The Peace Research and Education Program at the Center for Global Affairs

Community Dialogues for Social Cohesion: Reflective Analysis of Lessons Learned from IDPs and Host Communities in the Kurdistan Region of PREP Occasional Paper Series No. 1 PREP Occasional Paper

Zeravan Sulaiman Sadeeq & Audrey Watne

February 2019

Zeravan Sulaiman Sadeeq is a Researcher and Trainer at the Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution Studies at University of in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. [email protected]

Audrey Watne is a researcher for the Peace Research and Education Program at the NYU SPS Center for Global Affairs. [email protected]

Peace Research and Education Program Occasional Paper Series

ISSN 2643-0320 (print) ISSN 2643-0347 (online)

Published 4-6 times annually By the Peace Research and Education Program Center for Global Affairs, School of Professional Studies New York University 15 Barclay Street, NY, NY 10007 [email protected]

Editor: Christopher Ankersen

Available online at https://www.nyupeace.education/publications

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Letter from PREP’s Director

I am extremely pleased to share with you the first installment of PREP’s Occasional Paper Series, Community Dialogues for Social Cohesion: Reflective Analysis of Lessons Learned from IDPs and Host Communities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

PREP -- the Peace Research and Education Program -- aims to enhance the peacebuilding role that universities play worldwide. One way I believe we can accomplish this goal is by widely sharing the experiences and learning of our team members as they work closely with university partners in areas that have been significantly affected by violence.

The authors of this paper -- Audrey Watne, of PREP, and Zeravan Sulaiman Sadeeq, of the University of Duhok’s Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution Studies -- have illustrated how it is possible for a university to use its convening power to bring together stakeholders to discuss and address some of the most vexing issues facing communities affected by violence and mass displacement. Furthermore, they show how a university can help to move stakeholders’ away from an overemphasis on problem-based thinking toward a renewed focus on assets and successes through the use of Appreciative Inquiry methods.

My hope is that this series will become a space for consideration of many other ways in which higher education institutions can help to enhance peacefulness in the communities and regions that they serve. We will do our best to ensure the research we present is accessible, timely and reflective of the equitable partnerships that PREP strives to build with our affiliated institutions.

Of course, I realize that we may not always reach our objectives. As this paper is just the first of what we at PREP hope will be many, please feel free to share with us your (hopefully, constructive) criticism and feedback so that we can consider it in our own learning process as we move forward.

Sincerely,

Director Peace Research and Education Program

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract 2

1. Introduction 3 2. Background on locations 6 3. Methodology and Scope 8 4. Implementation and Challenges 9 5. Findings 10 6. Recommendations from Participants 11 7. Reflections and Conclusion 12

Appendix I: Implementation Data 14

References 18

Abstract

Iraq’s assumed perhaps the heaviest burden as a consequence of the internal displacement crisis that began following the rise of Da’esh across a broad swath of northern Iraq in 2014. The mass influx of people to Duhok -- mainly from Ninewa province, directly to the south -- caused significant tensions between the internally displaced persons (IDPs) and their hosts. In 2016-2017, the Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution Studies (CPCRS) at the University of Duhok coordinated four roundtable dialogue meetings with local authorities, clergy, civil communities leaders, local stakeholders, and representatives of IDPs and Host communities1. These meetings aimed to deepen positive collaboration between key actors, using the tools and techniques of appreciative inquiry, and to assess the levels of social cohesion between host and displaced communities. Surveys and focus groups aimed at understanding perceptions of tensions and challenges among the host community, IDPs, and mixed groups preceded these meetings. In general, roundtable participants acknowledged that host communities welcomed displaced populations, but that over time, tensions emerged in all locations. Rather than focusing solely on those tensions, roundtable participants offered constructive suggestions for addressing and mitigating tensions, generating a list of recommended actions ranging from the construction of additional schools and health centers to the establishment of committees that could monitor host and displaced populations for signs of growing tensions to educational and media programming that would encourage social cohesion. This paper explores both the outcomes of the roundtable process and the methodology for such community engagement offering a reflection on lessons learned and recommendations for future participatory social cohesion research programs.

Key Words: IDPs, displacement, host community, social cohesion, peacebuilding, community engagement, appreciative inquiry

1This research was conducted with support from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), as part of the project “Improving Local Capacity to Build Peace and Improve Social Cohesion among Host and Displaced Communities in Duhok and Ninevah Governorates.” All research findings are the work of the Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution Studies at the University of Duhok and the Peace Research and Education Program, located within the Center for Global Affairs at New York University’s School of Professional Studies. None of the findings contained in this report necessarily reflect the views or positions of UNDP. 1. Introduction

Since 2014, when Da’esh seized the city of Mosul2 and committed genocide against Yezidi communities,3 until 2017, when Iraqi government forces regained control of and surrounding areas, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) hosted more than 350,000 IDPs, mostly from Ninewa Province.4 These IDPs moved to camps and urban areas and lived beside and among host communities. Initially, the host community welcomed IDPs and provided immediate assistance; however, over time tensions developed between the newly arrived IDPs and the host community, particularly as humanitarian aid arrived in order to support IDPs, while the host community also faced an economic crisis, but without humanitarian support. In October 2017, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) reported that no conflict assessments had been conducted in the KRI, indicating an information gap regarding to what degrees the host community and IDPs were in conflict or were cooperating.5

In response to these observed tensions, the Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution (CPCRS) at the University of Duhok (UoD) began to conduct community-based research to better understand the observed challenges to social cohesion between IDP and host communities in and around Duhok. This research used appreciative inquiry techniques to investigate the approaches to these tensions that were being used by community members. CPCRS brought its findings to local stakeholders and leaders in roundtable meetings to discuss the tensions, generate community dialogue, and collect recommendations to share with local decision- and policy-makers.

This process aimed to assess the levels of social cohesion and between the displaced and host communities, to deepen the positive collaboration between key actors, and to generate concrete information and recommendations that community leaders and representatives of international organizations could use when developing policies or activities related to displacement in the communities studied. CPCRS was well equipped to carry out this research because of its position as a unit of a well-known regional institution of higher education and because of relationships developed through a large-scale peace education project for youth in the Duhok and Ninewa governorates from 2014 until 2017. CPCRS conducted 201 workshops for 4068 participants in schools, community centers, and IDP and refugee camps6. As a result of that project, the Center developed a higher public profile. Also, the cross- cultural and training experience of the cohort of trainers grew as they visited schools, community centers, IDP and refugee camps to conduct the training. Additionally, CPCRS

2BBC. “Militants seize Iraq’s second city of Mosul.” 2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27778112 3 Human Rights Council. “‘They came to destroy:’ ISIS Crimes Against the .’ A/HRC/32/CRP.2. 2016. http:// www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoISyria/A_HRC_32_CRP.2_en.pdf 4 IOM Iraq Displacement Tracking Matrix, 2018. http://iraqdtm.iom.int/. 5IOM Iraq. Integrated Location Assessment II: Part II Governorate Profiles. DTM-Iraq Mission, 2017. p. 39 6 New York University, “NEA/I Final Report: Supporting the University of Duhok in Becoming the Center of Excellence for Peacebuilding in Iraq.” Internal Report. 2017. conducted an international conference on peacebuilding and education in May 2014 which raised its profile locally and internationally as a respected academic center.7

This paper aims to describe the process of community-based research, the challenges and lessons learned, and to provide recommendations for future community-based research in social cohesion and for local authorities in the four targeted locations. The authors discovered that great demand exists among community members and leaders for information about the tensions within and between host and IDP communities, and that there also was a strong interest in forums to discuss community tensions.

Theoretical Background of the Research

The project was designed partially as a response to what the two implementing university partners saw as an overemphasis on discussions of problems caused by displacement at the community level and a consequent lack of attention paid to understanding what types of effective approaches were being employed to address tensions. Thus, the project leaders decided to develop the project along the principles of Appreciative Inquiry (AI), which tends to focus attention on what is working rather than on what is not.

Cooperider and Srivastva describe AI this way: “In contrast to a type of research that is lived without a sense of mystery, the appreciative mode awakens the desire to create and discover new social possibilities that can enrich our existence and give it meaning.”8

AI “advocates [for] collective inquiry into the best of what is, in order to imagine what could be, followed by collective design of a desired future state that is compelling and thus, does not require the use of incentives, coercion or persuasion for planned change to occur."9

Cooperider and Srivastsa originally noted four key foundational principles that set apart the Appreciative Inquiry model (although Cooperider and Whitney expanded the framework to include five principles). The original four principles (paraphrased) were:

Principle 1: Research should begin with appreciation and seek to discover, describe, and explain what gives life to any social system; Principle 2: Research should be applicable to participants and validated in action; Principle 3: Research should be provocative in such a way that abstract findings take a normative value and allow an organization’s members to “shape the world according to their own imaginative and moral purposes;”

7 New York University, “NEA/I Final Report: Supporting the University of Duhok in Becoming the Center of Excellence for Peacebuilding in Iraq.” Internal Report. 2017. 8 Cooperider, D.L. and Srivastva, S. (1987). “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life” Research in Organizational Change and Development. 1. P.28. 9 Bushe, G.R. (2013) The Appreciative Inquiry Model. In Kessler, E. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Management Theory. Sage Publications. Principle 4: Research should be marked by the existence of a collaborative relationship between the researcher and members of an organization.10

These principles were implemented by CPCRS using the AI Commons tool the 5D Cycle of Inquiry:

Figure 1: Appreciative Inquiry Model

1 Definition (clarifying) Surveys and focus group discussions conducted to general foundational data about tensions and peace capacities

2 Discovery (appreciating) Sharing data with round table participants for individual reflection

5 Destiny/Delivery 3 Dream (envisioning) (innovating) Participants reflect on data CPCRS collects data and and personal experience recommendations into together at the round table reports for participants and meeting involved communities

4 Design (co-constructing) Participants discuss recommendations for themselves and for stakeholders

10 Cooperider, D.L. and Srivastva, S. (1987). “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life” Research in Organizational Change and Development. 1. The overarching project goal was to improve social cohesion by enhancing constructive coordination between local authorities, religious leaders and other traditional leaders . Not only were the roundtables intended to raise awareness of social cohesion successes and challenges, but to emphasize the concept of community self-help, through exploring the local communities’ inherent capacities for peace. Due to the sensitivity of the topics discussed -- including religious tensions, political and economic tensions, and legal issues -- Appreciative Inquiry gave space for participants to define the issues themselves and analyze constructively the recent past, the present, and future possibilities for improvement. This method was useful because it was deeply participatory and allowed for the voices of individuals living in communities to reach community leaders in a systematized way. By structuring the round tables around the data collected through surveys and focus groups, community leaders could move beyond compare their own perceptions and experiences of tensions with those described by the community. The data provided a starting point for dialogue and helped the roundtables lead to concrete recommendations and shared understanding of tensions.

2. Background on locations

!

CPCRS chose the locations for this research and dialogue based on the location of IDP communities and observed tensions. CPCRS was also well known and well received in these locations due to its implementation of the previously-mentioned Community Peace Education workshops and other community activities. District of Duhok The District of Duhok (Duhok City Center) is the capital of Duhok Governorate. Duhok is multi- ethnic and multi-religious, however is predominantly home to Kurdish Muslims in addition to Yazidis, Christians and others. At the time of writing there are 27 camps for IDPs and Refugees within the administrative borders of Duhok Governorate (23 IDPs and 4 Refugee). No camps exist within Duhok City Center (ie, the District of Duhok)11 therefore the IDPs in Duhok City (approximately 6,668 IDP families) are estimated by IOM to live distributed throughout different quarters of the city.12

District of Sumel Sumel is a town located 14 km west of the City of Duhok, on the highway that connects Iraq to Turkey. Sumel City has a mixed population of around 50,000 including , Assyrians, Yazidis and Armenians. There are seven IDPs camps and two refugees camps within Sumel district.13 As of mid-2018, approximately 31,570 IDP families were estimated by IOM to live in Sumel.14

District of The town of Zakho is the center of which is part of the Governorate of Duhok. The District is situated near the Iraqi-Turkish borders and it is 10 km from the borderline town of Ibrahim Al-Khalil. From the east, it is 25 km from the Syrian borders and from the south it is 53 km from the center of Duhok and 114 km from Mosul. The River Khabur which comes from Turkey divides the town into two parts. There are 4 IDPs camps within Zakho district15. At the time of this research, approximately 18,729 IDPs families were estimated by IOM to live in Zakho16.

District of Sheikhan The is a district in the of Iraq with its capital at , It is bordered by the and Duhok Districts of the Duhok Governorate to the north, the district to the east, Al-Hamdaniya District to the south, and the to the west. Shekhan’s inhabitants are primarily Yazidis with a significant minority of Assyrians, and Muslims. It is one of the primary holy cities of the ethno-religious group of the Yazidis and functions as a capital for them as it is the residence of the current hereditary leader (Mīr, or

11 For more details, please see the webpage of Board of Relief and Humanitarian Affairs on the following link: http://www.brha-duhok.org/camp-details-2 12 For more details, please see the webpage of International Organization for Migration on the following link: http:// iraqdtm.iom.int/BaselineDashboard.aspx 13 For more details, please see the webpage of Board of Relief and Humanitarian Affairs on the following link: http://www.brha-duhok.org/camp-details-2 14 For more details, please see the webpage of International Organization for Migration on the following link: http:// iraqdtm.iom.int/BaselineDashboard.aspx 15 For more details, please see the webpage of Board of Relief and Humanitarian Affairs on the following link: http://www.brha-duhok.org/camp-details-2 16 For more details, please see the webpage of International Organization for Migration on the following link: http://iraqdtm.iom.int/BaselineDashboard.aspx prince) of the Yazidi people. Sheikhan is also home to the Yezidi holy temple of , and historic Christians Churches. There are 7 IDPs camps within Shekhan District17. At the time of this research, approximately 9,438 IDPs families were estimated by IOM to live in Shekhan18

3. Methodology and Scope

The research had three stages: first surveys, second focus groups, and third roundtables. Permission was sought and granted by local authorities and all stages of research were conducted in coordination with the Mayor’s office of each location.

First, CPCRS designed surveys with questions about the social cohesion in each geographic area. Questions included perceptions of social relations, economic changes, and mitigating or exacerbating factors for tensions. Effect on social relations included friendships, relationships, and marriages across groups; perceptions of changes in social phenomena including early marriage and school dropout rate. Perceptions of economic changes included observed price increases and increased economic and employment competition. Perceptions of mitigating or exacerbating tensions included the role of clergy, religious leaders, camp management, and provincial government in mitigating or exacerbating tensions; the effect of media on tensions; the effect of political parties on tensions; and perceptions of the likelihood and timeline of IDP return. CPCRS trained University of Duhok students to conduct survey enumeration in each location, relying on contacts from each location to find non-camp IDP communities. Enumerators relied on snowball sampling and worked to maintain balance between age groups and gender.

Next, CPCRS analyzed preliminary survey results and used the survey findings to design focus group questions. Focus groups were designed to both confirm survey findings and to seek deeper understanding of the “why” behind the findings.

Finally, the findings of both the surveys and focus groups were compiled into reports and shared with participants in the local roundtable discussions. Participants included representatives of local authorities, security forces, managers of the camps in these districts, a group of local leaders from the displaced and host communities, in addition to civil community organizations and clergymen. The findings and recommendations of the roundtables were compiled with the survey and focus group findings into reports shared with meeting attendees and related organizations.

17 For more details, please see the webpage of Board of Relief and Humanitarian Affairs on the following link: http://www.brha-duhok.org/camp-details-2 18 For more details, please see the webpage of International Organization for Migration on the following link: http:// iraqdtm.iom.int/BaselineDashboard.aspx 4. Implementation and Challenges

Implementation of this project took place over from August 2016 to February 2017.19 The research team faced several challenges during implementation which it overcame on a case by case basis.

Challenges in reaching urban IDP populations included finding survey recipients, communicating the research questions effectively, and protecting vulnerable survey recipients. Because urban/non-camp IDP populations are spread throughout these locations, it was difficult in some cases to identify locations to find IDPs to interview. To mitigate this challenge, local volunteers and staff familiar with each location identified possible locations of IDP communities and visited schools and government offices to find larger population groups. This highly localized knowledge proved crucial in both reaching the IDP community and building trust to discuss community tensions. Due to varying levels of education and literacy in some cases, interviewees struggled to understand survey questions. To mitigate this challenge, survey questions were adjusted and the volunteer enumerator team took more time to explain questions in Kurdish and rather than waiting while interviewees read the survey. Due to the vulnerable status of some IDP communities, it was challenging to ask questions in a way they would be comfortable and safe for them to discuss the sensitive subject of tensions with the host community. To mitigate this challenge, survey questions were adjusted and confidentiality was emphasized to research enumerators and participants.

The main challenge in focus group implementation was the selection process. In some locations, it was difficult to collect individuals to participate in focus groups. To mitigate this challenge, UoD relied on partners based in each location including the Governor’s Offices and social centers to recruit participants. This made it challenging for UoD to control the composition of the focus groups, but UoD emphasized diversity in participation such that some focus groups were mixed host community and IDP and others were separate host community and IDP groups. As a result, it is possible some focus group participant from minority groups were not comfortable sharing their experiences and views on tensions. At the same time, in some cases, diversity in the focus group participants led to insightful exchanges between community members from different backgrounds and revealed some power dynamics.

In the implementation of the roundtable meetings, the key challenge was advance participant preparation for deeper reflection and engagement. In the first roundtable, the survey and focus group results were provided to participants upon arrival to participate in the discussion. As a result, they did not have time to read and understand the data and the resulting discussion was less rich. In subsequent roundtables, the survey and focus group results were shared in advance to participants. As a result, participants came extensively prepared with notes and comments and the dialogue was much deeper and richer.

19 Detailed implementation details are contained in Appendix I. 5. Findings

Respondents in all locations noted that immediately after displacement when IDPs arrived, tensions were low and the host community provided desperately needed support and welcome. In Duhok, participants noted that the host community residents were more powerful and effective than NGOs in welcoming and providing for IDPs. In Sheikhan, participants noted the community reflected on historic cooperation between Muslim and Yezidi communities including working together to build a historic mosque. As a result, there were many recorded cases of Muslim host community members supporting displaced Yazidis, and host community Yezidis welcoming displaced Muslims into their homes in Sheikhan.

However, over time, tensions began to develop due to the challenge of sustained displacement. The host community began to feel the pressure of already limited resources stretched to meet the needs of the suddenly increased population. In Duhok, for instance, representatives of the Kurdistan Regional Government reported that KRI spent about $30,000,000 per month to provide water and electricity to displaced and refugees all over KRI.20

Since 2014, KRI faced a financial crisis when the Federal Government of Iraq failed to pass a budget and did not make agreed transfers to KRG.21 As a result, public employees did not receive full salaries for nearly four years. Host community participants noted that their conditions in many cases were not much better than IDPs’ conditions, but they found themselves ineligible for many support programs targeting IDPs. Host community participants in Duhok expressed feelings of marginalization and a need for support to the host community in order to meet basic needs, reduce the gaps between host community and IDPs, and enhance social cohesion. In Sumel and Zakho, participants acknowledged that in some ways IDPs brought increased economic activity, but at the same time increased competition for limited resources and had exacerbated unemployment.

Additionally, the host community in all locations emphasized the need to rehabilitate return locations for IDPs in order to make return possible. Host community members acknowledged that in many places from which IDPs had fled, infrastructure was devastated and conditions were insecure; they nonetheless expressed concerns that tensions would continue to grow if displacement continued indefinitely into the future amid the economic crisis.

Participants raised several other points of tension and cohesion throughout the roundtables. In Duhok, host community participants spoke of perceived increases in crime due to the influx of IDPs, but this was not a finding in other locations. Participants in Duhok also claimed that there was increased competition for university enrollment. In Sumel, participants noted differences in

20 This number was provided during one of the the roundtables, but no external citations were found for this figure. 21 World Bank. “Kurdistan Region of Iraq: Economic and Social Impact Assessment of the Syrian Conflict and ISIS Crisis.” 2015. Accessed at: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/21597. lifestyle habits and traditions between host communities and IDP communities as a source of tension. Zakho participants noted that some radical religious movements from all religions and some radical political ideologies hurt the confidence between IDPs and the host community. Participants from Sheikhan noted successful implementation of mixed gender, mixed religion, and mixed ethnicity social cohesion projects in the public youth center.

In all locations, clerics were in attendance at the roundtables, and participants recognized their positive role in social cohesion. Clerics encouraged the host community to welcome and support IDPs, opened the doors of mosques and churches, and continue to encourage cohesion in weekly sermons. In Sumel, clerics also intervene in disputes among families and advocated on behalf of communities for fair distribution of aid and services for all.

6. Recommendations from Participants

After discussing the tensions within the communities, roundtable participants reflected on and discussed potential ways in which to improve tensions. Their recommendations were aimed at the humanitarian aid community, the government, educational institutions, and civil society (including media, political parties and religious institutions and religious leaders).

For the humanitarian aid community, participants in all locations emphasized the need to include the host community in programs to a greater degree (in Duhok, participants recommended requiring 50 percent of all projects be allocated to the host community). Participants recommended focusing on long-term job creation and agricultural development in return areas to facilitate the return of IDPs. Additionally, participants recommended that NGOs prioritize the most marginalized and vulnerable, including disabled people, children, and the elderly for psychological support. They also recommended that organizations create committees in camps to raise awareness and provide guidance about religious and social norms in the host community as well as psychosocial support. Finally they recommended that donors hold an international conference in Duhok to raise funds in order to provide the best services for host and IDP communities and to support cohesion.

For the government, participants recommended an increased focus on improving basic services including water, electricity, and schools for both host and displaced communities. They recommended that directorate offices including the Directorate of Culture, Directorate of Sport and Health, Directorate of Endowments hold public events to commemorate national and religious occasions through in-camp and out-of-camp activities, establish youth camps for peaceful existence among IPD and host community youth. Participants called for increased monitoring of humanitarian aid implementation by provincial governments to prevent discrimination between the host and displaced communities (for example, building schools for the displaced community, but allowing host community children to attend them). Participants recommended that the mayoralty and camp management take an active role in organizing regular meetings among clergy from different religions and hosting meetings and creating committees of community members to explore potential sources of violence or hatred and serve as monitors to report challenging cases and prevent exacerbation of tensions. Participants also recommended the formation of committees to determine the wages of workers, specifically to prevent the exploitation of IDP workers

Additionally, participants suggested that the government should support the Directorate of Youth’s Youth Centers in each district to increase their activities. Participants from Sheikhan expressed concerned that their community had only one public hospital which could not provide enough services for the population. The provincial government, they argued, should monitor hospital capacity and build new hospitals in areas with increased populations.

Participants also recommended changes and improvements in educational institutions and civil society. They recommended educational institutions reform their curriculum to teach peaceful coexistence, combat extremist ideas, and support acceptance of differences. They also recommended awareness campaigns and continuing education for primary and secondary teachers so they can act as a bridge between young people and the host and displaced communities. Participants noted the influential role of media and recommended media produce materials that will advance social cohesion. They also recommended political parties should coordinate in order to work to help IDPs return to their homes and to prepare for problems that may arise in areas after ISIS was defeated. Participants acknowledged the key role of clerics and religious institutions in both IDP and host communities and recommended that these leaders use religious sermons and activities to enhance social cohesion. In Sheikhan, participants recommended clergy form a “Council of the Wise” to represent all segments of society including Muslim, Christian, and Yezidi, communities which could meet periodically in order to mitigate potential sources of violence and hatred.

7. Reflections and Conclusions

This was the first community-based research22 of its kind conducted by CPCRS and as a result, positive outcomes included both the research itself and the learning through conducting the research. By housing this research process in CPCRS, both the communities engaged and CPCRS benefited greatly. CPCRS gained research experience and increased skills in conducting community based research and developed deeper community ties throughout the process. Additionally, the communities benefited from the development of data around which to structure a community dialogue, a framework for discussing tensions, and an opportunity to be proactive in reducing tensions and increasing peaceful relations between IDPs and the host community. Using the appreciative inquiry model allowed for a creative dialogue approach to highly sensitive community concerns.

22 CPCRS has participated in joint research programs with the New York University Center for Global Affairs and other research projects with international NGOs. By combining participatory research methods that involved research participants in the formulation of research questions and approaches, CPCRS sought to test perceptions and observations about tensions between IDP and host community and to provide practical, immediately useful information for participating communities. Additionally, roundtable participants responded very positively to the opportunity to dialogue with community leaders and to share both positive experiences of social cohesion and to work together to find solutions for shared challenges.

Challenges to community involvement included reaching non-camp IDP communities and determining how reflective survey sample and focus group samples were to full population. In future iterations, more attention should be paid to sampling in order to strengthen credibility of data. Relying on student enumerators was cost effective and provided a valuable source of feedback on both the surveys and the process. As the surveys progressed, CPCRS relied increasingly on local informants from each target community in order to find out where IDPs were located and researchers reviewed survey participant demographics on a daily basis in order to adjust survey outreach to result in gender balance and to reflect different ages and backgrounds.

Focus groups allowed researchers to understanding the “why” behind tensions and survey data and provided valuable survey feedback. It was a challenge to include social marginalized voices (youth, women, minority groups) in focus groups and roundtables and greater emphasis on inclusion would make for a richer collective dialogue and allow these valuable perspectives to be heard more fully. In some cases, the timing of focus groups was not conducive to individual schedules, the location of the focus groups were inconvenient, some participants were difficult to reach, some did not understand the idea behind the focus group or the purpose thereof, and in some cases, minority and marginalized voices may have been drowned out by others with great social power. In the future, CPCRS would work even more closely to explain the purpose of the focus group and the value of it to the local mayors offices in order to familiarize them with the concept of focus groups, ensure enough time in the project to recruit participants, and to work to be more flexible in timing and location of focus groups.

Following the roundtable, reports for each location were circulated to the mayor’s office of each location and to the participants of the roundtable for future use. After completion of the project, follow up was limited due to resource limitations, the completion of funding, and political instability in the region. Overall, participants reported satisfaction with the process and many requested additional roundtable meetings in order to continue the conversation and to address other topics of concern and interest. In future research projects of this nature, it would be beneficial to include support for long-term follow up with participants, particularly with mayors’ offices and other stakeholders who may seek to collaborate on implementing the community’s recommendations with IDP and host communities. Appendix I: Implementation Data

Questionnaires

In order to pinpoint the obstacles that hinder social cohesion between the host and displaced communities in Duhok, Sumel, Zakho, and Sheikhan Districts, a questionnaire was designed containing questions related to economic, social, and political aspects and how they influence social cohesion between the host and displaced communities in the four locations.

In Sumel District, 249 questionnaires were circulated in Sumel center and displacement camps within the District in August 2016, 229 valid questionnaires were received and analysed by SPSS.

While in Zakho District, the questionnaire contained 39 questions, 490 questionnaires were circulated in Zakho Center and displacement camps within the District in the period between 5-8 September 2016, 417 valid questionnaires were received and analysed by SPSS.

In Sheikhan District, the questionnaire contained 29 questions, 462 questionnaires were circulated in Sheikhan center and displacement camps within the District in the period between 20-23 November 2016, 434 valid questionnaires were received and analysed SPSS.

In a questionnaire was designed containing 34 questions, 536 questionnaires were circulated in Duhok center and displacement camps within the District in the period between 22-25 of January 2017. Out of 536 questionnaires, 526 valid questionnaires were received and analysed by SPSS.

Focus Groups

In order to assess the responses of host and displaced communities for the questions of the questionnaire, four focus groups in each location were held to discuss and analyse the questionnaire responses to get reasonable insights that drawn from the survey responses. The following tables presents the numbers and categories of participants in each four groups, in the four locations. Table 1. Focus Groups in Sumel District

Focus Dates Place No. of Host Displaced groups participants community community

First 6/9/2016 Youth & Sport Center, 10 2 8 Sumel

Second 6/9/2016 Youth & Sport Center, 9 1 8 Sumel

Third 7/9/2016 Youth & Sport Center, 10 4 6 Sumel

Fourth 7/9/2016 Youth & Sport Center, 10 6 4 Sumel

Table 2. Focus Groups in Zakho

Focus Date Place No. of Males Females Host Displaced groups participants community community

First 1/11/2016 Directorate of 10 5 5 5 5 Arts & Culture

Second 1/11/2016 Directorate of 7 5 2 4 3 Arts & Culture

Third 2/11/2016 Directorate of 12 9 3 6 6 Arts & Culture

Fourth 2/11/2016 Directorate of 14 10 4 5 9 Arts & Culture Table 3. Focus Groups in Sheikhan

Focus Date Place No. of Males Females Host Displaced groups participants community community

First 24/12/2016 Youth center 10 4 6 5 5 in Sheikhan

Second 24/12/2016 Youth center 11 10 1 6 5 in Sheikhan

Third 25/12/2016 Youth center 10 8 2 8 2 in Sheikhan

Fourth 25/12/2016 Youth center 9 3 6 4 5 in Sheikhan

Table 4. Focus Groups in Duhok

Focus Date Place No. of Males Females Host Displaced groups participants community community

First 9/3/2017 Cultural 10 6 4 6 4 Center in UoD

Second 9/3/2017 Cultural 15 9 6 8 7 Center in UoD

Third 12/3/2017 Cultural 7 5 2 2 5 Center in UoD

Fourth 12/3/2017 Cultural 10 7 3 10 - Center in UoD Social Cohesion Roundtables Discussion

University of Duhok’s Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution Studies has convened a series of four facilitated discussions in the four locations of Duhok, Sumel, Zakho and Shekhan, using an Appreciative Inquiry model, focused on the improvement of social cohesion with local authorities, religious leaders, other traditional stakeholders, and emerging youth leaders. These roundtables aimed at deepening constructive coordination among key actors and assessing levels of social cohesion in and between various IDP and host communities. The roundtable sessions have been draw upon the social cohesion assessments.

1) Roundtable Discussion of Sumel (September 27, 2016): Sumel’s roundtable discussion took place at Sport and Youths Center in Sumel. The participants included the Sumel’s Mayor and staff of Mayoralty office including head of coordination section with Refugees and IDPs Camps, and head of media section at. IDP Camp Management of Sharia, Kabarto 1, and Khanke camps, vice president of Union of Islamic Scholars in Sumel, local media, Directorate of Education in Sumel, director of Sport and Youths Center in Sumel, head of Women's Council in Sumel, NGO representatives, and local youth.

2) Roundtable Discussion of Zakho (February 6, 2017): Zakho’s roundtable discussion took place at Mayoralty building in Zakho. Participants included Zakho’s Mayor and staff of Mayoralty office including head of IDPs affairs at Mayoralty, religious leaders (Christian, Yezidi, and Muslim), representatives of local government and police, Women’s Union, local youth, and local community members active in environmental protection and literacy campaigns. Local media also attended and interviewed participants.

3) Roundtable Discussion of Sheikhan (February 21, 2017): Shekhan’s roundtable discussion took place at UoD Cultural Center. Participants included Shekhan’s Mayor, religious leaders (Christian, Yezidi, and Muslim), vice director of Shekhan police Directorate, UoD President Mosleh Duhoky, representative of Baba Shekh’s office, NGO representatives, camp management, and youth representatives from peace clubs. Local media also attended and interviewed participants.

4) Roundtable Discussion of Duhok (April 13, 2017): Duhok’s roundtable discussion took place at Uod Cultural Center. Participants included Duhok’s Mayor, vice UoD president, UNDP representatives, BRHA representatives, community and religious leaders, NGO representatives, United States Consulate General representatives, Duhok Women Union representatives, Duhok Union of Islamic Scholars representatives, director of Police at Duhok Mayoralty and youth leaders. Local media also attended and interviewed participants. References:

Appreciative Inquiry Commons. 5D Cycle of AI, Appreciative Inquiry Commons. https:// appreciativeinquiry.champlain.edu/learn/appreciative-inquiry-introduction/5-d-cycle- appreciative-inquiry/

BBC. “Militants seize Iraq’s second city of Mosul.” 2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/world- middle-east-27778112

Bushe, G.R. (2013) The Appreciative Inquiry Model. In Kessler, E. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Management Theory. Sage Publications.

Board of Relief and Humanitarian Affairs (B.R.H.A) (2018) http://www.brha-duhok.org/camp- details-2

Cooperider, D.L. and Srivastva, S. (1987). “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life” Research in Organizational Change and Development. 1.

Human Rights Council. “‘They came to destroy:’ ISIS Crimes Against the Yazidis.’ A/HRC/32/ CRP.2.2016. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoISyria/A_HRC_32_CRP. 2_en.pdf

Integrated Location Assessment II: Part II Governorate Profiles. (2017). DTM-Iraq Mission, IOM. http://iraqdtm.iom.int/LastDTMRound/ILA%20II_PART2%20Governorate%20Profiles.pdf

Iraq Displacement Tracking Matrix. (2018). IOM. http://iraqdtm.iom.int/ BaselineDashboard.aspx

“NEA/I Final Report: Supporting the University of Duhok in Becoming the Center of Excellence for Peacebuilding in Iraq.” (2017). New York University Internal Report.

Watne, A. (2017). “Fourth Monitoring and Evaluation Report: Community Peace Education: Creating Youth Peace Ambassadors in Duhok, Iraq.” New York University Internal Report.

World Bank. (2015). “Kurdistan Region of Iraq: Economic and Social Impact Assessment of the Syrian Conflict and ISIS Crisis.” http://hdl.handle.net/10986/21597. www.NYUpeace.education [email protected] @NYUPeace