DTMDISPLACEMENT EMERGENCY AND RETURNS TO TRACKINGAND AL-BA’AJ DISTRICTS DISPLACEMENT AND RETURNS TO PERIOD COVERED: SINJAR AND AL-BA’AJ DISTRICTS 8 JUNE – 2 SEPTEMBER 2020

*All charts/graphs in this document show total figures for the period of 8 June to 2 September 2020, inclusively

Between 22 August and 2 September 2020, DTM tracked 2,258 individuals (431 18,214 families) returning to Sinjar and Al-Ba’aj districts in ’s Ninewa governorate. This 68% 32% brings the total number of individuals that have taken this route to 18,214 (3,366 INDIVIDUALS Returnees Out-of-camp families) since data collection commenced on 8 June. IDPs In this reporting period, the average number of daily individual arrivals was 178 to 3,366 Sinjar and 26 to Al-Ba’aj. This is broadly consistent with the overall daily average FAMILIES number of arrivals since 8 June; however, it is significantly higher than the daily aver- Moved to Sinjar and 91% 9% ages recorded in the previous reporting period (48 to Sinjar and 7 to Al-Ba’aj). This Al-Ba’aj districts to Sinjar to Al-Ba’aj increase was due to a significant number of individuals arriving in this period rather than taking their planned journey in August, due to temporary movement restric- tions introduced in their displacement camp in Sumel District following an outbreak of Coronavirus. 80% 19% <1% <1% Of those individuals who returned between 22 August and 2 September, a total from Dahuk from Ninewa from from Sulaimaniyah of 2,130 were recorded in Sinjar (94%) and 128 were recorded in Al-Ba’aj (6%) – broadly consistent with the rates of individuals’ districts of arrival since 8 June. Mostly from Mostly from Al- All from All from The most common sub-district of arrival was Al-Shamal with 1,452 individuals and Sumel districts Shikhan district district (64%), followed by Markaz Sinjar with 472 individuals (21%). Together, these two sub-districts comprise 82% of all individuals recorded as having arrived to Sinjar and Al-Ba’aj since data collection commenced on 8 June. Of those individuals identified as returning between 22 August and 2 September, 78% 22% 1,837 were recorded as returnees (81%), while the remaining 421 were recorded from camp settings from out-of-camp settings as out-of-camp IDPs (19%). This represents a deviation from the overall proportion of individuals having been identified as returnees (68%) and IDPs (32%) since 8 June.

Map 1. Population Movements to Sinjar and Al-Ba’aj districts

INDIVIDUALS BY SUB-DISTRICT OF ARRIVAL Number of individuals Zakho 3 - 740 Amedi Dahuk 8,534 741 - 4,359 Dahuk Mergasur Sumel +1,452 4,360 - 8,575 6,419 District boundary Al-Shikhan Telafar Governorate boundary Choman +472 Tilkaif Soran

Shaqlawa

Al-Hamdaniya

Sinjar Erbil Rania Pshdar 7,082 5,947 1,614 1,647 Erbil Koisnjaq +128 +206 Ninewa Dokan 1,486 1,441

Sulaymaniyah Dabes Makhmur Al-Qahtaniya Al-Shamal Markaz Sinjar Qaeyrrawan Sulaymaniya

Al-Ba'aj

Al-Baaj Sinjar Al-Shirqat Kirkuk 8 June – 21 August 22 August - 2 September Grand Total Al-Hawiga

Salah Al-Din Tooz Kalar Anbar Additionally, between 22 August and 2 September, a total of 1,879 individuals were recordedAl-Ka'im asRa'ua having comeHaditha from within NinewaTikrit (16%), mainly from two districts: recorded as departing from Dahuk Governorate (83%) – which is similar with Al-Shikhan (13% of all individuals) and Sinjar (3% of all individuals). This proportion the rates of individuals having departed from there since 8 June (80%). As with all (16%) of individuals recorded as having come from Ninewa between 22 August and previous rounds, between 22 August and 2 September, the majority of individuals 2 September is slightly lower than the overall proportion of individuals recorded from Dahuk were recorded as coming from the districts of Sumel (56% of all indi- as having come from there since 8 June (19%). Otherwise, 10 individuals reported viduals) and Zakho (25% of all individuals). The remaining individuals from Dahuk arriving from ’s (<1% of all individuals), while unlike were recorded as coming from the districts of Amedi (1% of all individuals) and previous rounds no individuals came from . Dahuk (1% of all individuals). Since 8 June, almost all individuals have been recorded as having departed from Additionally, between 22 August and 2 September, a further 369 individuals were Sumel (51%), Zakho (26%), and Al-Shikhan districts (15%).

INDIVIDUALS BY DISTRICT OF DEPARTURE 8 June – 21 August 22 August - 2 September Grand Total 9,315 +1,271

4,781 +565 2,814 +287 242 266 4 486 3 210 7 40 10 24 12 +30 +13 +65 +10 Amedi Dahuk Sumel Zakho Al-Shikhan Mosul Sinjar Telafar Tilkaif Al- Erbil Soran Sulaymaniya Sharbazher Hamdaniya Dahuk Ninewa Erbil Sulaymaniyah DISPLACEMENT AND RETURNS TO SINJAR AND AL-BA’AJ DISTRICTS

Between 22 August and 2 September, of the 2,130 individuals that arrived with 4,049 that have arrived from out-of-camp settings (22%). to Sinjar, 1,807 individuals came from Dahuk Governorate (85%), while Between 22 August and 2 September, increases were recorded to the 313 came from Erbil (15%), and 10 came from within Ninewa (<1%). number of individuals who had been living in camp settings in their previous Additionally, of the 128 individuals that arrived to Al-Ba’aj, 72 came from districts of displacement. The total number of individuals in Sinjar and Dahuk (56%) and 56 came from Ninewa (44%). Al-Ba’aj who have come from camp settings within Sumel is now 7,265 Furthermore, during the same period, a total of 1,832 individuals were (up from 6,233), while Zakho’s is 4,150 (up from 3,264), and Al-Shikhan’s is recorded as coming from camp settings (81%), while the remaining 426 indi- 2,322 (up from 2,087). viduals came from out-of-camp settings (19%). This is generally consistent In addition, since 8 June, the total number of individuals that have come from with the rates of individuals coming from different settings since 8 June, as out-of-camp settings in Sumel is now 2,059 (up from 1,811). follows: 14,165 individuals have arrived from camp settings (78%) compared

INDIVIDUALS BY TYPE OF LOCATION IN PREVOUS DISTRICT OF DISPLACEMENT (CAMP/OUT-OF-CAMP) 8 June – 21 August 22 August - 2 September Grand Total 7,256

+1,023

4,150 +526 2,322 2,059 +235 +248 631 492 224 266 273 18 40 4 213 3 210 +39 24 12 10 7 +52 +30 +13 +195 +47 +10

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

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

NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL ARRIVALS PER DAY1

707

616 562 572 488 447 389 372 359 351 301 401 284 258 209 215 214 220 290 196 161 173 268 268 264 151 129 82 82 99 33 88 33 41 38 20 92 4 5 19 58 54 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 23 25 27 29 31 2 June July August September

ADDITIONAL ANECDOTAL NARRATIVE

Reasons for returns to be used by the new returnees or IDPs willing to return to their areas of • Reasons for IDPs going home to Sinjar include the improved security origin in Sinjar. The main purpose of the system is to enable the authori- situation, the clearing of mines/IEDs, and the rehabilitation of public ties to follow up on emerging issues/complaints, including but not limited infrastructure. Mukhtars, local NGOs and returnees have also encour- to checkpoint related difficulties, as well as reports that some of the newly aged IDPs to return home. returned individuals occupy buildings that do not belong to them. • One of the push factors has been COVID-19, in that some families 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 basic services such as healthcare, markets, water, and electricity Assistance and registration and having not received assistance. Some of these locations had not • It was reported that the Directorate of national security in Sinjar has estab- witnessed any returns before. lished a feedback/ complaint/response mechanism in the form of a hotline

1 Please note that the high rates of individuals that arrived from 25 to 27 August are in part due to a delay in receiving the list of returnees from authorities. This means that some of the returnees that arrived in that period may have arrived on previous days.

© 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 Population, this report. Names and boundaries on DTM information products do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by IOM. 2 Refugees and Migration (PRM) for its continued support.