DTMDISPLACEMENT EMERGENCY AND RETURNS TO SINJAR TRACKINGAND AL-BA’AJ DISTRICTS DISPLACEMENT AND RETURNS TO PERIOD COVERED: SINJAR AND AL-BA’AJ DISTRICTS 8 JUNE – 21 AUGUST 2020

*All charts/graphs in this document show total figures for the period of 8 June to 21 August 2020, inclusively

Between 7 and 21 August 2020, DTM tracked 716 individuals (132 families) 15,469 returning to Sinjar and Al-Ba’aj districts in ’s Ninewa governorate. This 66% 34% brings the total number of individuals that have taken this route to 15,469 INDIVIDUALS Returnees Out-of-camp (2,850 families) since data collection commenced on 8 June. IDPs 2,850 Of those individuals who returned between 7 and 21 August, a total of 621 were recorded in Sinjar (87%) and 95 were recorded in Al-Ba’aj (13%) FAMILIES 90% 10% – broadly consistent with the rates of individuals’ districts of arrival since Moved to Sinjar and 8 June. Al-Ba’aj districts to Sinjar to Al-Ba’aj Rates of arrivals have continued to decline in the month of August after peaking in July. Between 7 and 21 August, the average number of individual arrivals was 48 to Sinjar and 7 to Al-Ba’aaj. This is significantly lower than 80% 19% <1% <1% the overall daily average number of individual arrivals to the two districts since 8 June – which are 192 to Sinjar and 20 to Al-Ba’aj. from Dahuk from Ninewa from Erbil from Sulaimaniyah The most common sub-district of arrival was Al-Shamal with 299 individ-

uals (42%), followed by Markaz Sinjar with 228 individuals (32%). Together, Mostly from Mostly from Al- All from All from these two sub-districts comprise 82% of all individuals recorded as having and Sumel districts Shikhan district district arrived to Sinjar and Al-Ba’aj since data collection commenced on 8 June. Of those individuals identified as returning between 7 and 21 August, 490 were recorded as returnees (68%), while the remaining 226 were recorded 78% 22% as out-of-camp IDPs (32%). This is consistent with the overall proportion of individuals having been identified as returnees (66%) and IDPs (34%) from camp settings from out-of-camp settings since 8 June. Map 1. Population Movements to Sinjar and Al-Ba’aj districts

Zakho Number of individuals

INDIVIDUALS BY SUB-DISTRICT OF ARRIVAL Amedi Dahuk 3 - 708

Dahuk Mergasur Sumel 709 - 3,762

6,917 Soran +299 5,759 Telafar Al-Shikhan 3,763 - 7,053 Choman Tilkaif +228 District boundary Governorate boundary

Sinjar Al-Hamdaniya Erbil Rania Pshdar 6,618 5,531 Erbil 1,481 Koisnjaq 1,312 Ninewa Dokan +95 +94 1,386 1,218 Sulaymaniyah Dabes Makhmur Sulaymaniya Al-Qahtaniya Al-Shamal Markaz Sinjar Qaeyrrawan Al-Ba'aj Al-Shirqat Kirkuk Al-Baaj 8 June – 6 August 7 – 21 AugustSinjar Grand Total Al-Hawiga

Salah Al-Din Tooz Kalar Anbar Al-Ka'im Ra'ua Additionally, between 7 and 21 August, a total of 590 individuals were recorded as having come from within Ninewa (30%), from two districts: recorded as departing from Dahuk Governorate (82%) – which is in line Sinjar (51 individuals, 7% of all individuals) and Al-Shikhan (49 individuals, with the rates of individuals having departed from there since 8 June (80%). 7% of all individuals). The proportion of individuals recorded as having come As with all previous rounds, between 7 and 21 August, the majority of indi- from Ninewa between 7 and 21 July (14%) is slightly lower than the overall viduals from Dahuk were recorded as coming from the districts of Zakho proportion of individuals recorded as having come from there since 8 June (45% of all individuals) and Sumel (32% of all individuals). The remaining 40 (20%). The remaining individuals were recorded as having come from the individuals from Dahuk were recorded as coming from Amedi 6% of all governorates of Sulaymaniyah (3%) and Erbil (1%). individuals. Since 8 June, almost all individuals have been recorded as having departed Furthermore, between 7 and 21 August, a further 100 individuals were from Sumel (50%), Zakho (27%), and Al-Shikhan districts (16%). INDIVIDUALS BY DISTRICT OF DEPARTURE 8 June – 6 August 7 – 21 August Grand Total 7,761 +230 4,139 +320 2,440 +49 212 253 4 417 3 172 32 24 12 +40 +51 +9 +5

Amedi Dahuk Sumel Zakho Al-Shikhan Mosul Sinjar Telafar Tilkaif Erbil Sulaymaniya Sharbazher

Dahuk Ninewa Erbil Sulaymaniyah DISPLACEMENT AND RETURNS TO SINJAR AND AL-BA’AJ DISTRICTS

Between 7 and 21 August, of the 621 individuals that arrived to Sinjar, 532 Between 7 and 21 August, increases were recorded in the number of individuals came from Dahuk Governorate (86%), while 63 came from individuals who had been living in camp settings in their previous districts within Ninewa (10%), 17 came from Sulaymaniyah (3%), and nine came of displacement. The total number of individuals in Sinjar and Al-Ba’aj from Erbil (1%). Additionally, of the 95 individuals that arrived to Al-Ba’aj, who have come from camp settings within Sumel is now 5,902 (up from 58 came from Dahuk (61%) and 37 came from Ninewa (39%). 5,734), while Zakho’s is 3,227 (up from 2,907), and Al-Shikhan’s is 1,970 In addition, during the same period, a total of 622 individuals were (up marginally from 1,924). recorded as coming from camp settings (87%), while the remaining 94 Otherwise, minor increases only were recorded in the number of indi- individuals came from out-of-camp settings (13%). This is generally viduals in Sinjar and Al-Ba’aj that came from out-of-camp settings in their consistent with the rates of individuals coming from different settings previous districts of displacement. since 8 June, as follows: 12,018 individuals have arrived from camp settings (78%) compared with 3,451 that have arrived from out-of-camp settings (22%).

INDIVIDUALS BY TYPE OF LOCATION IN PREVOUS DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT (CAMP/OUT-OF-CAMP) 8 June – 6 August 7 – 21 August Grand Total 6,070 +168

3,547 +320 2,016 1,691 +46 +62 424 592 194 18 253 32 4 191 226 3 172 24 12 +40 +9 +48 +3 +5

Camp Out of Camp Out of Out of Out of Out of Camp Out of Camp Out of Out of Out of Camp Out of Out of Out of camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp camp

Al-Shikhan Amedi Dahuk Erbil Mosul Sinjar Sum el Telafar Tilkaif Zakho Sulaymaniya Sha rbazher

NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL ARRIVALS PER DAY

707 616 562 488 447 401 389 372 359 301 284 220 215 214 290 209 196 173 268 268 264 151 82 99 82 55 33 54 41 38 33 92 4 5 19 58 19

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 16 18 21 June July August

ADDITIONAL ANECDOTAL NARRATIVE

Reasons for returns form of a hotline to be used by the new returnees or IDPs willing • Reasons for IDPs going home to Sinjar include the improved security to return to their areas of origin in Sinjar. The main purpose of the situation, the clearing of mines/IEDs, and the rehabilitation of public system is to enable the authorities to follow up on emerging issues/ infrastructure. Mukhtars, local NGOs and returnees have also encour- complaints, including but not limited to checkpoint related difficul- aged IDPs to return home. ties, as well as reports that some of the newly returned individuals • One of the push factors has been COVID-19, in that some families occupy buildings that do not belong to them. who had a member working in the area of origin and moving back Challenges faced by returnees and forth between Sinjar and an area of displacement could no longer • Debris removal has been noted as an obstacle to return, given the move easily due to the movement restrictions, which then pushed the large-scale destruction that was witnessed in Sinjar. IDPs to return. • There are reports of individuals having returned to areas with limited Assistance and registration basic services such as healthcare, markets, water, and electricity • It was reported that the Directorate of national security in Sinjar and having not received assistance. Some of these locations had not has established a feedback/ complaint/response mechanism in the witnessed any returns before.

© 2020 International Organization for Migration (IOM) The information in this report is the result of data collected by IOM field teams and complements information provided by governmental and other entities in Iraq. IOM Iraq endeavors to keep this information as up to date and accurate as possible, but makes no claim —expressed or implied— on the completeness, accuracy and suitability of the information provided through IOM Iraq thanks the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of 2 this report. Names and boundaries on DTM information products do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by IOM. Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) for its continued support.