IRAQRECOVERY.ORG
About RWG

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.














Return Dashboard


RWG Dashboard

November - December 2019

report

September - October 2019

report

March – April 2019

report

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 Low
Illegal occupation of private residences
No Low
Yes, many High
Yes, few Medium
I don’t want to answer Medium
Access to offices for civil justice matters
Yes Low
No High
Blocked returns
None Low
Yes, many High
Yes, few Medium
I don’t want to answer Medium


Key Contacts
Zulfiye Kazim

RWG Coordinator

zulfiye.k
Precillar Moyo

RWG Co- Coordinator

precillareelc
Abdelnaby Gagy (Ismail)

Field Coordination Officer

ismailsiwa
Meriwan Mustafa

RWG Project Assistant

merashid94
Noor Saeed

RWG Senior IM Assistant

Noor Brusk
Kuvan Malo

Liaison Officer/ Sub-national Coordinator (KRI)

Kuvan Malo
Mohammed Abdelrazzak

Liaison Officer/Sub-national Coord (Centre-South)

maa.irc
Ahmed Riyadh

Liaison Officer/Sub-national Coord (Ninewa-Kirkuk)

Ahmed Riyadh

Subscribe to our Mailing List




RWG Partners
NGO/ INGO
ACF
ACTED
Action against Hunger
Arche-Nova
CAOFISR
Capni
Care
Caritas
CCS Italia
Center for Victims of Torture (CVT)
Cesvi
Civilians in Conflict
COOPI
CRS
DRC
French Red Cross
Geneva Call
GIZ
GPPI
GRC
Handicap International
Heartland Alliance
HEKS
HRW
Human Appeal
Human Relief Foundation (HRF)
Humanitarian Response
ICMP
ICN Iraq
ICR Initiative
ICRC
IMC
IMMAP
Internews
INTERSOS
Iraq NGO Safety
IRC
IRCS
IRI
IYD
KSC
MAG
Medair
Mercy Corps
Mercy Hands
MSF
Muslim Aid
NCCI
NCSON
Nonviolent Peace Force
NRC
Oxfam
Pax for Peace
Peace Winds Japan
PIN
PUI
Qandil
REACH
Refunite
Relief International
RIRP
Rise Foundation
Samaritan’s Purse
Sanad
Save the Children
SBW
Secours Islamique
SEDO Iraq
Social Inquiry
Solidarites
Tajdid Iraq
TDH Italy, Switzerland
Tearfund
TSFI
UIMS
UPP
USIP
War Child
WHH
Women for Women
WRO
WVI
ZOA

Donors
DEVCO
DFAT Australia
DFID
ECHO
EEAS
EURLO
FCO (UK)
Federal Foreign Office – Germany
Government of Canada
Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MOFA Japan
MOFA Kuwait
Netherlands MOFA (MINBUZA)
New Zealand Embassy
SIDA
US Embassy/ PRM
USAID/ OFDA
World Bank

UN
FAO
IOM
OCHA
UN Habitat
UNDP
UNFPA
UNHCR
UNICEF
UNMAS
UNOPS
WFP
WHO

Clusters
CCCM cluster
Child Protection sub- cluster
Education cluster
Emergency livelihoods
Food security cluster
GBV sub- cluster
Health cluster
HLP Sub Cluster
Mine Action sub- cluster
National Protection Cluster
Shelter cluster