The Returns Working Group (RWG) is an operational and multi- stakeholder platform on returns, which was established in line with Strategic Objective 3 of the 2016 Iraq HRP “to support voluntary, safe and dignified return” of IDPs; so as to monitor and report on conditions in return areas, and determine to what extent durable solutions have been achieved- or progress made- for returnees.
The key objective of the group is to establish coherence of information, data and analysis, strengthen coordination and advocacy, give guidance on activities related to key areas, and enhance complementary action among its partners with the overall goal of supporting and reinforcing the national response to Iraq’s coming reintegration challenge.
Membership
The Working Group is chaired by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and co-chaired by The International Rescue Committee (IRC). The stakeholders engaged include UN Agencies (working on humanitarian and recovery portfolios), ICRC, INGOs and National NGOs. In addition, the Ministry of Migration and Displacement (MOMD), the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Center (JCMC), the Joint Crisis Coordination Centre (JCC), donors and multilateral institutions attend the RWG meetings.
Structure
The RWG reports to the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) and feed into discussions of the Inter- Cluster Coordination Group (ICCG) and Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) and ad hoc forums like Governorate Return Committees (GRCs) at governorate level. RWG has established a strong partnership with Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) and REACH for more in depth assessment and analysis of areas of return and no-return; and collaborates with Recovery, Resilience and Reconstruction platform led by UN Habitat and Ministry of Planning for advocacy on priority areas. From the government side, the RWG liaises and coordinates directly with Ministry of Migration and Displacement (MOMD) as well as key ministries working on returns.
As more people return to their places of origin than remain displaced in Iraq, it is necessary to know the severity of conditions in the locations to which they are returning, how this changes over time, and finally, which locations have limited returns and why, to shape strategies for intervention and resource allocation.
While population and location figures highlight the significant number of people in Iraq who may be in need of assistance upon return, they do not shed light on what type of assistance is needed, who needs it, and where, to prevent secondary displacement or prolonged residence in poor physical and/or social conditions.
Thus, a more precise tool is needed to understand the “quality of returns” in Iraq and to this end IOM DTM, the Returns Working Group, and Social Inquiry developed the Return Index. This tool serves as a means of measuring severity of conditions in areas of return to allow partners to better strategize for resources and operations in vulnerable areas or to mitigate risks of push/pull factors for a more specific set of coherent interventions that bridge humanitarian, recovery, and stabilisation needs.
To measure the severity of conditions in each location of return, the Return Index is based on 16 indicators grouped into two scales: (i) livelihoods and basic services,and (ii) social cohesion and safety perceptions.
A regression model is used to assess the impact of each of the indicators in facilitating or preventing returns and to calculate scores for the two scales. For example, the model tests how much less likely a location where no agricultural activities are back to normal has returns compared to a location where this is not the case. The scores of the severity index can be grouped into three categories: ‘low’ severity conditions, ‘medium’, and ‘high’ (which also includes the identified ‘very high’ locations).
SCALE 1:
LIVELIHOODS AND BASIC SERVICES
CATEGORY
OF SEVERITY
Recovery of agriculture
Most or all agricultural and/or livestock activities are taking place as before
Low
Some of the agricultural and/or livestock activities are taking place as before
Medium
None of the agricultural and/or livestock activities are taking place as before
High
Location does not have agricultural land
Not applicable
Recovery of businesses
Most or all businesses are open
Low
Some businesses are open
Medium
None of the businesses are open
High
Not applicable, there is no business in location
Not applicable
Employment access
Most or all residents can find employment
Low
Around half the residents can find employment
Low
Less than half the residents can find employment
Medium
None of the residents can find employment
High
Access to markets for basic items and food
It is easy to access basic items and food
Low
It is difficult to access basic items and food
Medium
It is not possible to access basic items and food
High
Provision of government services
Most or all government services are being provided
Low
Some of the services are being provided, but not all
Medium
None of the government services are provided
High
Not applicable, there are no government services in location
Not applicable
Electricity sufficiency
Most or all residents have enough electricity
Low
Only some of the residents have enough electricity while others do not
Medium
None of the residents have enough electricity
High
Water sufficiency
Most or all residents have enough water
Low
Only some of the residents have enough water while others do not
Medium
None of the residents have enough water
High
Residential destruction
More than half the houses are destroyed
High
About half the houses are destroyed
Medium
Less than half the houses are destroyed
Medium
None of the houses are destroyed (they all have been reconstructed)
Low
Housing reconstruction status
None
High
Yes, many
Low
Yes, a few
Medium
Not applicable (no destruction)
Not applicable
Access to primary school
Most or all can access schooling
Low
Only some of the children can access schooling while others cannot
Medium
None of the children can access schooling
High
Access to health center
Most or all can access primary health care
Low
Only some of the children can access primary health care while others cannot
Medium
None of the children can access primary health care
High
SCALE 2: SAFETY AND SOCIAL COHESION
CATEGORY OF SEVERITY
Concerns_UXOs
Very concerned
High
Somewhat concerned
Medium
Not concerned
Low
Concerns_security forces or armed groups
Very concerned
High
Somewhat concerned
Medium
Not concerned
Low
Concerns_ISIL attacks
Very concerned
High
Somewhat concerned
Medium
Not concerned
Low
Concerns_harassment at checkpoints
Very concerned
High
Somewhat concerned
Medium
Not concerned
Low
Concerns_revenge acts
Very concerned
High
Somewhat concerned
Medium
Not concerned
Low
Concerns_ethno-religious or tribal tensions
Very concerned
High
Somewhat concerned
Medium
Not concerned
Low
Not applicable, there is only one tribe/ethno-religious group
Low
Multiple or no security actors
0
High
1
Low
2
Low
3
Low
4
High
5
High
6
High
Presence of other security actors
Yes
Medium
No
Low
Movement restriction
The restrictions have a big impact
High
The restrictions have a little impact
Medium
The restrictions have no impact
Low
Not applicable, there are no restrictions
Low
Daily public life
Streets are busy with residents carrying out daily activities and it feels calm
Low
Streets are busy with residents carrying out daily activities but it feels tense
Medium
Residents leave their homes only when they have to and streets are sparsely populated
High
Community reconciliation
Reconciliation is needed AND NOT taking place
High
Reconciliation is needed and taking place / Reconciliation is not needed
