IDP Movement Intentions STudy Dohuk Governorate August 2017 · 2018. 6. 6. · welthungrhilfe iraq...
Transcript of 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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
8
FIGURE 1: BETWEEN TENT SHELTERS AT BAJED KANDALA IDP CAMP
FIGURE 2: WHH ENUMERATOR INTERVIEWING A FEMALE HH RESPONDENT
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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%
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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 IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
23
TOTAL HOUSEHOLD SIZE
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
24
DIAGRAM 3
NUMBER OF MEMBERS WITH REDUCED MOBILITY, SPECIAL NEEDS, OR HEALTH
ISSUES
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
25
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
26
DIAGRAM 6
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
27
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
28
DIAGRAM 9
PRE-DISPLACEMENT AVERAGE MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
29
DIAGRAM 10
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
31
DIAGRAM 12
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
32
DIAGRAM 13
DATE OF DISPLACEMENT
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
Transportation/Shipping
Small private business
Service Industry (Hotel, Restaurant)
Other
Official Security Forces
Livestock Management
Large private business
Healthcare
Construction
Civilian Administration (Local Government
Agencies)
Agriculture (Farming)
% of HHs
Options
Pre-Displacement Livelihoods
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
33
DIAGRAM 14
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
34
NUMBER OF DISPLACEMENT LOCATIONS
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
37
DIAGRAM 19
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
39
SHELTER SITUATION
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
40
DIAGRAM 23
CONDITION OF SHELTER
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
41
DIAGRAM 24
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
42
DIAGRAM 25
FREEDOM TO WORK
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
43
DIAGRAM 26
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
Transportation/Shipping
Small Private Business
Service Industry (Hotel, Restaurant)
Other
Official Security Forces
Non-Official Security Forces
Non-Governmental Organization
No jobs available
Livestock Management
Large private business
Healthcare
Construction
Civilian Administration
Agriculture (Farming)
% of HHs
Options
Available Livelihood Options in AOD
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
Transportation/Shipping
Small Private Business
Service Industry (Hotel, Restaurant)
Other (Enter Text)
Official Security Forces
Non-Official Security Forces
Non-Governmental Organization
No jobs available
Livestock Management
Healthcare
Construction
Civilian Administration (Local Government Agencies)
Agriculture (Farming)
% of HHs
Options
Available Livelihood Opportunities in AOD
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
46
DIAGRAM 30
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
47
DIAGRAM 31
CURRENT SECURITY SITUATION IN AOD COMPARED WITH AOO
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
48
DIAGRAM 32
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
50
DIAGRAM 34
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
51
DIAGRAM 35
ACCESS TO LIVELIHOOD/INCOME GENERATING OPPORTUNINTGS IN AOD
COMPARED WITH PRE-DISPLACEMENT AOO
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
standards/access to basic
services as area of origin
Worse living
standards/access to basic
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
52
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
53
DIAGRAM 38
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
54
DIAGRAM 39
ACCESS TO BASIC SERVICES COMPARED WITH HOST COMMUNITY IN AOD
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
55
DIAGRAM 40
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
56
DIAGRAM 41
ACCESS TO LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES COMPARED TO HOST COMMUNITY
IN AOD
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
57
DIAGRAM 42
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
to the host community
Extremely Limited/No access to livelihood
opportunities compared to host community
% of HHs
Options
Access to Livelihood Opportunities Compared To Host
Community
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
compared to the host community
Equal access to livelihood opportunities compared
to the host community
Partial access to livelihood opportunities
compared to the host community
Extremely Limited/No access to livelihood
opportunities compared to host community
% of HHs
Options
Access To Livelihood Opportunities Compared To Host
Community
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
59
DIAGRAM 44
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
60
DIAGRAM 45
AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON AREA OF ORIGIN
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
61
DIAGRAM 46
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
62
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
63
DIAGRAM 49
INTEREST IN ORGANIZED VISIT TO AOO
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
64
DIAGRAM 50
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
65
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
66
STATUS OF BELONGINGS FROM AOO
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
67
DIAGRAM 54
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
68
STATUS OF LAND IN AOO
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
69
DIAGRAM 57
SECURITY CONCERNS IN AOO
For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple options.
Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
71
DIAGRAM 60
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple options.
Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
73
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
74
DIAGRAM 65
VOLUNTARY RETURN INTENTIONS
HH INTENTION TO RETURN TO AOO
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
75
DIAGRAM 66
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
76
For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple options.
Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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 IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
77
DIAGRAM 69
INTENTION TO RETURN IN IMMEDIATE FUTURE (4 WEEKS OR LESS)
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
Cohabitation issues with host community
Better living conditions/standards than in area of
displacement
% of "Return" HHS
Options
Main Reasons For Intending To Return
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
78
DIAGRAM 70
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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)
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
80
DIAGRAM 73
AVAILABLE SAVINGS TO ASSIST IN RETURNING
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
81
DIAGRAM 74
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
82
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
83
DIAGRAM 77
MAIN DECISION MAKER IN RETURNING TO AOO
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
84
DIAGRAM 78
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
86
DIAGRAM 80
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
87
DIAGRAM 81
EXTERNAL EXPECATIONS THAT HH RETURNS TO AOO & SOURCE
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
89
DIAGRAM 84
EXTERNAL EXPECATIONS TO NOT RETURN TO AOO & SOURCES
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
90
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
92
DIAGRAM 88
MAIN REASONS FOR INTENDING TO INTEGRATE INTO AOD
For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple options.
Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
93
DIAGRAM 89
DIAGRAM 90
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
% of "Integrate" HHs
Options
"Other" Reasons
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
% of "Integrate" HHs
Options
Reasons For Integrating Into AOD
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
95
DIAGRAM 92
REASONS FOR INTENDING TO RELOCATE TO ANOTHER AOD
For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple options.
Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
% of "Integrate" HHs
Opptions
"Other" Reasons
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
96
DIAGRAM 93
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
Cohabitation issues with host community
% of "Relocate" HHs
Options
Reasons For Relocating To Another AOD
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
97
DIAGRAM 94
MAIN REASONS FOR INTENDING TO MIGRATE ABROAD
For this multiple-choice question, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple options.
Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
Cohabitation issues with host community
% of "Relocate HHs"
Options
Reasons for Relocating To Another AOD
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
98
DIAGRAM 95
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
Reunite with immediate family members
Reunite with family network
Other
Cohabitation issues with host community
% of "Migrate" HHs
Options
Reasons For Migrating Abroad
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
99
DIAGRAM 96
EXTERAL EXPECTATIONS FOR INTEGRATING INTO AOD & SOURCE
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
Reunite with immediate family members
Reunite with family network
Other
Cohabitation issues with host community
% of "Migrate" HHs
Options
Reasons For Migrating Abroad
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
Sources of Expectations
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
10
2
DIAGRAM 99
DIAGRAM 100
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
Sources of Expectations
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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.
Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
10
4
DIAGRAM 101
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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)
% of "Integrate" HHs
Options
Assistance Needed To Integrate
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
Women’s Healthcare Services
Transportation Services
Shelter Improvement (rehabilitation/reconstruction of
shelter units)
Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms, handwashing
stations)
Psychosocial Services
Primary Healthcare Services
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)
% of "Integrate" HHs
Options
Assistance Needed To Integrate
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Refuse to answer
Do not know
Women’s Healthcare Services
Transportation Services
Shelter Improvement…
Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms,…
Psychosocial Services
Primary Healthcare Services
Personal Identification Documents
Other
Non-Food Items
Livelihood/income generating opportunities
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
Women’s Healthcare Services
Transportation Services
Shelter Improvement
(rehabilitation/reconstruction of shelter units)
Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms,
handwashing stations)
Psychosocial Services
Primary Healthcare Services
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)
% of HHs
Options
Assistance Needed To Relocate
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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.
Diagrams show percentages in households (as opposed to percentages of answers selected).
ON-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
AUGUST 2017
10
9
DIAGRAM 105
OFF-CAMP IDP HOUSEHOLDS
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
Women’s Healthcare Services
Transportation Services
Shelter Improvement (rehabilitation/reconstruction of
shelter
Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms, handwashing
stations)
Psychosocial Services
Primary Healthcare
Presence of security forces
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)
Access to information on the current situation of the
area of origin
% of "Return" HHs
Options
Assistance Needed To Return To AOO
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
Women’s Healthcare Services
Transportation Services
Shelter Improvement (rehabilitation/reconstruction of
shelter units)
Sanitation Facilities (toilets, bathrooms, handwashing
stations)
Psychosocial Services
Primary Healthcare Services
Presence of security forces
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)
Access to information on the current situation of the
area of origin
Asssitance Needed To Return To AOO
WELTHUNGRHILFE IRAQ
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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
IDP INTENTIONS SURVEY
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.