IDP Movement Intentions STudy Dohuk Governorate August 2017 · 2018. 6. 6. · welthungrhilfe iraq...

Location Kurdistan Region of Iraq

Month, Year

Author

August 2017

Chris Stadler / Programs Unit WHH Iraq

Study Area Duhok Governorate

IDP MOVEMENT INTENTIONS

STUDY

DOHUK GOVERNORATE

AUGUST 2017

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ

IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY

AUGUST 2017

2

CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

INTRODUCTION 4

KEY FINDINGS 4

INTRODUCTION TO STUDY 9

STUDY DESCRIPTION & OBJECTIVES 9

STUDY FINANCING 9

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 9

LITERATURE REVIEW 9

RESEARCH TOOLS 13

IDP HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE SIZE 14

SURVEY AREA SELECTION 15

SURVEY SCHEDULE 16

SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS 17

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS 18

ANALYSIS OF IDP HOUSEHOLDS 19

OVERVIEW 19

IDP HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 20

PRE-DISPLACEMENT SITUATION 26

POST-DISPLACEMENT SITUATION 33

AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON AREA OF ORIGIN 60

VOLUNTARY RETURN INTENTIONS 74

ALTERNATIVE MOVEMENT INTENTIONS 90

ASSISTANCE REQUESTED 102

RECOMMENDATIONS 112

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 112

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

3

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AOD — Area of Displacement

AOO — Area of Origin

CIHL — Customary International Humanitarian Law

DTM — Displacement Tracking Matrix

GiZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit/ German Development Agency)

HH — Household

HoH — Head of Household

IHRP — Iraq Humanitarian Response Plan

IASC — Inter Agency Standing Committee

ICRC — International Committee of the Red Cross

IDP — Internally Displaced Person

IED — Improvised Explosive Device

ISF — Iraqi Security Forces

ISIL — Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

IOM — International Organization of Migration

KSF — Kurdish Security Forces

KRG — Kurdish Regional Government

KRI — Kurdistan Region of Iraq

OCHA — Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

PDS — Public Distribution System

UXO — Unexploded Ordinance

UN — United Nations

WHH — Welthungerhilfe

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of the armed opposition group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in

late 2013 and its subsequent takeover over much of the Iraq’s Western and Northern territory

in 2014 led to one of the worst ongoing humanitarian crises in country’s modern history. As of

July 2017, over 3 million IDPs are displaced throughout the Republic of Iraq, making them the

third largest IDP population in world after Syria (7.6 million) and Colombia (6 million).

The Kurdish Region of Iraq (hereafter KRI), a semi-autonomous region in Northern Iraq

consisting of Dohuk, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah Governorates, currently hosts an estimated 145,000

IDP households (approximately 875,000 individuals) that were mostly displaced due to the

emergence of and conflict with ISIL.1 The majority of IDP households originate from the

surrounding Ninewa, Anbar, Salah Al Din, and Diyala Governorates that border the KRI.

Since late 2014, Iraqi and Kurdish Security Forces have retaken areas from ISIL, enabling the

return of many IDP households (approximately 1.9 million IDP individuals to date).2 On October

17th 2016, Iraqi and Kurdish security forces launched joint military operations to retake the

remaining areas in Iraq still under ISIL control. After enduring three years of displacement, many

IDP households will be able to consider returning to their origins as more areas are retaken and

become accessible and recovery efforts can be mobilized. At the same time, the security

situation and access to basic services in many of these newly accessible areas remains

precarious. As the political landscape quickly changes across Iraq, more information is needed

on the movement intentions of IDP households and the assistance they require in overcoming

the challenges they face with their decision.

KEY FINDINGS

For this study, 417 on-camp and off-camp households were surveyed about their planned

movement intentions. Among all households,

• 68% were intending to return to their area of origin

• 18% were intending to integrate into their current area of displacement

• 10% were intending to migrate abroad

• 1% were to relocate to another area of origin (see Diagram 1).

If these figures are reflective of the greater IDP population in Dohuk Governorate, humanitarian

and governmental agencies should plan for the eventual return of the majority of on-camp and

off-camp households to their areas of origin. Nonetheless a significant percentage of on-camp

and off-camp households also reported that they intend to integrate into their current area of

displacement. After more than three years of displacement, it is understandable that many on-

camp and off-camp households have already begun the process of integrating into their

communities and do not wish to be start over (even if that would mean to return to their

original homes and communities). Many households also reported improved access to basic

1 IOM Iraq Displacement Tracking Matrix July 2017 IDP Master List 2 IOM Iraq Displacement Tracking Matrix July 2017 Returnee Master List

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

5

services in their areas of displacement compared to their pre-displacement situation in their

areas of origin (55% on-camp / 52% off-camp) (see Diagrams 34 & 35). It is understandably

difficult to relinquish improved living standards and return to areas where basic services are

inadequate. Furthermore, it appears that nearly all areas of displacement provided adequate

levels of basic services, livelihoods, and security that only a small percentage of households

intended to relocate to another area of displacement. This likely signifies that once established,

households, prefer not to relocate and start over. Finally, of the 10% of on-camp and off-camp

households who indicated that they were intending to migrate abroad, it is not known when or

to what extent households will be able to fulfill this movement intention. Further research is

required to see how possible migrating abroad is for IDP households and what type of support

they require.

DIAGRAM 1

The question then switches from “if” IDP households intend to return, to “when?” High

percentages of on-camp (48%) and off-camp households (36%) reported being uncertain about

when they might be able to return. Equally high percentages of on-camp (27%) and off-camp

(36%) households reported they will return from sometime between 1-2+ years (see Diagrams

72 and 73). If this is the case, both on-camp and off-camp households will require continued

assistance in their various displacement locations for the short and long-term until they able to

return.

The challenges faced in returning also substantiate the long timeframes needed before IDP

households are able to return. When asked what the main obstacles were that prevented their

household from returning, the most reported issues among on-camp and off-camp households

were: the unstable security situation in their areas of origin (65% on-camp / 68% off-camp),

unavailability of basic services (34% on-camp / 30% off-camp), and damaged housing (13% on-

camp / 25% off-camp) (see Diagrams 80 & 81). Restoring access to basic services such as clean

water, electricity, and rehabilitating public and private infrastructure in every conflict-affected

area will require significant time and resources from governmental and humanitarian agencies.

68%

18%

10%

1% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Return Integrate Migrate Relocate Do not know

% o

f T

ota

l H

Hs

Options

Movement Intentions

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

6

Even more challenging will be restoring security to regions where the political situation remains

uncertain between the KRG and GOI. Furthermore, the presence of numerous non-state armed

groups in many areas of origin evoke legitimate concerns about their political agendas and how

they will interact with returning civilian families. Supporting livelihood opportunities in remote

areas of origin will also be challenging where economies and supply-chains have been disrupted,

and consumer markets are close to non-existent. For many areas of origin, restoring security,

livelihood opportunities, public/private infrastructure to their pre-displacement levels could

easily be a 2+ year endeavor before they are suitable for IDPs to return to.

Given the fact that many IDP families will remain in displacement for the foreseeable future (in

addition to those intending to integrate), humanitarian and governmental agencies should

continue to look for ways to improve the situations of IDPs in their various on-camp and off-

camp situations until they are able to fulfill their intended movement decision. When asked what

were the main issues they faced in their areas of displacement, large percentages of on-camp

IDPs households indicated housing conditions (26%), availability of clean water (35%), lack of

electricity (21%), and lack of livelihood opportunities (17%). Off-camp households reported on

the lack of livelihood opportunities (48%), housing conditions (22%), lack of healthcare

services/medicine (15%), and insufficient food/hunger (15%) to be the biggest challenges in their

areas of displacement (see Diagrams 44 and 45). One positive aspect observed was that high

percentages of on-camp (82%) and off-camp (91%) households reported that all job

opportunities were potentially available to IDPs in their specific areas of displacement.

Humanitarian and governmental agencies should therefore focus on supporting job-creation in

various displacement locations.

In general, what can be said about the movement intentions of IDP households in Dohuk and if

they qualify as voluntary, safe, dignified, and informed? In regards to whether they could be

considered voluntary or not, the vast majority of on-camp households and off-camp households

reported having experienced no pressure or external expectations that they undertake their

intended movement intention decision. This is hopefully indicative that the IDP households will

be able to pursue the movement intention of their choice and according to their time frame.

In terms of safety, 82% of on-camp and 85% off-camp IDP households reported having concerns

about current security situation in their areas of origin. Among those households, the most

reported concerns were the present/future political situation of their areas of origin, the

presence of armed groups, extra-judicial killings, kidnappings, and areas contaminated by IEDs or

UXOs (see Diagrams 58- 63). Setting aside the validity of these concerns in all of their areas of

origin, the fact that so many households have remaining concerns is disheartening. More needs

to be done before returns can qualify as safe. Furthermore, nearly all households reported their

current displacement locations were safer than their areas of origin. As, such IDP households

should only have to make the decision to return only after lasting political and security solutions

and recovery efforts can be mobilized to all areas of origin.

In regards to qualifying as dignified, many returns, if they were to happen currently, could be not

considered dignified given the fact that only 8% of on-camp and 6% of off-camp reported their

homes to be accessible and undamaged (see Diagrams 52 & 53). As mentioned earlier, many

areas of origin still have limited or no access to basic services, markets, and livelihood

opportunities. Given the current status of many of these places, it is not advisable that IDPs

return until better living standards can be restored. On-camp and off-camp IDP households

trying to fully integrate into their current areas of displacement will also require additional

support. Among on-camp IDP households, the most reported needs were access to clean water

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

7

(54%), increased access to electricity (46%), and livelihood opportunities (25%) (see diagram 44).

For off-camp households, the most reported needs were cash (65%), livelihood opportunities

(33%), food items (25%), and shelter improvement (18%) (see Diagram 45). Many of these issues

faced by households looking to integrate could be supported via cash assistance livelihood

support that provide households with the income needed to improve their living standards.

In terms of information, there is a high need among on-camp and off-camp households for

reliable, regularly updated information regarding the availability of basic services, the ongoing

security situation, IED/UXO contamination, as well as the status of markets. For many IDPs, the

only sources of information about the status of their areas of origin were personal visits

conducted by themselves or from others who had visited. There were also significant

percentages of on-camp and off-camp households who did not know the status of their housing,

property, and land. The overall difficulty in receiving regularly updated information is of course

to be expected given the remote and sometimes newly-retaken nature of many places that

surveyed IDP households come from. Better information services are needed in order to assist

IDP households, particularly those in remote off-camp locations, about their areas of origin.

Furthermore, given the individual effects that conflict can have on housing, property, and land,

IDP households should have the opportunity for an organized trip to be provided to them.

Multiple, regularly scheduled trips might be necessary in order to ensure information remains

updated.

The findings from this study suggest that the majority of IDPs will plan to either return to their

areas of origin or integrate into their current area of displacement. Governmental and

humanitarian agencies should adjust their programming to support these intentions, but with the

understanding that mobilizing recovery efforts will be a long, arduous process. Returning to the

area of origin should not be encouraged if it cannot be considered safe, dignified, informed, and

voluntary. All actors working with IPD populations should research their movement intentions

and verify whether they meet these four minimum standards. In the interim, all IDPs in on-camp

and off-camp locations must be supported for the foreseeable future (at least 2 years), when

hopefully the political/security/recovery situation has improved enough to support returning.

One of the most requested, and likely most impactful, form of assistance that could be provided

to all IDPs in displacement and upon return would be livelihood support. But supporting

livelihoods and income-generating opportunities, humanitarian and governmental actors will

improve the ability for displaced and returned households to support themselves, and address

many of the other issues that were raised (food insecurity, inadequate shelter, access to clean

water, etc.).

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

8

FIGURE 1: BETWEEN TENT SHELTERS AT BAJED KANDALA IDP CAMP

FIGURE 2: WHH ENUMERATOR INTERVIEWING A FEMALE HH RESPONDENT

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

9

INTRODUCTION TO STUDY

STUDY DESCRIPTION & OBJECTIVES

This IDP Intentions Study emerged out of the desire by WHH to understand the movement

intentions of IDP households in Dohuk Governorate (where WHH Iraq is based) as more areas

of origin are retaken and foreseeably become accessible in the near future. It is hoped that this

study will provide WHH an indication of future movement intentions of IDP households. In

addition to movement intentions, it is also critical to understand what challenges IDPs face with

their decisions, what assistance is most needed, and whether their current intentions would

meet the minimal standards of a durable solution. This study is therefore comprised of four

main objectives meant to analyze the different factors involved in IDP movement intentions:

Objective 1: Understand the future movement intentions of IDP households displaced in

Duhok Governorate.

Objective 2: Understand the remaining challenges IDP households face with their movement

intentions.

Objective 3: Understand what assistance is required to support IDP households with their

movement intentions.

Objective 4: Understand whether each IDP household’s movement intention is dignified, safe,

voluntary, and informed.

STUDY FINANCING

This study is financed by the GIZ-funded project, titled “Improving livelihoods and basic

conditions for returnees and the local population in Ninewa province, Northern Iraq” (hereafter

Project IRQ 1005). Project IRQ 1005 seeks to support returnee households throughout Ninewa

Governorate by providing basic infrastructure construction and rehabilitation services through

various cash for work schemes. It is hoped that by improving the basic infrastructure (e.g.

schools, health clinics, parks, roads, etc.) in newly accessible areas of Ninewa Governorate,

WHH Iraq can support already returned families with improved services, but also contribute the

voluntary, safe, dignified, and informed return of IDP families who have not yet returned to their

areas of origin in Ninewa.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

LITERATURE REVIEW

RIGHT TO RETURN

It should be understood that all returns-related assistance provided to IDPs is grounded in

human rights law and rights-based programming. The right for IDPs to return to their areas of

origin is an internationally recognized right within Customary International Humanitarian Law

(CIHL). According to CIHL Rule 132 (Return of Displaced Persons), “all displaced persons have

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

10

a right to voluntary return in safety to their homes or places of habitual residence as soon as the

reasons for their displacement cease to exist.”3 The international adoption of Rule 132 by

national governments and duty bearer stakeholders “establishes this rule as a norm of

customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed

conflicts. The right to return applies to those who have been displaced, voluntarily or

involuntarily, on account of the conflict and not to non-nationals who have been lawfully

expelled.”4 Rule 132 is additionally supported by numerous internationally ratified documents

including Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (of which the Republic of Iraq is a

signatory), Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Principles 28-30 of

the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.

In addition to IHL and human rights law, the 2005 Iraq Constitution upholds the right for

displaced Iraqi citizens to return to their areas of origin. According to Article 44, Section 2, “No

Iraqis may be exiled, displaced, or deprived from returning to the homeland.” 5 In this sense, all

Iraqi citizens have the right to not be arbitrarily displaced as well as not be prevented from

returning to their place of origin after a period of displacement. The right to return should be

upheld and enforced by the competent and authorities consisting of the federal Government of

Iraq (GOI) and Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) over all Iraqi citizens under their

administration.

ALTERNATIVE DURABLE SOLUTIONS

Despite the fact that displaced Iraqi citizens have both universal human rights and constitutional

rights to return to their areas of origin, the ability to return in a voluntary, safe, dignified, and

informed manner is not always immediately possible.

The 2010 IASC Durable Solutions Framework addresses this issue and highlights the existence

of two durable solutions, in addition to returning to an area of origin, that national governments

should adhere to in situations of displacement.

According to the framework, alternative durable solutions besides returning can be achieved

through:

• Sustainable local integration at the area of displacement (local integration)

• Sustainable integration in another part of the country (relocation and resettlement)

The framework highlights that regardless of the “option chosen by IDPs for their durable

solution, IDPs will commonly continue to have residual needs and human rights concerns linked

to their displacement…”6 This recognizes the fact that the mere act of integrating, or resettling

does not fully redress all the needs caused by the displacement. The national government and

humanitarian community should also account for the residual needs caused by the original

displacement. Therefore, a durable solution is only “achieved when IDP’s no longer have specific

3 ICRC Customary IHL Database. Rule 132. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-

ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule132 4 ICRC Customary IHL Database. Rule 132. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-

ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule132 5 Zaid Al-Ali English translation of the 2005 Iraqi Constitution http://zaidalali.com/resources/constitution-

of-iraq/ 6 IASC Framework On Durable Solutions For Internally Displaced Persons. 2010

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule132




http://zaidalali.com/resources/constitution-of-iraq/

http://zaidalali.com/resources/constitution-of-iraq/

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

11

assistance and protection needs that are linked to their displacement and such persons can

enjoy their human rights without discrimination resulting from displacement.”7

MOVEMENT INTENTIONS AND DECISIONS

This study will utilize the following terminology to discuss the desires and plans of IDP

households in their individual pursuit to finding a durable solution to their displacement.

In this report, a movement intention is defined as one of the following options:

• Returning to the area of origin

• Integrating into the current area of displacement

• Relocating to another area of displacement

• Migrating abroad to another country

A movement decision would be the realization of the movement intention, i.e. the physical act

of returning, integrating, relocating, or migrating. This study makes this decision because despite

the intentions of IDP households, they may not always be able to carry out their plans. Despite

the fact that migrating abroad is not considered a “durable solution” per the IASC Framework,

this study’s researchers were also interested in seeing whether IDP households were

considering this option and what support they might require.

VOLUNTARY, SAFE, DIGNIFED, AND INFORMED DECISION-MAKING

Movement decisions should be conducted on the premise that they are voluntary, safe, dignified,

and informed. These four principles are described in detail in the Iraq Protection Cluster’s “Aide

Memoire on Principles of Voluntary Return in Safety and Dignity,” but are also upheld by

OCHA’s Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement as well as the IASC Framework On

Durable Solutions For Internally Displaced Persons. Although the Aide Memoire concerns itself

with returning, its definitions can also extend to the other movement decisions. This study will

use the following definitions in order to assess whether surveyed households’ movement

intentions fall under these conditions.

Voluntary

The decision to integrate, relocate, migrate abroad, or return should be the primary decision of

those who are displaced. Displaced people should never be pressured, forced, or falsely

incentivized to conduct a movement decision if they feel it is against their best interest. As per

the Aide Memoire, “IDPs should not be induced to return by indications of withholding

humanitarian assistance, reducing humanitarian assistance, confiscation of documentation, closing

of IDP camps or sites, or expulsion/eviction from temporary accommodation or arbitrary

arrest/detention. In case IDPs decide to not return and choose another durable solution, this

should be respected without negative consequences for the IDPs.”8

It is also best practice that that IDPs have ownership over their movement decision and are

“consulted and participate extensively in the planning and management of the processes

7 IASC Framework On Durable Solutions For Internally Displaced Persons. 2010 8 Iraq Protection Cluster. “Aide Memoire on Principles of Voluntary Return in Safety and Dignity.”

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

12

supporting a durable solution.9” The IASC Framework stresses that “national and local

authorities and humanitarian and development actors should base their durable solution

programming on the actual preferences of IDPs and work towards providing them with a

meaningful and realistic choice of durable solutions.”10

Safe

Conducting a movement decision should never jeopardize the physical or legal safety of the IDP.

As emphasized in the Aide Memoire, “the government in collaboration with other relevant

actors has the responsibility to ensure that places of return are safe: free from any military

activities, free of mines or unexploded ordnance, and the physical safety of IDPs is provided by

the state security forces. This includes villages and houses, access roads, and areas where the

populations are known to conduct their livelihoods.” In addition, the Memoire also emphasizes

the legal safety of the IDP should be upheld. Returning individuals should also be able to

“exercise their basic civil, political and economics rights” as well as be able to “register their

return and access civil status and property documentation.”11

Dignified

IDPs should have access to basic services and suitable living conditions in the area associated

with their chosen durable solution. As mentioned in the Aide Memoire, “returning IDPs should

have access to basic services and available public utilities without discrimination…notably access

in the early phases of return to means of survival and basic services, such as potable water,

health services and education.”12

Furthermore, movement decisions to areas that where basic services are unavailable should not

be promoted by national authorities or humanitarian actors. According to the IASC Framework,

“even when return, local integration or settlement elsewhere in the country are entirely

voluntary, they should not be promoted if they endanger the life, safety, liberty, or health of

IDPs or is minimum standard of agreeable living conditions bearing in mind local conditions

cannot be ensured.”13

Informed

According to the IASC Framework, before a movement decision can be considered as informed,

IDPs should be aware of the “conditions in places of return, local integration or settlement

elsewhere in the country, including degrees of destruction, access to housing, land, livelihoods,

landmine risks, employment, and other economic opportunities, availability of public services

(public transport, healthcare, education, means of communication, etc.); conditions of buildings

of infrastructure for schools, health clinics, roads, bridges, and sanitation systems,; and assistance

from national international, and private actors.”14 In addition, information should be made

accessible to all members of an IDP community including “men, women, and children of a

certain age and maturity” in order to avoid privileging certain subgroups of a community,

Security permitting, IDPs should also have the right to visit to their area of origin in order to

help them make an informed decision. To add to this, the Aide Memoire also recommends that

9 IASC Framework On Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons. 2010 10 IASC Framework On Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons. 2010 11 Iraq Protection Cluster. “Aide Memoire on Principles of Voluntary Return in Safety and Dignity.” 12 Iraq Protection Cluster. “Aide Memoire on Principles of Voluntary Return in Safety and Dignity.” 13 IASC Framework On Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons. 2010 14 IASC Framework On Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons. 2010

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

13

“the overall return plan and process of return should be provided as early as possible to an

actual return movement. The information should include an explanation of procedures, any

registration required, assistance provided upon return, as well as an explanation of the rights of

IDPs.”15

RESEARCH TOOLS

IDP HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE

A unique IDP household questionnaire was developed for this study. Other IDP intention

studies were analyzed from different displacement contexts in the development of the

questionnaire. Feedback provided by the Iraq Returns Working Group was also integrated into

the finalized questionnaire. The questionnaire was digitized and uploaded to tablets to help

facilitate the survey process. Survey enumerators fluent in Arabic and Kurdish were trained in

household surveying techniques given the sensitivity of this study. During all surveying trips, the

study’s enumerators were under the supervision of a trained project officer to ensure for quality

control.

Household surveys were selected as the data-collection tool for this study given the highly

individualistic nature involved in selecting a movement intention. Deciding upon a movement

intention is a complicated matter that involves both the realities on the ground, how IDP

households perceive those realities, and what degree of power they have to act on their desires.

Even surveying two households that were displaced from the same area of origin might yield

different movement intentions. As an example, one household might view a particular area as

safe to return to, or the availability of basic services to be sufficient for its needs, while another

may not. Household surveys provide an overview of the distinct challenges IDP households face

in finding a durable solution to their displacement.

It was also important to provide survey respondents a private space where they could speak

freely about the challenges they faced with their movement intentions. Other data collection

methods, such as focus group discussions, were ruled out as they might not have provided

respondents the needed environment to speak freely.

15 Iraq Protection Cluster. “Aide Memoire on Principles of Voluntary Return in Safety and Dignity.”

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

14

FIGURE 3: WHH ENUMERATOR INTERVIEWING A MALE HH RESPONDENT

IDP HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE SIZE

The sample size indicated below is based on Dohuk Governorate’s total IDP household

population according to IOM Iraq’s Displacement Tracking Matrix Round 70 Data Set, which has

been counting and mapping IDP displacements in Iraq since 2014.

Dohuk Governorate IDP Population: 64,926 HHs

Confidence Level: 95%

Margin of Error: 5%

Intended Survey Sample Size: 400 HHs16

Intended HH Respondents: (200 male/200 female household respondents)

This study also sought to reflect the reality of the on-camp and off-camp IDP populations

currently displaced in Dohuk Governorate. According to the IOM DTM Round 70 data set, 60%

of Dohuk’s IDP population live off-camp, while 40% live on-camp. In order to replicate this 40:60

16 The total sample size was increased from 382 HHs to 400 HHs in order to provide equal HH survey

quotas for each IDP location.

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

15

on-camp/off-camp ratio, a minimum of 32 households were surveyed per location in on-camp

locations, and a minimum of 48 households were surveyed per location in off-camp locations.

SURVEY AREA SELECTION

Five on-camp and five off-camp IDP locations were randomly selected for surveying. All on-camp

and off-camp locations featured in the IOM DTM Round 70 Dataset with IDP populations

greater than 30 HHs were included in the survey area selection process.

All suitable on-camp and off-camp locations were separated into two lists, and each IDP location

was assigned a specific number (hereafter IDP location number). The range of IDP location

numbers was entered into a random number generator, from which on-camp and off-camp

locations were selected according to which numbers were generated.

For Dohuk Governorate, the following IDP locations were randomly selected:

• On-Camp IDP Locations:

o Bajed Kandala IDP Camp, Sumel District

o Bersive 2 IDP Camp, Zakho District

o Dawodiya IDP Camp, Amedi District

o Khanke IDP Camp, Sumel District

o Rwanga Community IDP Camp, Sumel District

• Off-Camp Locations:

o Bajed Kandala Village, Sumel District

o Chamanke Village, Amedi District

o Darkar Village, Zakho District

o Duhok City, Duhok District

o Mangesh Village, Dohuk District

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

16

FIGURE 4: MAP OF DOHUK GOVERNORATE ON-CAMP LOCATIONS

FIGURE 5: MAP OF DOHUK GOVERNORATE OFF-CAMP LOCATIONS

SURVEY SCHEDULE

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

17

Table 1 shows the data-collection schedule as it was conducted by this study’s survey team. On-

camp locations required only one day to survey the intended sample size. Off-camp locations

required between two to three days to survey the intended sample size, as IDP households

were often further spread out from one another.

TABLE 1: IDP STUDY SURVEY SCHEDULE

Dates of Surveying IDP Displacement Location

July 4th Khanke IDP Camp

July 5th Bajed Kandala IDP Camp

July 6th Rwanga Community IDP Camp

July 9th Bersive 2 IDP Camp

July 10th Dawudiya IDP Camp

July 13th, 16th Bajed Kandala Village

July 18th, 19th Mangesh Village

July 23rd, 24th Chamanke Village

July 25th, 26th, 27th Duhok City

August 1st, 2nd Darkar Village

SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS

Table 2 shows the number of respondents according to gender at each displacement location.

TABLE 2: IDP STUDY RESPONDENT TYPE & GENDER

IDP

Displacement

Location

Male HH

Respondents

Female HH

Respondents

Total

Khanke IDP Camp 16 19 35

Bajed Kandala IDP

Camp

14 19 33

Rwanga Community

IDP Camp

16 17 33

Bersive 2 IDP Camp 14 20 34

Dawudiya IDP Camp 9 24 33

ON-CAMP

TOTAL

60 99 168

Bajed Kandala

Village

20 31 51

Mangesh Village

28 21 49

Chamanke Village

21 28 49

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

18

Duhok City 20 30 50

Darkar Village 23 27 50

OFF-CAMP

TOTAL

112 137 249

COMBINED

TOTAL

172 236 417

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

Although this study strove to survey equal numbers of adult female and male household

members, adult males were occasionally absent from this survey’s randomly selected

households. Male enumerators were given the flexibility to survey willing adult females if an

adult male was unavailable to be surveyed. This resulted in higher numbers of surveyed adult

female household respondents compared to male respondents.

For off-camp locations, WHH worked with each area’s Sub-District Mayor Office to identify IDP

community focal points who could assist WHH surveyor teams in locating IDP households. IDP

focal points were present during surveying dates and guided WHH enumerators to the houses

of IDPs in each area. In this case, IDP households were not able to be randomly selected as in

camp locations.

Additionally, in some off-camp locations, WHH had to expand its geographic coverage outside

of the immediate area in order to achieve its household quota. This was due to the fact that

some villages did not have the IDP household populations indicated in the IOM DTM Round 70

data set.

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

19

FIGURE 6: WHH ENUMERATOR INTERVIEWING A MALE RESPONDENT

ANALYSIS OF IDP HOUSEHOLDS

OVERVIEW

This survey’s findings are divided into the following sections:

• Household Profile

• Pre-Displacement Situation

• Post-Displacement Situation

• Information About Area of Origin

• Voluntary Return Intentions

• Alternative Movement Intentions

• Assistance Requested

Each section includes multiple sub-sections with side-by-side comparisons of on-camp and off-

camp IDP households. On-camp and off-camp household data were separated in order to

compare whether on-camp and off-camp situations correlate with different post-displacement

situations and movement decisions trends.

This study’s IDP household questionnaire is a conditional questionnaire, which utilizes branch

logic. Respondents who answered “yes” or “no” to certain questions would be prompted with

distinct follow-up questions. In addition, respondents who indicated that their household’s

primary movement intention was not to return home were prompted to answer the additional

“Alternative Movement Intentions” section.

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

20

IDP HOUSEHOLD PROFILE

GENDER & AGE RANGE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS

As can be seen in Table 3, for both gender groups the majority of respondents (79%) were

between the age ranges “25-39” and “40-59.” In addition, 59% of surveyed on-camp respondents

were women compared to the remaining 41% who were men.

TABLE 3

Age Range Respondent Gender

Total %

Female Male

18-24 6% 3% 9%

25-39 30% 15% 45%

40-59 19% 15% 34%

60+ 4% 8% 12%

Total 59% 41% 100%

OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS

HOUSEHOLD GENDER & POSITION OF SURVEY RESPONDENT


For surveyed on-camp households, the majority of female respondents were spouses of the

head of household. There were however some instances of female respondents being household

heads themselves. Male respondents were almost exclusively household heads and in no cases

were they the spouse of the household head (see Table 4).

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

21

TABLE 4

Household Position Respondent Gender

Total %

Female Male

Head of Household (HoH)

8% 38% 46%

Offspring of HoH 8% 2% 10%

Parent of HoH 0% 1% 1%

Spouse of HoH 43% 0% 43%

Total 59% 41% 100%


For surveyed off-camp households, ages and genders were very similar to the on-camp

respondents. Once again, the majority of household respondents were female (60%) compared

to male respondents (40%). In addition, the majority (81%) of male and female respondents

were in the two age groups “25-39” and “40-59” (see Table 5).

TABLE 5

Age Range Respondent Gender

Total %

Female Male

18-24 6% 1% 7%

25-39 27% 14% 41%

40-59 19% 22% 41%

60+ 8% 3% 11%

Total 60% 40% 100%

HOUSEHOLD MEMBER SEX & AGE RANGE


WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

22

The majority on-camp households did not have male or female members under the ages of 5 or

60+. In contrast, most households were comprised of one to three male or female members in

the age range groups “6-17” and “18-59”(see Table 6).

TABLE 6

Sex & Age Range

Percentage of HHs (With Number of Members)

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Males (Under 5) 68% 23% 8% 1% 0% 0%

Females (Under 5) 67% 24% 7% 2% 0% 0%

Males (6-17) 42% 19% 23% 10% 5% 2%

Females (6-17) 46% 21% 15% 7% 9% 2%

Males (18-59) 8% 56% 18% 11% 4% 4%

Females (18-59) 6% 60% 14% 11% 7% 3%

Males (60+) 83% 16% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Females (60+) 87% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0%


Off-camp households exhibited the same trend as their on-camp counterparts. The majority of

off-camp households did not have any male or female members under the age of 5 or 60+. Once

again, off-camp households were mostly comprised of 1-3 male and female members in “6-17”

and “18-59” age range groups (see Table 7).

TABLE 7

Sex & Age Range

Percentage of HHs With Number of Members

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Males (Under 5) 63% 27% 9% 1% 0% 0%

Females (Under 5) 67% 23% 7% 2% 0% 0%

Males (6-17) 49% 20% 17% 7% 4% 2%

Females (6-17) 42% 26% 17% 7% 6% 2%

Males (18-59) 7% 64% 14% 9% 3% 2%

Females (18-59) 5% 69% 16% 8% 1% 1%

Males (60+) 87% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Females (60+) 88% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0%

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

23

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD SIZE


In regards to total household size, the largest percentage of surveyed on-camp households had

five members (17%). When expanded to include other total household sizes, slightly over half

(54%) of all on-camp households had between five to eight members (see Diagram 2).

DIAGRAM 2


The total household size for off-camp households followed a similar pattern to on-camp

households, albeit with some minor differences. The most frequently reported off-camp

household size was 7 members (17%). In addition, there were higher percentages of off-camp

households with only 3 (11%) or 4 (15%) members. When grouping household sizes together,

65% of all off-camp households had between 3-7 members (see Diagram 3).

2%

7%5%

8%

17%

14%

12%11%

5%5%

5%

2%

4%

1%1% 1% 1%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 19

% o

f H

Hs

Total No. of Members per HH

Number of Members per HH

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

24

DIAGRAM 3

NUMBER OF MEMBERS WITH REDUCED MOBILITY, SPECIAL NEEDS, OR HEALTH

ISSUES


The vast majority (85%) of on-camp interviewees reported that their households did not have

any members with reduced mobility, special needs, or health issues. A small percentage of

respondents (15%) reported having between 1-2 members with the issues mentioned above (see

Diagram 4).

DIAGRAM 4

2%

6%

11%

15%

12%

10%

17%

7%

5%4% 4%

1% 1%2%

1%0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

% o

f H

Hs

Total No. of Members per HH

Number of Members per HH

85%

13%

2%

Number of Members with

Reduced Mobility, Special

Needs, or Health Issues

0

1

2

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

25


Similar to the on-camp findings, 75% of surveyed off-camp households had no members with

reduced mobility, special needs, or health issues. Slightly higher percentages of off-camp

households (25%) had between 1-2 members with reduced mobility, special needs, or health

issues was observed (see Diagram 5). The higher percentage of off-camp households with

members with the reduced mobility/special needs/health issues does not necessarily signify

better living conditions than in off-camp settings. It was not learned whether living off-camp

afforded IDP households with added advantages for living with such members..

DIAGRAM 5

NUMBER OF PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING WOMEN


Among on-camp interviewees, 93% reported that their households did not have any female

members who were currently pregnant or breastfeeding (see Diagram 6).

75%

21%

4%

Number of Members with

Reduced Mobility, Special

Needs, or Health Issues

0

1

2

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

26

DIAGRAM 6


Off-camp households showed similar findings to their on-camp counterparts. The majority of

households (87%) had no women who were currently pregnant or breastfeeding. The remaining

13% of households had between 1-2 women who were either pregnant or breastfeeding (see

Diagram 7).

DIAGRAM 7

PRE-DISPLACEMENT SITUATION

AREA OF ORIGIN (GOVERNORATE & DISTRICT)

93%

7%

Number of Pregnant or

Breastfeeding Women

0

1

87%

12%

1%

Number of Pregnant or

Breastfeeding Women

0

1

2

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

27


All on-camp interviewees reported their households to be originally from Ninewa Governorate.

This is not surprising as 99% of all IDP households displaced in Dohuk Governorate originate

from Ninewa.17 Within Ninewa Governorate, the vast majority of surveyed households

originated from Sinjar District (89%), followed by Hamdaniya District (8%), Tal Afar District

(2%), and Mosul District (1%) (see Diagram 8).

DIAGRAM 8


For off-camp IDP households, 99% reported originating from Ninewa Governorate. In regards

to their district of origin, off-camp IDP households were more diverse than their on-camp

counterparts. Only 67% of off-camp households were originally from Sinjar District. Sizeable

percentages of IDP households also originated from Hamdaniya District (16%) and Mosul

District (12%) (see Diagram 9).

17 IOM DTM Round 75 Master List. July 15th 2017

8%1%

89%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Hamdaniya District,

Ninewa

Mosul District,

Ninewa

Sinjar District,

Ninewa

Tal Afar District,

Ninewa

% o

f H

Hs

District of Origin

District of Origin

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

28

DIAGRAM 9

PRE-DISPLACEMENT AVERAGE MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME


For surveyed on-camp IDPs, household incomes were fairly distributed across all income ranges.

When grouping income ranges together, more than half (57%) of all households earned between

0 to 500,000 IQD on a monthly basis, with the remaining 43% of households earning between

501,000 to 1,000,000+ IQD (see Diagram 10).

16%

0%

12%

67%

2% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Hamdaniya

District,

Ninewa

Fallujah

District,

Anbar

Mosul

District,

Ninewa

Sinjar

District,

Ninewa

Tal Afar

District,

Ninewa

Til Kaif

District,

Ninewa

% o

f H

Hs

District of Origin

District of Origin,

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

29

DIAGRAM 10


Surveyed off-camp households showed a similar distribution of pre-displacement incomes to

their on-camp counterparts. For off-camp IDPs, the most selected monthly household income

range was “1,000,000+ IQD” (17%), followed closely by “400,001 – 500,000 IQD.” When

grouping income ranges together, 41% of households earned between 0-500,000 IQD per

month, and 59% earned between 501,000-1,000,000+ IQD per month (see Diagram 11).

2%

8%

5%

18%

8%

16%

7% 7%5%

2%

6%

17%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

% o

f H

Hs

Options

Pre-Displacement Monthly Household Income

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

30

DIAGRAM 11

PRE-DISPLACEMENT PRIMARY LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES

For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were asked to select all livelihood

activities that members of their households were involved in prior to their displacement.

Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).


The following livelihoods had the were selected by the largest percentages of households:

construction (27%), agricultural farming (24%), official security forces (20%), and small private

businesses (14%). Smaller percentages of households were involved in livestock management

(5%) and civilian administration (9%) (see Diagram 12).

2%

5%

10%8%

16%

11%10%

7%

3%

11%

17%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

% o

f H

Hs

Options

Pre-Displacement Monthly Household Income

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

31

DIAGRAM 12


For off-camp housheolds, the following activities were the most selected pre-displacement

livelihoods: civillian administration (22%), official security forces (20%), small private businesses

(19%), construction (17%), agricultural farming (16%), and livestock management (10%) (see

Diagram 13). In comparison to their on-camp counterparts, the higher percentages of

households involved in activities such as civilian administration and small private businesses

might also be a reflection of their more urban location such as areas in like Mosul or

Hamdaniya Districts.

0%

0%

3%

14%

1%

1%

20%

1%

4%

27%

9%

5%

24%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Transportation/Shipping

Small Private Business

Service Industry (Hotel, Restaurant)

Other

Official Security Forces

Non-Official Security Forces

Large Private Business

Construction

Civilian Administration (Local Government

Agencies)

Agriculture (Livestock Management)

Agriculture (Farming)

% of HHs

Options

Pre-Displacement Livelihoods

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

32

DIAGRAM 13

DATE OF DISPLACEMENT


The vast majority (97%) of on-camp respondents reported their households being displaced

from their areas of origin during August 2014, which corresponds with the time that ISIL

entered and took control of Sinjar District (see Diagram 14).

0%

0%

6%

19%

2%

4%

20%

10%

5%

2%

17%

22%

16%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Refuse to answer

Do not know


Small private business


Other


Livestock Management

Large private business

Healthcare

Construction

Civilian Administration (Local Government

Agencies)


% of HHs

Options

Pre-Displacement Livelihoods

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

33

DIAGRAM 14


In comparison to on-camp households, a smaller percentage of off-camp households reported

being displaced in August 2014 (87%). Higher percentages reported earlier displacements in June

(8%) and July (3%) 2014, which corresponds with the time ISIL entered and gained control over

Hamdaniya and Mosul Districts (see Diagram 15).

DIAGRAM 15

POST-DISPLACEMENT SITUATION

1%

97%

1% 1%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%Ju

n-1

4

Aug-

14

Oct

-14

Dec-

14

Feb-1

5

Apr-

15

Jun-1

5

Aug-

15

Oct

-15

Dec-

15

Feb-1

6

Apr-

16

Jun-1

6

Aug-

16

Oct

-16

Dec-

16

Feb-1

7

Apr-

17

Jun-1

7

% o

f H

Hs

Date of Displaceemnt

Date of Displacement (Month, Year)

Jun-14 Aug-14 Apr-15 Jul-17

0%8%

3%

87%

1%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Feb-1

4

Mar

-14

Apr-

14

May

-14

Jun-1

4

Jul-14

Aug-

14

Sep-1

4

Oct

-14

Nov-

14

Dec-

14

Jan-1

5

Feb-1

5

Mar

-15

Apr-

15

May

-15

Jun-1

5

% o

f H

Hs

Date of Displacement

Date of Displacement ( Month, Year)

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

34

NUMBER OF DISPLACEMENT LOCATIONS


When asked how many displacement locations they had settled in after displacement, over half

(51%) of all on-camp respondents reported their households had lived in two locations. 33% of

respondents reported that the camp location itself was the only location they had settled in

since displacement. A smaller minority (16%) of households reported having settled in three or

more locations since becoming displaced (see Diagram 16).

DIAGRAM 16


Similar percentage were observed among off-camp household and the number of displacement

locations they had visited since becoming displaced. A slightly higher percentage (40%) of

respondents indicated they had remained in their first area of displacement. The remaining 60%

of households reported to have been changed displacement locations two or more times (see

Diagram 17).

33%

51%

11%5%

Number of Displacement

Locations

One Location

Two Locations

Three Locations

3+ Locations

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

35

DIAGRAM 17

PRIMARY REASONS FOR SETTLING IN CURRENT AREA OF DISPLACEMENT

For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were asked to select up to three reasons

why their household had decided to settle in their current area of displacement. Diagrams show

percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).


For on-camp respondents, a fairly even distribution can be seen across all selected reasons.

Options selected by the largest percentages of households included “host community shares

same ethnicity as household” (21%), “humanitarian assistance and basic services are accessible”

(17%), and “community leadership decision” (15%) (see Diagram 17).

40%

42%

10%8%

Number of Displacement

Locations

One location

Two locations

Three Locations

3+ Locations

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

36

DIAGRAM 18

Household respondents were also provided with an “other” option to explain why their

household settled in their on-camp location. The two most indicated reasons were that the on-

camp location was the “only available displacement location” (5%) and that it provided “better

living and housing conditions” (5%) compared to other displacement locations (see Diagram 19).

0%

1%

14%

10%

14%

17%

8%

21%

1%

15%

6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Other

I was encouraged to relocate here

I have an established family/social network here

Humanitarian assistance and basic services are

accessible here

Host community shares the same religion as

household

Host community shares same ethnicity as

household

Host community is supportive of IDP’s here

Followed community leadership decision

Area of displacement is geographically close to

area of origin

% of HHs

Options

Primary Reasons For Settling In AOD

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

37

DIAGRAM 19


Off-camp respondents indicated different reasons for settling in their current areas of

displacement. The most selected reasons for choosing the location were: the “host community

shares the same ethnicity as the family” ( 20%), an “existing family/social network was in the

location” (21%), and their households were “encouraged to relocate to the current area of

displacement” from an external source (14%) (see Diagram 19). Another interesting observation

was the fact that community leaders did not seem to play as large a role in selecting off-camp

locations, whereas 15% of on-camp households did indicate they were told by the their

community leaders to settle in on-camp locations.

1%

1%

1%

5%

1%

5%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%

Settled here by governmental authorities

Safety

Proximity to a large city

Only available displacement location

Lower cost of living

Better living and housing conditions

% of HHs

Options

"Other" Indicated Reasons

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

38

DIAGRAM 20

Among households who reported “other” reasons for settling in their current area of

displacement, the most indicated reason was that area’s “lower cost of living” (7%) (see Diagram

21).

DIAGRAM 21

16%

14%

21%

13%

8%

20%

5%

1%

2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Other (Enter Text)

I was encouraged to relocate here

I have an established family/social network here

Humanitarian assistance and basic services are

accessible here

Host community shares the same religion as my family

Host community shares the same ethnicity as my family

Host community is supportive of IDP’s here

Followed community leadership decision

Area of displacement is geographically close to my area

of origin

% of HHs

Options

Primary Reasons For Settling In AOD

2%

3%

7%

4%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%

Presence of livelihood/income-generating

opportunities

Only available displacement location

Lower cost of living

Better living and housing conditions

% of HHs

Options

"Other" Indicated Reasons

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

39

SHELTER SITUATION


The majority (60%) of surveyed on-camp households were living in tent units, with the

remaining 40% living prefabricate caravan units (see Diagram 21). Tent and caravan shelters

ranged in size, services directly provided to the shelter (i.e. electricity, water, kitchen units, etc.),

and number rooms within the shelter.

DIAGRAM 22


Among off-camp households, 54% were living in finished, privately-rented apartments or houses.

Another 39% of off-camp households were living in unoccupied houses or unfinished buildings,

where it was uncertain if they were paying rent. A small percentage (4%) of off-camp houses

were living in a prefabricate caravan commune that was established on the property of a church

in one area of displacement (see Diagram 23).

40%

60%

Shelter Type In AOD

Caravan

Tent

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

40

DIAGRAM 23

CONDITION OF SHELTER


More than half (58%) of all on-camp interviewees reported that their shelter units were in

“good” or “very good” condition, with the remaining 42% as being in “okay” or “bad” condition

(see Diagram 24), where the condition correlated to the level of needed repairs. All four

categories contained both caravan and tent shelter units.

4%1% 2%

54%

14%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

% o

f H

Hs

Options

Shelter Type in AOD

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

41

DIAGRAM 24


When asked the overall condition of their shelter, 68% of off-camp interviewees reported that

their shelters were in good or very good condition. Only 12% of interviewees reported their

shelter units were in bad condition and in need of major repairs/renovations (See Diagram 25).

Of the shelter units deemed as being in bad condition, 40% were unoccupied homes, 23% were

unifinished buildings, and 37% were privately rented homes. This suggests that ongoing shelter

rehabilitation interventions should not solely focus upon unoccupied/unfinished shelter units, but

also ensure that privately rented homes are also assessed.

19%22% 24%

34%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Bad (in need of

major

repairs/renovation)

Okay (in need of

some small-medium

repairs or

rehabilitations)

Good (in need of

some minor repairs

or rehabilitations)

Very good (in need

of no repairs or

rehabilitations)

% o

f H

Hs

Options

Chart Title

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

42

DIAGRAM 25

FREEDOM TO WORK


The vast majority (82%) of on-camp respondents indicated that all types of jobs were potentially

available to IDPs in their area of displacement, suggesting a high level of optimism, and perhaps

even experience, that IDPs would not be discriminated against based on their displacement

status. A smaller percentage (15%) indicated that while IDPs have the freedom to work in their

areas of displacement, the only jobs that IDPs were allowed to have were day-labor jobs. Only

2% of respondents indicated that IDPs had no freedom to work in their area of displacement

(See Diagram 26).

12%

35%

20%

33%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Bad (in need of major

repairs/renovation)

Good (in need of

some minor repairs

or rehabilitations)

Okay (in need of

some small-medium

repairs or

rehabilitations)

Very good (in need of

no repairs or

rehabilitations)

% o

f H

Hs

Options

Condition of Shelter

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

43

DIAGRAM 26


In comparison to on-camp households, 91% of off-camp respondents indicated that all jobs were

potentially available for IDPs in their various areas of displacement. This suggests an even higher

level of optimism/past experience that IDPs would not be discriminated against based on their

displacement status. The remaining 8% of respondents indicated that only day-labor

opportunities were potentially available (see Diagram 27). The higher percentage of households

who believed all jobs were potentially available (compared to on-camp respondents) might

indicate a greater degree of access to livelihood opportunities, compared with on-camp

populations. It might also suggest a greater degree of integration and networking of off-camp

IDPs into their respective host communities.

DIAGRAM 27

2%

15%

82%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

No (Not allowed

to have any type of

employment)

Yes, Partially (Only

day labor jobs)

Yes, Fully (All jobs

are potentially

available)

Do not know

% o

f H

Hs

Options

Freedom To Work

0%8%

91%

0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No (Not allowed to

have any type of

employment)

Yes, Partially (Only

day labor jobs)

Yes, Fully (All jobs

are potentially

available)

Do not know

% o

f H

Hs

Options

Freedom to Work In AOD

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

44

AVAILABLE LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES IN AOD

For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select all available

livelihood opportunities in their current area of displacement. Diagrams show percentages in

households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).


Livelihood opportunities selected by the highest percentage of on-camp households were

agricultural farming (23%), construction (18%), small-private businesses (14%), and official

security forces (7%). In addition, 35% of all on-camp interviewees indicated that there were no

jobs available for on-camp IDP households in their area of displacement, suggesting that finding

any type of employment still remains a challenge for many IDP households (see Diagram 28).

DIAGRAM 28


In general, lower percentages of off-camp IDP households reported available livelihood

opportunities in their areas of displacement compared to on-camp households. The most widely

selected livelihood opportunities were construction (14%), small private businesses (14%), civil

administration (7%), agricultural farming (6%), and official security forces (6%). Furthermore,

nearly half (43%) of all respondents indicated there were no jobs available in their area of

0%

2%

1%

1%

14%

0%

1%

7%

0%

2%

35%

1%

0%

0%

18%

5%

23%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

All of the above




Other



Non-Governmental Organization

No jobs available


Large private business

Healthcare

Construction

Civilian Administration


% of HHs

Options

Available Livelihood Options in AOD

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

45

displacement compared to 31% for on-camp respondents (see Diagram 29). This might suggest

that while there are little to no issues regarding discrimination, there simply are not enough jobs

available for either IDP or host community residents.

DIAGRAM 29

AVERAGE POST-DISPLACEMENT MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME


More than 95% of on-camp households reported earning 600,000 IQD or less per month. When

narrowed further, more than half (62%) of on-camp households were earning 200,000 IDQ or

less per month (See Diagram 30). This helps show the very limited monthly incomes on-camp

households have available to them, and as will be discussed later in this report, perhaps why IDP

households often have no savings prepared to assist them in returning.

0%

0%

1%

2%

14%

2%

1%

6%

2%

1%

43%

2%

0%

14%

7%

6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

All of the above




Other (Enter Text)



Non-Governmental Organization

No jobs available


Healthcare

Construction

Civilian Administration (Local Government Agencies)


% of HHs

Options

Available Livelihood Opportunities in AOD

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

46

DIAGRAM 30


In general, monthly incomes among off-camp households were similar to their on-camp

counterparts. 87% of-camp households were earning 600,000 IQD or less per month. The

remaining 13% of households reported earning more than 600,000, IQD per month than on-

camp households (See Diagram 31). This is interesting given the fact that higher percentages of

off-camp households reported that no livelihood opportunities were available in their areas of

displacement.

22%

26%

14% 14%

9%

5% 5%

1% 1% 2% 1% 1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

% o

f H

Hs

Options

Average Monthly Household Income

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

47

DIAGRAM 31

CURRENT SECURITY SITUATION IN AOD COMPARED WITH AOO


Almost all (98%) of surveyed on-camp households reported that the current security situation in

their area of displacement was more stable than in their area of origin. Only 2% of on-camp

households reported the current security sitation in their area of origin was equal to the

security situation in their camp location. No on-camp households reported that the current

security situation was better in the area of origin compared to their area of displacement (see

Diagram 32).

19%

12%13%

16%

11%10%

6%

1%

4%2%

3%1%

0% 0%0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

% o

f H

Hs

Options

Average Monthly Household Income

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

48

DIAGRAM 32


The findings for off-camp households were nearly identical to their on-camp counterparts. 100%

of off-camp respondents indicated that the current security situation in their area of

displacement was more stable than their area of origin (see Diagram 33).

DIAGRAM 33

98%

2%

0%

Current Security Situation in

AOD Compared To AOO

More stable than area of

origin

Equally Stable as area of

origin

Less stable than area of

origin

100%

0% 0%

Current Security Situation In

AOD Compared To AOO

More stable than area of

origin

Equally Stable as area of

origin

Less stable than area of

origin

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

49

FIGURE 7: INSIDE AN IDP-MANAGED MARKET NEXT OF BAJED KANDALA CAMP

LIVING STANDARDS/ACCESS TO BASIC SERVICES IN AOD COMPARED WITH

PRE-DISPLACEMENT AOO


More than half (55%) of all on-camp respondents reported that their households had better

living standards/access to basic services in their area of displacement compared to their pre-

displacement situation in their area of origin. Approximately a third of respondents (34%)

reported their households had worse living standards/access to basic services compared to their

pre-displacement situation. Only 10% of respondents reported their household’s living standards

were equal to their pre-displacement situations (see Diagram 34). All surveyed on-camp

locations provided their reisdents electricity, water, shelter units, solid waste removal services,

WASH facilities, and local markets, schools, and camp security personnel.

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

50

DIAGRAM 34


Once again, more than half (52%) of off-camp reported that they had better living

standards/access to basic services in their areas of displacement compared to their pre-

displacement situation in their area of origin. Approximately one-third (30%) of off-camp

households indicated they had worse living standards compared to their pre-displacement

situation. The remaining 18% of households reported having equal access to basic services as

before (see Diagram 35). As will be discussed later in this study, the higher access to basic

services many IDP households experienced in their on-camp and off-camp locations is one of

the reasons why a high percentage of households are intending to integrate into their

displacement locations.

55%

11%

34%

0%

Living Standards/Acess to Basic

Services AOD vs AOO

Better living standards/access to

basic services than in area of

origin

Equal living standards/access to

basic services as area of origin

Worse living standards/access to

basic services than in area of

origin

Refuse to answer

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

51

DIAGRAM 35

ACCESS TO LIVELIHOOD/INCOME GENERATING OPPORTUNINTGS IN AOD

COMPARED WITH PRE-DISPLACEMENT AOO


More than half (66%) of all on-camp household respondents reported having equal or better

access to livelihood/income-generating opportunities in their area of displacment versus their

pre-displacement situations. 34% reported having worse access to livelihood opportunities

compared to their areas of origin (see Diagram 35).

DIAGRAM 36

52%

18%

30%

Living Standards/Acess to

Basic Services AOD vs AOO

Better living

standards/access to basic

services than in area of

origin

Equal living


services as area of origin

Worse living


services than in area of

origin

50%

16%

34%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Better access to livelihood/income-

generating opportunities than in area of

origin

Equal access to livelihood/income-

generating opportunities as area of origin

Worse access to livelihood/income-

generating opportunities than in area of

origin

% of HHs

Options

Chart Title

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

52


A higher percentage (46%) of off-camp interviewees reported that their households had worse

access to livelihood opportunities in their areas of displacement than their on-camp

counterparts. A significant percentage (41%) of off-camp interviewees did however report

having improved access to livelihood opportunities than their pre-displacement situations (see

Diagram 40).

DIAGRAM 37

HOST COMMUNITY PERCEPTION OF IDPS IN AOD


A significant majority (96%) of on-camp interviewees reported that the host community had a

positive perception of IDPs in their areas of displacement. Only 4% of interviewees believed the

surrounding host community to have either a neutral or negative perception of IDPs in their

respective locations (see Diagram 38).

41%

13%

46%

0%

Better access to livelihood/income-generating

opportunities than in area of origin

Equal access to livelihood/income-generating

opportunities as area of origin

Worse access to livelihood/income-generating

opportunities than in area of origin

Do not know

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Options

% of HHs

Access To Livelihood Opportunities in AOD vs AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

53

DIAGRAM 38


The results for off-camp households were nearly identical to those of the on-camp households.

Once again, 96% of off-camp respondents reported that that the host community had an overall

positive perception of IDPs in their respective areas of displacement. Despite the fact that off-

camp IDPs likely compete for resources and livelihood opportunities with their host-

communities than on-camp households, the perception remained almost entirely positive. Only

1% of off-camp households perceived the host community to have a negative perception of IDPs

(see Diagram 39).

96%

2%

2%

Host Community Perception of

IPDs in AOD

Positive

(Welcoming/Supportive of

IDP’s residing here)

Neutral (Not positive or

negative of IDP’s residing

here)

Negative (Un-

welcoming/would prefer

IDP’s return/relocate to

another area)

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

54

DIAGRAM 39

ACCESS TO BASIC SERVICES COMPARED WITH HOST COMMUNITY IN AOD


The majority of on-camp households (62%) reported having greater or equal access to basic

services compared to the surrounding host community. Only 29% of on-camp households felt

their access to basic services was less (either partial or extremely limited access) than the host

community (see Diagram 40).

96%

1% 3%

Host Community Perception of

IDPs in AOD

Positive

(Welcoming/Supportive of

IDP’s residing here)

Negative (Un-welcoming/would

prefer IDP’s return/relocate to

another area)

Neutral (Not positive or

negative of IDP’s residing here)

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

55

DIAGRAM 40


Among off-camp interviewees, the vast majority (39%) reported that their households had equal

or greater access to basic services compated to the host community, followed by 23% who

reported having greater access (see Diagram 41). The higher percentage of off-camp households

who felt they had equal or greater access to basic services (61%) compared to on-camp

households is perplexing. It might be explained because off-camp households inherited the same

type, amount, and frequency of basic services that were already available to the host community

when they settled in their various areas of displacement. For on-camp populations, parallel basic

service systems needed to be established. Greater discrepancies in service type, amount, and

frequency might therefore be observeable between camp settings and the surrounding host

communities.

1%

8%

23%

39%

20%

9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Greater access to basic services compared to

the host community

Equal access to basic services compared to the

host community

Partial access to basic services compared to the

host community

Extremely Limited/No access to basic services

compared to host community

% of HHs

Options

Access To Basic Services Compared To Host

Community

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

56

DIAGRAM 41

ACCESS TO LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES COMPARED TO HOST COMMUNITY

IN AOD


A fairly equal selection of options was observed among on-camp IDP households. As such, no

conclusive trend emerged regarding whether on-camp IDP households had reduced access to

livelihood opportunities versus members of the host community. 45% of on-camp households

reported having equal or greater access to livelihood opportunities than the surrounding host

community, compared to the 48% of households that felt they had partial or extremely limited

access to livelihood opportunities compared to the host community (see Diagram 42).

0%

1%

18%

71%

6%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Greater access to basic services compared to the

host community

Equal access to basic services compared to the host

community

Partial access to basic services compared to the host

community

Extremely Limited/No access to basic services

compared to host community

% of HHs

Options

Access To Basic Services Compared To Host Community In

AOD

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

57

DIAGRAM 42


In comparison to on-camp households, a more noticeable trend of having less access to

livelihood opportunities (compared to the host community) was observed among off-camp

households. 62% of off-camp respondents reported that their households had either partial or

extremely limited livelihood opportunities compared to the host community. Despite the fact

that the vast majority (91%) off-camp households reported that all job opportunities were

potentially available, the majority do feel that they have limited access compared to the host

community. This might signify a greater level of displacement-based discrimination occurring in

off-camp settings, where competition for jobs between IDP and host community residents might

be more common. This could also simply be the fact that IDPs are still in the process of

integrating into displacement locations, where job opportunities are already likely incredibly

limited. Only 35% of off-camp reported having equal or greater access to livelihood

opportunities (see Diagram 43).

1%

6%

18%

27%

24%

24%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Greater access to livelihood opportunities

compared to the host community

Equal access to livelihood opportunities compared

to the host community

Partial access to livelihood opportunities compared


Extremely Limited/No access to livelihood

opportunities compared to host community

% of HHs

Options

Access to Livelihood Opportunities Compared To Host

Community

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

58

DIAGRAM 43

MAIN CHALLENGES FACED IN AOD

For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were asked to select up to three main

challenges that their households face in their area of displacement. Diagrams show percentages

in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).


Among on-camp households, the following options were most selected as the main challenges in

their camp locations: lack of clean water (35%), housing conditions (26%), lack of electricity

(21%), and lack of livelihood opportunities (17%) (see Diagram 44). It should be mentioned that

all surveyed households had received shelter units, and were regularly receiving water trucking,

and electricity in their on-camp locations, but were most likely highlighting either the quality or

frequency of the services provided.

0%

3%

8%

27%

25%

37%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Greater access to livelihood opportunities


Equal access to livelihood opportunities compared


Partial access to livelihood opportunities


Extremely Limited/No access to livelihood

opportunities compared to host community

% of HHs

Options

Access To Livelihood Opportunities Compared To Host

Community

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

59

DIAGRAM 44


Among off-camp locations, the challenges most selected by household were lack

livelihood/income-earning opportunities (48%), housing conditions (22%), hunger/insufficient

food (15%), and lack of healthcare services/medicine (15%) (see Diagram 45).

26%

10%

1% 0%

35%

1% 2%

21%

1%

5%7%

17%

2% 1% 1% 0% 0%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

% o

f H

Hs

Options

Main Challenges Faced In AOD

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

60

DIAGRAM 45

AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON AREA OF ORIGIN


The vast majority (80%) of on-camp interviewees reported that their households had access to

information about their areas of origin (see Diagram 45). Of the interviewees which reported

having no access to information about their area of origin, 91% reported being from either a

peri-urban or rural location, highlighting the need for increased information services to cover

smaller villages and towns.

0%

0%

8%

5%

0%

48%

1%

15%

5%

6%

2%

2%

9%

0%

0%

15%

22%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Payment of debts

Other

Lack of Safety

Lack of livelihood opportunities/income

Lack of hygiene and sanitation services

Lack of healthcare services/medicine

Lack of furniture

Lack of electricity

Lack of educational services for children

Lack of educational services

Lack of clean water

Inability to purchase school items

Inability to purchase clothes

Hunger/insufficient food

Housing conditions

% of HHs

Options

Main Challenges Faced In AOD

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

61

DIAGRAM 46


A slightly higher percentage of off-camp households (85%) reported having access to information

about their area of origin (see Diagram 47). This likely means that are little differences in

regarding access to information between on-camp and off-camp locations, particularly when

considering the primary sources of information in Diagrams 48 & 49.

DIAGRAM 47

SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON AOO

80%

19%1%

Access To Information About

AOO

Yes

No

Do Not Know

85%

14%

1%

Access to Information About

AOO

Yes

No

Do not know

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

62


Of the interviewees which reported having access to information about their areas of origin,

approximately half (45%) claimed the source to be from personal visits or from other IDPs who

had visited the area of origin (44%) (see Diagram 48). This reflects the reality that for many IDP

households, the only means to receive specific, targeted information about one’s area of origin is

to undertake an in-person visit.

DIAGRAM 48


The same findings were observed for off-camp households in regards to sources of information

about areas of origin. Once again, the most frequently mentioned sources of information were

personal visits to the area of origin (47%) or the accounts of others who visited the area of

origin (33%). In addition, 13% of off-camp households also selected media reports, perhaps

suggesting that off-camp household have more access to media outlets than on-camp households

(see Diagram 49).

0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%

7%

44% 45%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

% o

f "Y

es"

HH

s

Options

Source of Information About AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

63

DIAGRAM 49

INTEREST IN ORGANIZED VISIT TO AOO


Among on-camp respondents, 78% indicated their households would be interested in an

organized visit to their area of origin (see Diagram 50). Despite the fact that many households

had already personally visited their areas of origin, there was a general desire to revisit their

locations through an organized visit. This might highlight the fact that in order to make an

informed decision, repeated visits are required to investigate different aspects (housing, land,

property, basic services, surrounding community, etc.), or allow IDPs to track developments in

the overall security situation and recovery efforts. Furthermore, an organized visit, might

provide additional resources, such as the presence of civil engineers, to help IDPs understand

the damage and what is needed to restore their homes and communities to pre-displacement

levels.

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

7%

13%

33%

47%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

% o

f "Y

es"

HH

s

Options

Source of Information About AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

64

DIAGRAM 50


A similar percentage (70%) of off-camp households were interested in having an organized visit

to their area of origin. Slightly more off-camp households reported not being interested in

having an organized visit (29%) (see Diagram 51). This might be due to the fact that more off-

camp households were intending to integrate into their areas of displacement and saw less to

revisit their areas of origin.

DIAGRAM 51

STATUS OF HOUSING IN AOO

21%

78%

1%

Interest In Organized Visit To AOO

No

Yes

Do not know

29%

70%

1%

Interest In Organized Visit To AOO

No

Yes

Do not know

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

65


Among on-camp households, 81% reported various levels of damage or IED/UXO

contamination in their private homes, with a significant proportion indicating that their home

was completely destroyed (34%). Only 8% of households reported that their homes were

accessible and undamaged. (see Diagram 52).

DIAGRAM 52


No major differences were observed among off-camp households, when \ asked what the status

of their housing in their area of origin was. 43% of off-camp interviewees reported it was

inaccessible for various reasons (IED/UXOs, completely destroyed, occupied). An additional

41% reported that their households were accessible, but either partially or heavily damaged.

Only 6% of interviewees reported that their households were accessible and undamaged (see

Diagram 53).

DIAGRAM 53

10%

4%

34%

6%

18% 19%

8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Do not know Not accessible (Contaminated

by IED’s/UXO’s)

Not accessible

(Completely

destroyed/In

need ofreconstruction)

Not Accessible

(Occupied by a

non-owner)

Accessible but

Heavily damaged

(In need of

major repairs)

Accessible but

Partially

damaged (In

need of minorrepairs)

Accessible and

Undamaged

% o

f H

Hs

Options

Status of Housing In AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

66

STATUS OF BELONGINGS FROM AOO


In total, 86% of on-camp respondents reported that their household’s belongings from the area

of origin were unaccounted for (either lost or stolen) since becoming displaced. Only 5% of

respondents indicated that their household’s belongings (with varying levels of damage) were

accounted for either in their area of origin or displacement (see Diagram 54).

11%

1%

38%

4%

23%

18%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

% o

f H

Hs

% of HHs

Status of Housing In AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

67

DIAGRAM 54


The findings for off-camp households were roughly the same as with on-camp households.

Among off-camp respondents, 89% reported their belongings were either lost or stolen. The

remaining 2% reported their belongings were accessible, but partially damaged and in need of

some repair (see Diagram 56).

DIAGRAM 55

9%

86%

1%

3%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Do not know

Not Accessible (Lost or Stolen)

All belongings are with HH in AOD

Accessible in AOO but partially damaged

Accessible in AOO and in good condition

% of HHs

Options

Status of Belongings From AOO

0%

2%

0%

89%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Accessible and in good condition

Accessible but partially damaged

All belongings are with me in area of

displacement

Not Accessible (Lost or Stolen)

Do not know

% of HHs

Options

Status of Belongings From AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

68

STATUS OF LAND IN AOO


Among on-camp households, 55% reported owning some amount of land, with the rest having

no land-holdings prior to displacement. Furthermore, 26% of households claimed the land they

owned was inaccessible either due to IED/UXO contamination or because it was in the

possession of a non-owner. Only 10% of households claimed their land would be accessible and

safe to use upon return. Another large percentage of households (18%) claimed that they did

not know about the status of their land, highlighting the particular difficulty in knowing the status

of land and whether any IED/UXO contamination assessments have been conducted (See

Diagram 56).

DIAGRAM 56


Among off-camp households, 20% reported not knowing about the status of their land, once

again highlighting the need for additional IED/UXO contamination assessments. Another 13%

reported that their land was inaccessible due to IED/UXO contamination or by possession of a

non-owner. The majority of off-camp households (55%) reported owning no land (see Diagram

57).

18%

10%

16%

10%

45%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Do not know

Accessible and safe to access/use

Accessible but not safe to use (possible

contamination by IEDs/UXOs)

Not accessible (in the possession by a non-

owner)

HH does not own land

% of HHs

Options

Status of Land in AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

69

DIAGRAM 57

SECURITY CONCERNS IN AOO

For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple options.



Among on-camp respondents, 82% reported that their households had concerns about the

ongoing security situation in their areas of origin (See Diagram 58).

20%

12%

8%

5%

55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Do not know

Accessible and safe to access/use

Accessible but not safe to use

(contaminated by IEDs/UXOs)

Not accessible (in the possession by a non-

owner)

I don’t own land

% of HHs

Options

Status of Land in AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

70

DIAGRAM 58

Among on-camp households with security concerns, the main reported issues were the

suspected presence of IEDs/UXOs (36%), the unstable political situation of their area of origin

(26%), dangerous infrastructure or debris (8%), and the presence of armed group/militias (7%)

(see Diagram 59 & 60). Households whose concerns were not a included in the options were

allowed to select “other” and indicate what the concern was.

DIAGRAM 59

4%14%

82%

Security Concerns in AOO

Do not know

No

Yes

8%

36%

22%

44%

0%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Dangerous

infrastructure

and debris

Suspected

presence of

IEDs/UXOs

All of the above Other Refuse to

answer

% o

f "Y

es"

HH

s

Other

Specific Security Concerns

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

71

DIAGRAM 60


Similar to on-camp households, 85% of off-camp households reported having concerns about

the current security situation in their various areas of origin (see Diagram 61).

DIAGRAM 61

1%

4%

26%

2%

1%

1%

7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Reduced social cohesion among AOO residents

Recurring violence by ISIL militants

Present/future political instability in AOO

Other ethnic groups in AOO

Extra-judicial killing/kidnapping attempts in AOO

Basic services not restored/IDP community hasn't

returned to AOO

Armed groups or militias present in AOO

% of "Yes" HHs

Indic

ated C

once

rns

"Other" Indicated Concerns

6%

9%

85%

Security Concerns In AOO

Do not know

No

Yes

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

72

The most commonly reported concerns were extra-judicial killings (25%), presence of

IEDs/UXOs (20%), and recurring violence by ISIL militants (14%) (see Diagrams 62 and 63).

DIAGRAM 62

DIAGRAM 63

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDED ABOUT AOO



8%

20% 19%

60%

0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Dangerous

infrastructure

and debris

IED’s/UXO’s All of the

above

Other (Enter

Text)

Refuse to

answer

% o

f "Y

es"

HH

s

Options

Security Concerns In AOO

14%

8%

2%

2%

25%

8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Recurring violence by ISIL militants

Present/future political instability in

AOO

Other ethnic groups in AOO

Lack of security forces in AOO

Extra-judicial killing/kidnapping

attempts in AOO

Armed groups or militias present in

AOO

% of "Yes" HHs

Options

Other "Indicated Concerns"

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

73


When asked what additional information their households needed about their areas of origin,

69% of on-camp interviewees reported needing to know more about the security situation. 24%

of interviewees indicated needing to know more about what basic services were available, and

13% reported needing information about all topics (see Diagram 64). This once again highlights

the need for organized visits to be provided to IDP households to their various areas of origin

(pending accessibility) in order to assess the ongoing situation.

DIAGRAM 64


Among off-camp households, the most requested types of information needed were the current

security situation (72%), available basic services (16%), the situation of one’s housing, land,

property (13%), and the IED/UXO situation (10%) (see Diagram 65).

1%

13%

69%

2%

6%

1%

8%

5%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Do not know

All Topics

Security Situation

No need for additional information

Markets (available food, non-food items, and

services)

Livelihood and income-earning opportunities

IED/UXO Situation

House, Belongings, Land

Basic Services (water, health, electricity, etc.)

% of HHs

Options

Additional Information Needed About AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

74

DIAGRAM 65

VOLUNTARY RETURN INTENTIONS

HH INTENTION TO RETURN TO AOO


When asked if they were intending to return to their area of origin, 64% of on-camp

respondents indicated that they were intending to return home. In contrast, 30% of on-camp

households indicated they were not intending to return home (see Diagram 66).

0%

0%

6%

7%

13%

72%

1%

4%

10%

16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Other

All of the above

Situation regarding House, Belongings, Land.

Security Situation

Markets (available food, non-food items, and services)

Livelihood and income-earning

IED / UXO Situation

Basic Services (water, health, electricity, education and

basic infrastructure)

% of HHs

Options

Additional Information Needed About AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

75

DIAGRAM 66


Among off-camp interviewees, the a slightly higher percentage (71%) reported that their

households were intending to return to their area of origin. Only 28% reported that their

households were not intending to return. In general, living on-camp or off-camp not seem to

have a major effect on whether a household was intending to return or not (see Diagram 67).

DIAGRAM 67

MAIN REASONS HH INTENDS TO RETURN TO AOO

30%

6%64%

Intention to Return TO AOO

No

Do not know

Yes

28%

71%

1%

Intention To Return TO AOO

No

Yes

Do not know

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

76




Among on-camp interviewees who reported their households intended to return, the most

popular reasons were to reclaim housing, belongings, property (41%), followed by an emotional

commitment to returning (31%). Other reasons for returning included the perception of better

living standards in the area of origin compared with their on-camp location (14%) and to reunite

with already-returned family members (11%) (see Diagram 68).

DIAGRAM 68


Off-camp households selected similar reasons for intending to return including: having an

emotional commitment to returning (55%), reclaiming housing, land, property (33%), improved

chance of having livelihood/income-earning opportunities (23%), and better living conditions

(10%) (see Diagram 69).

0%

0%

11%

6%

41%

2%

7%

31%

5%

14%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Reunite with returned family members

Reunite with returned community network

Reclaim house, belongings, property

Other

Improved chance at having a livelihood/income-

earning opportunities

Emotional commitment to returning

Cohabitation issues with host community

Better living conditions/standards than in area of

displacement

% of "Return" Households

Options

Main Reasons For Intending To Return

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

77

DIAGRAM 69

INTENTION TO RETURN IN IMMEDIATE FUTURE (4 WEEKS OR LESS)


When asked whether they had “immediate” intentions to return (i.e. in four weeks or less), only

18% of “return” households reported yes. The vast majority of interviewees (82%) reported

their households were either unsure or were not immediately intending to return (See Diagram

70).

0%

0%

4%

1%

33%

1%

23%

55%

1%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Reunite with returned family members

Reunite with returned community network

Reclaim house, belongings, property

Other

Improved chance at having a livelihood/income-

earning opportunities

Emotional commitment to returning


Better living conditions/standards than in area of

displacement

% of "Return" HHS

Options

Main Reasons For Intending To Return

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

78

DIAGRAM 70


In comparison to on-camp households, the vast majority (72%) of off-camp “return” households

reported they would not return to their area of origin in the immediate future. A small minority

(15%) did indicate they were intending to return in the next four weeks (see Diagram 71).

DIAGRAM 71

NON-IMMEDIATE INTENTIONS TO RETURN (8 WEEKS OR MORE)


37%

45%

18%

Immediate Intention to Return

Do not know

No

Yes

13%

72%

15%

Immediate Intention To Return

Do not know

No

Yes

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

79

Among on-camp households with no immediate intention to return, nearly half (48%) were

unable to provide an estimated timeframe for when they would be able to return home (even

with the option to select more than two years). As the second largest group, 17% of on-camp

IDP households reported that they would most likely be able to return to their areas of origin

within 1-2 years. Nearly one-fourth (24%) of on-camp households estimated they would be able

to return within the next twelve months (see Diagram 72).

DIAGRAM 72


Like their on-camp counterparts, there was a high percentage (36%) of off-camp households

who were also uncertain when they would return. In addition, 24% interviewees reported that

their households would be able to return between 1-2 years and 13% reported 2+ years. 24% of

interviewees did indicate their households would return in 12 months or less (see Diagram 73).

48%

10%

17%

10%

6%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Do not know

2+ years

1— 2 years

6—12 months

3— 6 months

8—12 weeks

% of HHs with no immediate intention to return

Option

Non-Immediate Intentions To Return

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

80

DIAGRAM 73

AVAILABLE SAVINGS TO ASSIST IN RETURNING


When asked whether they had any personal savings to assist their household in returning, 77%

of on-camp interviewees reported having no savings” Only 13% of on-camp interviewees were

able to confirm that their household had some amount of savings set aside to assist their return

process (see Diagram 74). This highlights the fact that many households will likely not be able to

cover all the expenses related to returning home (transportation, replacement of lost/damaged

items, etc.).

36%

13%

24%

15%

7%

6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Do not know

2+ years

1— 2 years

6—12 months

3— 6 months

8—12 weeks

% of HHs with no immediate intentions to return

Options

Non-Immediate Intentions To Return

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

81

DIAGRAM 74


Almost all (96%) off-camp “return” households reported having no available savings to assist

them in returning to their areas of origin. Only 3% of off-camp “return” households reported

having some saving (see Diagram 75). It is suspected that the higher percentage of off-camp

households with no savings is likely due to the added expenses that come with living off-camp

locations (rent, food, water, electricity, etc.).

DIAGRAM 75

ABILITY TO RESUME LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES IN AOO AFTER RETURNING

10%

77%

13%

Savings To Assist In Returning

Do not know

No

Yes

1%

96%

3%

Savings To Assist In Returning

Do not know

No

Yes

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

82


Among on-camp “return” households, 77% of respondents indicated their families would need

partial to full assistance in restarting their livelihood activities. Only 20% of respondents said

they would be able to fully restart their livelihood activities by themselves and no assistance

would be needed (see Diagram 76).

DIAGRAM 76


For off-camp “return” households, 84% reported needing partial to full assistance in restarting

their livelihood activities when they return home. Only 13% indicated they would not need any

assistance in restarting their livelihood activities when they return (see Diagram 77).

5%

43%

33%

20%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Do not know

No (Full assistance would be needed to restart

livelihoods)

Yes (Partially able to restart livelihoods. Some

assistance would be needed.)

Yes (Fully able to restart livelihoods No assistance

needed.)

% of "Return" HHs

Options

Ability To Restart Livelihoods In AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

83

DIAGRAM 77

MAIN DECISION MAKER IN RETURNING TO AOO


When asked who the primary decision maker would be in returning home, on-camp

interviewees selected a wide range of options, with no single option standing out. 27% of

interviewees reported the decision would be at the intra-community level and 38% reported it

would be at the intra-household level. Only 26% of interviewees believed that the decision

would likely be made by more external sources such as local authorities from the area of

displacement or area of origin (see Diagram 78).

3%

48%

36%

13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Do not know

No (Full assistance would be needed to

restart livelihoods)

Yes (Partially. Some assistance would be

needed to restart livelihoods)

Yes (Fully)

Axis Title

Axis

Title

Ability To Restart Livelihood Activities In AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

84

DIAGRAM 78


Among off-camp households 44% of households reported the decision would be intra-

household, 28% reported it would be intra-community, and 28% reported the decision would

likely come external groups like the authorities from the area of origin or displacement (See

Diagram 79).

8%

1%

7%

19%

21%

17%

12%

15%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Do not know

Other

Local Authority Decision from AOO

Local Authorities Decision from AOD

Household Decision (HH members would internally

make the decision for HH to return)

Head of Household Decision (HoH would individually

make the decision for the HH to return)

Community Leader Decision (HH would wait until

community leader approved HHs to return)

Community Decision (HH would wait until the

majority of the IDP community collectively returns)

% of "Return" HHs

Options

Primary Decision Maker

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

85

DIAGRAM 79

MAIN CHALLENGES FACED IN RETURNING TO AOO

For this question, all households were invited to answer what they believed to be the main

challenges in returning to their area of origin (regardless of their indicated movement intention).


When asked what the main challenges were in returning to their areas of origin, the three most

selected obstacles by on-camp interviewees were that the security situation had not fully

stabilized (65%), basic services were not fully available (34%), and housing was

damaged/destroyed (13%) (see Diagram 80).

1%

5%

23%

22%

21%

11%

17%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Do not know

Local Authority Decision from Area of Origin

Local Authorities from Area of Displacement

Household Decision (HH members would

internally make the decision for HH to return)

Head of Household Decision (HoH would

individually make the decision for the HH to…

Community Leader Decision (HH would wait until

community leader approved HHs to return)

Community Decision (HH would wait until the

majority of the IDP community collectively…

% of "Return" HHs

Options

Primary Decision Maker

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

86

DIAGRAM 80


The following challenges to returning home were the most selected by off-camp households:

security situation not fully stable (68%), basic services are not enough/available (30%), house has

been damaged or destroyed (25%), and livelihood opportunities are not possible (15%). In

general, there were no major differences in challenges reported between off-camp and on-camp

households (see Diagram 81). Above all else, the most widespread challenge in returning home

for on-camp and off-camp households is the precarious/unstable security situation in may former

areas of origin. This might further explain the long timeframes reported by IDP households in

returning, as many are waiting to see how the political and security situation develops.

1%

65%

5%

2%

2%

0%

4%

0%

0%

2%

0%

4%

3%

13%

34%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Do not know

Security situation is not fully stable

Presence of IED’s and UXO’s

Other

No transportation available to return home

No personal identification documents

No financial means to return and restart

Local security forces/local authorities prohibit HHs

returning to the area

Local markets are not functioning

Livelihood/income generating activities are not

possible/have not resumed

Legal ownership issues surrounding house and

property

Household assets have been damaged/stolen

House is currently occupied

House has been damaged/destroyed

Basic services are not enough/available (electricity,

water, food, health, education, etc.)

% of HHs

Options

Main Challenges In Returning to AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

87

DIAGRAM 81

EXTERNAL EXPECATIONS THAT HH RETURNS TO AOO & SOURCE


There was a strong consensus (93%) among on-camp respondents that there was no external

pressure or expectations being placed upon their household to return to their area of origin. A

small minority (5%) of interviewees responded that they did feel some sort pressure to return

(see Diagram 82).

0%

68%

6%

2%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

15%

1%

0%

6%

1%

25%

30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Do not know

Security situation is not fully stable

Presence of IED’s and UXO’s

Other

No transportation available to return home

No personal identification documents

No financial means to return and restart

Local security forces/local authorities prohibit HHs

returning to the area

Local markets are not functioning

Livelihood/income generating activities are not

possible/have not resumed

Legal ownership issues surrounding house and property

Lack of security forces

Household assets have been damaged/stolen

House is currently occupied

House has been damaged/destroyed

Basic services are not enough/available (electricity,

water, food, health, education, etc.)

% of HHs

Options

Main Challenges In Returning To AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

88

DIAGRAM 82

Of interviewees who reported they had experienced pressure to return home, 60% identified

the source as being their community leader and 20% indicated they were feeling pressure from

the humanitarian community (see Diagram 83).

DIAGRAM 83


Among surveyed off-camp households, no respondents indicated they had felt any pressure or

external expectations that they return to their area of origin (see Diagram 83).

2%

93%

5%

External Expectations To Return

Do not know

No

Yes

0%

20%

60%

0% 0%

20%

0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% o

f "Y

es"

HH

s

Options

Sources of Expectations

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

89

DIAGRAM 84

EXTERNAL EXPECATIONS TO NOT RETURN TO AOO & SOURCES


Similar results were observed among on-camp interviewees regarding whether their households

were under any pressure or expectations to not return to their areas of origin. A slightly

smaller percentage, 90%, reported not feeling any pressure to return (see Diagram 85). Of the

6% of interviewees which did report feeling an expectation to not return, most reported that an

armed militia now present in the area of origin or fellow village residents were expecting that

they did not return.

DIAGRAM 85

0%

100%

0%

External Expectations To

Return

Do not know

No

Yes

4%

90%

6%

External Expectations To Not

Return

Do not know

No

Yes

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

90


When asked whether their households were facing any external pressure or expectations to not

return to their areas of origin, 96% of off-camp respondents reported “no“ (see Diagram 86).

Only 4% of respondents indicated that their households had encountered pressure or

expectations to not return. When asked the source of the expectations, respondents mentioned

cited authorities from the area of origin, neighboring ethnic groups around the area of origin,

and fellow residents from the area of origin.

DIAGRAM 86

ALTERNATIVE MOVEMENT INTENTIONS

ALTERNATIVE MOVEMENT INTENTIONS


Among on-camp respondents who indicated their households were not intending to return to

their areas of origin, 47% reported that they were planning to integrate into their current area

of displacement, and another 47% intend to ultimately migrate abroad. The remaining 6% of

respondents reported either not knowing their household’s intentions, or that their household

was planning to relocate to another area of displacement (see Diagram 87). It is assumed that

households who plan to integrate most likely intend to stay in their camp location for as long as

possible (pending how long the IDP camps remain open) before finding an off-camp alternative.

The high percentage of households who intend to migrate abroad can likely be explained

because the majority of surveyed households belonged to the Yezidi ethno-religious group,

which has been provided with special immigration assistance since the UN-declaration that the

0%

96%

4%

External Expectations To Not

Return

Do not know

No

Yes

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

91

group was a victim of genocide by ISIL. Already since 2014 more than 90,000 Yazidis have

already immigrated abroad according to one Al-Monitor news article.18

DIAGRAM 87


Among off-camp households who indicated that they were not intending to return to their area

of origin, when asked what their alternative movement intention was, 72% reported integrating

into their current area of displacement, 25% reported migrating abroad, and 3% reported

relocating to another area of displacement (see Diagram 88). In comparison to on-camp

households, a significantly greater portion of off-camp households were intending to integrate

into their current area of displacement. It is likely that off-camp households have already begun

integrating into their current area of displacement and likely want to continue doing so. On-

camp households will at some point have to make the transition to off-camp living, which will

require partially restarting over. This eventual transition might further encourage on-camp

households to migrate abroad in search of better living standards.

18 Al Monitor. “For many of Iraq’s Yazidis, going home is not an option.” June 14 2017 http://al-

monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/06/yazidis-iraq-minorities-sinjar-kkp-pmu.html

4%

2%

47%

47%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Do not know

Relocate to another AOD

Migrate abroad

Integrate into current AOD

% of "No-Return" HHs

Options

Alterative Movement Intentions

http://al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/06/yazidis-iraq-minorities-sinjar-kkp-pmu.html

http://al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/06/yazidis-iraq-minorities-sinjar-kkp-pmu.html

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

92

DIAGRAM 88

MAIN REASONS FOR INTENDING TO INTEGRATE INTO AOD




When asked what their main reasons were for wanting to integrate into their current area of

displacement, 29% of on-camp “integrate” respondents indicated that their households had

become emotionally attached and committed to integrating, 25% indicated that no better

movement intentions exist, 13% reported not wanting to have to start over, and 13% reported

being satisfied with the livelihood opportunities in their current area of displacement (see

Diagrams 89 & 90).

0%

25%

72%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Do not know

Migrate abroad

Integrate into current area of

displacement

Relocate

% of "No-Return" HHs

Options

Alternative Movement Intentions

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

93

DIAGRAM 89

DIAGRAM 90


0%

0%

13%

4%

8%

38%

29%

13%

0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Satisfied with livelihood opportunities in AOD

Satisfied with educational services for children

in AOD

Satisfied with basic services in AOD

Other

HH has emotionally committed to integrating

in current AOD

Do not want to relocate to another AOD and

start over

AOD is geographically close to AOO

% of "Integrate" HHs

Options

Main Reasons For Integrating Into AOD

25%

8%

4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

No better alternative solution exists

Better security situation in AOD than

AOO

Afraid of neighboring ethnic groups in

AOO


Options

"Other" Reasons

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

94

When asked what were the main reasons for planning to integrate into their current area of

displacement, the most selected options by off-camp households were having emotionally

committed to integrating into the area of displacement (39%), being satisfied with the available

basic services (12%), and “other” (39% (see Diagram 90). The most reported “other” reasons

were that the security situation was better in the current area of displacement than the area of

origin (20%), and no better alternative exists (16%) (see Diagram 91). In general, on-camp and

off-camp households who were planning to integrate did so because they had already started to

integrate into their current areas of displacement and had “committed” to staying.

DIAGRAM 91

0%

0%

6%

12%

6%

39%

39%

6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Satisfied with livelihood opportunities in area of

displacement

Satisfied with basic services in area of displacement

Satisfied with educational services for children in area

of displacement

Other

HH has committed to integrating in current area of

displacement

Do not want to relocate and start over


Options

Reasons For Integrating Into AOD

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

95

DIAGRAM 92

REASONS FOR INTENDING TO RELOCATE TO ANOTHER AOD




Among on-camp households, only one interviewee indicated that their household was intending

to relocate to another area of displacement. When asked what were the main reasons behind

this intention, the interviewee indicated “other,” and specified that its household was in search

of better housing conditions (See Diagram 93).

2%

16%

2%

20%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

No personal identification documents to return

No better alternative solution exists

Host community shares the same ethnicity as my

family

Better security situation in AOD than AOO


Opptions

"Other" Reasons

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

96

DIAGRAM 93


Similar to on-camp households, only 2 off-camp household reported they were intending to

relocate to another area of displacement. When asked what were their reasons for relocating,

the households reported seeking better livelihood opportunities (100%) and educational services

for children (50%) (see Diagram 94).

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

100%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Seek better security situation than in AOD

Seek better educational services for children than in

AOD

Seek better basic services than in AOD

Reunite with immediate family members elsewhere

Reunite with family network elsewhere

Other


% of "Relocate" HHs

Options

Reasons For Relocating To Another AOD

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

97

DIAGRAM 94

MAIN REASONS FOR INTENDING TO MIGRATE ABROAD




Among on-camp households that reported they were intending to migrate abroad, when asked

what were the main reasons behind their decision, more than half (58%) reported they were in

search of a better security situation than their current area of displacement (See Diagram 95).

This is likely not an indication that their particular on-camp location was unsafe, but more a

feeling of concern about the future security situation in the country at large. It is assumed that

households the only way to seek a better security situation, would be to leave the country

entirely. The second-most selected reason for migrating abroad was to seek better livelihood

opportunities than the current area of displacmeement. Once again, this answer most likely

extends beyond the immediate camp location and reflects the difficulty many IDPs face in finding

sustainable livelihood opportunities within the whole of Dohuk and Northern Iraq region. In

addition, 13% of households who selected “other,” all of which reported wanting to migrate to

countries with stronger human rights norms.

0%

0%

0%

100%

50%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Seek better security situation than in area of

displacement

Seek better livelihood opportunities

Seek better educational services for children than

in area of displacement

Seek better basic services than in area of

displacement

Reunite with immediate family members

Reunite with family network

Other


% of "Relocate HHs"

Options

Reasons for Relocating To Another AOD

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

98

DIAGRAM 95


When asked what were the main reasons for migrating abroad, 67% of households reported

wanting to seek a better security situation than in their current area of displacement, 17%

reported wanting to seek better livelihood opportunities, 11% reported wanting better access

to basic services. The 6% of households who reported an “other” reason all indicated they

wanted to live in a country with stronger human rights norms (see Diagram 96).

0%

0%

58%

21%

0%

13%

0%

0%

13%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Seek better security situation than in AOD

Seek better livelihood opportunities than in

AOD

Seek better educational services for children

than in AOD

Seek better basic services than in AOD



Other


% of "Migrate" HHs

Options

Reasons For Migrating Abroad

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

99

DIAGRAM 96

EXTERAL EXPECTATIONS FOR INTEGRATING INTO AOD & SOURCE


The vast majority (92%) of on-camp households who intend to integrate into their current area

of displacement reported feeling no pressure or external expectations to carry out this decision.

Only two households (8%) reported feeling pressure to integrate into their on-camp location

(see Diagram 97).

0%

0%

67%

17%

0%

11%

0%

0%

6%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Seek better security situation than in area of

displacement

Seek better livelihood opportunities

Seek better educational services for children than in

area of displacement

Seek better basic services than in area of displacement



Other


% of "Migrate" HHs

Options

Reasons For Migrating Abroad

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

10

0

DIAGRAM 97

Among the 2 households who reported feeling pressure to integrate, when asked the source,

one household reported that an armed militia group in their area of origin was expecting that

they integrate into their current area of displacement. This reason probably was more related to

not returning as opposed to integrating into the area of displacement. The other household

which reported feeling pressure indicated that it was from all listed sources (humanitarian

works, host community, and IDP community leaders) to integrate into its area of displacement.

DIAGRAM 98


0%

92%

8%

Expectations To Integrate

Do not know

No

Yes

0%

0%

50%

50%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

All of the above

Other

IDP Community Leaders

Humanitarian Workers

Host Community

% of "Yes" HHs

Options


WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

10

1

Among off-camp households who intended to integrate into their current area of displacement,

when asked whether they had encountered any pressure or external expectations to make that

decision, 100% reported “no.”

EXTERNAL EXPECTATIONS FOR RELOCATING TO ANOTHER AOD & SOURCE


According to the one on-camp interviewee whose household was intending to relocate to

another area of displacement, there was no external pressure or expectations placed upon the

household to make the decision.

OFF -CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS

Among the two off-camp households who intended to relocate to another area of displacement,

when asked whether they had encountered any pressure to make that decision, both reported

“no.”

EXTERNAL EXPECTATIONS FOR MIGRATING ABROAD & SOURCE


Among on-camp respondents who indicated their households intended to migrate abroad, 92%

reported feeling no external pressure or expectations exerted upon their household to do so

(see Diagram 99). Two respondents (8%) did report feeling pressure or expectations to migrate

abroad. One respondent indicated the source of pressure to be “Arabs”, while the other did

not know the exact source of pressure (see Diagram 100). It is likely that the particular

household who cited Iraqi Arabs as the source of pressure was speaking generally about the lack

of belonging that Yezidis might feel in Iraq, rather than their household having received direct

pressure to migrate abroad.

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

10

2

DIAGRAM 99

DIAGRAM 100


Among off-camp households who intended to migrate abroad, when asked whether they had

encountered any pressure to make that decision, 100% reported “no.”

ASSISTANCE REQUESTED

0%

92%

8%

Expectations for Migrating

Abroad

Do not know

No

Yes

0%

50%

0%

50%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

All of the above

Other

IDP Community Leaders

Humanitarian Workers

Host Community

% of "Yes" HHs

Options


WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

10

3

MAIN TYPES OF ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO INTEGRATE INTO AOD

For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were asked to select up to three options.



When asked what assistance is needed to fully integrate their household into their current area

of displacement, the most selected options by interviewees were improved access to clean

water (54%), improved access to electricity (46%), improved access to livelihood/income

generating opportunities (25%) (see Diagram 101). For on-camp families, the question of

integration is challenging to consider as it remains uncertain how long the IDP camps in Dohuk

Governorate will continue to operate. The answers selected by interviewees likely indicate what

assistance is most needed to improve integration into their current on-camp setting, but likely

do not consider what would be needed to fully integrate in an off-camp setting in the nearby

host community. Additional research is needed to examine different off-camp scenarios involving

on-camp IDPs who wish to integrate into their surrounding host communities in Dohuk

Governorate, and how that transition from on-camp to off-camp can best facilitated.

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

10

4

DIAGRAM 101


When asked what were the main types of assistance their off-camp households would need to

fully integrate into their current area of displacement, the most selected options were: cash

assistance (65%), livelihood/income-earning opportunities (33%), food items (25%), and shelter

improvement (18%) (see Diagram 102). The requested assistance reflects the fact that many

IDPs have been living in their areas of displacement for an extended period of time and are no

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

0%

0%

13%

0%

0%

0%

25%

0%

0%

17%

46%

54%

0%

13%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Refuse to answer

Do not know

Women’s Healthcare Services

Transportation Services

Shelter Improvement (rehabilitation/reconstruction

of shelter

Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms, handwashing

stations)

Psychosocial Services

Primary Healthcare

Personal Identification Documents

Other

Non-Food Items

Livelihood/income generating opportunities

Legal assistance needed regarding Housing/Property

Ownership

Furniture Items

Food items

Electricity

Clean Water

Child Education Services (Schooling, Facilities,

materials)

Cash

Adult Education services (professional development

trainings)


Options

Assistance Needed To Integrate

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

10

5

longer in the emergency phase. Almost of the above requested assistance could be solved with

sustainable income-earning activities (such as shelter improvement or food items).

DIAGRAM 102

MAIN TYPES OF ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO RELOCATE TO ANOTHER AOD

0%

0%

0%

2%

18%

2%

0%

4%

0%

0%

6%

33%

0%

0%

25%

12%

14%

4%

65%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Refuse to answer

Do not know



Shelter Improvement (rehabilitation/reconstruction of

shelter units)


stations)


Primary Healthcare Services


Other

Non-Food Items



Ownership

Furniture Items

Food items

Electricity

Clean Water


materials)

Cash


trainings)


Options

Assistance Needed To Integrate

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

10

6

For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select up to three

options. Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers

selected).


For the single on-camp IDP household which indicated it was intending to relocate to another

area of displacement, when asked what assistance would be needed most, improved access to

sanitation facilities was indicated. In this particular case, the IDP interviewee clarified that the

off-camp location it was intending to relocate to needed improvements in its WASH facilities

(see Diagram 103).

DIAGRAM 103


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Refuse to answer

Do not know



Shelter Improvement…

Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms,…




Other

Non-Food Items


Legal assistance needed regarding…

Furniture Items

Food items

Electricity

Clean Water

Child Education Services (Schooling, Facilities,…

Cash

Adult Education services (professional…

Asssitance Needed To Relocate

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

10

7

When asked what were the main types of assistance the 2 off-camp households would need to

relocate to another area of displacement, the most selected options were cash assistance

(100%), shelter improvement (100%), electricity (50%), and livelihood/income-generating

activities (50%) (see Diagram 104). Once again, cash assistance and livelihood activities play a key

role in IDPs being able to find a durable solution. It assumed that the shelter improvement and

electricity assistance would be for the house location in new area of displacement.

DIAGRAM 104

0%

0%

0%

0%

100%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

50%

0%

0%

0%

50%

0%

0%

100%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Refuse to answer

Do not know



Shelter Improvement

(rehabilitation/reconstruction of shelter units)

Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms,

handwashing stations)




Other

Non-Food Items


Legal assistance needed regarding

Housing/Property Ownership

Furniture Items

Food items

Electricity

Clean Water


materials)

Cash

Adult Education services (professional

development trainings)

% of HHs

Options

Assistance Needed To Relocate

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

10

8

ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO RETURN TO AOO

For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were asked to select up to three options.



For the on-camp IDP households who indicated they were intending to return to their areas of

origin, the most selected forms of assistance needed to help them with their movement

intention were improved access to clean water (56%), improved access to clean water (49%),

presence of security forces (29%), and shelter reconstruction/rehabilitation (21%), and cash

(14%) (see Diagram 105). The options reflect the high-level of damage much of the public and

private infrastructure suffered across the various areas of origin that prevents IDPs from

returning home. Also interesting was the request for the presence of additional security forces,

which highlights the perception that the security situation in many of these areas remains

unstable.

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

10

9

DIAGRAM 105


0%

0%

1%

0%

21%

1%

0%

6%

29%

0%

0%

0%

8%

0%

1%

2%

56%

49%

3%

14%

3%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Refuse to answer

Do not know




shelter


stations)


Primary Healthcare

Presence of security forces


Other

Non-Food Items



Ownership

Furniture Items

Food items

Electricity

Clean Water


materials)

Cash


trainings)

Access to information on the current situation of the

area of origin

% of "Return" HHs

Options

Assistance Needed To Return To AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

11

0

Among off-camp household who indicated they intend to return, the most selected types of

requested assistance were: shelter improvement (46%), cash (32%), electricity 30%), clean water

(20%), and access to information on the current situation (18%), and livelihood activities (13%)

(see Diagram 106). As can be seen, many of the areas of origin are still very much in the

recovery phase, and before households can return, private housing and basic infrastructure must

be rehabilitated.

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

11

1

DIAGRAM 106

0%

0%

1%

0%

46%

1%

0%

4%

8%

0%

0%

2%

13%

0%

5%

3%

30%

20%

0%

32%

0%

18%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Refuse to answer

Do not know




shelter units)


stations)



Presence of security forces


Other

Non-Food Items



Ownership

Furniture Items

Food items

Electricity

Clean Water

Child Education Services (Schooling, Facilities, materials)

Cash


trainings)

Access to information on the current situation of the

area of origin

Asssitance Needed To Return To AOO

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

11

2

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations should be considered by

governmental and humanitarian agencies as they look to support IDPs with their movement

intentions.

1. Improve access to information about areas of origin, pending security, by providing

organized visits (including visits to housing, land, and property). Broader information

campaigns about the status of areas of origin should also be made more available in camp

and off-camp locations.

2. To avoid creating pull-factors to areas of origin that are unsafe or unsuitable for returning,

governmental and humanitarian agencies should carefully consider when, where, and how

they provide assistance to IDP households as they consider returning.

3. Assess and support IDPs with movement intentions that meet the minimum standards of

being voluntary, safe, dignified, and informed.

4. Mobilize rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts in areas where public infrastructure

(water, electricity, education/administrative/health facilities) and private property have been

damaged in order to expedite returns.

5. Advocate for the presence of official, non-partisan security forces in newly retaken areas.

According to surveyed households, there are numerous armed groups and militias that are

present in the many former areas of origin. KRG and GOI officials should look to replace

these groups with official security forces that will not pose a security threat to returnee

households.

6. Compensate IDP households for the replacement/rehabilitation/decontamination of housing,

land, and property in their areas of origin.

7. Support “return” and “integrate” intending households with income-generating livelihood

assistance in order to support their movement decision, as well as improve their ability to

be self-sufficient and provide for their families. Many reported issues like food insecurity,

shelter conditions, and access to clean water could be addressed if households were able to

increase their monthly incomes.

8. Given the unstable security situation, and political uncertainty for many areas of origin, IDPs

will likely remain in their displacement locations for 1, 2, 2+ years. Governmental and

humanitarian agencies should plan to continue supporting on-camp and off-camp IDPs in

their displacement locations for the foreseeable future. IDP households remaining in

displacement, especially remote locations, should not be overlooked, as many areas have no

available livelihood opportunities and households still struggle to be self-sufficient.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Welthungerhilfe Iraq would like to extend its sincere gratitude to the following parties who

helped in the completion of this study:

WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ


AUGUST 2017

11

3

• The 417 on-camp and off-camp IDP households who opened their homes to WHH

surveyors and provided their time and personal information to this study,

• Dohuk Governorate’s Board of Relief of Humanitarian Affairs (BRHA) and Camp

Management personnel for providing this study’s researchers with permission to survey

all on-camp and off-camp locations.

• The Sub District Mayor’s Offices of Batel, Chamanke, Darkar Duhok, and Mangesh for

organizing focal points from the IDP community in each respective area to help

surveyors in locating IDP households, as well as the IDP focal points the themselves.

• The Iraq Returns Working Group for assisting WHH in the development of its IDP

Household Questionnaire.

• All WHH staff and enumerators who assisted the research team with their time,

expertise, and support.

IDP Movement Intentions STudy Dohuk Governorate August 2017 · 2018. 6. 6. · welthungrhilfe iraq...

Documents

Transcript of IDP Movement Intentions STudy Dohuk Governorate August 2017 · 2018. 6. 6. · welthungrhilfe iraq...