged was produced during the fighting against ISIL, the most notably being the battle for Falluja in June 2016, and since then many humanitarian 1% Undamaged efforts have been made to provide shelter for returnees.20,21 20+549+1+16H 16% Do not own property  PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES, LIVELIHOODS AND ASSISTANCE IN AREA OF ORIGIN Perceived availability of basic services in AoO: None available Some available Do not know Sixty-six percent (66%) of IDP households Al-Falluja Al-Kaim Other Governorate level reported that they perceived some basic 11% 14% 3% 4% services to be available in their AoO. The services more often perceived to be available 44% 69% 66% were water (100%), electricity (98%), and health 97% services (87%). Households from Al-Falluja 42% reported more often basic services were not 27% 23% available (42%).

Perceived availability of livelihood opportunities in AoO: None available Some available Do not know At the governorate level, 43% of IDP Al-Falluja Al-Kaim Other Governorate level households reported that they perceived 12% 1% 5% 11% some livelihood opportunities to be available 66% 43% in their AoO. Among them, the most frequently 55% 85% reported employment sectors were: agriculture (30%), government jobs (15%), and vocational 46% 33% 33% jobs (14%).* 10%

Perceived availability of assistance in AoO: None available Some available Do not know Al-Falluja Al-Kaim Other Governorate level 13% 7% Overall, 16% of IDP households reported 22% 5% 16% 16% 5% 18% that they perceived some assistance to be provided in their AoO. Among them, the most frequently reported types of assistance were: 73% 77% 79% 69% food assistance (70%), cash assistance (41%), and infrastructure repairs (18%).*

According to household’s reports, the most important reasons for not returning to their AoO were related to the destruction of their housing (40%) and lack of security forces (35%). In addition to those barriers, households also reported the need to improve access to basic services (53%) to enable returns. Many households also perceived a lack of livelihood opportunities in their AoO (46%). Although there have been humanitarian efforts to rehabilitate shelter and infrastructure, only 16% of IDP households reported perceiving humanitarian assistance was available in their AoO, of which 18% reported shelter rehabilitation or reconstruction assistance.22 The unstable security situation, the levels of shelter destruction, and the perceived lack of basic services are important factors that contribute to the protracted displacement of IDP households.

* Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. 22 The Atlantic. The Battle for , Iraq. 20 June 2016. Available here. 21 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). To Improve Urban Recovery and Resilience in Post Conflict Areas in Anbar/Iraq. 28 March 2019. DIYALA AREAS OF ORIGIN GOVERNORATE IDPs IN FORMAL CAMPS

September 2020  KEY BARRIERS TO RETURN

• Returns: 2% of IDP households intended to return in the 12 • Safety conditions in AoO: 61% of IDP households reported having months following data collection, with 69% intending to stay in concerns about safety in their AoO. their current location. • Basic services in AoO: 42% of IDP households reported perceiving • Barriers to return: Reported factors such as damage to shelter a lack of basic services in their AoO. in their AoO, perceived lack of security and perceived lack of • Livelihood opportunities in AoO: 61% of IDP households reported livelihood opportunities prevented IDP households to return to perceiving a lack of livelihood opportunities. their AoO. • Humanitarian assistance in AoO: 53% of IDP households • Shelter conditions in AoO: 58% of IDP households reported their reported to perceive that no humanitarian assistance was available property in their AoO to be completely destroyed. in their AoO.

 DISPLACEMENT DEMOGRAPHICS Total in and out of camp IDPs from Diyala governorate23 78,440 Interviewed in-camp IDP HHs from 221 Total individuals of IDP HHs interviewed 1,165

 MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 3 MONTHS  MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION

88% Remain in current location 39% Remain in current location 8% Return to AoO 35% Return to AoO 0% Move to another location 0% Move to another location 88+84H 3% Do not know 39+3526H 26% Do not know DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN OF IDP HOUSEHOLDS ORIGINATING FROM DIYALA GOVERNORATE

NINEWA District of Origin: KIRKUK AL-SULAYMANIYAH ¯ District name % 48+32+21 Al-Muqdadiya 47% Al-Khanaqin 32% Kifri Other24 21% 0% SALAH AL-DIN

Khanaqin IRAN 32% Al-Khalis DIYALA Assessed governorate 1% Governorate of Displacement: Other governorate Al-Muqdadiya

District of origin 47% Governorate % 40+29+ % of IDPs Baquba Diyala 97% 0% 20% Baladruz Al-Sulaymaniyah 3% 1%AL-ANBAR -19% 0% 20% - 29% BAGHDAD

36%30% -- 48%39% Km WASSIT 40% - 47% BABIL 0 5025

23 International Office for Migration (IOM), Displacement Tracking Matrix, IDP Master list (August 2020). 2 4 Baquba and Al-Khalis districts.

0% 32% 31% 26% Other Other Other Do not know 29% 0% 17% 44% 85% 51% 15% 29% 29% 22% 85% 8% 7% 0% 5% 29+29+22+85 44+85+51+15 29+0+17 here. Do not know here. Governorate of Origin: Diyala, September 2020 September Diyala, Origin: of Governorate Al-Khanaqin Al-Khanaqin Al-Khanaqin 0% 0% 0% 0% 65% 50% 39% 8% 67% 30% 31% 51% 8% 83% 69% 26, 27, 28

65+50+39+8 67+30+31+51 8+83+69 . Intentions Survey of IDP Households in Formal Camps Formal in Households of IDP Survey Intentions Move to another location Move to another 40% 29% 85% 50% Al-Muqdadiya Al-Muqdadiya Al-Muqdadiya Households from Al-Muqdadiya district were more likely to report were Al-Muqdadiya district Households from 46% 34% 62% 17% 56% 34% 21% 52% 55% 40% 36% SKELTON and SALEEM. Iraq’s Disputed Internal Boundaries After Isis Heterogeneous Actors Vying for Influence. Threat Consultants. Story map available ALDEBARAN. Have concerns about safety 27 28 46+34+62+17 52+55+40+36 56+34+21 Available London School of Economics (LSE) Middle East Centre. February 2019. 46% 44% 15% 35% Return to AoO Governorate level Governorate level Governorate level 48% 41% 25% 52% 63% 15% 45% 64% 57% 51% 32% 61+49+44+3261% 49% 44% 32% 64+57+51+32 48+41+25 22% 24% 85% 39% Have no or little concern here. Remain in current location Remain in 25 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CONDITIONS IN AREA OF ORIGIN PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CONDITIONS MOVEMENT INTENTIONS BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN OF BY DISTRICT INTENTIONS MOVEMENT REASONS NOT TO RETURN TO AREA OF ORIGIN REASONS NOT TO NEEDS IN ORDER TO RETURN TO AREA OF ORIGIN NEEDS IN ORDER TO RETURN TO AREA Findings for “other” include Baquba Al-Khalis and districts. These district are based on a small subset of the sample Other Governorate level Al-Khanaqin Al-Muqdadiya Al-Muqdadiya Other Governorate level Al-Khanaqin Combating Terrorism Center Combating (CTC) Terrorism SENTINEL. Losing Mosul, Regenerating in Diyala: How the Islamic State Could Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. Respondents could provide multiple reasons.

* 25 26 population and should be considered less indicative. Exploit Iraq’s Sectarian Tinderbox. October 2016. Available Available October 2016. Tinderbox. Sectarian Exploit Iraq’s House was damaged or destroyed House was damaged to return Lack of financial means AoO opportunities in Perceived lack of livelihood AoO Fear or trauma associated with Proportion of IDP households that reported having concerns about safety in their AoO:* about safety in their households that reported having concerns Proportion of IDP   Among IDP households not intending to return to their AoO, the four most commonly reported reasons were:* AoO, the four most commonly their households not intending to return to Among IDP  Fear of extremist groups Poor infrastructure Closeness to conflict The four most commonly reported needs that would enable IDP households to return to their AoO:* households to return to their that would enable IDP The four most commonly reported needs Movement intentions of IDP households during the 12 months following data collection: data following the 12 months during households of IDP intentions Movement  Overall, 50% of IDP households had security concerns AoO. regarding Safety their concerns were slightly Al-Muqdadiya higher (40%) regarding (56%), groups extremist of fear the was Al-Muqdadiya in concern security main the Whereas reasons. different for and (29%), Al-Khanaqin for than for Al-Khanaqin it was poor infrastructure (83%), followed by closeness to conflict (69%). This corresponds to the complex security situation in activity Diyala: these districts being part of the disputed territories, with reports of ongoing extremist The main reported reasons for IDPs for not returning were their house being damaged or destroyed (61%), lacking the financial means (44%).* livelihood opportunities (49%), and perceiving a lack of return to the perceived lack of livelihoods as As a needs reason to for enable not returns, to households return mostly (62%). reported the rehabilitation of (51%).* of the safety and security conditions (57%), and the improvement of livelihood opportunities AoO (64%), the improvement homes in their Among IDP households with safety concerns related to their AoO, the three most commonly reported reasons were:* AoO, the three most commonly households with safety concerns related to their Among IDP Rehabilitation of homes in AoO Rehabilitation of homes in AoO Improved safety and security in AoO Improved livelihood opportunities in Furniture and other NFIs Intentions Survey of IDP Households in Formal Camps Governorate of Origin: Diyala, September 2020  PERCEPTIONS OF SHELTER CONDITIONS IN AREA OF ORIGIN

Reported level of damage to shelter in AoO: 59% Completely destroyed Overall, 59% of IDP households reported their house was completely destroyed, and 25% completely damaged. Damage to 25% Heavily damaged shelter could be related to occasional violent clashes and to the fact 7% Partially damaged that property of families with perceived ISIL affiliations was destroyed, 1% Undamaged which prevents IDPs’ returns, especially in Al-Khanaqin.29 59+257+1+8H 8% Not own  PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES, LIVELIHOODS AND ASSISTANCE IN AREA OF ORIGIN Perceived availability of basic services in AoO: None available Some available Do not know Al-Muqdadiya Al-Khanaqin Other Governorate level Twenty-five percent (25%) of IDP households reported that they perceived some basic services 19% 19% 13% 38% to be available in their AoO. Among them, the 25% most frequently reported services were: 52% 63% electricity (91%), water (82%), and health 62% 62% services (73%).* Education services were less often reported to be available (53%). 29% 18%

Perceived availability of livelihood opportunities in AoO: None available Some available Do not know At the governorate level, 63% of IDP households Al-Muqdadiya Al-Khanaqin Other Governorate level reported that they perceived some livelihood 16% 11% opportunities to be available in their AoO. 57% 69% Among them, the most frequently reported 53% 63% employment sectors were: agriculture (48%), 15% construction (37%), and vocational jobs 31% 28% 31% 26% (34%).*

Perceived availability of assistance in AoO: None available Some available Do not know Al-Muqdadiya Al-Khanaqin Other Governorate level Overall, 40% of IDP households reported that they perceived some assistance to be provided 32% 32% 45% 62% in their AoO. Among them, the most frequently reported types of assistance were: food 50% assistance (87%), NFI distributions (36%), 53% 40% and cash assistance (22%).*, 30 38% 18% 14% 15%

Overall, more than a third of IDP households intended to return in the 12 months following data collection (35%). The main barriers and needs for return were related to damage to property (61%), lack of financial means for return (49%), and perceived lack of livelihood opportunities in their AoO (44%). The need for shelter rehabilitation (64%) was most likely due to the deliberate destruction of property belonging to families with perceived ISIL affiliations.29 The need for improved security in Diyala (57%) is mostly due to the complex security situation in the region: having an important strategic possition due to its closeness to Iran and oil production, ongoing extremist groups presence, as well as multiple actors trying to have control in the area.30, 31, 32, 33

* Respondents could select multiple options. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. 32 SKELTON and SALEEM. Iraq’s Disputed Internal Boundaries After Isis Heterogeneous Actors Vying for Influence. LSE 29 OXFAM. Protection Landscapes in Diyala and Kirkuk. March 2020. Available here. Middle East Centre. February 2019. Available here. 30 NFI stands for non-food item. 33 ALDEBARAN Threat Consultants. Story map available here. 31 CTC SENTINEL. Losing Mosul, Regenerating in Diyala: How the Islamic State Could Exploit Iraq’s Sectarian Tinderbox. October 2016. Available here. ERBIL AREAS OF ORIGIN GOVERNORATE IDPs IN FORMAL CAMPS

September 2020  KEY BARRIERS TO RETURN

• Returns: 1% of IDP households intended to return in the reported not owning property), and lack of financial means to afford 3 months following data collection, and 5% in the 12 months agricultural costs.34,35 following data collection. • Shelter conditions in AoO: 20% of IDP households reported their • Barriers to return: The most commonly reported factors were the housing in their AoO to be completely destroyed. lack of financial means to return and the lack of livelihoods in • Safety conditions in AoO: 51% of IDP households reported AoO. having concerns about safety in their AoO, of which the most • Livelihood opportunities in AoO: 86% of the households commonly reported reason was the close proximity to conflict (79%) reported existing livelihood opportunities, mainly in agriculture for disputed territories. (85%). This contradiction with the main reported barriers to return • Humanitarian assistance in AoO: 64% of IDP households reported could be due to restricted access to land (72% of IDP households to perceive a lack of humanitarian assistance to be available in their AoO.

 DISPLACEMENT DEMOGRAPHICS Total in and out of camp IDPs from Erbil governorate35 10,943 Interviewed in-camp IDP HHs from 52 Total individuals of IDP HHs interviewed 282

 MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 3 MONTHS  MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION

97% Remain in current location 59% Remain in current location 1% Return to AoO 5% Return to AoO 2% Do not know 36% Do not know 97+2+1H 0% Move to another location 59+36+5H 0% Move to another location DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN OF IDP HOUSEHOLDS ORIGINATING FROM ERBIL GOVERNORATE ¯ District of Origin: DUHOK

District name % 100 Al-Zibar 0% IRAN Makhmour 100% Rawanduz 0%

Shaqlawa Governorate of Displacement: 0% NINEWA Assessed governorate

Other governorate Governorate % 71+29+0 of origin Ninewa 71% Erbil % of IDPs Erbil 29% Koysinjaq

0% 0% 0 0% 100% Makhmour AL-SULAYMANIYAH 100% KIRKUK SALAH AL-DIN Km 0 5025

34 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Iraq at a glance. Available here. 35 Jongerden, J.; Wolters, W.; Dijkxhoorn, Y.; Gür, F.; Öztürk, M. The Politics of Agricultural Development in Iraq and the Kurdistan Region in Iraq (KRI). Sustainability 2019, 11, 5874. Available here. 36 International Office for Migration (IOM), Displacement Tracking Matrix, IDP Master list (August 2020). Intentions Survey of IDP Households in Formal Camps Governorate of Origin: Erbil, September 2020  REASONS NOT TO RETURN TO AREA OF ORIGIN  NEEDS IN ORDER TO RETURN TO AREA OF ORIGIN Among IDP households not intending to return to their AoO, the The four most commonly reported needs in their AoO that would four most commonly reported reasons were:*

68+45+25+24 enable IDP households to return to their AoO:* 67+66+20+20 Lack of financial means to return 68% Improved livelihood opportunities 67% Perceived lack of livelihood opportunities 45% Improved access to basic services 66% Perceived presence of mines 25% Improved access to healthcare services 20% Perceived lack of basic services 24% Rehabilitation of homes 20%

 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CONDITIONS IN AREA OF ORIGIN

Proportion of IDP households that reported having concerns Among IDP households with safety concerns related to their about safety in their AoO:* AoO, the three most commonly reported reasons were:* 79+55+14 49% No concerns Perceived closeness to conflict 79% 51% Safety concerns Perceived presence of extremist groups 55% 0% Do not know 49+51H Fear of community violence 14%  PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES, LIVELIHOODS, ASSISTANCE AND SHELTER IN AREA OF ORIGIN

Perceived availability of basic services in AoO: Perceived availability of assistance in AoO:

27% None available 64% None available 73% Some available 35% Some available 27+730H 0% Do not know 64+351H 1% Do not know The majority (73%) of IDP households originating from Erbil governorate More than a third (35%) of IDP households originating from Erbil reported that they perceived some basic services to be available in governorate reported that they perceived some assistance to be their AoO. Among them, the most frequently reported services were: provided in their AoO. Among them, the most frequently reported electricity (100%), water (86%), and education (56%).* types of assistance were: food assistance (100%), cash assistance (62%) and NFI distributions (12%).*, 37

Perceived availability of livelihood opportunities in AoO: Reported level of damage to shelter in AoO:

14% None available 20% Completely destroyed 86% Some available 3% Heavily damaged 0% Do not know 5% Partially damaged 14+860H 0% Undamaged 20+35+72H 72% Do not own property The majority of IDP households originating from Erbil governorate (86%) reported that they perceived some livelihood opportunities to The majority (72%) of IDP households originating from Makhmour be available in their AoO. Among them, the most frequently reported reported not owning property. However, 20% reported owning employment sectors were: agriculture (85%), vocational (37%), property and it being totally destroyed. and transportation (36%).*

According to the reports of IDP households from Makhmour, the most important barriers to return are related to the economic situation of IDPs (lacking the economic means to return), as well as a perceived lack of livelihoods. Although most of the IDPs report at least some livelihood opportunities available in their AoO (86%), these might be insufficient, precarious, or require of an important economic investment (such as agriculture, the livelihood opportunity most commonly reported as available).34, 35 The need for basic services (66%), of which healthcare services were reported to be less often available (20%), was also one of the main barriers for IDPs’ returns. Despite the fact that improving the security situation in AoO was not among the priority needs to allow the IDPs’ returns, it had an impact on IDP households’ decision to not return (25% reporting the presence of mines). More than half (51%) of the IDP households had security concerns, mainly due to the closeness to the conflict, likely due to the fight between the Kurdistan Region (KRI) and the government of Iraq (GoI) for the so-called ‘disputed territories’, this situation being often exploited by extremists groups.38

*Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. 37 NFI stands for non-food item. 34 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Iraq at a glance. Available here. 38 The Media Line, How ISIS Operates in Iraq’s Disputed Territories, 25 February 2020. Available here. 35 Jongerden, J.; Wolters, W.; Dijkxhoorn, Y.; Gür, F.; Öztürk, M. The Politics of Agricultural Development in Iraq and the Kurdistan Region in Iraq (KRI). Sustainability 2019, 11, 5874. Available here. %

% 79+21+00 3% 3% 1% 94+3+3+1 79% 21% 94% The perceived availability The perceived Remain in current location Return to AoO Move to another location Do not know 82,970 42 249 0% 0% 71% 29% Al-Hawiga Kirkuk Daquq name District of Origin: Governorate Ninewa of Displacement: AREAS OF ORIGIN OF AREAS FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION FOLLOWING DATA 39 MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 12 MONTHS MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE Basic services and livelihoods in AoO: in and livelihoods Basic services of basic services (26%) and available. Of the livelihoods were no services or reporting livelihoods (24%) was 71% low, basic services households that perceived to be available reported to be available (26%), the least frequently were waste (81%), and education (84%).* disposal (19%), healthcare Shelter conditions in AoO: 85% of IDP households reported households of IDP 85% AoO: in conditions Shelter been heavily damaged, with their property having 94% of IDP Al-Hawiga district reporting their property as households from heavily damaged. IN FORMAL CAMPS FORMAL s IN IDP 29+71H

 • • Assessed governorate Other governorate 1% 2% -3% 4% - 94% DIYALA KIRKUK GOVERNORATE AL-SULAYMANIYAH to District of origin % of IDPs DISPLACEMENT DEMOGRAPHICS 3% Kirkuk  here. Available Available 3% Daquq Al-Daur Remain in current location Return to AoO Move to another location Do not know 1% KIRKUK Dibis Interviewed in-camp IDP HHs from Kirkuk governorate HHs Interviewed in-camp IDP HHs interviewed individuals of IDP Total Total in and out of camp IDPs from Kirkuk governorate Total 0% 0% 0% 100% Km 50

Key reported barriers to return were related Key reported barriers ERBIL 94% FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION FOLLOWING DATA SALAH AL-DIN SALAH Al-Hawiga and the vast majority (71%) did not know their intentions intentions their know not did (71%) majority vast the and 25

MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 3 MONTHS MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE KEY BARRIERS TO RETURN KEY BARRIERS

damage to property (95%) and the need of rehabilitation (97%), (95%) and the need of rehabilitation (97%), damage to property sense of security (85%).* as well as improved Barriers to return: Returns: None of the households originating from Kirkuk originating None of the households Returns: data the 3 months following during to return intending reported collection, following data collection. during the 12 months Safety in AoO: 86% of IDP households had security concerns, households had security AoO: 86% of IDP Safety in (82%), and sporadic community violence most of them fearing violent clashes (71%).*

¯

0

100+H International Office for Migration (IOM) IDP Master list. August 2020. Master list. International Office for Migration (IOM) IDP NINEWA

 DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN OF IDP HOUSEHOLDS ORIGINATING FROM ORIGINATING DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN OF IDP HOUSEHOLDS 39 • • •

GOVERNORATE KIRKUK  September 2020 2020 September Intentions Survey of IDP Households in Formal Camps Governorate of Origin: Kirkuk, September 2020  REASONS NOT TO RETURN TO AREA OF ORIGIN  NEEDS IN ORDER TO RETURN TO AREA OF ORIGIN

Among IDP households not intending to return to their AoO, the The four most commonly reported needs that would enable IDP four most commonly reported reasons were:* households to return to their AoO:* 95+69+18+15 97+85+69+25 Home has been damaged or destroyed in AoO 95% Rehabilitation of homes in AoO 97% Fear or trauma associated with AoO 69% Improved safety and security in AoO 85% Perceived lack of livelihood opportunities in AoO 18% Improved access to basic services in AoO 69% Fear of discrimination 15% Access to furniture and non-food items 25%

 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CONDITIONS IN AREA OF ORIGIN Proportion of IDP households that reported having concerns Among IDP households with safety concerns related to their about safety in their AoO:* AoO, the three most commonly reported reasons were:* 82+71+11

14% No or little concerns Fear of community violence 82% 86% Safety concerns Sporadic violent clashes 71% 1% 13+861H Do not know Poor infrastructure 11%  PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES, ASSISTANCE AND SHELTER IN AREA OF ORIGIN

Perceived availability of basic services in AoO: Perceived availability of assistance in AoO:

71% None available 71% None available 26% Some available 24% Some available 71+26+3H 3% Do not know 71+245H 5% Do not know Nearly a quarter (26%) of IDP households originating from Kirkuk Twenty-four percent (24%) of IDP households originating from Kirkuk reported that they perceived some basic services to be available reported that they perceived some assistance to be provided in their in their AoO. Among them, the most frequently reported services AoO. Among them, the most frequently reported types of assistance were: water (97%), electricity (97%), and waste disposal (84%).* were: cash (89%), food (46%), and infrastructure repairs (39%).*

Perceived availability of livelihood opportunities in AoO: Reported level of damage to shelter in AoO:

11% Completely destroyed 65% None available 85% Heavily damaged 32% Some available 2% Partially damaged 3% Do not know 65+323H 11+852+2H 2% Don’t know or not own property Nearly a third (32%) of IDP households originating from Kirkuk reported Overall, 85% of IDP households reported that their shelter in their that they perceived some livelihood opportunities to be available in AoO was heavily damaged, and 11% completely destroyed. their AoO. The most frequently reported employment sectors were: agriculture (31%), construction (14%), and transportation (14%).*

No IDP households originating from Kirkuk governorate reported intending to return to their AoO. The most frequently reported reasons to not return were related to the consequences of conflict in their AoO, namely the damage or destruction of their homes (96%), and fear or trauma associated to their AoO (69%). In order to return to their AoO, IDP households similarly reported the need for rehabilitation and reconstruction of their shelter (96%), and the improvement of the security situation (85%). This correlates with IDP households reporting their housing in their AoO was heavily damaged (85%), which could be a consequence of the ‘ Offensive’ in 2017.40 Most of the IDP households reported safety concerns (86%), mostly related to fearing community violence (82%). This is likely related to the fact that the majority of IDPs from Kirkuk governorate, especially from Al-Hawiga district, were perceived to have affiliations with ISIL’s members which caused hostility and distrust in their community.41

*Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. 41 REACH, Rapid Overview of Areas of Return (ROAR) assessment - Al Abassy, Iraq - July 2019. Available upon 40 Derek Henry Flood. The Hawija Offensive: A Liberation Exposes Faultlines. CTC request. SENTINEL. Volume 10, issue 9. October 2017. pp 24-28. Available here. NINEWA AREAS OF ORIGIN GOVERNORATE IDPs IN FORMAL CAMPS

September 2020  KEY BARRIERS TO RETURN • Returns: 5% of IDP households reported intending to return to • Safety in AoO: 57% of IDP households reported security their AoO in the 3 months following data collection, and 13% concerns, especially in Sinjar (80%) and Al-Baaj (69%). during the 12 months following data collection. IDP households • Shelter conditions: 73% of IDP households reported having from Al-Mosul (23%) and Telafar (22%) districts reported the highest their property completely destroyed or heavily damaged, and intentions to return. this was most commonly reported in Sinjar (78%) and Al-Baaj (71%). • Main barriers: IDP households mostly reported damage to • Basic services: 50% of IDP households reported basic services shelter (42%) and perceived lack of livelihoods (38%) as their were unavailable in their AoO. Education (38%) and waste main reasons not to return, and further reported the improved services (21%) were the least reported to be available.* access to basic services (54%) and the improvement of safety and security (52%) as the main needs to return.* The need • Livelihood opportunities: 32% of IDP households reported a for improved access to basic services and safety and security lack of livelihood opportunities, mostly commonly reported in conditions was reportedly higher in Al-Baaj (70%), Al-Hatra (58%), Sinjar (36%) and Al-Hatra (31%). and Sinjar (57%).

 DISPLACEMENT DEMOGRAPHICS Total in and out of camp IDPs from Ninewa governorate42 758,328 Interviewed in-camp IDP HHs from Ninewa governorate 1,890 Total individuals of IDP HHs interviewed 11,060

 MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 3 MONTHS  MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION

91% Remain in current location 68% Remain in current location 5% Return to AoO 13% Return to AoO 0% Move to another location 19% Do not know 91+54H 4% Do not know 68+1319H 0% Move to another location DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN OF IDP HOUSEHOLDS ORIGINATING FROM NINEWA GOVERNORATE District of Origin:

¯ District name % 62+16+13+4+3+2+1 DUHOK Sinjar 62% SYRIA Al-Mosul 16% Al-Shikhan Aqra Al-Baaj 13% Telafar 0% Al-Hatra 4% 3% Tilkaef 0% 0% Telafar 3% Sinjar Assessed governorate Al-Mosul Al-Hamdaniya 2% 62% Al-Hamdaniya Other governorate 16% 2% Other43 1% District of origin NINEWA % of IDPs Governorate of Displacement: ERBIL 0%

Governorate % 49+37+5+5+3+1 Al-Baaj 1% -10% 13% Duhok 49% 11% - 25% Al-Hatra Ninewa 37% 4% 26% - 50% Erbil 5% KIRKUK 51% - 62% Al-Sukaymaniyah 5%

AL-ANBAR SALAH AL-DIN Km Kirkuk 3% 0 5025 Other 1%

42 International Office for Migration (IOM) IDP Master list. August 2020.Available here. 43 Aqra, Al-Shikhan, and Tilkaef. Intentions Survey of IDP Households in Formal Camps Governorate of Origin: Ninewa, September 2020  MOVEMENT INTENTIONS BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN Movement intentions of IDP households during the 12 months following data collection, by district: Remain in current location Return to AoO Move to another location Do not know Al-Baaj 82% 8% 0% 9% Al-Mosul 64% 23% 1% 12% Sinjar 73% 10% 0% 10% Telafar 66% 22% 0% 12% Other44 34% 33% 2% 32% Governorate level 68% 13% 0% 19%  REASONS NOT TO RETURN TO AREA OF ORIGIN Among IDP households not intending to return to their AoO, the four most commonly reported reasons were:* 47+42+6+66 55+35+31+27 38+33+32+20 61+60+25+56 42+38+31+25 Governorate level Al-Baaj Al-Mosul37+48+7+48 Sinjar Telafar Other Home was damaged/destroyed in AoO 42% 55% 37% 38% 47% 61% Perceived lack of livelihoods in AoO 38% 35% 48% 33% 42% 60% Fear or trauma associated with AoO 31% 31% 7% 32% 6% 25% Lack of financial means to return 25% 27% 48% 20% 66% 56%  NEEDS IN ORDER TO RETURN TO AREA OF ORIGIN The four most commonly reported needs that would enable IDP households to return to their AoO:* Governorate level Sinjar Telafar 19+15+50+50 46+37+56+47 54+52+47+31 70+73+47+25 57+57+42+25 Al-Baaj Al-Mosul48+23+36+42 Other Improved access to basic services 54% 70% 48% 57% 19% 46% Improved safety and security in AoO 52% 73% 23% 57% 15% 37% Rehabilitation of homes in AoO 47% 47% 36% 42% 50% 56% Improved livelihood opportunities in AoO 31% 25% 42% 25% 50% 47%

There is an overlap between the reasons why households decided not to return and reported needs to enable their return. For example, the damage or destruction to shelter (42%), can be linked to the need of rehabilitation of homes (47%), the perceived lack of livelihoods (38%), and the lack of financial means to return (25%) to the need for improved livelihood opportunities (31%). However, as needs for return, the improved availability of basic services (54%) and improved security in AoO (52%) are the most commonly reported, especially for IDPs from Sinjar, Al-Baaj and Al-Hatra.  PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CONDITIONS IN AREA OF ORIGIN Proportion of IDP households that reported having concerns about safety in their AoO:* Have no or little concern Have concerns about safety Do not know Al-Baaj 22% 69% 9% Al-Mosul 54% 20% 26% Sinjar 14% 80% 6% Telafar 56% 21% 23% Other 40% 26% 34% Governorate level 35% 57% 8% Among IDP households with safety concerns related to their AoO, the three most commonly reported reasons were:* 19+15+50 49+43+24 46+37+56 Governorate level Al-Baaj70+73+47 Al-Mosul48+23+36 Sinjar57+57+42 Telafar Other Fear of extremists groups 49% 70% 48% 57% 19% 46% Fear of armed actors 43% 73% 23% 57% 15% 37% Closeness to conflict 24% 47% 36% 42% 50% 56%

A large percentage of IDP households from Sinjar (80%) and Al-Baaj (69%) had security concerns. The main security concerns were the fear of extremists groups (49%), armed actors (43%), and close proximity to conflict (24%). These reasons are likely related to the ongoing presence of ISIL remnants in deserted and isolated areas, the disputed territories between KRG and GoI, and reported clashes between Turkish forces, , and the Shingal Protection Units (YBS).45, 46 Seemingly unrelated to the aforementioned security issues, 37 households from Sinjar reported concerns with gender-based violence. * Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. 45 RUDAW. One injured in alleged Turkish airstrike in Shingal: mayor. 8 November 2020. 44 Findings for “other” include the districts of Al-Hatra and Al-Hamdaniya. These are based on a small subset of the 46 SKELTON and SALEEM. Iraq’s Disputed Internal Boundaries After Isis Heterogeneous Actors Vying for Influence. sample population and are less indicative. London School of Economics (LSE) Middle East Centre. February 2019. Available here. Intentions Survey of IDP Households in Formal Camps Governorate of Origin: Ninewa, September 2020  PERCEPTIONS OF SHELTER CONDITIONS IN AREA OF ORIGIN Reported level of damage to shelter in AoO: Proportion of IDP households reporting that their shelter was completely destroyed or heavily damaged, by district: 92+88+75+73+64 50% Completely destroyed Al-Baaj 92% 23% Heavily damaged Sinjar 88% 11% Partially damaged Al-Mosul 75% 4% Undamaged Other 73% 12% Do not own or do not know 50+2311412H Telafar 64% Half (50%) of IDP households originating from Ninewa reported that their shelter in their AoO was completely destroyed, and 23% reported their shelters were heavily damaged. The districts where IDP households more frequently reported their shelter was heavily damaged or destroyed were: Sinjar (78%), Al-Baaj (71%), and Al-Hatra (69%).

 PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES, LIVELIHOODS AND ASSISTANCE IN AREA OF ORIGIN Perceived availability of basic services in AoO: None available Some available Do not know Al-Baaj Al-Mosul Sinjar Telafar Other Governorate level 10% 1% 9% 14% 16% 30% 34% 30% 37% 85% 15% 89% 56% 53% 55% 50% 14% 2% Thirty-seven percent (37%) of IDP households originating from Ninewa reported that they perceived some basic services to be available in their AoO. Among them, the most frequently reported services were: electricity (94%), water (83%), and healthcare (51%). The basic services which were less commonly reported as available were education (38%) and waste disposal services (21%).* The districts in which a lack of basic services was most commonly reported were Al-Baaj (56%), Sinjar (53%), and Al-Hatra (48%). This difference is most likely due to the isolated conditions of Al-Baaj and Al-Hatra. Perceived availability of livelihood opportunities in AoO: None available Some available Do not know Al-Baaj Al-Mosul Sinjar Telafar Other Governorate level 15% 3% 13% 4% 2% 11%

51% 74% 57% 61% 85% 93%

36% 32% 24% 12% 3% 24% More than half (57%) of IDP households originating from Ninewa reported that they perceived some livelihood opportunities to be available in their AoO. Among them, the most frequently reported employment sectors were: agriculture (43%), government jobs (23%) and vocational (19%).* IDP households were more likely to report a lack of livelihood opportunities in the districts of Sinjar (36%), Al-Hatra (31%), and Al-Baaj (24%).

Perceived availability of assistance in AoO: None available Some available Do not know Al-Baaj Al-Mosul Sinjar Telafar Other Governorate level 26% 6% 26% 5% 31% 33% 32% 29% 25% 13% 23% 18%

63% 63% 49% 55% 51% 52%

A low percentage (18%) of IDP households originating from Ninewa reported that they perceived some assistance to be provided in their AoO. Among them, the most frequently reported types of assistance were: food assistance (77%), cash assistance (36%), and NFI distributions (33%).*, 47 The districts where humanitarian assistance was perceived as less available were Al-Hatra (23%), Telafar (23%), and Sinjar (13%).

In Ninewa, the most commonly reported barriers to return varied between districts. For IDPs of Telafar and Mosul, who also were more likely to report to intend to return (22% and 23% respectively), the need to improve livelihood opportunities was key to enable their return (50% and 40% respectively). For IDPs from Sinjar, Al-Baaj and Al-Hatra the key needs to enable returns were the improvement of the security situation and the basic services. IDP households from all districts reported in similar proportions needing the rehabilitation of homes in their AoO (47% at the governorate level).

*Respondents could select multiple options. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. 47 NFI stands for non-food item. SALAH AL-DIN AREAS OF ORIGIN GOVERNORATE IDPs IN FORMAL CAMPS

September 2020  KEY BARRIERS TO RETURN • Returns: The main barriers for IDP households from Salah Al- • Safety in AoO: The districts most commonly reported to be Din to return are related to households’ assets being stolen or perceived as unsafe were Beygee (43%) and Balad (36%), damaged (45%), lacking the financial means to return (39%), probably due to the presence of ISIL's activities and ongoing and their house had been damaged or destroyed (38%). antiterrorist operations in both districts.48 • Needs to return: The most commonly reported needs to • Basic services and livelihood opportunities available: Basic enable their return were to rehabilitate their homes (43%), and services and livelihood opportunities were less frequently reported improved livelihood opportunities in AoO (41%). Improving the to be available in Balad and Beygee districts. security situation in Balad and Beygee districts was also among the • Humanitarian assistance in AoO: 25% of IDP households most commonly reported needs. reported assistance was available in their AoO, including NFI • Shelter conditions: 38% of IDP households reported their distributions (51%), food (37%), and cash assistance (36%). shelter was heavily damaged, and 29% completely destroyed.

 DISPLACEMENT DEMOGRAPHICS Total in and out of camp IDPs from Salah Al-Din governorate49 148,530 Interviewed in-camp IDP HHs from Salah Al-Din governorate 230 Total individuals of IDP HHs interviewed 1,300

 MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 3 MONTHS  MOVEMENT INTENTIONS DURING THE 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION FOLLOWING DATA COLLECTION

80% Remain in current location 25% Remain in current location 13% Return to AoO 41% Return to AoO 3% Move to another location 0% Move to another location 80+1334H 4% Do not know 25+41331H 31% Do not know DISTRICTS OF ORIGIN OF IDP HOUSEHOLDS ORIGINATING FROM SALAH AL-DIN GOVERNORATE District of Origin: ERBIL District name % Al-Shirqat ¯ 40+24+18+18+1 NINEWA 40% Al-Shirkat 40% NINEWA KIRKUK Balad 24% Samarra 18% AL-SULAYMANIYAH Beygee 18% Beygee Tooz Tikrit 1% 18% Khurmato Tikrit AL-AMBAR 0% Assessed governorate 1% Other governorate SALAH AL-DIN Al-Daur Governorate of Displacement: 0% Governorate %

District of origin 40+29+18 % of IDPs Samarra Ninewa 40% 18% 0% AL-ANBAR DIYALA Erbil 29% 1% -10% Al-Sulaymaniyah 18% 11% - 20% Balad 21% - 30% 24% Km 31% - 40% 0 5025 BAGHDAD

48 ALDEBARAN. Threat Consultants. Story map available here. 49 International Office for Migration (IOM) IDP Master list. August 2020.Available here. Intentions Survey of IDP Households in Formal Camps Governorate of Origin: Salah Al-Din, September 2020  MOVEMENT INTENTIONS BY DISTRICT OF ORIGIN Movement intentions of IDP households during the 12 months following data collection: Remain in current location Return to AoO Move to another location Do not know Al-Shirqat 7% 54% 9% 30% Balad 57% 6% 0% 37% Other50 63% 16% 0% 21% Governorate level 25% 41% 3% 31%  REASONS NOT TO RETURN TO AREA OF ORIGIN Among IDP households not intending to return to their AoO, the four most commonly reported reasons were:* 50+45+44+25 17+10+48+55 39+82+61+39 Governorate45+39+38+31 level Al-Shirqat Balad Other Households’ assets stolen or damaged 45% 50% 17% 39% Lack of financial means to return 39% 45% 10% 82% House was damaged or destroyed 38% 44% 48% 61% Perceived lack of livelihood opportunities in AoO 31% 25% 55% 39%

 NEEDS IN ORDER TO RETURN TO AREA OF ORIGIN The four most commonly reported needs that would enable IDP households to return to their AoO:* 36+16+29+28 69+53+75+21 Governorate43+41+41+33 level Al-Shirqat Balad Other69+10+27+38 Rehabilitation of homes in AoO 43% 36% 69% 69% Improved safety and security in AoO 41% 16% 53% 10% Improved livelihood opportunities in AoO 41% 29% 75% 27% Furniture and other NFIs 33% 28% 21% 38%

The main reported reasons for IDPs not to return were related to their assets being stolen or damaged (45%), lacking the financial means to return (39%), their house being damaged or destroyed (38%), and lack of livelihood opportunities (31%). The main reported needs to enable IDP households’ returns were related to the reasons not to return, such as the need to rehabilitate their homes (43%), and improved livelihood opportunities in AoO (41%). The need to improve the safety and security situation in their AoO was most commonly reported by IDP households from Balad (53%) than Al-Shirkat (16%).  PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY CONDITIONS IN AREA OF ORIGIN

Proportion of IDP households that reported having concerns about safety in their AoO: Have no or little concern Have concerns about safety Do not know Al-Shirqat 80% 17% 4% Balad 56% 36% 8% Other 56% 43% 1% Governorate level 70% 27% 2%

Among IDP households with safety concerns related to their AoO, the three most commonly reported reasons were:* 62+62+4 39+30+29 Governorate level Al-Shirqat Balad34+0+41 Other Fear of extremist groups 39% 0% 34% 62% Sporadic clashes 30% 0% 0% 62% Closeness to conflict 29% 0% 41% 4%

The majority of IDP households from Al-Shirkat had no security concerns about their AoO (80%). However, IDP households from Balad (36%) and from Beygee (43%) most commonly reported having security concerns, mostly due to the fear of extremist groups (62% for Beygee and 34% for Balad), sporadic violent clashes (62% for Beygee), and closeness to conflict (41% for Balad district). IDP households from Beygee reported higher perceived levels of insecurity due to extremist groups, most likely due to the presence of ISIL and Coalition's operations in Makhoul Mountains.51 Similar operations are also ongoing in Balad district, especially in Yathrib sub-district.49

*Respondents could provide multiple reasons. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. 50 “Other” include Beygee, Samarra, and Tikrit. 51 ALDEBARAN Threat Consultants. Story map available here. Intentions Survey of IDP Households in Formal Camps Governorate of Origin: Salah Al-Din,September 2020  PERCEPTIONS OF SHELTER CONDITIONS IN AREA OF ORIGIN

Reported level of damage to shelter in AoO:

29% Completely destroyed The majority of IDP households originating from Al-Shirqat 38% Heavily damaged reported that their shelter in their AoO was completely destroyed or heavily damaged (88%). For Balad district, 63% of IDP households 13% Partially damaged reported their shelter was destroyed or heavily damaged. 29+3813+20H 20% Undamaged

 PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES, LIVELIHOODS AND ASSISTANCE IN AREA OF ORIGIN

Perceived availability of basic services in AoO: Overall, 72% of IDP households reported that None available Some available Do not know they perceived some basic services to be available in their AoO. Among them, the most Al-Shirqat Balad Other Governorate level 3% 5% 3% 3% frequently reported services were: electricity (100%), water (96%), and health services (81%).* 52% 44% Waste disposal services were less commonly 72% 88% reported to be available (4%). IDP households from Beygee (53%) and Balad (43%) were 43% 53% 26% more likely to report that basic services were 10% not available in their districts of origin in comparison to other districts.

Perceived availability of livelihood opportunities in AoO:

None available Some available Do not know At the governorate level, 81% of IDP households Al-Shirqat Balad Other Governorate level reported that they perceived some livelihood 4% 1% opportunities to be available in their AoO. Among them, the most frequently reported 58% 63% 81% employment sectors were: agriculture (64%), 100% transportation (40%), and government and vocational jobs (19%).* 38% 37% 18%

Perceived availability of assistance in AoO: None available Some available Do not know Overall, 25% of IDP households originating from Al-Shirqat Balad Other Governorate level Salah Al-Din reported that they perceived some 14% 20% 28% 22% assistance to be provided in their AoO. Among 25% them, the most frequently reported types of 48% 7% 39% assistance were: NFI distributions (51%), 65% food assistance (37%), and cash assistance 55% 38% 38% (36%).*, 52

IDP households from Al-Shirkat district reported the highest intentions to return in the 12 months following data collection (54%). Households from Al-Shirkat also reported lower safety concerns (17%), more livelihood opportunities (100%), and the highest perceptions of basic services availability (88%). However, IDP households from Al-Shirkat reported more often their shelter was heavily damaged or destroyed in their AoO (88%). In contrast, IDP households from Balad and Beygee were less likely to intend to return within the same period (6% for Balad and 16% for Beygee). They also were more likely to have security concerns (36% of IDP households from Balad, and 43% from Beygee), mostly due to the presence of extremist groups and close proximity to conflict. These reports are most likely related to the ISIL’s presence and the frequent anti-terrorist operations by the coalition in those areas.53 With the exception of IDP households from Al-Shirqat, the perceived lack of livelihood opportunities as well as basic services was relatively high in the rest of the governorate.

*Respondents could select multiple options. Therefore, results may exceed 100%. 52 NFI stands for non-food item. 53 ALDEBARAN Threat Consultants. Story map available here.