Return Dynamics in Kirkuk Governorate Return Dynamics in Kirkuk Governorate June 2021
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
RETURNRETURN INDEX GOVERNORATE GOVERNORATE PROFILING: PROFILING RETURN DYNAMICS IN KIRKUK GOVERNORATE RETURN DYNAMICS IN KIRKUK GOVERNORATE JUNE 2021 The Return Index is a tool designed to measure the severity of presents the overview of conditions across the governorate at the conditions in locations of return. The Return Index is based on 16 end of 2020 with a comparison of figures and the severity of living indicators divided into two scales: Scale 1, on livelihoods and basic conditions over the course of 2020 (from 31 December 2019 to 31 services, and Scale 2, centered around social cohesion and safety December 2020). It also outlines the areas of no return recorded perceptions. A regression model is used to assess the impact of each by IOM’s Rapid Assessment and Response Teams (RARTs) as well of the indicators in facilitating or preventing returns. The index ranges as the newly assessed locations, the returnee population living in from 0 (all essential conditions for return are met) to 100 (no essen- critical shelters and the displaced population hosted in the governo- tial conditions for return are met). Higher scores denote more severe rate. The second section is devoted to the mass arrivals from camps living conditions for returnees. The scores of the severity index are due to their closure, which began in mid-October, and highlights the grouped into three categories: low, medium and high (which also living conditions of new arrivals either when they returned to their includes very high). Refer to the report “Methodological Overview” villages and neighbourhoods of origin or arrived in new locations of for more details on the methodology. displacement. The third section provides an analysis of conditions at the district level and focuses on the main drivers of severity across The Return Index Governorate Profiling provides an analysis of subdistricts and changes that occurred between December 2019 returns in a specific governorate. This report focuses on the return and December 2020. dynamics in Kirkuk Governorate. The first section of this report CATEGORIZING CONDITIONS IN AREAS OF RETURN As of December 2020, the total number of returnees in Kirkuk 2019 and December 2020, the returnee population in Kirkuk Governorate stands at 346,350 individuals out of 4.83 million nation- increased by 8,640 individuals, a lower number than that of the wide, dispersed across four districts and 217 locations.1 This is the previous year, during which 18,372 individuals returned (December fourth largest returnee population compared to other governorates, 2018 to December 2019. with 7 per cent of all returns in Iraq (Figure 1). Between December Figure 1. Proportion of returnees per governorate Total number of returnees as of December 2020 = 4.83 million NINEWA 39% ANBAR 31% SALAH AL-DIN 15% KIRKUK 7% DIYALA 5% BAGHDAD 2% ERBIL AND DAHUK 1% Data collected: November – December 2020, Master List Round 119 1 Master List Round 119 (November–December 2020) 1 IOM IRAQ RETURN INDEX GOVERNORATE PROFILING: RETURN DYNAMICS IN KIRKUK GOVERNORATE RETURNEE POPULATION IN SEVERE CONDITIONS During the Return Index Round 11 collected in November and population in Kirkuk has returned to locations classified as high December 2020, a total of 208 locations of return were assessed severity, followed by 21 per cent to medium severity, and 79 per in Kirkuk. Out of these 208 locations assessed, only two present cent to low severity. This distribution of returnees per severity cate- severe conditions.2 Kirkuk Governorate hosts the lowest number gory is significantly lower than the national average, with 10 per cent of returnees living in severe conditions, with 204 individuals. In rela- living in high severity locations (Figure 2). tive terms, this means that less than 1 per cent of the returnee Figure 2. Proportion and numbers of returnees by category of severity in Kirkuk Governorate 21% High Severity Medium Severity Low Severity Returnees 204 71,814 272,310 7979% +210A Locations 2 61 145 Over the course of 2020, Kirkuk Governorate witnessed a very slight outbreak and ensuing lockdown, which led to the worsening of the decrease in the number of returnees living in locations classified as employment situation and changes in daily public life. However, the high severity (Figure 3). Between December 2019 and December number of individuals living in severe conditions dropped significantly 2020, a decrease of 102 individuals living in severe or poor condi- in the round collected in September–October 2020, when the lock- tions was recorded. There was a moderate increase in the number down measures were lifted and the employment situation and daily of returnees living in severe conditions in the round collected in public life stabilized. May–June 2020 due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Figure 3. Yearly trend of returnees by category of severity in Kirkuk Governorate Nov-Dec 2019 80,700 255,546 Jan-Feb 2020 90,354 248,364 May-Jun 2020 104,622 234,552 Sept-Oct 2020 71,238 269,622 Nov-Dec 2020 71,814 272,310 High Medium Low LOCATIONS WITH NO RETURN AND NEWLY ASSESSED LOCATIONS A location is recorded as having had no returns if none of the houses. Over the course of 2020, DTM did not identify any addi- population displaced since 2014 has returned to date.3 As of tional locations with no returns in Kirkuk. As a result, 18 locations December 2019, DTM identified 20 locations with no returns in of no return were recorded as of December 2020. These locations Kirkuk Governorate. Out of these 20 locations, 2 witnessed returns are in the districts of Daquq (7), Al-Hawiga (6) and Kirkuk (5). over the course of 2020 after families returned to rehabilitate their 2 The wording ‘severe or poor conditions’ in this report refer to conditions in the locations classified as high severity. 3 These locations, having no key informants and no population, are difficult to record and monitor and are generally identified through word-of-mouth. 2 RETURN INDEX GOVERNORATE PROFILING: RETURN DYNAMICS IN KIRKUK GOVERNORATE RETURNEE POPULATION IN CRITICAL SHELTERS As of December 2020, 5,004 returnees arrived at shelters in critical few returning to unfinished or abandoned buildings. Around 55 per condition in Kirkuk, representing 1 per cent of the total returnee cent (2,730 individuals) of returnees in critical shelters are concen- population in the governorate.4 Specifically, nearly all arrived at trated in Al-Hawiga district, followed by Daquq (27%), Kirkuk (14%) destroyed or heavily damaged pre-conflict residence with only a and Dabes (4%). INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS (IDPs) IN KIRKUK Between December 2019 and December 2020, Kirkuk Governorate IDPs in Iraq (7% of all IDPs). Kirkuk and Daquq districts host the witnessed a decrease in the numbers of IDPs, from 100,446 indi- largest population of IDPs in the governorate, respectively accounting viduals to 90,846. Of the 9,600 IDPs who departed, 95 per cent for 91 per cent (82,386 individuals) and 7 per cent (6,498 individ- (9,090 individuals) departed from camp settings, with no IDPs in uals) of IDPs in Kirkuk. Some locations in Kirkuk, Daquq and Dabes camp settings remaining by December 2020. Despite this decrease, currently host more IDPs than returnees (Table 1). Kirkuk remains the governorate hosting the fifth largest number of Table 1: Number of returnees and IDPs per district in Kirkuk (December 2020) Average Severity Total Returnees Total Non-camp Total Camp IDPs Locations with more District (return locations) (individuals) IDPs (individuals) (individuals) IDPs than Returnees Al-Hawiga Low 166,992 534 0 0 Dabes Low 7,236 1,428 0 1 Daquq Low 17,520 6,498 0 1 Kirkuk Low 154,602 82,386 0 13 Kirkuk Total 346,350 90,846 0 15 ARRIVAL FROM CAMPS AND CORRELATION WITH SEVERITY5 ARRIVAL OF IDPs FROM CAMPS TO NON-CAMP SETTINGS IN NINEWA GOVERNORATE Between November and December 2020, DTM tracked a total of pandemic. These restrictions, which limited the ability of IDPs to 5,346 individuals (891 households) who arrived in non-camp settings work outside camp settings or to move freely between the area in Kirkuk after departing camps across the country.6 Most of those of origin of displacement, pushed returns to their areas of origin. movements were a consequence of the camp closures and consoli- The districts with the highest number of arrivals from camps were dation that began in mid-October 2020. A total of 2,364 individuals Kirkuk and Al-Hawiga which, combined, accounted for 92 per cent (44%) returned to their district of origin while the remaining 2,982 of camp arrivals to Kirkuk (Figure 4). In Al-Hawiga district, most (56%) moved to new locations of displacement, thus becoming (95%) of the arrivals from camps have returned to their areas of out-of-camp IDPs. In addition to the camp closures and a desire for origin, with the remaining arriving to new locations of displacement some IDPs to return home due to improved security in their area (5%) and therefore considered out-of-camp IDPs. of origin, a notable push factor for departures from camps was related to movement restrictions imposed because of the COVID-19 4 Critical shelters include collective shelters (such as religious buildings, schools, or other public buildings), unfinished or abandoned buildings, tents, caravans and other temporary, sub-standard or makeshift shelters; as well as severely damaged or destroyed habitual residences and long-term rental accommodations that are unfit for habitation (having the characteristics of unfinished or severely damaged buildings). 5 Refer to the Emergency Tracking report on “Movement of Camp IDPs” for more details on new arrivals since camp closures began in mid-October.