Migration flows from Iraq to Europe 21-22 June 2016 Nuremberg International Organization for Migration (IOM) - Iraq Mission Displacement Tracking Matrix DTM
Context and background Iraq: DTM programme & 2015 Iraq population flows Methodology Research design Phase approach: quantitative and qualitative research plan Phase 1: Quantitative phase - main findings How to read the findings Socio-demographics Decision making Journey Country of destination: expectations and misconceptions Intentions for the future Phase 2: Qualitative phase - main findings Reasons for migrating Reasons for choosing Europe and timing Reasons for returning
IOM DTM Iraq
30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Migration flows from Iraq Iraqi migrants: monthly arrivals to Greece in 2015 Iraqi migrants are approximately 10% of the arrivals to Greece. Approximately individuals 80,000-100,000 in 2015 - Hellenic Coast Guard / IOM Greece 2015
3,500,000 Population movements in Iraq Iraqi displacement and migration trends in 2015 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 Iraqi migrants Iraqi internal returnees Iraqi IDPs - Hellenic Coast Guard / IOM Greece 2015, and IOM Iraq DTM
Initial design of the research methodology Country of departure: limitations Country of departure: advantages Authorities reluctant to share information Migrants can leave freely and legally through a quick VISA application procedures Limited or not existing official information about outflow numbers Access (key informants, authorities, knowledge of the context) Staff and network on the ground No need for information to plan immediate humanitarian response Focus on long term interventions and programming Caseload is largely INVISIBLE : Information about profile and flows more easily accessible in receiving countries
Phase approach: mixed methods Research project: DFID-funded project Understanding complex migration flows from Iraq to Europe through movement tracking and awareness campaigns Preparation Phases Quantitative Phase Qualitative Phase Preliminary interviews with IOM national staff Field assessment and interviews with key informants 473 interviews in EU (December 2015) FGDs with returnees in country
Phase 1 Quantitative methodology Methodology and sampling technique IOM s Rapid Assessment and Response Teams (RARTs) were asked to identify, through their network of acquaintances, a convenience sample of 30 people who migrated to Europe from each of the eighteen governorate of Iraq. A structured questionnaire was administered to 503 Iraqis who left the country during 2015 and are currently living in Europe. After quality check, 473 were analyzed. Respondents were identified using a snowball sampling technique, also known as chain-referral. This method identifies respondents through the referral of the group s initial members.
Phase 1 Quantitative methodology How to read the findings The sample obtained with this technique is not statistically representative of the overall Iraqi migrant population because the population of reference is not known. The report s methodology was based on referrals, not on random sampling. Hence, any information presented in the report refers to the sample only, and not to the entire Iraqi migrant population. The findings cannot be generalized. However, the guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality, along with the trust relationship between the interviewees and the IOM staff who interviewed them, suggest that interviewees might have felt comfortable enough to answer sensitive questions with honesty.
1. Sample s profile Respondents by governorate of origin and governorate of residence at the time of migration
Respondents by current country of residence
Number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) within the sample and their governorate of origin
Respondents whose district of residence at the time of departure was affected by military operations and/or under the control of armed groups
Distribution of respondents by age & sex
Respondents by family status at the time of departure
Respondents completed level of education at the time of departure
Respondents employment status at the time of departure Respondents average monthly income at the time of departure
2. Decision-making process Push factors: respondents main reason for migration
Pull factors: respondents intended country of destination and reason of choice
Top 1 kind of information gathered to plan the journey
Most important source of information for planning the journey
Respondents satisfaction with the information and sense of preparedness Number of respondents reporting to have a good knowledge before departure
3. Journey Iraq main formal and informal exit points
Respondents by country of destination and itinerary
Number of respondents by modality of access to the country of destination: formal, informal and reason why informal
Duration and cost of the journey
4. Expectations and misconceptions Comparison between expected and received services from the institutions of country of destination
Comparison between number of respondents who believed they fit the eligibility criteria: those who applied and those who were granted asylum.
Respondents refugee status by security conditions in the respondent s district of residence at the time of departure
Respondents intention to return to Iraq
Phase 2 Qualitative methodology Why returnees: methodology and operations Returnees can share first-hand experiences of migrating to Europe and provide a reliable insight into the decision-making and information-gathering dynamics. Potential migrants represent a vague category whose boundaries and definitions are too blurred and imprecise. IOM Iraq runs the Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) programmes that assisted over 2,500 Iraqis who returned to their country from Europe between 2015 and April 2016. This provided the researchers with a pool of well identified potential candidates.
FGDs with returnees from Europe FGDs allow the participants to discuss topics taking into account the other participants reactions and opinions, and to go beyond their own personal experience. 14 FGDs (86 participants) conducted in March and April 2016 with returnees who left Iraq in 2015 and returned to Iraq through IOM Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) programs: 6 FGDs were conducted in Baghdad: total of 40 people; 3 FGDs in Dahuk: total of 25 people; 2 FGDs in Erbil: total of 10 people; 3 FGDs in Sulaymaniyah: total of 11 people.
Main topics of discussions Reasons for migrating Reasons for choosing Europe and timing Hopes, false expectations and misconceptions Information gathering Reasons for returning
Main findings: reasons for migrating 1. It is not possible to indicate one single reason for migrating: there are several, highly intertwined reasons. 2. The main reasons are security (general and personal), lack of equality and social justice, political instability and economic precariousness. 3. The security and economic factors cannot be considered mutually exclusive. 4. Across the geographical areas where the FGDs were conducted, replies tend to be homogeneous in terms of content, but different importance and priorities are given to these same reasons. 5. It could not be inferred that a direct line between location of origin and reason for migrating can be drawn. 6. The common crosscutting sensation reported is the lack of hope that anything can change, whether on the short or on long term.
Main findings: reasons for choosing Europe and timing 1. The pull factors presented no difference in relation to the different locations where the FGDs were conducted. 2. The choice of Europe was due to various reasons: No other viable options were actually available in the region. The way to Europe was felt as open, which implied lower risks and lower costs. 3. The time frame, namely the peak in August 2015, was due to the perceived open-door policy of Europe, coupled with the peak of the crisis in Iraq.
Main findings: Life in the country of destination, information and reasons of return 1. Most migrants reported that life in Europe had been somehow idealized and that the reality was harder than expected. 2. Main sources of disappointment and frustration: length and unpredictability of the asylum-seeking requests; living conditions (depending on the specific country of destination). 3. Information gathered exclusively through word of mouth. 4. Respondents were well aware of the risks of the journey but reported to be largely unprepared about life conditions in the country of destination. 5. Many respondents reported they were forced to return for personal reasons or because they could not afford spending more time away from home.
Conclusions: Different research methodologies fit the IM needs of the various countries affected by the migration crisis (departure, in transit, and final destination); In the Iraqi context, quantitative and qualitative research steps integrated each other and allowed to investigate the same topic from different angles relying on the IM resources and programming existing in country; Further phases will be developed according to the main programmatic needs and intended areas of assistance (reintegration, social cohesion, livelihood, and information campaign & public awareness of the risk associated in migrating).