)‫مركـز األمـم المتـحدة للمسـتوطنات البشـرية (الهـابيتـات‬
UNITED NATIONS CENTRE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENTS (Habitat)
‫مسح هابيتات عن المرحلين الداخليا‬
Habitat IDP Survey
Rehabilitation in Northern Iraq Program
‫إعـادة تـأهيل الـتوطـين في شـمال الـعراق‬
IDP Site and Family Survey
Final Report
January 2001
0
INDEX
A. IDPs in Northern Iraq
P.1
B. The Survey on IDP Sites
P.2
B.1 Information access checking
P.2
B.2 Survey method and datasheet
P.3
B.3 Survey implementation
P.4
B.4 Accuracy assessment and evaluation
P.5
C. First results of the Site survey
P.5
C.1 Magnitude and trend of IDP Population
P.5
C.2 Quality of locations
P.6
C.3 Levels of IDPs vulnerability
P.7
C.4 Levels of assistance
P.7
C.5 Level of redevelopment
P.8
C.6 Summary of findings of Site Survey
P.8
D. The survey on IDP Families
P.9
D.1 Original status
P.10
D.2 Dis placement routes
P.10
D.3 Present status
P.11
D.4 Relations with place of origin
P.11
D.5 Family needs
P.11
D.6 Family expectations
P.12
D.7 Summary of findings of family survey
P.12
E. Recommendations for humanitarian action
P.13
E.1 Beneficiaries
P.15
E.2 Locations and settlements
P.16
F. Conclusions
P.16
ANNEX A IDP Workgroup composition
P.18
ANNEX B Habitat IDPs Site Survey Datasheet “Guidelines for Surveyors”
P.19
ANNEX C Habitat IDPs Family Survey “Guidelines for Surveyors”
P.22
ANNEX D Habitat housing projects in Northern Iraq (January 2001)
P.27
ANNEX E Report Indexes
P.30
TABLES
P.34
IDP Site and Family Survey: first report
by Igor Jogan, Habitat IDP Consultant
January 2001
A. IDPs in Northern Iraq
Displaced population in Northern Iraqi regions constitutes a substantial proportion of
local population. They have been displaced in different periods because of various
reasons and are scattered in different places and housed in different shelters. Some
live in tents, some others in hard shelters, but all of them are in very poor living and
dwelling conditions. These people can be also differentiated by place of origin, by
previous social status, by culture (for instance language) and religion. Those who have
been displaced long ago may have settled in their new locations: some of them have a
job and their children will not consider themselves as IDPs. Some others may not seek
to go back to their homes because they think of having more opportunities where they
are. On the contrary there are other groups that will never accept their present
condition and always think of how to return to their places of origin.
This population is therefore extremely scattered in the territory and highly
differentiated: not even two families resemble each other, they may have the same
biography, but completely different needs and expectations. In the past they used to be
mainly categorized by reason of displacement. At 1999 Sulaimaniyah Conference the
following category definition was produced:
 Those from Kirkuk (old and new caseload). Khanaqin, Kifri, Makhmour,
Sinjar, Tala’far, Mosul, and other areas.
 Those displaced as a result of conflict between the two major factions in Iraqi




Kurdistan.
People affected by conflict involving the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).
Iraqi Kurds (including Faili Kurds) displaced to Iran now wishing to return.
Others in collective towns including widows and children, who would like to
return to places of origin if given the opportunity to do so.
All other citizens of Iraq displaced/expelled for political reasons.
The objective of this survey is certainly that of accounting for the IDP population
according to the categorization produced at Sulaimaniyah Conference and to the
definition according to which IDPs are all those people that have been displaced in
any time against their will1. The survey aims also to satisfy some more specific policy
information needs that will help international community to develop policies for
humanitarian aid. These needs are:
“Internally displaced persons are persons or groups of persons who have been forced
or obliged to flee or leave their homes or places of habitual residence”. Handbook of
applying the guiding principles on internal displacement, OCHA, 1999.
1
File:
1
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC




Assessing the magnitude of the IDP phenomenon with reference to the size
and location of IDP settlements.
Producing evidence on problems that affect this population and to ascertain
vulnerability gradients and differentials existing among them.
Acknowledging their different biographies and their different needs and
expectations, particularly with respect to on-going resettlement programs.
Making decision makers aware of the groups that are receiving support from
humanitarian programs and the groups that are lacking in assistance.
In order to fulfill these policy information requirements the IDP survey was scheduled
in two phases. The purpose of the first phase was:
 Identifying IDP settlements and producing accurate estimates on their
inhabitants.
 Describing these settlements in terms of: (i) accessibility from main roads (ii)
vicinity to urban centers, (iii) service level (iv) type of shelter (v) occurrence of
on going resettlement and aid projects.
 Finally with reference to population, determining (i) time of displacement, (ii)
category (Sulaimaniyah Conference), (iii) rate of employment, (iv) incidence
of vulnerable groups, (v) level of assistance by local or international
institutions.
The second phase, concerned more with families, was designed to:
 Describe the itineraries of these people from the place they left to the location
they inhabit at present.
 Produce a picture of their living conditions (family composition, settlement,
housing, employment, health) and compare it with the situation they were
living in before displacement.
 Understand the present needs and expectations of these people with regard to
their willingness to resettle in the original place or elsewhere.
B. The Survey on IDP Sites
Before starting the survey, an assessment was done of the available information on
IDP population and of previous surveys and studies. It was ascertained that no specific
survey on IDP sites had been performed and that data normally available at agencies
or local institutions - for some reason - do not cover the whole IDP statistical
population.
B.1 Information access checking
The institutional information resources will mainly refer to:
 WFP database: This agency gathers information about all Iraqi residents
(individuals and families) with the purpose of managing food rations supplies.
In Erbil and Sulaimaniyah Governorates it provides also information about
food agents supplying food to IDP population. This source is limited due to the
fact that no record on this matter had been kept before the beginning of the
program in 1996. IDPs that were displaced before are recorded as normal
residents.
File:
2
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC

UNOHCI database: owing to its coordination role this agency has been
collecting information on IDP site location exclusively for operational
purposes. Neither statistical checking has ever been made on this database, nor
any systematic survey to enforce and validate the information that had been
collected.
 Local Authority interview: at the beginning of this year Habitat Field Office
interviewed local authorities in Duhok area with the aim of identifying IDP
locations. On this basis the Habitat Field Office team compiled a first list that
has been later corrected by field checking.
 IDP High Committees set in the governorates hold information on IDP sites
and settlements after 1996. Since then they have been registering IDP families
belonging mostly to the category of internal in-fight, whereas only some
estimates are available about Kirkukees groups.
 Other information is also available at the local Public Relations Office about
the returnees category (those that in previous periods escaped to Iran and that
in recent years have started to return to North Iraq).
On the basis of these information sources, the IDP working team for each governorate
produced a List of IDP sites. This List will constitute the base for producing the
statistical population (universe) of the survey and will be permanently checked and
updated on the grounds of assessments produced on field.
B.2 Survey method and datasheet
Before starting the design of survey method and survey datasheet a panel of local IDP
experts and stakeholders was interviewed. These stakeholders are:





IDPs families and their chiefs
Representatives of IDP population in the four Governorates
UNOHCI experts and Field Officers
Representatives of local government institutions
UNCHS Core team and Community Field Officers
As mentioned above, the survey objectives were set up with the purpose of collecting
information about IDP population through direct contact on the ‘sites’. The term ‘site’
is a very broad concept that is normally used in planning to identify a location or a
specific area that is drawn on a map. In our case site means a location where IDP
groups are settled and can be for this reason identified. These locations are of different
types. Some are collective towns, others are apartment or public buildings, some
others are tent camps. There are locations where a collection of different settlements
may occur (tents, huts, collective town buildings, etc.) that were developed in different
periods by different IDP groups or categories. Thus some ‘sites’ consist of only one
settlement, while the majority of them comprise more than one settlement.
File:
3
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
In some sites a new development has taken place. Sometimes UN or other
organizations have built new houses near these sites. Some hardly consider the
inhabitants of these new settlements as IDPs, since they are settled. The survey will
anyhow account also for these areas of on going projects, since they are useful to
understand the progress being made in some sites.
It is important to point out that the survey will generally2 not take into consideration
single IDP families that are scattered in urban areas and are providing for their own
accommodation without relying on institutional aid. These families are not ‘visible’
and therefore are not identifiable by any means. Since they can be considered selfsustaining units they are not likely to ever enter the beneficiary lists of Habitat
allocations.
On the basis of these evidence the survey datasheet (see annex B) has been divided in
two parts:
 The site assessment form
 The settlement assessment form, that is divided in three sections: settlement,
population, institutions
Before starting the survey several tests were made in order to ensure that it is an
appropriate means of describing the IDP locations. After this checking, it was decided
to expand the concept of the site also to those cases mainly existing in urban areas
with IDP population scattered in individual dwellings that may be grouped in ‘virtual
sites’ or IDP neighborhoods because of their vicinity.
The total figures of the sites included in the lists of the population survey are:
 Duhok: 96
 Erbil: 188
 Sulaimaniyah: 76
 Darbandikhan: 19
 Total 379
B.3 Survey implementation
The supervision and scheduling of collection of data took place in North Iraq Habitat
offices. In Erbil Core Team Office a special team was created with the aim of
supervising the fieldwork, collecting and checking the questionnaires delivered by
Habitat Field Offices, building the database devices and entering data (see annex A.).
Several assessments were performed on the surveyed sites and in Field Offices.
The IDP consultant and his assistant, three database designers and one data entry clerk
composed the team.
The implementation of the data collection phase was followed up by the Community
Officers and their Assistants of the Governorates of Duhok, Erbil, Sulaimaniyah. They
performed the following tasks: checking and updating of the list of sites, organizing
the fieldwork and datasheets checking.
2
In some cases this population has been gathered in ‘statistical’ sites.
File:
4
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
The three Field Offices were supported by external surveyors that had been previously
selected on the basis of their curricula for a lump amount of 22 month-man.
B.4 Accuracy assessment and evaluation
All questionnaires have been checked and cross tabulations have been produced to
ascertain their consistency.
However, it is recommended to perform an accuracy evaluation by means of cross
matching with other sources as well as sample assessments.
C. First results of the Site survey
The IDP population of North Iraq assessed by the Site survey on October 2000
comprises 805,505 individuals, or 22.91 % of the 3,515,921 inhabitants of the same
region (total population figures are based on WFP food ration database). With
comparison to North Iraqi population distributed by Governorate (in this case
Darbandikhan population is added to Sulaimaniyah) the highest concentration of IDPs
occurs in Sulaimaniyah (48.23%), whereas the lowest is in Duhok Governorate. Erbil
Governorate appears to be the area proportionally (IDPs on total population) less
affected by this social calamity (18.01 % of local population are IDPs).
Total Population
% of total population
Duhok
760483
21.63
Erbil
1252575
35.63
Sulaimaniyah Total
1502863
3515921
42.74
100
IDP population
% of IDPs
% of IDPs on total population
191312
23.75
25.15
225651
28.01
18.01
388542
48.23
25.85
805505
100
22.91
C.1 Magnitude and trend of IDP Population


File:
The total IDP population assessed is 805,505 individuals and 141,234 families
scattered in 379 sites (Tables 1.x) and 741 settlements (Tables 2.x and 3.x).
Sites and settlements are not equally distributed in the four governorates. In
Erbil governorate sites are more dispersed since 28% of IDP population is
located in 49 % of sites. A high degree of concentration is found in
Darbandikhan and Sulaimaniyah areas.
The majority of IDP population belongs to the ‘cluster’ of the first three
categories (Expelled in the 70s and 80s – 46.23%, Victims of 1988 campaign –
27.66%, Expelled (Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen) from Kirkuk in recent years–
7.29%). The internal infight has produced about 77,000 IDPs (9.48% of total).
Returnees from Iran account for some 5.06% of IDP population, whereas other
categories are smaller in size (Tab. 2.2 and 3.x). Table 2.2 shows that IDP
categories are differently distributed within the governorates: no ‘infighting’
and ‘refugees from Iran’ categories in Duhok and no categories affected by the
vicinity of Turkish border in Sulaimaniyah and Darbandikhan.
5
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC

As far as time distribution is concerned from the settlement tables (Tab. 2.3),
the period of major inflow was 1985-89. This accounts for more than 39.89%
of total population. Consistent flows were reached also in 1975-79 (23.30%) in
1990-94 (18.72%) and in last five years (15.00%). Darbandikhan area has the
oldest IDP population since after ’95 this phenomenon has slowed down. At
present we can say that the phenomenon, though still worrying, has been
diminishing: 16,000 in 1997, 11.000 in 1998, 8,000 in 1999 and 7,000 in
current year. The groups that have been more mobile in current year (Tab. 3.3)
are: returnees from Iran (5753 individuals), victims of infighting (1061
individuals) and Kirkukies (586 individuals).
C.2 Quality of locations
 People are mainly located in collective towns (55.38%) and self-built houses
(13.48%). A small percentage is still in tent camps that house more than six
thousand people
 From Table 1.2 we can infer that 27.17% of sites are composed by one
settlement. This means that the greater majority of IDP population lives mainly
in sites with different IDP categories that are with different identity groups.
The greatest relative concentration of these site types is in Erbil governorate
(Tab. 1.2), whereas the category with higher preference for this location is the
‘infighting’ category.
 The greater proportion of sites are located in the vicinity of district and sub
district centers, whereas only 7.50 % of IDPs are located in Governorate
centers being Sulaimaniyah the city center with highest concentration of IDPs
(32739 individuals, Tab. 1.1). These locations are generally preferred by
category 4 (infighting, see Tab. 3.1).
 There is only 47.85 % of the sites that are provided with the entire range of
needed facilities, that can be considered as the minimum standard (Tab.1.3).
32.43 % are lacking in one, 12.39 % in two, etc. 1212 individuals live in sites
with no services at all. These sites are mainly concentrated in Duhok and Erbil
regions, on the contrary in Sulaimaniyah and Darbandikhan areas IDP sites are
provided with better services.
 Other significant information relates to the type of settlement: the great
majority live in collective towns (55.38%), but there are 6366 individuals
living in tents and 108,603 in self built houses. More than 10,000 are housed
in Habitat built units and 24152 are accommodated in houses built by NGOs.
Only one Habitat settlement is in Sulaimaniyah region. The beneficiaries of
Habitat’s humanitarian action are ‘returnees from Iran’ who were assigned 8 of
the 15 settlements built by Habitat (Tab. 2.2 and 3.2). It is important to
mention that the survey has covered only the Habitat settlements located in or
in the vicinity of IDP sites (for more detail see Annex D).
 Finally the levels of settlement services (water, electricity, sanitation, drainage
and road) range from 1 to 10 (where 10 is given the highest possible level of
services available in an IDP settlements). Some 38.8 % of IDP population is
located in settlements, whose index is less than 6. The worst settlement
conditions occur in Erbil area (Tab. 2.6). With respect to IDP categories, no
File:
6
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
significant differences are found between them (Tab.3.6). The following
figures give an idea of settlement service distribution: 3,343 individuals live
with no water service, 142,456 without any drainage system, 2,444 thousands
with no toilet, 66,281 thousands with no electricity, 155,629 thousands with no
roads.
C.3 Levels of IDPs vulnerability
Tree indexes can be used in order to describe the vulnerability of population: level of
crowdedness, employment ratios and household vulnerability (in which ratios of
widows, elderly, orphans and disabled are weighted).
 Table. 2.5 distributes IDP population according to their level of crowdedness
(Sqm of per capita available living space). About 77 % of the total population
(623,837 out of 805,505) is gathered in the first three classes (below 15 sqm
per capita). According to the same table the worst conditions appear in Erbil
area whereas, the best are in Duhok. People of infighting, returnees and
refugees from Iran and Turkey, and victims of PKK conflicts (Tab.3.5) are the
categories that live in conditions of greatest disadvantage.
 If we look to employment ratios (Tab. 2.4) we can see that 65001 families (and
354,475 individuals) belong to a category where the rate of employment is
below 0.2 employed persons per family (one individual employed every 5
families). Erbil and Duhok areas are to some extent better off. With reference
to categories (Tab. 3.4) better conditions are found in the infighting category,
worse in the last three (returnees and refugees from Iran and Turkey).
 Finally the level of household vulnerability (widows, disabled, elderly and
orphans) shows that only 38.65 % will not be affected by any of the abovementioned problems (Tab. 2.7). Worse conditions are found in Erbil region,
with disabled population, elderly and orphans as major factors. There are some
sites in Duhok governorate where the ‘widows’ factor is extremely high. With
respect to categories, the overall index is higher in settlements inhabited by the
first 4 categories (Tab.3.7).
C.4 Levels of assistance



File:
By average 20% of sites and 35% settlements do not get any assistance either
from Local authorities, UN agencies or NGOs. This means that only 672,184
out of 805,505 get some type of assistance. The value for sites varies from area
to area (Duhok 18 %, Erbil 11%, Sulaimaniyah 36% and Darbandikhan 42%).
Table 3.8 shows the distribution of categories by number of institutions
assisting the single settlements. Returnees and victims of 1988 campaign are
the ones more assisted (15% not covered), followed by internal infighting
(23%), those expelled in 70s and 80s (32%) and finally Kirkukies (37%).
The institutions involved in the assistance programs are UN agencies (411
programs), NGOs (276) IDP committee (188) and Local authorities (157).
Amongst UN agencies the most active institutions are: Habitat (170), Unicef
(96), FAO (58), UNDP (44), UNESCO (16), WFP (14). Amongst NGOs:
7
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
Peace Winds Japan (60), Qandil (48), Kurdistan Reconstruction Organization
(21), 4Rs (18), Iraq Amal Association (15).
C.5 Level of redevelopment
 About 271 sites (that is 70% of locations accounting for 29.30 % of total
population) do not have any development project going on (Tab. 1.4). The
highest concentration is found in Darbandikhan area, while the highest level of
activity seems to be concentrated in Duhok. With some exceptions, the sites
with no redevelopment projects going on are those very small in size (less then
1000 individuals)
 The major promoters of development projects are UN agencies that cover the
40.89 % of the IDP population (Tab.1.5). The highest ratio of activity is found
in Duhok, while lower involvement is observed in Erbil and Darbandikhan
areas. Resettlement projects are spread in the four governorates accordingly
(Tab. 1.8). Income generating projects are very few and mostly concentrated in
Erbil areas (Tab. 1.7).
C.6 Summary of findings of site survey
 The IDP phenomenon is slowing down in North Iraq. The survey cannot
predict whether this decrease in population displacement is a temporary trend
or may be considered a more stable phenomenon. In current year the greater
majority of IDPs have been returnees from Iran. This is also an indirect
evidence of a significant turn down of previous trends.
 The second finding is that the IDP phenomenon has not affected the four
governorates in the same way. In some areas we can find a greater
concentration of IDP than in others. Also the IDP population is different from
area to area. It is different by origin (some IDP categories are not found in
some areas), settlement patterns (greater dispersion of small IDP sites in Erbil
governorate as opposed to high concentration of sites in the city of
Sulaimaniyah), type and level of vulnerability and consequently with respect to
the structure of social need. This makes very difficult to identify an aggregate
index of social needs that could be applied to all four governorates for policy
allocation. The best way would probably be setting a specialized index for
each single area of humanitarian action, such as urgent relief, income
generation, assistance to the disabled, housing redevelopment and
reconstruction, resettlement, rehabilitation and infrastructure allocation.
 The third outcome of the site survey refers to effectiveness of humanitarian
action. Even though a great effort has been produced, the extent of social
needs is far above any capacity being implemented. Habitat and UN agencies
in general are certainly the most active institution in this area of humanitarian
action, but NGOs are not too far behind.
 The IDPs needs are different in nature and they range from lack of income, to
household vulnerable status (education, disabled…) and finally to resettlement
problems. Most of the settlements do not have any assistance in any of these
areas of social concern. Redevelopment on the sites has taken place for some
File:
8
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
4% of total IDP population. Since NGOs started their activity long ago, they
have produced many more housing units than Habitat. Needless to say, while
NGOs have been reducing their capacity in recent years, Habitat has been in
the same time increasing sharply its activity (in current year Habitat projects
have housed 5853 people). As far as beneficiaries are concerned there is no
doubt that Habitat’s beneficiaries belong to those categories that appear to be
more needy, though a substantial question may be raised in relation to
geographical allocation of resettlement projects. It seems that projects were
mainly allocated in those areas that are, by themselves, more active from the
point of view of redevelopment. Finally very little effort has been placed in
those groups of older settlement.
D. The survey on IDP families
The site survey has produced information about locations of IDPs settlements and the
living conditions of their inhabitants. It gives very little information about their social
status, their life curricula and their expectations. To enrich our knowledge about this
population a sample family survey has been implemented (Annex C). The sample
covers all categories and all areas (Governorates) of the statistical total population
since it has been extracted from the list of settlements produced in the first (site)
survey. The sample is stratified in classes of settlements sized by number of
inhabitants (families) and it is composed of 670 families (less than 0.5 % of the total
statistical universe).
For the time being the sample is not being exploded to the total statistical population.
Some additional work is required on this second survey to make the sample more
reliable. Thus the information it has produced will be considered on an aggregate
level, and proportions will be given without sample weightings. In spite of these
drawbacks the survey yields a good description of IDP families, their original status,
their present status and their needs and expectations.
To a larger extent the family survey has confirmed the findings of the site survey:
IDPs are a very vulnerable population for their housing conditions, social problems
(education, crowdedness, job availability and other social indicators) though in recent
years the inflow has been diminishing. Moreover the family survey shows what are the
social categories affected by displacement (mostly middle class farmers with almost
no education) that at the time of displacement were not so poor as they are now. With
reference to their needs and expectations the survey tells how vivid the desire to go
back to their original homes still is even though these people are very unsure about the
best choice for themselves (either to go back or to stay where they are or to move to a
different place). We know that a large proportion of them now own their dwellings,
but this is not a sufficient reason for preventing them from asking for a new
accommodation.
File:
9
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
D.1 Original status


A great proportion (62%x) of these people were and still are illiterate or with a
very low level of education (Tab. 4.3). With respect to language the majority
of families interviewed are Kurdish with very little knowledge of other
languages spoken in the region (Tab. 4.11).
Mainly IDPs at the moment of their displacement were farmers (41% used to
cultivate the land they owned, (Tab 4.17) with a smaller proportion of workers
and government employees (10% each), craftsmen (6%) and party officers
(4%). Some of them were jobless: 17% (Tab. 4.16). Both the unemployed and
the workers are equally distributed between urban and rural areas. This means
that a high proportion of those that were jobless at that time were young people
not yet married. The number of families with no source of income before
displacement was for this reason rather low.

73% was living in villages (Tab. 4.25), only those belonging to category 4
(infighting) seem to have been more concentrated in urban areas. The greater
majority of these people used to live in single, detached urban or rural houses,
whereas only 0.6% lived in apartment buildings (Tab.4.25). Most were married
(75%), some of them were still single who got married after displacement.
More then 75% of families used to own their original house. No significant
difference can be observed between owners and tenants with reference to their
job condition or profession.

It is important to point out that IDPs have been displaced in most cases in
areas that are located in the same governorate where their place of origin used
to be (58%) Tab 4.14. Duhok governorate is the area with less inflow from
other Governorates. There are more Sulaimanyians in Erbil governorate than
Erbilians in Sulaimaniyah. IDPs expelled from other parts of Iraq are almost
equally distributed in all the governments but Duhok.
D.2 Displacement routes


File:
99% of the families interviewed moved because they were forced to move
(Tab. 4.21). 94% were displaced in-group. 8% came directly to the present
location, 33% ‘visited’ at least one location, 29% two, 21% three locations
(Tab.4.20).
41% chose the location by themselves, 25% were directed by local authorities
or other local organizations, 32% were directed by GOI (Tab.4.22). The
criteria of choice for those who chose the location by themselves were the
following: association with others, vicinity to original place and finally type of
accommodation (Tab.4.23). Mainly they moved in hired car, some 12% on
foot (Tab.4.24).
10
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
D.3 Present status
 Families are very large ranging from 5 to 10 members (Tab.4.26). They are
forced to live in dwellings composed by less than 4 rooms. In these conditions
36% of households are compelled to share their dwellings with other families.
 59% consider themselves owners of the houses inhabited now, 18% are renting
their dwelling, about 20% live in houses owned by municipalities or other
public institutions (Tab.4.12).
 33% are now jobless; 27% have a permanent job; 21% work on daily basis
(Tab.4.18, Tab.4.19). The type of current occupation shows that the number of
farmers is very small, also craftsmen have decreased, while governmental
employees and party officers have sharply increased while workers are stable.
The cross tabulation of original work position with present work will show
that all have lost in terms of occupation. Some, like farmers and craftsmen,
have lost more then others. In fact these categories hardly adapt to the new
situations. A great proportion are unemployed
 With respect to the number of family members employed on regular or casual
basis it is surprising to see that, while household heads have certainly
worsened their situation, families have not, since there has been a general
increase in the number of members employed before and after displacement. A
large number of those that were jobless in origin are now employed.
 Health indicators are also extremely relevant (Tab.4.13). Only 409 (61%)
families declared having had no disease in the last year, while others declare a
very high incidence of sickness in their families.
D.4 Relations with place of origin



56% of interviewed people have never returned to their place of origin, while
more than 12% return on a monthly or weekly basis.
50% do not keep any contacts, 26% sometimes, 22% regularly
Only 75% of owners of their house of origin believe they are still owners.
D.5 Family needs
The survey has produced full description on the levels of supply of services. A concise
way of explaining the needs can be by pointing out the opinions expressed by the
interviewed. IDP population rank their needs in the following way (Tab. 4.26):
 New shelter in the same site
 New shelter in different site but in the same area
 Improvement of present shelter
 Improvement of present settlement
 Job for family head
 Job for other family members
 Comfortable items
 Water supply
 Common bath and latrines
 Electricity
File:
11
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
D.6 Family expectations
Some 45% of population is expecting to go back to their place of origin in the future
(TAB. 4.27). This expectation applies almost to all IDP categories. Only those
belonging to the infighting category are less willing to go back. It is very interesting to
notice that there are very few sociological factors that discriminate between the two
groups (those that will and those that will not go back). Factors like time of
displacement, level of education, type of shelter inhabited, ownership of present and
original dwelling, number of incomes in a household and gender of household head do
not seem to be significant in explaining why people should desire to go back. More
important variables influencing this decision are the level of crowding (families
sharing the same dwelling), loss of job or worst working conditions: farmers that
cannot farm any more, clerks that are now workers, etc.
The most important factors accounting for the ‘go back’ feeling are the geopolitical
location of households and what can be called as ‘the emotional crisis of collective
towns’. This feeling is met between families that were displaced in the same
governorate and that live in the collective towns type settlements. These people have
also the ability of keeping contacts with the original place. The relation is clear: those
that keep contacts are also those that want to return. In addition there is a consistent
number of population (12%) that have never got back but would like to return, even
though they believe there is nobody left in their original locations. The original
settlement type of the group willing to return is either the district center or the
villages. People that are originally from very small towns or governorate centers are
the less inclined to go home. The original districts that attract more are the following:
Amedi and Semel in Duhok region, Mergasur and Soran in Erbil area, Hallabja and
Qalladiza in Sulaimaniyah while no particular location is desired in Darbandikan
Area.
Besides security that was implicitly stated in the question, families stated other
conditions for return: moving along with the original neighbors and making sure that
the original home has been rebuilt (Tab.28). Only 36% are prepared to contribute by
labor, materials and equipment (Tab. 4.29).
It is also interesting to mention that as a second option - both for those that are willing
to go back and those that are not - people are asking to move in a better location (i.e.
governorate center). Only some 12% of the interviewed populations are willing to
remain in the same place where they are without moving anywhere.
D.7 Summary of findings of family survey
The family survey shows to what extent IDP population is internally stratified and
differentiated even though all these people share the common feature of being
displaced. A very small proportion of these families that have been interviewed have
settled definitely in the present locations and houses: they do not want to go back to
their original homes or elsewhere. These family units can be considered definitely
File:
12
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
assimilated and apparently they do not ask for any particular policy action or concern
besides an aid for rehabilitating their houses.
On the other side the feeling of being displaced is still alive among these people. The
reasons of this strong feeling of identity group belonging may be ascribed to the
following factors:
 As stated earlier, displacement has occurred mainly in villages and has
affected people with very low education (mostly illiterate) that used to live by
cultivating land and by other activities related with farming. This people have
not been allowed to continue their work in new locations. Some of them have
shifted to new jobs, but some of them have simply become jobless, while their
family relatives (i.e. descendents) have in many cases managed to find some
source of income. This makes family heads extremely vulnerable and inelastic
to any external change.
 The second factor that makes this population extremely dissatisfied with their
present condition is their level of crowdedness. From the site survey we have
already learnt that 141,234 families are housed in 118,758 housing units. The
family interviews have given a more precise picture about this phenomenon.
This survey shows that a very large (almost 100%) proportion of families that
are compelled to share the same roof are tied by blood relations.
Overcrowdedness exists among people that belong to the same family. This
may give an idea of the lack of communication of IDP households with
external environment and may also explain why any kind of human relation in
these families must be a public relation (lack of privacy). It tells us also how
IDP groups and families reproduce themselves: young couples will still be
IDPs.
 The third aspect that makes these people particularly miserable is the level of
social vulnerability, in particular: high proportion of jobless family heads, high
incidence of disabled (particularly male), of diseases and elderly population.
These factors make IDP population apparently very attached to their places of
origin (45% ask to return), even though very few are prepared to contribute
personally (by labor or by any other means) to the resettlement process. In fact this
population is waiting for something to happen in terms of some policy measures
being addressed to them. The picture produced by this survey gives full support to
the idea that something has to be done to prevent the IDP problem from becoming
an endemic problem in this region.
E. Recommendations for humanitarian action
The survey shows that local IDPs constitute an extremely stratified population that
should be tackled with different types of policy measures and supply packages. The
most important features explaining the differences between groups of social demand
are those linked, first, to the present dwelling conditions of these people (some are
still in tents and hard shelters, almost all of them are overcrowded), second, to their
‘life perspectives’, that is to the possibility and willingness either of resettling in the
place of origin or of making a different choice. The third feature that is usually
considered important in housing needs assessment - that is family income - is still
File:
13
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
difficult to estimate in monetary terms (purchasing power), since the survey yields
figures regarding only the type of income gained by family members. For the time
being we can assume that IDP families are never able to reach the level of ‘solvable
demand’, even in those cases when several sources of income are reported to exist in a
single household.
The definition of a policy framework should start from most urgent needs. We can
consider the whole IDP population as a vulnerable and needy population, but within
this very large group there are families that dwell in shelters that are thought to be
housing units and families that dwell in emergency shelters (the so called hard-shelters
or, worse, tents) or that share any kind of accommodations with other families.
According to this view one could say that the main objective – priority -of Habitat’s
humanitarian action in this area of social concern is to give a house to any homeless
family. On this hypothesis the following estimates have been produced on housing
needs that are expressed in terms of housing units needed to be built.
The total number of new housing units needed in order to house the IDP population
under a ‘decent roof’ (Additional stock in the table) is 26,290 housing units. This
estimate is based on the following procedure:
 Definition of a housing standard of 0.95 housing units per family: This
standard is less than one since it is supposed that 5% may be considered as a
physiological level for families sharing the same roof (elderly people and new
couples within the original household). The estimate of needed housing units
is obtained by multiplying this standard with the existing number of families.
 For each settlement type the usable stock is extracted. We assume that a
housing unit can be considered usable only, if it has been originally built for
residential purposes. For this reason tents and hard-shelters are not considered
being usable. Due to their small average size (34 sqm), housing units that are
located in apartment buildings are judged usable at the rate of 50%.
 The difference between the housing units needed and the usable stock yields
the additional stock needed, that is the number of housing units that have to be
built in order to meet the required housing standard.
Settlement Type
1-Collective towns
2-Apartment buildings
3-Barracks
4-Other-hard shelter
5-Tents
6-Self-built houses
7-Habitat villages
8-NGO villages
9-Scattered urban areas
Total
File:
N° of
Existing Average
H.U.
Usable Additional
Families Housing H.U. Size Needed Stock
Stock
Units
Sqm
77593
64576
75
73713 64576
9137
3102
2764
34
2947
1382
1565
4172
3626
99
3963
3963
5056
4631
70
4803
4803
1181
1237
21
1122
1122
17917
16852
82
17021 16852
169
2040
1745
89
1938
1745
193
4492
3732
63
4267
3732
535
25681
19595
70
24397 19595
4802
141234
118758
14
134172 107882
26290
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
Once the number of housing units required to meet the minimum standard of one
dwelling per family is defined, some hypothesis have to be advanced with reference to
policy priorities and beneficiaries profiles. The estimated needs of houses do not say
anything about the problem of how and where allocating these units, namely: to what
kind of places or locations and to which beneficiaries.
E.1 Beneficiaries
Before making any hypothesis about the distribution of these resources amongst the
beneficiaries we should define the different social profiles emerging from the different
types of settlements. These profiles are ranked by level of vulnerability and can be
considered in terms of priority of intervention.
 The weakest family profiles are those that dwell in tents. These populations
need immediate relief through either self-built or turnkey houses. Due to their
recent displacement these IDPs are highly uncertain about their future. For this
type of housing demand a specific policy has to be developed based on
temporary tenure of dwellings and on public stock management.
 At the second level of vulnerability we may place those people that inhabit
buildings that are inappropriate for residential purposes. This category
comprises all families living in barracks, hard-shelters and also apartment
buildings since - as it has been noticed earlier - these apartments are indeed
small rooms inhabited by very large families. In these settlement types one can
find IDP families displaced in the nineties. These families have a twofold view
with regard to their future: some will never go back to their original location
and can be considered settled from the point of view of their present location
(these are the infighting IDPs), some have a more undefined attitude toward
their future perspectives even though very few accept to resettle in their
original homes. Also in this case different tenure regimes can be adopted.
 The third type of demand is the one expressed by the population living in
collective towns and in self-built houses. These are mainly young couples that
are compelled to share their shelters with the original family. The latter belong
to the ‘oldest’ categories of IDPs, namely those that were displaced either
during the seventies or at the end of eighties. For this beneficiaries two policy
measures can be implemented: (1) to provide new shelters (self-built and
turnkey houses) in places of origin for those families that want to return and
are also willing to leave their present homes to their descendents (these houses
are owned by the families who inhabit them), (2) where this is not possible, to
implement specific programs for young couples based mainly on self-built
packages. Needless to say, from the point of view of tenure rules these families
can be considered as having the least degree of uncertainty.
 The last beneficiary group profile consists of those people that are housed in
decent or even suitable homes (provided by Habitat or NGOs) at a high level
of crowdedness. This problem is a consequence of a remarkable gap between
the new housing units provided by locally active agencies and institutions and
File:
15
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
the average housing conditions of North Iraqi population and is likely to
become endemic if an overall improvement is not going to be reached.
E.2 Locations and settlements
Even though both site and family surveys have concentrated on dwelling needs some
conclusions must be drawn also on the matter of settlement development and
infrastructure needs. As previously mentioned, IDP settlements are dispersed in North
Iraqi region according to an uneven pattern of spatial distribution (in Darbandikhan
and Sulaimaniyah areas IDP sites seem to be larger, more polarized and better
organized than in other two governorates). Anyhow there is a common feature to all
governorates: IDP sites are mainly located near district and sub-district centers, close
to small towns of NI region. Needless to say, some of these sites or settlements are
experiencing a noticeable decay (like the collective towns that are going to be
abandoned by the population returning to places of origin), some have been increasing
their importance in the settlement structure of the region in terms of their geographical
and institutional role, some are finally highly dispersed and confused in the existing
urban structure. The inhabitants of these latest settlements rely completely on the
existing urban services and infrastructures.
In this situation a wise policy would undoubtedly be to give support to small urban
centers in terms of accessibility and service level in order to slow down the existing
process of concentration in ‘primate cities’ (governorates centers). From this
viewpoint humanitarian action can help in maintaining a decentralized urban structure
and thus a better spatial balance between population and regional resources.
Infrastructure and settlement facility needs can be evaluated only on the basis of a
specific development plan that is out of the range of this study. We can only draw the
attention on some very explicit figures: 12,000 thousand families have no access to
health centers and the same number of IDP households are not provided with
electricity, only 80% of houses are supplied with individual or collective water tap and
20% are serviced only with muddy road without any drainage system.
F. Conclusions
This survey can be considered the first comprehensive study on IDP population of
North Iraq and from this point of view has certainly provided substantial information
about this phenomenon that was inaccessible not long ago. It has produced
information about the size of IDP communities, their location and their needs.
Hopefully it has also offered some insight into population needs and profiles of
vulnerable groups that can be used in developing policy measures for allocating
resources made available by humanitarian programs. Due to the short time of its
production, this survey is certainly lacking in several aspects. Some more insight is
needed to understand:
 IDP dynamics and trends that will allow some predictions at the moment very
risky because of lack of information on this specific matter,
 The actual role of IDP sites and settlements in the existing urban structure of
this region and how this has been changing in recent years. This can help us
File:
16
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC

also to address the problem of population resettlement in rural areas and to
tackle this issue with a less emotional and more rational approach.
The great need of producing more knowledge about the assimilation processes
that are going on in the areas of concentration of IDPs. This study makes us
envisage a surprising vitality of young generations, while the displaced
generation seems to be much less adaptive to the new life conditions. More
light has to be shaded on this aspect.
These are only some of the aspects that need to be addressed in the near future in order
to produce a complete and comprehensive picture on IDP population in this region.
This survey is only a first contribution to understand the complexity of the problem
and how it should be looked at from a practical and humanitarian point of view.
File:
17
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
ANNEX A
IDP Workgroup composition
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
File:
Igor Jogan
Dalia Qahraman
Sarkar Nanacaly
Bizhar Khailany
Peshkawt Waly
Azhee Abul-Samad
Rizgar Mghdeed
Hameed Doski
Safeen Abdullah
Muhammed Bilbas
Yousif O. Maulood
Sajida Khalid
Nizar Abdulhalim
Adeeb Kheder
Soreya Tedy
Ahmad Muhammad
Sakar Izzat
Omed Mahmood
Mohamed Abdullah
Mofaq Tofiq
Nawroze Ghafur
Furat Shamshun
Consultant/CTO Erbil
Consultant Assistant/CTO Erbil
Database designer/CTO Erbil
Database manager/CTO Erbil
Data entry clerk/CTO Erbil
Data entry clerk/CTO Erbil
Database designer/CTO Erbil
Assistant Field Officer/ Duhok
Community Supervisor/ Erbil
Community Management Officer/ Erbil
Community Management Officer/ Suleimaniyah
Junior Community Officer/ Duhok
Junior Community Officer/ Duhok
Community Officer/ Duhok
Surveyor/ Duhok
Surveyor/ Duhok
Surveyor/ Suleimaniyah
Surveyor/ Suleimaniyah
Surveyor/ Suleimaniyah
Surveyor/ Erbil
Surveyor/ Erbil
Surveyor/ Erbil
18
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
ANNEX B
Habitat IDPs Site Survey Datasheet
Guidelines for Surveyors
A. Site identification
A.1 Name and code n. of governorate: see the list attached to these guidelines
A.2 Name and code n. of the district: see the list attached to these guidelines
A.3 Name and code n. of the sub.district: see the list attached to these guidelines
A.4 List the Code n. of WFP Food agents available in the site or close to it.
A.5 Short name of the site in English (Latin letters) and A.6 Arabic letters.
A.7 Full address:
A.8 Site ID number: assigned by IDP Survey Assistant
A.9 Short description of location: ……………………… ……………………………
………… ………… …………… ……………… …………………
A.10 Total area: this question will require a rough estimate in hectares of the size of
total area.
A.11 Type of location: write 1 if located within or in the vicinity of (max 5 km)
governorate centers, 2 if located within or in the vicinity of (max 5 km)
district centers, 3 if located within or in the vicinity of (max 5 km)
subdistrict centers, 4 if within a or close to a village, 5 if isolated, 6 if close
to a highway or main road, 0 if none of these then specify in next question)
A.12 Specify if other:
A.13 Number of settlements existing in the site: this number should be consistent
with the number of settlements and with the number of IDPs groups
registered in next data sheet.
Services available in the vicinity of the site
A.14 PrimSchool: write the number of primary schools located in or in the vicinity of the
site, if none write 0.
A.15 SecSchool: : write the number of secondary schools located in or in the vicinity of
the site, if none write 0.
A.16 InterSchool: : write the number of intermediate schools located in or in the vicinity
of the site, if none write 0.
A.17 Health: write the number of health centers located in or in the vicinity of the site, if
none write 0.
A.18 Market: write the number of markets located in or in the vicinity of the site, if none
write 0.
A.19 Transportation: write 1 if public, 2 if private, 0 if none
A.20 Number of Prj: write the number of ongoing projects (not yet completed).
A.21 Financial source: write 1 if based on 986 programme, 2 if NGO, 3 if Local
Authority, 4 if others.
A.22 Only for resettlement projects: write 1 if residential, 2 if education, 3 if
residential+ education, 4 if basic services, 5 if other services.
A.23 Only for income generating projects: write 1 if workshops, 2 if factories, 3 if
workshops + factories, 4 if any agricultural project, 5 if other.
A.24 Promoter number: write the number of promoters
File:
19
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
A.25 Type of promoter: write 1 if Local Authority, 2 if UN agency, 3 if NGO, 4 if
LA+UN, 5 if UN+NGO, 6 if LA+NGO, 7 if LA+UN+NGO.
B. Settlement assessment
SiteID: assigned by IDP Survey Assistant
SerialN: serial number.
TimeS: write the year of first settlement of the population group now occupying this
area.
Own: write 1 if local authority of major city, 2 if local authority not of major city, 3
if army, 4 if private, 5 if other.
TypeS: 1 if collective town, 2 if apartment building, 3 if barracks, 4 if other hard
shelter, 5 if tents, huts or other transit (temporary) shelters, 6 if selfbuilt houses, 7 if built by Habitat, 8 if built by other organizations, 9 if
scattered in an urban area.
HU N: number of housing units in the settlement.
MinSz: minimum size of housing units.
MaxSz: maximum size of housing units
PrvU: previous use (write 1 if crop land, 2 if bare land, 3 if forest, 4 if residential, 5
if military, 6 if offices, 7 if commercial, 8 if industrial, 9 if private, 10 if
other.
%Area: percentage or proportion of area covered by this settlement on the total site
area. The total sum of this column must be always 100.
AgeHU: age of buildings or other type of hard shelters (leave blank if transit
shelters or tents).
Wat: Water, write 1 if individual tap, 2 if collective tap, 3 if drilled well, 4 if dug well, 5 if
transported water, 6 if not available, 7 if natural source,8 if other.
Ele: Electricity, write 1 if main, 2 if government generator, 3 if private collective
generator, 4 if private individual generator, 0 if no e. available.
Toi: Toilet facilities, write 1 if individual inside, 2 if individual outside, 3 if shared
inside, 4 if shared outside, 0 if none.
ToiT: Toilet Type, write 1 if pit latrine, 2 if septic tanks, 3 if both, 0 if none.
Dra: Drainage, write 1 if open drain, 2 if channel drain, 3 if both, 0 if none.
Roa: Road, write 1 if asphalt road, 2 if graveled road, 3 if both, 0 if none, 4 if
muddy road.
C. Population assessment
SiteID: assigned by IDP Survey Assistant
SerialN: serial number
N Fam: number of families living in the settlement or population group.
N Pop: number of population.
NofM: number of males.
NofF: number of females.
N EmpM: number of employed males.
N EmpF: number of employed females.
Un18: number of population under 18.
Stud: number of students regularly attending school.
Pop98: Population registered at this location in December 1998. Write 0 if none.
File:
20
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
Cat: IDP Category (write 1 if expelled in the 70s and 80s by GOI and settled down
in the collective towns, 2 if victims of 1988 GOI campaign, 3 if victims
of GOI expelled Kurds, Arabs or Turkmen, 4 if victims of the infighting
between the two major Kurdish Parties, 5 if returnees from Iran, 6 if
refugees from Iran, 7 refugees from Turkey, 8 if victims of armed
conflict conducted of the PKK-Turkey and PDK-PKK), 9 if others.
Wid: number of widows in the settlement or population group.
Eld: number of elderly people (over 60).
Orph: number of orphans
Disa: number of disabled
Mi: write 1 if you consider the situation being very miserable.
D Institutional assessment
SiteID: assigned by IDP Survey Assistant.
SerialN: serial number.
OrgN1: name of the institution (organization) that assists the population of this
settlement (first in order of importance).
OrgT1: write 1 if local authority, 2 if IDP committee, 3 if UN agency, 4 if NGO.
File:
21
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
ANNEX C
Habitat IDPs Family Survey
Guidelines for Surveyors
The population of the Habitat IDP Family Survey is a sample selected from the total
IDP population of North Iraq. Every surveyor will be given for any settlement
considered in the survey the exact number of families that are supposed to be
interviewed. The surveyor will choose the family to be interviewed on a random basis
in such a way that two selected families can never be spatially contiguous.
The family in Northern Iraq may be considered as a group of people (extended family)
that are headed by the same household head and that share the same family budget.
The family is based on marriage(s) and successor(s). Other persons can belong to the
same family unit when they are linked to any of its members by blood relation or any
other durable relation. When the household head dies the original family may split in
different families headed by different household heads. The members of the family
that got married do not belong to the original family any longer.
The survey should collect information about only one family unit and ascertain
whether there are other families sharing the same living space.
Name of surveyor…………..
Compilation date……………
A. Site identification
This section is meant to identify the site and the settlement where the family is
located. All the values of these fields (from A.1 to A.7) will be provided by the
Survey Assistant or by Field Officers.
A.1 Site ID number:…………….
A.2 Settlement ID number………..
A.3 Name and code n. of governorate: ………………...n……
A.4 Name and code n. of the district:…………………..n……
A.5 Name and code n. of the sub.district:………………n……
A.6 Name of the site …… … … ……… . ….in English..… … … … ……in Arabic
A.7 Number of selected interviews in the settlement…….
B. Household identification:
B.1 First, second and third name of family head (in Arabic):………
B.2 First, second and third name of family head (in Latin
characters):………..
B.3 Number of WFP ration card:………
B.4 Year of birth:……
B.5 Place of Birth: write only the sub district and district name if in North
Iraq, the district name if in other parts of Iraq, the name of a
country if from abroad.
B.6 Sex: write M or F
File:
22
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
B.7 Education: write 1 if illiterate, 2 if primary school, 3 if intermediate, 4
if secondary, 5 if diploma, 6 if university.
B.8 Type of IDP category: write 1 if expelled in the 70s and 80s by GOI and
settled down in the collective towns, 2 if victims of 1988 GOI
campaign, 3 if victims of GOI expelled Kurds, Arabs or Turkmen, 4
if victims of the infighting between the two major Kurdish Parties,
5 if returnees from Iran, 6 if refugees from Iran, 7 refugees from
Turkey, 8 if victims of armed conflict conducted of the PKK-Turkey
and PDK-PKK
B.9 If other specify…………….
C. Family composition
C.1 Number of family members: Males..….Females……Total……..
C.2 Members under 5 years: Males….Females…..
C.3 Members from 6 to 18 years: Males….Females…..
C.4 Members from 18 to 60 years: Males….Females….
C.5 Members over 60 years: Males….Females…..
C.6 Total number of members before first displacement:
Males…………Females…………..Total……………..
C.7 Members permanently employed: Males….Females…..
C.8 Members not permanently employed: Males….Females….
C.9 How many members were employed permanently before first
displacement: …….
C.10 How many members were casually employed before displacement:
…….
C.11 Number of members attending regularly school: Males….Females….
C.12 Number of over 6 years literate: Males….Females…..
C.13 Number of disabled: Males….Females…..
C.14 What language(s) is (are) spoken in the family:
first…...second…….third…..…
C.15 Since the family is here has any member left? If yes how many: …….
C.16 What have been the reasons for leaving; write 1 if marriage, 2 if
divorce, 3 if better accommodation, 4 if better job opportunities, 5
if death: first…..second….third….
C.17 Where has he/she gone? write the name of the subdistrict……and
district……, write xxx if other, blank if not available.
D. Living conditions
D.1 What kind of shelter are you living in: write 1 if hut, 2 if tent, 3 if other
transit (temporary) shelters, 4 if hard shelter, 5 if self-built houses,
6 if apartment building, 7 if barracks, 8 if houses built by Habitat,
9 if houses built by other organizations.
D.2 Size of the dwelling inhabited …….sqm…… If hard shelter number of
Rooms………
D.3Who is the owner of this shelter? Write 1 if you, 2 if other private, 3 if
municipality, 4 if other publics.
File:
23
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
D.4 Services available inside the building
D.4.1 Water Yes…… No……..
D.4.2 Electricity Yes…… No……
D.4.3 Sanitation, Yes…… No…….
D.4.4 TV set Yes…… No……
D.5 Services available outside the building but inside the site
D.5.1 Water Yes…… No……..
D.5.2 Electricity Yes…… No……
D.5.3 Sanitation, Yes…… No……
D.5.4 Playground Yes…… No……
D.5.5 Community meeting hall: Yes…… No……
D.5.6 Place of worship: Yes…… No……
D.6 In this year how often were family members affected by disease: by
disease is meant something compelling a person to stay in bed for
more than one week…………
D.7 How many family units share with you the same living space (housing
units)?
D.8 How many people share with you the same living space (housing unit)?
D.9 Are these people linked to your family by blood relationship?
Yes…….No……
E. Biographic profile of the family
E.1 Place of origin: name of sub district and district if from Iraq or name of
country if from abroad
E.2 Settlement of origin class: write 1 if City or district center, 2 if town, 3
if village, 4 farm.
E.3 Marital status of the F.H. before displacement: 1 if single, 2 if married, 3 if
widow/er, 4 if divorced
E.4 Marital status of the F.H. now: 1 if single, 2 if married, 3 if widow/er, 4 if
divorced
E.5 Original profession: write 1 if farmer, 2 if farm laborer, 3 if worker, 4 if
clerk, 5 if gov. employee, 6 if businessman, 7 if craftsman, 8 if teacher, 9 if
party officer, 0 if jobless.
E.6 If other profession specify:………………
E.7 When farmer did you use to cultivate land: write 1 if owned by you, 2 if
owned by others, 3 if both (shared).
E.8 What are the working conditions now of the F.H : write 1 if permanent
job, 2 if casual work on daily bases, 3 if casual work on weekly
bases, 4 if casual work on monthly bases, 0 if jobless.
E.9 The work performed now: write 1 if farmer, 2 if farm laborer, 3 if
worker, 4 if clerk, 5 if gov. employee, 6 if businessman, 7 if
craftsman, 8 if teacher, 9 if party officer, 0 if jobless..
E.10 If other specify……………..
E.11 How many locations have you stayed in (for at least one month) before
settling in this one?……………….
E.12 Date of final settlement: month….year……
E.13 Date of second-last displacement: month….year…………
E.14 Date of third-last displacement: month….year…………
File:
24
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
E.15 Date of first displacement: month….year…………
E.16 Why you decided to move: 1 to get better opportunity, 2 because I
could not stay there any longer.
E.17 How did you chose the final location?: write 1 if by yourself, 2 if by
local authority, 3 if by NGO, 4 if by UN agency
E.18 When by yourself, what was the main reason for choosing this location? only
one of the following reasons: write 1 if type of location, 2if job opportunities in the
area, 3 if access to services, 4 if vicinity to place of origin, 5 if association with the
population already settled, 6 if gardening possibilities.
E.19 By what means of transport did you reach the final location? write 1 if
by foot, 2 by hired car, 3 by public transport, 4 provided
transportation.
E.20 What kind of house were you living in your place of origin: write 1 if
rural house, 2 if single urban house, 3 if apartment ……
E.21 Who was the owner of the original dwelling? Write 1 if you, 2 if other private, 3
if municipality, 4
If other publics.
E.22 If you are the owner do you still keep your ownership? Yes………
No……
E.23 The displacement was done in a group together with other IDPs? Yes……
No……..
E.24 Has at least a part of this group settled with you in the same settlement or area?
Yes….. No…….
E.25 Did you get any help from locally active institutions? Yes…… No……..
E.26 If yes, what kind of assistance…………………….
E.26.1 Shelter supply Yes…… No…….
E.26.2 Food (besides WFP rations) Yes…… No…….
E.26.3 Income generation activities Yes…… No…….
E.26.4 Other basic services Yes…… No…….
E.27 If other specify………..
E.28 From what kind of institutions:
E.28.1 Local authorities: Yes…… No…….
E.28.2 UN agencies: Yes…… No……
E.28.3 NGOs: Yes…… No……
E.29 Have you ever got back to your place of origin: write 1 if never, 2 if once, 3 if
more than once, 4 if regularly on annual basis, 5 if regularly on monthly basis, 6 if
regularly on weekly basis.
E.30 Do you keep in contact with your place of origin? Write 1 if never, 2 if some
times, 3 if regularly (at least 2 times per year).
E.31 As far as you know is it your place of origin nowaday inhabited by somebody:
Yes….No……
F. Needs and expectations
F.1 What are the most critical needs for your family in the place you live
now? Mark all of them using values from 1 to 10 in order of priority,
write 0 if not important)
File:
25
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
F.1.1 Improvement of present shelter
F.1.2 Improvement of present settlement or site
F.1.3 New shelter in same site
F.1.4 New shelter in different site but still in the same area……
F.1.5 Job for Head of HH
F.1.6 Job for other members of HH
F.1.7 Comfortable items (food, clothes, fuel)
F.1.8 Water supply
F.1.9 Electricity supply
F.1.10 Common bath and latrines
F.2 What other needs do you think are urgent for your family.
Specify…………
F.3 What do you expect in the near future for your family. Will you go back
to your place of origin if similar conditions before displacement
still exist? Yes=1 No=2
F.4 In order to go back what conditions do you thing are important: Mark
all of them using values from 1 to 5 in order of priority, write 0 if not
important
F.4.1 To move there along with my original neighbours
F.4.2 To be sure my home has been rebuilt
F.4.3 To be assisted in rebuilding my original home
F.4.4 To be assured to restart the original activity
F.4.5 To be assured to restart a new activity
F.5 Are you prepared to contribute to your resettlement and if yes how?
F.5.1 By labor Yes…… No…….
F.5.2 By building material Yes…… No…….
F.5.3 By transport Yes…… No…….
F.5.4 By equipment Yes…… No…….
F.5.5 By supervision Yes…… No…….
F.6 If ‘no’ will you stay where you are but in a better accommodation?
Yes=1, No=2
F.7 Will you prefer to go somewhere else? If in North Iraq specify
district………..and sub district name………….
F.8 If other specify ……..
F.9 Compilation date…………….
Signature of compiler……………….
File:
26
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
ANNEX D
Habitat housing projects in Northern Iraq (January 2001)
In the whole Northern Iraq, to date, the number of shelter built by
UNCHS(Habitat), under its various schemes, is 13, 834 out of which
9,962 have been completed while 4,872 are still under construction (see
Table D). For phases up to VII 8.069 new shelters are in preparation at
different project stages and their implementation is imminent. In
addition 13,919 are been plan ned within Phase VIII. The total number
of shelters built by the agency reaches therefore the figure of 35,822 up
to phase VIII and it is very likely that with phase IX it will exceed the
40,000 units.
Shelters are but a part of the Northern Iraq Settlem ent Rehabilitation
programme, which includes also all those kind of developments that are
needed to support the rehabilitation of villages and promote the
resettlement of displaced persons back to their place of origin. These
projects include, roads, water and sanitation projects, schools and
health centers community centers and public buildings.
It is worth noticing that the aim of the IDP survey was to identify all
the locations where displaced persons live in and calculate the amount
of resident populat ion. Therefore most of the houses built by Habitat
were outside the scope of the survey (e.g. Shelters in villages,
Apartments ) as they were not build within IDP sites and present
occupiers cannot be considered IDPs any longer. In addition while
turnkey houses are easily to detect, other type of houses built by the
agency (e.g self-built houses), even if reckoned in the survey, are easily
mixed up with the existing construction and therefore are less visible.
The production of shelters by Habitat includes several types of houses
described below:
Turnkey houses. Houses that are given complete to the beneficiaries,
with no need for further work or money expenditure. Land is provided
by Local Authorities. Contractors provide the material and execute the
work. In some circumstances Habitat may supply the contractor with
some material whose availability is scarce at the time (e.g. steel bars
for reinforced concrete). The intended beneficiaries are in general those
who cannot provide any contribution to the cons truction in terms of
labor (e.g. Widows Headed Households, families with disabled
persons).
File:
27
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
Self-built houses. Houses built in district and sub-district centers whit the
construction work performed by beneficiaries, according to their own design choices.
Location is decided and land is provided by local authorities. Habitat supplies the
construction material, gives technical advice and is responsible for the supervision of
the implementation, while beneficiaries make.
Apartments. These are also houses handed over complete but, differently from
turnkey, the units are placed within two, or more, store high buildings, therefore only
the apartments at the first floor have a yard. They are generally located in the vicinity
of main cities. Apartments flats are mainly intended for people displaced as a
consequence of internal conflicts.
Self-built shelters in Villages. Rural self-built houses implementation entails more
community participation. The contractor is responsible for the construction of the
concrete frame of the house, excluding the floor, the dig of the septic pool/sewage and
the parapet or fence, which are the responsibility of the beneficiaries. Furthermore
people take part to the construction, and design, processes also providing labor
Therefore each family has is own schedule of providing work and completing the
house. Only in the case of widows the houses are completely built by contractors. The
beneficiaries are mostly displaced persons willing to resettle in their village of origin.
Staff houses. Staff Houses are turnkey houses meant for staff (as teachers or doctors)
that is assigned to rural villages.
File:
28
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
Table D. Habitat Housing Projects: Phases I to VIII
COMPLETED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION
UNDER PREPARATION
Shelter Types
Completed
Completed
Under
Sub-total
Under
Planned
and occupied
but not
construction
preparation within DP 8
handed over
up to DP 7
2 106
583
2 091
Turnkey houses
4 780
1 909
5 171
Duhok
1 250
1 250
256
1 571
Erbil
286
303
488
1 077
678
1 450
Sulaimaniyah
570
280
1 603
2 453
975
2 150
995
1 017
Self-built houses
2 012
2 799
2 750
Duhok
475
475
349
275
Erbil
995
122
1 117
750
Sulaimaniyah
420
420
1 700
2 475
144
Apartments
144
896
1 960
Duhok
100
Erbil
896
1 860
Sulaimaniyah
144
144
4 567
245
1 470
Shelters in villages
6 282
1 528
3 106
Duhok
751
297
1 048
Erbil
2 813
1 033
3 846
928
1 906
Sulaimaniyah
1 003
245
140
1 388
600
1 200
322
294
Staff houses
616
937
932
Duhok
65
12
77
33
46
Erbil
49
23
72
54
36
Sulaimaniyah
208
259
467
850
850
Total_ all types
Duhok
Erbil
Sulaimaniyah
8 134
2 066
4 143
1 925
828
303
525
4 872
784
1 666
2 422
13 834
2 850
6 112
4 872
8 069
638
3 306
4 125
13 919
1 992
5 252
6 675
TOTAL
11 860
3 077
3 205
5 578
7 561
1 099
1 867
4 595
3 000
100
2 756
144
10 916
1 048
6 680
3 188
2 485
156
162
2 167
35 822
5 480
14 670
15 672
ANNEX E
Report Indexes
Site Service Index
Table: 1.3
Rational
The purpose of the Site Service Index is to account for lack or need of services in
individual IDP sites. The index ranges from 0 to 6. The distance of the observed
value from the maximum value 6 can be considered as an estimate of the lack of
services provided to the site.
Variables
For the composition of the Site Service Index the following variables have been used:
primary school, secondary school, intermediate school, health facilities, market place
and transport.
Computation:
After converting variable values in 0/1 code (where 0 stands for no service, 1
stands for 1 or more of that specific type) the following formula has been
applied.
Site Settlement Index = prim_school + sec_school + inter_school + health + market
+ transport
Employment Index
Tables: 2.4, 3.4
Rational
The purpose of the Employment Index is to represent the average number of
employed individuals per family unit. The index ranges from 0 to 6. When 1 is
estimated there is one employed member per family unit. The index applies to
settlement level.
Variables
For the composition of the Employment Index the following variables have been used:
number of males employed, number of females employed and number of family units
observed in a settlement.
File:
30
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
Computation:
For the Employment Index the following formula has been applied.
Empl. Index = (Nr_empl_male + Nr_empl_female)/ Nr_fam
Per Capita Living Space Ratio
Tables: 2.5, 3.5
Rational
The Per Capita Living Space Ratio estimates available leaving space per IDP
individual by comparing the overall living space in each settlement with the
population of the same settlement.
Variables
For the composition of the PCLSR the following variables have been used at a
settlement level: minimum size of housing units, maximum size of housing units,
number of housing units, number of individuals,
Computation:
After setting the minimum size of housing units to 28 sqm and maximum size of
housing units or the PCLSR the following formula has been applied.
PCLSR= (HU_min_size + HU_max_size)/ 2 * Nr_HU/ Nr_population
Settlement Service Index
Table: 2.6. 3.6
Rational
The purpose of the Settlement Service Index is to account for lack or need of
services in individual IDP settlements. The index ranges from 0 to 10. The
distance of the observed value from the maximum value 10 can be considered as
an estimate of the lack of services provided to the settlement
Variables
For the composition of the Site Service Index the following variables have been used:
water, electricity, toilet type, toilet location, drainage, road.
Computation:
The variables values were weighted according to the weights listed below:
File:
31
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
Water
Individual tap
Collective tap
Drilled well
Dug well
Transported
Natural source
Other
Not available
10
8
5
5
2
1
1
0
Electricity
Main
Gov generator
Private coll. gen.
Private ind. gen.
Not available
10
5
5
5
0
Toilet location
Individual inside
Indiv. Outside
Shared inside
Shared outside
None
10
8
5
2
0
Toilet type
Septic tanks
Both
Pit latrine
None
10
5
2
0
Drainage
Channel drain
Both
Open drain
None
10
5
2
0
Road
Asphalt
Graveled
Dirt
None
10
5
2
0
After converting the original variable values the following expression was applied:
Settlement Service Index =(water + electricity + toilet_type + toilet_location +
drainage + road)/6
Social Vulnerability Index
Table: 2.7, 3.7
File:
32
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC
Rational
This index measures the social vulnerability of families living in the same
settlement by comparing the incidence of socially affected individuals with the
number of families. The index ranges from 0 to 400. The maximum value is
reached when all families have one for each of the following categories: widow,
orphan, elderly, disabled
Variables
For the composition of the Social Vulnerability Index the following variables
have been used: Number of widows, orphans, elderly population, disabled per
each IDP group at a settlement level.
.
Computation:
After calculating the percentage value for each of the above mentioned variables
with reference to the number of families, the following expression has been
applied:
Social Vulnerability Index = % of widows, + % of orphans, + % of elderly
population + % of disabled
File:
33
2016-02-13 06:56
D:\106739868.DOC