Rapid Needs Assessment (RNA) of Recently-Displaced Persons in the Kurdistan Region

Transcription

1 Rapid Needs Assessment (RNA) of Recently-Displaced Persons in the Kurdistan Region DAHUK GOVERNORATE November 2007

2 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION SUMMARY OF GOVERNORATE IDP MONITORING METHODOLOGY MONITORING SUMMARY IDP PROFILE IDP FLOW MOVEMENT PROFILE DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE IDP PROTECTION ACCESS TO GOVERNORATE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND SECURITY DOCUMENTATION IDP LIVING CONDITIONS AND ACCESS TO SERVICES HOUSING EMPLOYMENT BASIC SERVICES HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE PRIORITY NEEDS AND SUGGESTED INTERVENTIONS ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES ANNEX II: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY SUMMARY

3 1. Introduction 1 The purpose of this report is to reflect the situation of the newly displaced in the Governorate of Dahuk, in particular, the movement and demographic profile of IDPs, their access to shelter, employment and basic services (including food, education, healthcare and water), as well as their future intentions. It is estimated that over 2.4 million people remain displaced within Iraq as of September 2007, some 1.2 million of whom were displaced following the Samarra bombings in February These attacks resulted in the escalation of sectarian violence with large-scale revenge killings on both sides, alongside anti-state insurgency, counter-insurgency and crime. Overall, this led to widespread violence, killings and insecurity throughout Iraq. Mixed communities, particularly in Baghdad, have borne the brunt of the conflict between members of Iraq s principal religious groups, Shi a and Sunni Muslims. Minority groups in southern and central Iraq, including Christians and Kurds, are without strong protection networks and are particularly vulnerable to violence and intimidation. A significant minority of IDPs displaced since February 2006, have sought refuge in the KRG administered areas of Dahuk, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah which in comparison to other regions of Iraq, remain relatively secure. According to official KRG sources, 28,886 (September 2007) IDP families have been displaced from the south and centre to the Kurdish area since 2003, the majority of whom were displaced after February The influx of new IDPs has had a significant impact on the host community: increasing house prices, increasing rent prices, additional pressure on already strained public services and by creating concerns about security and demographic shifts. At the same time, however, the Kurdish area has also benefited from the migration of professionals, bringing with them skills and disposable incomes that boost the local economy. While there have been IDP returns to Baghdad, no significant return movements have taken place from this area. 2. Summary of Governorate 3 Size 6,553 km 2 Administrative Capital Districts Dahuk, Amedi, Sumel and Administration Zakho(de facto Akre and part of Shekhan) 4 (de facto Akre and part of Shekhan) Internal Boundaries Dahuk City Qadha (dstrict) and Nahiya (subdistrict) Councils, Governorate Council Erbil, Ninewa Checkpoints Rizgari sub-district checkpoint, Dahuk City checkpoint Population excluding IDPS Dominant Religion 472,238 (ILCS) IDPs from South and Centre (Since 2003) Sunni Muslim Dominant Ethnicity Individuals: 55,151 Families: 9,617 (September 2007) Kurd 1 The report was researched and drafted with UNHCR s partner, IRD. 2 Cluster F, Update on IDPs, 21 November For further details on the Governorate of Dahuk, please consult UNHCR s Governorate Assessment Report, September 2007, 3

4 3. IDP Monitoring 3.1 Methodology UNHCR s partner, International Relief and Development (IRD) monitors IDPs in the three Northern Governorates of Iraq through its local monitoring team who collects information from household interviews 5, consultations with UNHCR field staff, the Dahuk Protection and Assistance Centres (PACs), and interviews with local community leaders. A survey plan was set up according to geographic concentrations of IDPs across the governorate as per July 2007 figures. Statistics used in this analysis are correct as of August and data is rounded off to zero decimal places. The source of figures for the number of IDP families is the Directorate of IDPs and Refugees Dahuk (DIDPRD). Figure 1: Survey sample and achievements 7 Location (District) IDP baseline figures Jul 07 Target (6% of figures Jul No. of forms collected % of target achieved IDP figures Aug. 07 % against IDP figures Aug ) Dahuk 2, % 2,146 6% Zakho 1, % 1,817 6% Amedi % % Akre 2, % 2,269 6% Shekhan 1, % 1,512 6% Sumail 1, % 1,431 10% Total 9, % 9,569 7% An effort was made to get a representative sample of ethnicities and monitoring officers tried to cover ethnicities according to the concentrations indicated in the DIDPRD IDP figures. Source of IDP figures: IRD collects statistics on IDPs from DIDPRD. 4 Akre and Shekhan districts belong de jure to the Governorate of Ninewa; de facto they are under the control of the Kurdistan Regional Government. Until 1976, the Governorate of Dahuk was part of Ninewa Governorate, which was called Mosul Province at the time. 5 IRD s monitors use UNHCR s IDP/Returnee Household Monitoring Form, Version C, October For this calculation, the August 2007 breakdown of IDPs by district was taken since no September 2007 breakdown was available May to 30 September

5 3.2. IDP Monitoring summary Districts surveyed Dahuk, Sumel, Amedi, Zakho, Akre and Shekhan Number of surveys 664 Percentage of IDP population surveyed 7% Districts with highest IDP concentration Akre (2,269), Dahuk (2,146), Zakho (1817), Shekhan (1,512), Sumel (1,431) Main cause of flight Post-Samara events (89%) Main governorate of origin Ninewa Main ethnicity Kurd Main Religion Muslim Priority protection needs Access to food, including issuance of temporary food ration card; access to education for Arabicspeaking IDP children Priority assistance needs Public services Received assistance 32% of surveyed IDP population Figure 2: Percentage of IDP families surveyed in Dahuk Governorate, by district. 8 8 Source of map: 5

6 4. IDP Profile 4.1. IDP flow The number of IDP families arriving in Dahuk Governorate has increased steadily since February 2006, with the highest increase during 2007 in the months of February and March. 9 (Fig.3). Figure 3: IDP increase in Dahuk Governorate Individuals Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug Movement profile Place of origin: The majority of IDP families surveyed are from neighbouring Ninewa (68%), but families also fled from Baghdad (30%) and the remaining 2% from other areas (Kirkuk, Salah Al- Din, Anbar, Najaf and Muthanna). Of those that fled from Ninewa, 95% came from Mosul. Of those that fled from Baghdad, 49% came from Al Rusafa and 43% from Karkh districts. Figure 4: Place of origin of IDPs in Dahuk Baghdad 30% Other* 2% Ninewa 68% *Other areas include Kirkuk, Salah Al-Din, Anbar, Najaf and Muthanna. 9 Figures based on information received from the DIDPRD. 6

7 Flight: Sectarian violence after 22 February 2006 was the main cause of flight for some 89% of IDP families surveyed, whilst 11% fled because of other violent events occurring since % of IDP families surveyed stated their family was specifically targeted. (Fig.5). Figure 5: 10 (Multiple answers) Cause of flight to Dahuk Left out of fear 78% Direct threats to life 31% Generalized violence 21% Discrimination 3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Of those families targeted, the majority were targeted for belonging to a specific ethnic group. (Fig.6). Figure 6: Reasons family targeted 100% 87% 80% Household 60% 40% 20% 0% 7% 6% Ethnic group Social group Religious group 10 Sample size:

8 Improved security was a key motive for all of the families that moved to Dahuk. (Fig.7). Figure 7: 11 (Multiple answers) Reasons for moving to current location 120% 100% 80% 100% 74% 60% 40% 41% 28% 20% 0% Improved security Change in political situation Political support Relatives living there 2% Tribal links 2% Other IDP Intentions: 72% of IDP families in Dahuk Governorate surveyed intend to locally integrate, 27% hope to return to their place of origin and 1% are undecided. (Fig.8). Figure 8: 12 IDP intentions Undecided 1% Return (place of origin) 27% Locally integrate 72% 4.3. Demographic Profile Gender and age breakdown of families: The ratio between the number of males and females in the IDP families surveyed was equal. 90% of head of households surveyed were male and 10% were female. 40% of IDP families surveyed were between the ages of 18 and 59, 46% were under the age of 18 and 4% were 60 or over. The average family size was Sample size: Sample size:

9 Figure 9: Age breakdown of IDP families surveyed % % % 60+ 4% Ethnicity: According to the IDP figures provided by DIDPRD for the month of August 2007, the IDPs from the south and centre of Iraq are ethnically mixed with Kurds making up the majority of IDPs (81%) in the governorate, ethnic-based Christian groups (16%), Arab (2%) and other (1%). Figure 9: 14 Ethnicity breakdown 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 67% 81% 27% 4% 2% 16% 2% 1% 0% Kurd Christian Arab Other IDP Families (Aug 2007) IDP Families Surveyed Religion: As per the figures from DIDPRD, the majority of the IDPs from the south and center of Iraq that have fled to Dahuk are Muslim (83%) followed by Christian (16%) 15 and other (1%). According to the families surveyed, 72% of surveyed IDP families are Muslim: 71% Sunni Muslim and 1% Shi'a Muslim. The remaining 28% are Christian. Figure 10: 16 Breakdown by religion Household 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 83% 72% 28% 16% 1% Muslim Christian Other IDP families (Aug 07) IDP families surveyed 13 Sample size: 3,622 persons in 664 families. 14 Sample size: 664 IDP households vs. IDP figures August IRCS is of the opinion that the Christian population in Dahuk is higher. One possible explanation is that many of the Christians from the south and centre have roots in Zakho and may be therefore less inclined to report themselves to the authorities as IDPs. It is also possible that the local authorities may not view this group as IDPs where they still have strong familial and property links to Dahuk. 16 Sample size: 664 IDP households vs. DIDPRD IDP figures August

10 Vulnerabilities: 37% of IDP families surveyed reported having one or more family members with special needs, of which chronic disease was the main cause of vulnerability for the largest number of families surveyed. (Fig. 11). Figure 11: 17 (Multiple answers) Special needs of IDP households One or more needs Chronic disease Other Women at risk Physical disability Serious medical condition Aged (requiring assistance) Mental disability Unaccompanied minor Victim of torture No. Households 5. IDP Protection 5.1. Access to governorate Persons originating from the Kurdistan Region can enter the Governorate of Dahuk without any restrictions. However, single men not originating from the Kurdistan Region need a sponsor for security reasons. 18 The sponsor has to present him/herself at the entry checkpoint and provide his or her Civil ID Card, phone number and address. The IDP has to fill out a card at the entry checkpoint and will be allowed to enter the Region. Single males without a sponsor will generally be denied entry to the Governorate Permission to remain in the governorate IDPs not originating from the Kurdistan Region have to approach the Residency Section in the Security Department to obtain a permit to stay. Single men not originating from the Kurdistan Region generally need to have a sponsor in order to legalize their stay. 20 S/he will have to undergo 17 Sample size: 245 out of The sponsor could either be an individual person or a company. The responsibility of the sponsor is to inform authorities that s/he knows the IDP and, in case of security-related incidents, the sponsor will be questioned. The sponsor should have her/his food ration card issued in the Governorate of Dahuk and have a good reputation. 19 It appears that the authorities exceptionally grant entry to IDPs without a sponsor, provided that 1) the person s background can be thoroughly checked by the KDP, if the party has an office in the person s place of origin (e.g. in Kirkuk, Ninewa), and it is determined that he does not pose a security risk and 2) the person can establish that he fled violence or persecution. Otherwise, the person will not be admitted to the Governorate of Dahuk. 20 On an exceptional basis, and provided that 1) the person s background can be thoroughly checked and it is determined that s/he does not pose a security risk; and, 2) the person can establish that he fled violence or persecution, 10

11 a security screening in which the reasons for relocation are investigated. Applicants need to either establish political links to the region or provide evidence that they have fled violence or persecution; otherwise they will not be allowed to stay due to the serious lack of shelter in the Governorate. Provided the person is not considered a security risk, s/he will be granted a permit to stay for 3-6 months, which is subject to extension. Upon arrival IDPs should also contact the Quarter Representative (Mukhtar) to introduce themselves and should inform the security department whenever they change the place of residence. Since November 2006, Arab IDPs and Kurds from disputed areas have reportedly faced difficulties in registering in the Governorate Freedom of movement and security Almost all the IDP families surveyed reported no official restrictions placed on their movement within the three Northern Governorates and all surveyed individuals (including all women surveyed) reported feeling safe Documentation 71% IDP families surveyed reported difficulty in obtaining/ renewing documentation. The transferring of PDS cards between governorates was a difficulty for nearly all households surveyed. (Fig.12). Figure 12: Difficulty to renew documents PDS card 92% Passport 60% Birth certificate 26% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Household 6. IDP Living Conditions and Access to Services 6.1. Housing IDP families are spread across urban, semi urban, rural and camped areas, with the majority living in semi rural areas. Over 40% of IDP families surveyed are living in rented housing in Dahuk Governorate and nearly one third are staying with relatives; a small percentage of the surveyed group (5%) are living in a camp or public building. (Fig.13). Types of shelter varied across districts in Dahuk Governorate: In Amedi the majority of surveyed IDP families own their houses whilst in Akre most families are living with relatives. In contrast, in Dahuk, Sumel and Zakho districts most families are renting. a permit to stay might be given. 11

12 Figure 13: 21 Shelter Type 60% 40% 20% 42% 28% 19% 5% 3% 3% 0% Rented house Relatives House owned (own land) Camp / public building Host family House owned (land not) Rental accommodation used by IDPs in Dahuk Governorate is generally of a low standard 22 and is often dilapidated with poor or no ventilation, leaking roofs, missing window panes, no internal doors separating communal areas from bathrooms or kitchens and limited kitchen and bathroom facilities. 72% of IDP families surveyed reported living in crowded houses: 32% somewhat crowded (5+ person per room) and 40% are extremely crowded (8+ persons per room). 100% of families reported no pressure to leave their current location. Figure 14: Examples of accommodation rented by IDPs in Dahuk Governorate. Family of seven live in a two room house, rent: $200. Among those IDP families surveyed in camps, some 150 families live in Grdasin, Akre (in tents provided by UNHCR), a few are also living in tents in Fayda district (formerly in Ninewa). Conditions for IDPs in tented camps are poor, as illustrated in the table below: 21 Sample size: Any housing that an IDP family is paying rent for is recorded as rental housing. 12

13 6.2. Employment 69% of IDPs surveyed, of working age, have been unemployed since their displacement. This percentage was generally stable across four districts ranging from 63% in Sumel to 69% in Akre (Fig.15). The two Christian-dominated areas, Zakho and Amedi 23 reported significantly higher levels of unemployment than other districts: 79% and 84% respectively. Figure 15: 24 IDPs unemployed in Dahuk (by district) 100% 80% 60% 84% 65% 66% 63% 79% 69% 40% 20% 0% Amedi Dahuk Shekhan Sumel Zakho Akre Source of Income: Out of the surveyed working age IDP population, 67% listed some form of employment as their main source of income and 2% listed savings Basic Services Food: In Dahuk, the temporary transfer of ration cards is not possible % of IDP families were unable to access PDS rations. Of those, 91% of families who do not have access, stated inability to transfer PDS to Dahuk. The remaining 6% listed a delay in transference of rations. (Fig.16). Figure 16: 26 Access to PDS (by district) 50% 40% 30% 46% 42% 20% 10% 12% 9% 7% 6% 0% Amedi Dahuk Shekhan Sumel Zakho Akre Districts 23 Zakho (92% Christian) and Amedi (95% Christian). 24 Sample size: 1,812 persons of working age in 664 IDP families. 25 Temporary transfer of ration cards occurs in Sulaymaniyah and Erbil Governorates. The Protection and Assistance Center in Dahuk has received 141 cases of PDS rations transfer in 2007; all were pending at the publication of this report. 26 Sample size:

14 Of the 23% of IDP families surveyed having access to PDS rations, 32% reported that they usually rely solely on PDS rations. IDPs without access to PDS rations that normally rely solely on PDS rations are in an extremely vulnerable position and in need of food assistance. Health: 63% of IDP families surveyed had access to primary healthcare services in their locality and 21% reported access to basic pharmaceuticals. Access to primary healthcare varied greatly between districts: 97% of families surveyed have access in Sumel compared with only 26% in Akre (main reason was non-availability of PHCs). 99% of children under five have vaccination records and 46% of families received visits from a health worker (from which 99% of visits pertained to vaccinations). 35% of families reported health problems from which 87% related to chronic diseases, 7% maternal health, 5% child health and 1% dysentery. Education: All IDP families surveyed with school-age children reported living within a school catchment area. 73% of the school age children surveyed are attending school and 98% of those registered in schools reported being registered in the correct grade. Those not attending school varied considerably across districts: In Sumel only 1% (1 family) reported having a child not attending school compared with Akre where 22% (16 families) reported having a child not attending school. 27 (Fig. 17). Figure 17: Households with children not attending school (by district) Household 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 21% 13% 10% 2% 1% Amedi Dahuk Zakho Shekhan Sumel District Approximately 8,587 post 2006 IDP children are registered in schools in Dahuk Governorate. 28 Dahuk has the largest number of Arabic schools of the three Northern governorates 29 located in the five districts of Dahuk Centre, Zakho, Amedi, Sumel 30 and Akre. 31 Most of these schools operate double or triple shifts to accommodate more students. Despite a relatively high number of Arabic schools, 57% of families with children not attending school listed curriculum language as the main reason for non attendance boys and 35 girls. 28 According to UNICEF, there are 5,858 primary and 2,729 secondary school children primary and secondary schools. 30 The three Arabic primary schools and two secondary schools in Faida are not included in Sumel. 31 Information provided by UNICEF. 14

15 On a district level, Sumel and Amedi, where there is only one Arabic primary school and no secondary school, curriculum language is cited by 100% of the families surveyed as the reason for non attendance at school. (Fig.18). Figure 18: Reasons not attending school Household 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100% 100% 100% 80% 50% 38% 25% 20% 19% 6% Amedi Dahuk Shekhan Sumel Zakho Akre Language Culture Other Work Distance Finance Water and sanitation: 88% of IDP families surveyed reported having access to potable water and this varied somewhat across districts. 59% of water was supplied by public well/tap and 41% by municipal pipe network. 98% of IDP families surveyed reported having sufficient water for cooking but only 45% of families reported having enough water for hygienic purposes. While some IDP families appear to have a shortage of water they share this problem with the local community, particularly in the semi rural and rural areas where under development and poor basic services are common place. 100% of IDP families surveyed reported having access to toilets but 51% of these reported sharing toilets with other families. Electricity and fuel: 95% of families have access to four or more hours of electricity per day. The average amount of government supplied electricity per day in urban areas is hours and 0-6 hours in rural areas. 45% of IDP families surveyed reported being able to afford fuel costs. 15

16 6.4. Humanitarian Assistance 32% of IDP families surveyed have received some form of assistance. Of those, 77% received assistance with shelter, 34% with other 32 assistance and 19% with food. The number of families that have received assistance varied greatly across districts. (Fig.19). 10% of households surveyed are female headed households. Of these 9% received assistance, mostly shelter. 33 Figure 19: 34 Assistance recieved, by district Household 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 87% 66% 24% 25% 10% 3% Amedi Dahuk Shekhan Sumel Zakho Akre The type of assistance received by IDP families in Dahuk Governorate, are shelter, food and other assistance. Assistance is provided by the KRG, the host community, relatives, religious groups and international organizations and NGOs. 35 Assistance also varied widely across the districts, with Zakho district receiving the most shelter assistance, followed by Amedi and Akre. 7. Priority Needs and Suggested Interventions When IDP families were asked to list their priority needs, 80% stated public services, 71% shelter and 61% indicated employment as their top three needs. (Fig.20). Figure 20: 36 (Multiple answer) Top 3 priority needs Public Services 78% Shelter Employment Healthcare Water Food Income 3% 3% 3% 39% 61% 71% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Households 32 Sometimes refers to cash. 33 Sample size: Sample size: UNHCR, ICRC, IOM, Qandil, IRCS and IRD. 36 Sample size:

17 Interventions are urgently needed in the areas of public services, shelter, food, healthcare and access to employment for vulnerable IDP families in Dahuk Governorate, with a particular focus on vulnerable IDPs not registered by the local authorities: While nearly half of the surveyed IDPs are renting housing, their resources are limited. Interventions should target vulnerable families through income generation projects and where possible, government stipends. Programmes should also target the upgrading of sub-standard shelters, taking into account ownership rights. Since accommodation is rented out for very high prices, the local authorities are encouraged to regulate rent prices by introducing standard rent ceilings for some categories of accommodation or introduce minimum standards of habitability. Furthermore, it is recommended to move the Grdasin camp to a more permanent location with hard shelter and better access to public services. Until this time, all efforts should be undertaken to meet the basic needs of the IDPs in this camp, including in the area of sanitation. Recognizing that some agencies operating in the North are providing limited food provisions, a two-pronged approach is recommended for the large number of families who do not currently have access to the PDS: continue to lobby with authorities to issue temporary food ration cards for all IDPs; at the same time, vulnerable IDP families should be specifically prioritized. The local authorities in Dahuk should further be supported to offer primary and secondary schooling in Arabic, particularly in areas where there are gaps such as in the districts of Sumel and Amedi. Additional support to vulnerable IDP families covering transportation, school uniform and book costs should also be provided. To support vulnerable IDP families, it is recommended to offer cash for work and other types of income generation activities, particularly for those living in tents and makeshift shelters in Dahuk. In areas where there is low access to primary health care services (e.g. Akre), local authorities and the International Community are encouraged to offer services through a mobile health clinic. 17

18 ANNEX I: IDP Case Studies Grdasin tented IDP camp, Akre district, Dahuk 37 Location An area of approx. 14 villages in Grdasin, Akre district. IDP Families Approx. 151 (post 2003 and post 2006) Shelter Approximately 151 new IDP families in 193 tents (status 9 Nov 2007), some 100 families in dilapidated housing. Ethnicity and Kurds from Mosul. Religion Status The camp is located on communal grounds. IDPs are accepted by authorities but are not always welcomed by the local community due to their political background. Authorities tolerate the presence of IDPs and facilitate coexistence with the local community. Management The authorities do not provide formal camp management. However, different actors are engaged in the delivery of services to the population together with KRG, including: UNHCR, PWJ, Qandil, IRCS, ICRC, IOM, UNICEF and IRD. Water Supply A deep well with pump exists within the camp premises, which also supplies the local community. The distribution system is limited to supply individual family PVC-tanks; water quantity and quality is not yet verified. Sanitation Garbage is disposed of independently by each family. Fuel: Fuel is currently provided by IOM. Primary The primary healthcare centre is 2 km from the camp. In September 2007, Healthcare mobile medical units were established with IRD support. PDS Approximately 40 families have successfully transferred PDS rations. Education No school age children are attending school as there are no Arabic schools in the area. 38 Transportation to the closest Arabic school in the district involves transportation costs. WC 1 toilet per approximately 20 persons in the camp. Assistance Camp: access roads, water supply (drilling of a well), improvement of provided sanitation. Individual assistance: food and NFIs, income generation projects and winterization including concrete bases and kitchen sections. UNHCR: NFI distribution to 97 families and winterization of camp. Grdasin tented camp, Dahuk Governorate. 37 This information was collected by the IRD/UNHCR Protection and Assistance Center (PAC). 38 Despite being Kurdish, most of the children are used to studying in Arabic. 18

19 Case Studies 39 In May 2006 Madelyn, a 75 year old grandmother, fled sectarian violence in Baghdad to the Christian quarter of Zakho with three generations of her family. Madelyn s oldest son disappeared in a car hijacking and her second son suffers depression and anxiety following another car hijacking, in which he was tortured. With the exception of Madelyn, who originates from Zakho, all family members were born and raised in Baghdad. The family shares a sparsely furnished two-room house with basic kitchen and bathroom. There are seven adults of working age and four children plus Madelyn. The family has been living in Zakho for over a year and they are all unemployed and have no access to PDS rations. Three family members are chronically sick including Madelyn s eight-year old granddaughter who suffers from Thalassemia and requires a monthly blood transfusion and treatment for her blood which is unavailable in Dahuk. Their main priority needs are medical assistance, employment and access to PDS rations. Mam Yazdeen is an underdeveloped village in Shekhan district. Shekhan district is ethnically and religiously diverse with around 1000 families, over 50 percent of who are IDPs. As the administrative authority over the area is disputed, basic services are often neglected by the different authorities who claim responsibilities for some areas and not others. The village is home to 55 families, 35 of whom are Kurdish IDP families that fled from Mosul. Both the local residents and the IDP families are living in very poor conditions: some small houses are home to four families, water supply is irregular, they only have access to 4 hours of electricity per day, there is no school or Primary Healthcare Centre in the village and most of the heads of households are unemployed. Most of the IDP families fled without household items and would benefit from NFI distribution. Mrs. Dadee a was widowed when militia killed her husband. She fled to Shekhan with her six children. She is originally from this village but she moved to Mosul when she married. They are currently renting a house and receiving financial support from her father in law. Her main concern is the lack of school in the village. The dirt roads make it very difficult to travel to the nearest school (20 km away) in the winter. Ahmed and his wife are Kurdish and fled to Shekhan in 2006 with their seven sons following sectarian violence. My wife and I are uneducated and we want a better life for our children but they are currenly unable to attend school because there is no school in this village and we are unable to travel. There are many other families with this problem and we would be grateful if the local authorities can provide us with a regular school bus. 39 This section provides comments from individual IDP families currently located in Erbil Governorate. All names have been changed. 19

20 Jwhar Sharief, 60 years old Shi a Muslim Arab, and his four children fled to Shekhan from Baghdad in 2006, following a sectarian attack on their home. After the Samara mosque bombings things quickly began to deteriorate. Sectarian armed groups created ethnic and religious divides, people tried to resist them but as they increased in numbers and the seriousness of their threats, our once tolerant area fell into their hateful hands Jwhar and his family come from the mixed and once prosperous area of Hey al Jamea a (university quarter). The family of five rent a small, dilapidated house, with damp flooring, for $360 per month. Jwhar s two daughters were able to find work in the local hospital and are supporting the family but their wages barely cover the rent. 20

21 ANNEX II: Household Survey Summary Governorate: Dahuk Duration of data 20/05/07-26/09/07 Sample size 664 households Some questions were omitted because they pertain to returnees only or do not draw data. No Question Result % Comments 1-16 Distinguish between IDP and Returnees and record interviewer details n/a n/a n/a Basic Profile Head of household and age and gender breakdown 17 Head of Household HOH is Male % HOH is Female % 18 Household Profile Average family size 5.0 a Males % b Females % c Age under % d Age % e Age % f Age % g Age 60 and above % Ethnicity and Religion 19- To which Ethnic group does the family belong to a Arab % b Kurd % d Turkmen % e Other (specify) % f Assyrian % g Chaldean % h Armenian % 21- What is the Family Religion a Islam - Shi'ite % b Islam - Sunni % e Christian % Most Recently Displaced From Governorate/District 28 Most Recently Displaced From Gov Ninewa % Baghdad % Tameem % Salah al-din % Najaf % Muthanna % Anbar % Most Recently Displaced From District 21

22 Anbar - Al-Rutba % Baghdad - Abu Ghraib % Baghdad - Al Resafa % Baghdad - Karkh % Baghdad - Mada'in % Muthanna - Al-Rumaitha % Najaf - Kufa % Ninewa - Al-Ba'aj % Ninewa - Hatra % Ninewa - Mosul % Ninewa - Shekhan % Ninewa - Sinjar % Ninewa - Telafar % Ninewa - Tilkaif % Salah al-din - Samarra % Salah al-din - Tikrit % Salah al-din - Tooz % Tameem - Kirkuk % Number of Displacements and Reasons for Leaving Village/Town 29- How many times has the household been displaced inside Iraq % % % % 30- Reasons for leaving village/town a March 2003 events % r Post-Samarra events % Cause of Flight and Reasons for Moving to Other Locations 31 Why did the family flee a Direct threats to life % b Specific sectarian threats % c Left out of fear % d Generalized violence % e Armed conflict % f Forced displacement from property % g Discrimination % h Other %. The values may not add up to 100% because households listed up to three reasons for leaving. Some reasons were added or removed in newer form versions.. The values may not add up to 100% because households may list up to three reasons for leaving. 32 Was the family targeted a Belonging to a certain ethnic group % b Belonging to a certain religion or sect % c Holding a certain political opinion % d Belonging to a certain social group % Out of 534 IDP households surveyed targeted e Do not think the family was targeted % 33 Reasons for Moving to Current Location a Improved security % b Change of political situation % c Deported by country of asylum % d Property claim % f Relatives living there % i Political support % j Reconstruction assistance % k Other %. The values may not add up to 100% because households may list up to three reasons for returning. 22

23 m Tribal links % IDP: Intentions 34 What are the main intentions a Return to their place of origin % b Locally integrate in the current % location d Waiting on one or several factors % 35 When does the family plan to return a In less than 6 months % b In 6 to 12 months % c In more than 12 months % d Whenever the security situation improves % Shelter 36 Type of Shelter a Owned house on owned land % b Rented house % c With relatives % d Public building % f House on land not owned % g Camp % h In the house of host family % 37 House Crowding a Not overcrowded % b Somewhat overcrowded % c Extremely overcrowded % 38 House Location a Rural % b Urban % c Camp % d Semi-rural %.. Pressure to Leave 39 Pressure to Leave b Pressure from relatives % d Pressure from militants % a No pressure to leave or threat of eviction Property Owned Before Being Displaced 40 Property owned before being displaced a House % b Apartment or room % c Land for housing % d Land for agriculture % e Shop/small business % f Other % Now able to access property 41 Now able to access property? a Yes, property accessible % f Do not know % Out of 2 IDP households surveyed faced pressure to leave % Out of 260 IDP households surveyed Having Property Owned before being displaced Out of 260 IDP households surveyed having property not able to access. b Property destroyed or damaged so as to be unusable % Out of 35 IDP households surveyed having property not able to access 23

24 c Property occupied, controlled or % claimed by private citizens g Property occupied by militia groups % h Property sold or exchanged % 42- A 42- B 42- C Did your family lose property From 17 July 1968 to 9 April 2003, if so, how? Property lost from 9-Apr-03 to 22- Feb-06 Threats by others % Property lost after 22-Feb-06 Threats by others % Other % Out of 4 IDP households surveyed who lost property from 9-Apr-03 to 22-Feb-06 Out of 22 IDP households surveyed who lost property after 22-Feb-06 Water 49 Family normally drinks clean water % 50 If no access, why not? Other % Out of 78 IDP households surveyed not having access to water Insufficient Quantity % 51 Main water sources (multiple choice) a Municipal water (underground pipes) % b Public well/tap % c Unprotected dug well % d Tanker/truck vendor % h Other % 52 Other Water Questions a Enough water for drinking & cooking % b Enough water for hygiene % 53 Access to Sewerage system % 54 What type is it? Out of 631 IDP households surveyed having a Modern (underground pipes) % access to sewerage system b Traditional (runs through the streets) % 55 Access to toilets % 56 Toilets shared with other families % Food 57 Receives PDS rations % 58 If not receiving PDS rations, why Out of 512 IDP households surveyed not receiving a Delay transferring PDS registration to % PDS rations new location c No food to distribute % d Inability to access food distribution % point due to insecurity e Inability to access food distribution % point due to distance g Do not know why % h Other % 59 Do you receive food from other % sources on a regular basis? 60 Do you rely solely on the PDS? % Health Care 24

25 61 Access to PHC in village % 62 Access to drugs mostly needed % 63 Reason for no access to health/drugs Out of 246 IDP households surveyed who a Not available % indicated their reason for no access. e Financial % 64 Children have vaccination records % Out of 298 IDP households surveyed with children under 5 66 Purpose of visit by health worker a Has not been visited % b Medical examination % d Vaccinations % f Other services % Out of 307 IDP households surveyed visited by health workers 67 Family's main health problems a Dysentery % b Child health % c Maternal health % d Malnutrition % e Chronic diseases % Out of 231 IDP households surveyed who indicated that they have a health problem f No health problems % Education 68 Access to education in village % Out of 364 IDP households surveyed having children/adolescent of school or university age. 70 Students attending school 70a- 1 70a- 2 70b- 1 70b- 2 70c- 1 70c- 1 70d- 1 70d- 2 70e- 1 70e- 1 Primary students - Male % Primary students - Female % Intermediate - Male % Intermediate - Female % Secondary - Male % Secondary - Female % Higher - Male % Higher - Female % Total Male % Total Female % Percent of primary students Percent of intermediate students Percent of secondary students Percent of higher students Percent of all students Percent of children in school % 71 Families with children >6 not attending % Out of 342 IDP households surveyed with children age 5-17 a-1 Primary - Male % Percent of non-attending students a-2 Primary - Female % 72 Reasons for not attending a Work % b Curriculum language % c Distance % d Financial % f Cultural / religious % Out of 35 IDP households surveyed having children not attending school. 25

26 g Other % 74 Children enroll and correct grade level % Out of 314 IDP households surveyed having children attending school 75 Illiterate children under % Out of 342 households surveyed with children Children not speaking school language % Out of 342 households surveyed with children 5-17 Access to services 80 Access to electricity a No electricity % c 4 or more hours per day % Out of 632 IDP households surveyed having access to electricity 81 Access to Fuel a No access to fuel % b Benzene % Out of 299 IDP households surveyed having c Diesel % access to fuel. d Propane % e Kerosene % f Other % Documentation 82 Problems getting documents % Out of 473 IDP households surveyed having problem in getting documents a National ID new % b Passport % c Birth certificate % d PDS Card % e Other % Security Situation 85 Family members feel safe % 87 After 2003, how many people in family have been a Detained 1 b Kidnapped 23 c Killed by Militants 6 d Killed by Another citizen 7 88 Number still not accounted for 29 Gender 90 Women/girls feel safe outside the house % Out of 656 IDP households surveyed having woman in the family 91 Women approach whom for help Out of 656 IDP households surveyed having a Family % woman in the family b Tribal leaders % 92 Women's ability to move outside of home since 2003 a More able % b Less able % Special Needs 98 Families with Special Needs 1 Mentally Disabled % 2 Physically Disabled % 4 Serious Medical Condition % Out of 656 IDP households surveyed having woman in the family Out of 245 IDP households surveyed having one need or more. The total may not adding 100% as some households may list more than one need. 26

27 6 Unaccompanied or Separated Child % 9 Woman at Risk % 13 Old Age in Need of Support % 15 Victims of Torture % 17 Chronic Diseases % 18 Other % 19 One or more need % Income and commodities 99 Main source of income Out of 445 IDP households surveyed having a a Full time employment % source of income b Casual/irregular employment % c Self-employment % d No employment % f Savings/benefits % 100 Family members of working age who are: a Of working age 1812 b Working % c Working and paid % d Working in private sector % e Working in public sector % 102 Items brought with family a Livestock % b Agricultural tools % c Shelter material % d Car/transportation % e Winter clothing % f Other %. Out of 570 IDP households surveyed. Assistance 103 Received assistance % 104 Type of assistance received Out of 211 IDP households surveyed c Shelter % f Other % g Food % Priority needs 105 Top Priorities b Health % c Job % d More money % e Public services % f Security % g Shelter % I Documentation % j Water % m Education % q Assistance % u Food % z Other %. The values do not add up to 100% because households listed up to three priorities for assistance. 27