Refugee Watch-31 – Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group

REFUGEE WATCH

"A South Asian Journal on Forced Migration" - Issue NO.31

The Growing IDP Crisis in the Southern World – Tasks from a Rights and Development Perspective by Jeevan Thiagarajah (Executive Director, Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies (CHA), Colombo, Sri – Lanka )

Internal displacement always draws attention as to how it can be brought to an end, but similarly the question must be asked as to how it begins.

Firstly we must understand the terminology, as for some who do not specialize in the area or work in the area, a difference is often not made between that of a ‘refugee’ and that of an ‘internally displaced person’ (IDP). While IDP refers to someone who has been forced to flee his/her home due to a threat to their life (be it man-made or natural disasters) and hence take up temporary status elsewhere within a state, the term ‘refugee’ denotes an individual who has fled under similar circumstances but has crossed an international border, either once or more. The reality remains that under this mask of “IDP” status are civilians, the majority being women and children, who have been forced to leave their homes due to conflict, however there are several categories under which IDPs can fall, such as natural disasters – earthquakes, floods and the recent and rare event of the 2004 tsunami. On the other hand there are instances where people have left due to development projects taking place[1].
It is not uncommon that IDPs continue to be exposed to threats against their life and other human rights violations following their displacement; often there is limited access to food, employment, education and health care. Furthermore IDPs are caught up in the midst of conflict or find themselves in remote and inaccessible areas which impacts local and international assistance reaching them. Across the globe there are IDP populations who have been forced to live away from their original homelands for months and even decades in some cases, and hence are essentially left with a precarious and official status as an ‘IDP’[2].

The Response to IDPs: International Law and Bodies

Whilst the numbers of IDPs in the world out-number the number of refugees by 2:1, the plight of IDPs receives far less attention, whether it be international media coverage or towards the protection of the most basic of human rights. Refugees at least, prima facie, having crossed international borders in order to escape fighting and human rights violations, are immediately protected by a body of international law. They are also frequently provided with shelter and food. Yet for those who are displaced and remain within the boundaries of their own country, even if they have been displaced for the same reasons as those fleeing the country, they experience much difficulty in accessing the same safeguards and assistance provided for refugees[3].
Refugees are able to receive international protection and help under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, however the international community is not under the same obligation to protect and assist internally displaced people. Rather the legal obligation to protect is seen to be the responsibility of the national government, but often the governments in question are either at the root cause of internal displacement, unwilling to live up to the obligation of ensuring the security and well-being of their citizens or unable to deal with the problems due to a lack of capacity[4].
IDP statistics started to materialise in 1982, when the figure for IDPs was 1.2 million across 11 countries. By 1995 the numbers had risen to an estimate of 20-25 million IDPs in more than 40 countries, almost twice the number of refugees. In the absence of a designated body or law to protect and assist IDPs, along with mounting concern for the welfare and lives of IDPs, the UN Commission on Human Rights initiated the review of existing international law in 1992, in efforts to judge the extent to which international law offers protection for IDPs. In response the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement were formulated and presented to the Commission in 1998[5].
The 30 principles (recommendations) are set on the basis of international human rights and humanitarian law, presenting the rights and guarantees relevant to the protection of IDPs in all phases of displacement. This covers the provision of protection against arbitrary displacement; protection and assistance during displacement and during return or internal resettlement and reintegration[6].
Although the principles are not legally binding, they outline a minimum standard of practice with regards to supporting IDPs and have been applied by a growing number of bodies and countries as a result. Whilst appreciation was duly noted by the main UN bodies and inter-governmental agencies, significant adoptions of the principles are especially noted.

In 2000, Angola’s government incorporated the guiding principles into its law on resettlement in efforts to guide the return of IDPs following the civil war.
• In 2000/2001 the Constitutional Court of Colombia cited the Guiding Principles as a basis for judgments in support of its IDPs.
• In 2004, the Peruvian Congress adopted a law based on the Guiding Principles, implementing material benefits for IDPs.
• In 2004, USAID issued a policy document to guide its assistance of IDPs, with reference to the Guiding Principles as a ‘framework for response’.
• Other governments such as those of Burundi, Colombia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Uganda have developed national policies based on the principles[7].

Adoption of principles may have taken place, but in hindsight practical implementation by the part of some nation states is questionable. The regard for the protection of IDPs requires greater attention from those providing assistance and from those whose obligation it is to protect them. However when considering the responsibility of national governments to protect, the wide array of global experiences across, mainly the Southern continents, produce interesting debate and thought as to why this has not been the case or why it cannot be in some current country-specific situations.

The Global Picture

According to the United Nations, at the beginning of 2007, 24.5 million IDPs were noted across 52 countries. The number of IDPs has risen across the world from several circumstances yet most illustrate a faltering lack of responsibility and ability to adhere to such responsibility to respond to the endangering conditions that civilians/IDPs face as a result[8].
Most of the world’s five continents have been marred by conflict and hostile circumstances, which are forcing people to flee, both from those states and within those borders. The majority of such cases have occurred in developing countries where instability is rife and international responses have been difficult to materialise for a number of reasons.

Africa

Africa remains the continent with the highest numbers of IDPs due to conflict. Almost half of all IDPs live on the African continent with Sudan alone accounting for 5 million IDPs, followed by northern Uganda with 1.7 million and the DRC with 1.1 million. During 2006, significant displacements occurred across Chad, the CAR, the DRC, Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan’s Darfur region[9].
When looking at the experiences of several African countries, there has been a trend in the nature of incidents that lie behind the displacement of thousands. In the CAR, Chad, the DRC and Senegal the displacements of thousands of civilians occurred when government forces engaged in fighting with rebel forces[10].

• The Central African Republic – fighting intensified between government forces and rebel groups in 2006 bringing the number of IDPs from 50,000 in 2005 to 150,000 in 2006 – most IDPs surviving without any assistance.
• Chad – Conflict displacement deepened with the spill-over effect of the Darfur conflict, leading to ethnic tensions and clashes, reaching a figure of more than 100,000 displaced people.
• The Democratic Republic of Congo – During the first half of 2006 approximately half a million people were newly displaced after government troops sought to disarm rebel groups in the east. Since the July 2006 elections the situation stabilized but there was a lack of integration support.
• Senegal – clashes between government forces and hardliner separatist rebel forces led to displacement.
• In the Darfur region of Sudan, the uprising against the central government, which started in 2003, led to a recorded 1.8 million IDPs in 2006. This is exclusive of multiple displacements and unregistered IDPs.
• In Somalia thousands of people fled after fears of renewed violence and in December 2006 with the outbreak of war between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government. This added to earlier displacement of 400,000 people in the latter part of 2006, after heavy flooding in southern Somalia.
• After inter-ethnic clashes in Ethiopia and ethnically motivated communal violence in Cote d’Ivoire, thousands were displaced and displacement triggered respectively.
• In Burundi, return movements have continued, yet a low pace and new displacement was seen to occur in and around the capital, Bujumbura.

The Americas

While the majority of the civil wars that have ruled the Latin American continent have ended, the historical and structural injustices that triggered these wars and forced displacements remain largely unresolved. The inequalities that exist between the elite classes and the working class continues to foster hostilities and is a contribution to increasing deprivation and poverty amongst the poorest, while wealth continues to be accumulated amongst the elite classes. In particular, the conflict in Columbia remains largely active and has caused the world’s second largest internal displacement crisis after that of Sudan. In the region more than the 3.8 million of the estimated 4.1 million internally displaced are in Colombia. It remains the only Latin American country where civilians are still forced from their homes as a result of an internal conflict. In 2006 alone, 200,000 Colombians were forced to leave their homes due to the conflict. The other countries with conflict-related IDP populations are Guatemala, Mexico and Peru.[11]
A notable difference in the Latin experience of internal displacement is the nature of events that have sparked displacement, with gang culture posing a significant threat to the safety of people’s lives. The scale of displacements caused by gang violence in Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua are unknown and even estimates are not available. In addition to this, the indigenous cultures within the continent dominate IDP figures, due to a high level of landless and dispossessed people, with the largest amounts of wealth being held by the elites in these countries[12].
However in the countries hit by internal conflict over the recent years, concrete figures on IDPs are hard to ascertain.

• In Peru, a government-run registration process noted 100,000 people at the close of 2006 but this remains a dubious figure.

• In Mexico, thousands of IDPs have returned but have largely remained under threat by paramilitaries and have still no access to lost land and property.

• The IDP figures for Guatemala, following the signing of a peace agreement in 1996, varies from 1 million noted by a local IDP organization and 242,000 dispersed IDPs estimated by the UN Population Fund.

• The IDP situation in Colombia is recognized by the State, the UN and I/NGOs, however the magnitude of the crisis is perceived differently as well as the response of the national government. The government stated that it had reduced displacement from 169,000 displaced in 2005 to 109,000 in 2006 yet simultaneously they have acknowledged that the under-registration of IDPs runs as high as 30-40%. [An authoritative NGO reported that more than200,000 people were forced to flee their homes in the first nine months of 2006].

Asia-Pacific Region

The Asian region demonstrates a variety of reasons for internal displacement. In Africa the root causes of internal displacement have grown from conflicts mainly, which have materialized from the breakdown of state structures, increasing poverty, population pressure, competition for land and scarce natural resources and the breakdown of traditional conflict resolution mechanisms21. Similarly existing tensions between communities or ethnic groups have been capitalized upon in political power plays amongst those seeking power and status. Parallel to this is the Latin American experience of internal displacement which is also, to a certain extent, rooted in the inequalities between the poorest and most marginalized and those with power, who seek only to further their wealth and power.[13] But the Asian region is worth analysing in this respect. More than two-thirds of Asia’s 3 million internally displaced are concentrated in South Asia, where human rights abuses have caused widespread displacement over recent years and in some cases decades. Year 2006 witnessed increasing violence in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Pakistan (to a lesser extent comparatively), with more than 500,000 people being internally displaced.[14]
New internal displacements also took place in South east Asia-namely the Philippines, Burma and Timor-Leste, where 15% of the populations fled their homes, hence the estimated displacement figure for the Asia region runs close to 900,000 at the end of 2006.[15]
There have been more positive developments in the region with the return of thousands in Nepal after a peace agreement between the Maoist rebels and the government. Elsewhere in Aceh, returns have continued after a peace deal in August 2005.[16]
A dominating characteristic behind and parallel to internal displacement in the Asian continent is the opinion that internal displacement is a strictly domestic matter, and as a result it is not very high on national priority lists in this region. The inter-state relations in Asia are ruled by the principle of non-interference hence displaced populations remain largely dependent on their national governments, whose actions and sense of responsibility vary greatly from country to country.[17]

• Several countries experience displacement due to development projects, especially countries with fast-growing economies, such as India, the Philippines, Indonesia and China. In China the Three Gorges Dam (the largest hydro-electric dam in the world, completed in May 2006) has caused the displacement of more than one million people.

• In April 2006, increasing violence and conflict in Sri Lanka’s northern and eastern provinces led to 4,000 people being killed and more than 200,000 displaced. At the close of 2006, conflict-induced IDP figures were at 500,000.

• At the end of May 2006, fighting between security forces and rebel groups in Dili, Timor-Leste, forced an approximate 150,000 people to leave their homes to the outer perimeters of the city.

• In Afghanistan in 2006, over a period of 4 months, 20,000 families were displaced to the southern provinces of Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan, as a result of fighting between NATO and Taleban insurgents.

The history of inequality and power struggles in Latin America have been carried forward to the present day, having been transformed significantly over times, and continue to impact the poorest groups in society. Amongst the poorest populations are the indigenous peoples, who simultaneously account for a significant proportion of the most marginalized and vulnerable.[18]
Thus the more recent struggles in several of the Latin American countries can be viewed in light of military objectives serving political and economic ends, illustrating economically motivated armed evictions in the region as well as human rights abuses and killings of indigenous peoples. Subsequently those IDPs who have fled to towns remain marginalized and have become victims to recruitment by armed gangs, which leads to intra-urban displacement[19].

As in Africa and Latin America, Asia’s depiction of internal displacement is not that much different with main cause for displacement being armed conflict between government forces and insurgent movements. As in the African experience, tensions and violence between the majority ethnic groups and those smaller ethnic groups who tend to excluded from development processes and the social, economic and political spheres in society, continue to foster.

Acknowledging Obstacles to Durable Solutions and Finding Ways to Remove them

Whilst the root causes to internal displacement are essential to recognize, the path to end internal displacements stands even more poignantly at our feet as individuals pursuing a humanitarian cause and in recognizing the human right of every human being.
Most are familiar with the depressing conditions that most IDPs face globally in terms of security, livelihoods, education, health and status. Where national governments and humanitarian bodies are responding to the needs of IDPs in camps, issues arise when activities to support and assist IDPs are delayed; access for humanitarian bodies and other actors is hindered and where those who have demonstrated commitments to assist fail to complete or fulfill these commitments.
Hence IDPs are forced to live in very precarious conditions and in such circumstances there has often been a call for national governments and rebel forces (where applicable) to adhere and recognize the fundamental tenets of international human rights and international humanitarian law and to address prevailing impunities.
Amidst conflict it remains the responsibility of the national governments to ensure that it adheres to its obligation to protect and secure the life of both IDPs and other civilians, irrespective of ongoing conflict and hostilities. However in several countries tarnished by conflict, the reality of the circumstances is that amongst the main perpetrators of abuse are the national authorities, if not condoning displacement.
Yet the absence of armed conflict does not always result in political stability and the will to resolve outstanding displacement situations. Many IDPs linger for years in miserable conditions with very little idea of their futures. The lack of responsible authorities to actively seek durable solutions to their return home and sustained livelihood will only serve to keep them under these circumstances.

Protection

Whilst the voluntary return of IDPs to their original homes is seen as a durable solution by some, the fact is that in many cases IDPs cannot return to their homes until the causes of displacement are addressed. The causes for displacement in the three Southern continents have been noted, yet the end of displacement is essentially when IDPs no longer require protection and assistance specifically related to their displacement.
IDPs will not return to their original homes without some form of guarantee in terms of their personal security, livelihoods and general security, hence any efforts to initiate returns should be supported by tangible results on the ground providing infrastructure that will encourage voluntary return, and even in circumstances where they have been forced, such efforts will encourage them to stay. Thus IDPs cannot be expected to remain in places where the insecurities that led them to flee in the first place have not been eradicated.
Protection is largely seen as an invisible ‘pillar’ of humanitarian action; under international law humanitarian bodies seek to uphold the security of all beings yet this is often in accordance with protection strategies or mechanisms drawn up by individuals agencies, and hence they monitor their responsibility in implementing those strategies accordingly. Protection aspects and rights issues usually transpire through reference to specific abuses and so forth.[20]
With various international laws and legal policies in place, none however serve to emphasise or call for overall minimum standards of protection in humanitarian activities. Standards of protection would potentially move away from temporary and transitional forms of protection and instead would place the rights of people at the centre of a broader development context in the given countries. It must be noted that the quality of protection should not be measured against the numbers of returnees and resettlement, as protection should be secured at all phases of assistances as well as post-assistance.
Protection enters another sphere of discussion when we address the issue of economic (or otherwise) migration and internal displacement; where do these two differ and do they? There is a significant link between the two as economic migration and the movement of IDPs has often occurred in the same direction, i.e. from rural to urban areas.
This movement not only hinders and complicates efforts to promote return and reintegration as a durable solution, but also sees both the ‘recipient’ end (urban areas) and the ‘original departure point’ (rural areas) suffering. With the former there is a concern over: increased competition for opportunities; the formation of marginalized communities; increased deprivation amongst the poorest; increased vulnerability for those entering the new areas and having to separate from their families.
On the other side – the origin of migrants/IDPs, the concern is one of economic contribution and stability within those areas as well as the social make-up of a community, as it will naturally change and this will disturb original ways of life.
When we question when is migration not displacement, the obvious answer is, when it is not forced. However where migration is voluntary, it is circumstances such as threats to security, hostile communal relations, unequal access to wealth and lack of opportunities in general that make people feel compelled to leave. Hence the question delves deeper and essentially the root causes of migration and internal displacement may very well be the same.
The International Framework on Internal Displacement notes three durable solutions to ending displacement: return to place of origin; local integration in the areas in which IDPs initially take refuge or settlement in another part of the country. Furthermore in order to be considered durable they must be based upon long-term safety and security, restitution of or compensation for lost property and an environment that sustains the life of the former IDPs under normal economic and social conditions[21].
If one were to look at the global picture of internal displacement, the majority of countries suffering from internal displacement, and therewith armed conflict and in more rare circumstances natural disasters, are developing nations. Such nations are already suffering from significant levels of poverty, deprivation and inequity. The very nature of engaging in armed conflict/war is derivative of inequality, competition for resources, marginalisation, lack of opportunity and seeking opportunities through desperate and unjust measures.
The persistence of conflict is thus in line with the struggle against underdevelopment, and the two are seen to give rise to the other. There is then a natural tendency for discriminatory practices to arise between groups of people as well as through policies and practices. The challenge is thereby to move towards positive discrimination in a development context from a rights perspective, with the prospect of sustainability and progress at the centre.

Peace

In the absence of peace agreements, return for IDPs is never a real option. Governments should thereby be taking the necessary steps to improve the living situation of marginalised communities (IDPs become communities after years in displacement), yet in some nations this has not been the case and the legal status of an IDP is noted as ‘IDP’ on legal documentation and so forth.[22] This is a detrimental state to be in and it is passed down from generation to generation. This is the case for many conflict-induced IDPs in the northern peninsula of Jaffna, Sri Lanka, where communities have been displaced for almost 20 years. Their status as IDPs has been accepted by them, yet their children are suffering as a result in terms of seeking higher education or employment as legal documents note them as ‘IDP’.
The truth of the matter remains that achieving peace is inextricably linked to resolving internal displacement. Yet to end the latter is difficult where peace agreements disregard displacement-specific issues. A cynical perspective may be it is quite simple to acquire peace without addressing displacement, it would be a matter of allowing those IDPs to simply remain displaced and marginalised from mainstream society.
However after conflict has ended, if the causes of displacement have not been removed – such as militias/terrorist groups and landmines, IDPs will not be willing to return or they may return and end up being displaced again due to insecurity. If IDPs are unable to obtain access to their land or property large scale return is unlikely and this would result in IDPs residing in their area of their displacement and with the given host community. This living relationship alone could give rise to tension on the basis of: ethnicity; competition for economic opportunity; social tensions; children of IDPs may be seen as ‘outsiders’ or ‘second-class’ in schools and IDPs may be seen as a security threat and regarded with suspicion in host communities.[23]
Hence it may be thought that peace has been achieved elsewhere in the country where there are no IDPs residing, but in areas/towns where IDP communities are settled or forced to reside, the original ‘landscape’ of that area is changed in the instance that IDPs are inadvertently obligated to integrate, and hence the notion of peace does not transpire given the significant possibility of hostilities arising within these areas.
Thus peace agreements and negotiations must consider the opinion and life of the IDP, with successful return and reintegration being a key component of a successful peace process, yet IDPs are rarely consulted because they either belong to a minority group or may lack necessary resources, education and political sills to participate in a peace process. In such circumstances complementary strategies to ensure their rights and needs are taken into account in peace negotiations must be developed.

Sustainable Development

One obvious factor in failing to resolve internal displacement under circumstances where a nation is seeking to develop itself is the sheer loss of skill, human resources and GDP. However more importantly is the disregard for human rights, specifically the right of every being to a life of dignity, which would impede efforts as pockets of marginalized communities are created and the poorest of the poor receive little support. In conditions where human rights are not respected, there is more often than not, the likely possibility of rising tensions, as was mentioned earlier with regards to conflict.
In terms of peace, it is also a determinant, on many levels, of there being chances of sustainable development occurring. If durable solutions are not found for IDPs, their contribution towards economic rehabilitation and reconstruction is limited and poverty reduction remains difficult.[24]
A country therefore cannot progress where there are people remaining in poverty and who have unequal or no access to employment opportunities, education, health services and political participation. In seeking sustainable development, sustainable measure to reduce the vulnerability of both IDPs and other civilians is a must.
The end of internal displacement is a responsibility that rests on the shoulder of national governments, to abide by international law, to adhere to policies they themselves have adopted and to act swiftly and morally to safeguard the lives of those displaced. Parallel to this it is not denied that countries in transit from conflict or natural disasters may need assistance from the international community in pursuing physical safety and security for IDPs. Yet the responsibility to ensure respect for human rights and humanitarian law; the provision of safe transit for IDPS and the offering adequate assistance and protection of physical safety upon relocation, is the responsibility of national authorities.
In conflict situations, efforts must be made to seek peaceful and all-inclusive solutions and to note the presence of landmines – where applicable, and the disarmament of armed groups. In the case of natural disasters, efforts must be made to ensure that returnees and the general population are less at risk of any other future disasters.
To be an IDP does not mean that this has a legal status, which is hence a life-threatening situation in many ways, and is in direct conflict with the right to a secure and dignified life. Ending displacement must call for; increased responsibility from national governments, inclusive of adherence to international humanitarian law and in supporting access to IDP communities to assist them; increased consultation and participation of IDPs in decision-making and for root causes of displacement to be addressed.

Notes

[1] Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), 2007, Who is an IDP? http://www.internaldisplacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpPages)/985E40F60D95A6DF802570BB005EE131?OpenDocument

[2] Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), 2007, Who is an IDP? http://www.internaldisplacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpPages)/985E40F60D95A6DF802570BB005EE131?OpenDocument

[3] UNHCR, 2007, Internally Displaced People – Questions and Answers, http://www.unhcr.org/basics.html

[4] Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), 2007, http://www.internaldisplacement/org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpPages)/985E40F60D95A6DF802570BB005EE131?OpenDocument
[5] Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), 2007 – Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement,http://www.internaldisplacement.org/8025708F004D404D/(httpPages)/168DF53B7A5D0A8C802570F800518B64?OpenDocument
[6] Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), 2007 – Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, http://www.internaldisplacement.org/8025708F004D404D/(httpPages)/168DF53B7A5D0A8C802570F800518B64?OpenDocument
[7] Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), 2007 – Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, http://www.internaldisplacement.org/8025708F004D404D/(httpPages)/168DF53B7A5D0A8C802570F800518B64?OpenDocument

[20] Sphere Project, 2004, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response, Sphere Project; Geneva

[21] Brookings Institution, June 2007, When Displacement Ends; A Framework for Durable Solutions, www.brookings.edu/reports/2007/09displacementends.aspx

[22] Kalin, W, 2007, Statement by Mr. Walter Kälin, Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons to the 62nd Session of the General Assembly, Third Committee http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/86CA7AB5CFE66112C12573830043534A?opendocument
[23] Kalin, W, 2007, Statement by Mr. Walter Kälin, Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons to the 62nd Session of the General Assembly, Third Committee http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/86CA7AB5CFE66112C12573830043534A?opendocument
[24] Kalin, W, 2007, No Durable Solutions for the Displaced without Sustainable Peace – No Sustainable Peace without Durable Solutions,http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2007/1004peace.aspx