Pauline Wesolek
SSD Associate Pauline Wesolek specialises in forced displacement and civil society strengthening. She is currently serving as research consultant with the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre operated by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC).
Photo Credit: "Roda was forced to leave her home with her children in search of food and water when drought in Somaliland (Somalia) killed her goats". NRC - 2018
Conflicts, disasters and poverty are among the reasons thousands of people flee their homes every year. While, over the past ten years, international attention has focused on cross-border movements, the number of people living in internal displacement - at 41.3 million[i]- is nearly double the number of refugees.[ii]
Internal displacement comes at colossal, long-term human and financial cost. Indeed, internally displaced persons (IDPs) are considered among the most vulnerable people in the world, unable to exert their human rights or achieve durable solutions.[iii]Internal displacement also affects IDP’s ability to contribute to the economy while incurring costs for their government and aid providers.[iv]
Preventing internal displacement is therefore crucial, and one would expect governments - who bear the primary responsibility on the matter - to take all the necessary steps to prevent and mitigate internal displacement. While guiding principles do exist, there are no binding international instruments to ensure adequate measures; and governments show varying levels of commitment.
The launch of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement in 1998 was a significant step forward and marked the beginning of the recognition of internal displacement. In fact, the majority of the 28 laws and 56 policies recorded globally in the Global Database on IDP Laws and Policies developed by the Global Protection Cluster[v]at the end of 2018 were developed following the publication of the Guiding Principles. Yet, those frameworks are not necessarily adopted where they are most needed. Syria had 6,119,000 IDPs in 2018[vi]but does not have a framework addressing internal displacement. India is regularly hit by disasters, yet its National Disaster Management Plan does not refer to internal displacement.
Moreover, political frameworks tend to limit their ambitions to the provision of assistance to IDPs and the creation of the conditions for durable solutions, thus focusing on mitigating the consequences of internal displacement rather than addressing its root causes. The importance of those frameworks cannot, however, be overlooked, for they are key to the fulfilment of IDPs’ rights. The existence of policy frameworks and the efforts deployed to develop and implement them are also indicators of a government’s political will to address internal displacement.
Implementation remains a challenge and can be hampered by a lack of financial and technical capacities, the absence of political momentum and inaccurate data. The discrepancies between the existence of IDP policies and laws and the number of IDPs in protracted situations suggest that this is often the case. For instance, Yemen adopted a comprehensive National Policy for Addressing Internal Displacement in 2013. The framework aims to prevent internal displacement associated with disasters and conflicts and to promote durable solutions, but does not have a clear financing plan. Yet, at 2,324,000,[vii]the number of IDPs in Yemen represents 8 percent of the country’s population, steadily pushed towards a protracted situation. Yemen is not an isolated case and a significant fraction of the countries which have adopted comprehensive frameworks do not have adequate financing and implementation plans, or the necessary capacity and political will.
Alternatively, the reason policy frameworks may fail to prevent and respond to internal displacement could lie in the fact that there is a need for a more comprehensive approach, which goes beyond a focus on triggers to address root causes. Conflicts and disasters are mere triggers of displacement. Indeed, research conducted by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre[viii]highlights that displacement results from a combination of accumulated vulnerabilities, such as difficult socio-economic conditions, poor governance, inadequate infrastructure or inappropriate environmental management, themselves causing the event that ultimately pushes people to flee. This is particularly true in instances of natural hazards, for the development of disaster risk reduction policies, combined with appropriate investment in hazard-resistant infrastructure, could reduce people’s vulnerability to climatic events and, by extension, their need to flee in case of disaster. The causality is not as clear in the case of conflicts, which often result from more complex dynamics. However, addressing land issues, poverty and political stability could contribute to reducing risks.
Because of the complexity of its causes and triggers, internal displacement cannot always be avoided. Nonetheless, preventive measures and a comprehensive approach encompassing human development, economic vulnerability, environmental sustainability and political stability can contribute to mitigating its scale. To achieve this, internal displacement should be mainstreamed in national development plans, poverty reduction strategies and disaster risk reduction plans.[ix]Global initiatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals, which have targets for human development, environmental sustainability and refer to internal displacement, can also contribute towards this without adding pressure on governments.
The international community should push for the adoption of binding instruments reaffirming the rights of IDPs at the regional and global levels. The Kampala Convention – first legal binding instrument addressing internal displacement – has proven to be a good leverage for advocacy and policy development. Such frameworks must of course be domesticated into national policies or mainstreamed into existing frameworks and reform agendas in order to meet local realities. In fact, mainstreaming internal displacement in all sectors would allow for the comprehensive approach necessary for its prevention. It would also facilitate implementation, for focal points and financing mechanisms would already be in place.
The existence of frameworks, however, means very little without the adequate implementing capacity. It is therefore crucial for key players in the sector to help governments reinforce their conceptual understanding of internal displacement, design monitoring tools and strengthen their response capacities. Donors should put internal displacement higher in their priorities and avail resources for technical capacity reinforcement. The challenges are significant and the means to address and respond to internal displacement should be proportional to the amplitude of the crisis.
Notes/References
[i]This figure refers to the number of IDPs displaced by conflict as of the end of 2018.
[ii]IDMC, Global Report on International Displacement 2019, 2019.
[iii]Durable solutions mark the end of internal displacement and consist in three options: voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement. When durable solutions are achieved, assistance and protection needs, as well as potential violations of human rights associated with displacement do no longer exist.
[iv]IDMC, Unveiling the cost of internal displacement, February 2019.
[v]Global Protection Cluster, Global Database on IDP Laws and Policies
[vi]IDMC, Global Report on International Displacement 2019, 2019.
[vii]IDMC, Global Report on International Displacement 2019, 2019.
[viii]IDMC, Global Report on Internal Displacement 2018, 2018.
[ix]IDMC, Global Report on Internal Displacement 2018, 2018.
SSD Associate Pauline Wesolek specialises in forced displacement and civil society strengthening. She is currently serving as research consultant with the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre operated by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC).
Photo Credit: "Roda was forced to leave her home with her children in search of food and water when drought in Somaliland (Somalia) killed her goats". NRC - 2018
Conflicts, disasters and poverty are among the reasons thousands of people flee their homes every year. While, over the past ten years, international attention has focused on cross-border movements, the number of people living in internal displacement - at 41.3 million[i]- is nearly double the number of refugees.[ii]
Internal displacement comes at colossal, long-term human and financial cost. Indeed, internally displaced persons (IDPs) are considered among the most vulnerable people in the world, unable to exert their human rights or achieve durable solutions.[iii]Internal displacement also affects IDP’s ability to contribute to the economy while incurring costs for their government and aid providers.[iv]
Preventing internal displacement is therefore crucial, and one would expect governments - who bear the primary responsibility on the matter - to take all the necessary steps to prevent and mitigate internal displacement. While guiding principles do exist, there are no binding international instruments to ensure adequate measures; and governments show varying levels of commitment.
The launch of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement in 1998 was a significant step forward and marked the beginning of the recognition of internal displacement. In fact, the majority of the 28 laws and 56 policies recorded globally in the Global Database on IDP Laws and Policies developed by the Global Protection Cluster[v]at the end of 2018 were developed following the publication of the Guiding Principles. Yet, those frameworks are not necessarily adopted where they are most needed. Syria had 6,119,000 IDPs in 2018[vi]but does not have a framework addressing internal displacement. India is regularly hit by disasters, yet its National Disaster Management Plan does not refer to internal displacement.
Moreover, political frameworks tend to limit their ambitions to the provision of assistance to IDPs and the creation of the conditions for durable solutions, thus focusing on mitigating the consequences of internal displacement rather than addressing its root causes. The importance of those frameworks cannot, however, be overlooked, for they are key to the fulfilment of IDPs’ rights. The existence of policy frameworks and the efforts deployed to develop and implement them are also indicators of a government’s political will to address internal displacement.
Implementation remains a challenge and can be hampered by a lack of financial and technical capacities, the absence of political momentum and inaccurate data. The discrepancies between the existence of IDP policies and laws and the number of IDPs in protracted situations suggest that this is often the case. For instance, Yemen adopted a comprehensive National Policy for Addressing Internal Displacement in 2013. The framework aims to prevent internal displacement associated with disasters and conflicts and to promote durable solutions, but does not have a clear financing plan. Yet, at 2,324,000,[vii]the number of IDPs in Yemen represents 8 percent of the country’s population, steadily pushed towards a protracted situation. Yemen is not an isolated case and a significant fraction of the countries which have adopted comprehensive frameworks do not have adequate financing and implementation plans, or the necessary capacity and political will.
Alternatively, the reason policy frameworks may fail to prevent and respond to internal displacement could lie in the fact that there is a need for a more comprehensive approach, which goes beyond a focus on triggers to address root causes. Conflicts and disasters are mere triggers of displacement. Indeed, research conducted by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre[viii]highlights that displacement results from a combination of accumulated vulnerabilities, such as difficult socio-economic conditions, poor governance, inadequate infrastructure or inappropriate environmental management, themselves causing the event that ultimately pushes people to flee. This is particularly true in instances of natural hazards, for the development of disaster risk reduction policies, combined with appropriate investment in hazard-resistant infrastructure, could reduce people’s vulnerability to climatic events and, by extension, their need to flee in case of disaster. The causality is not as clear in the case of conflicts, which often result from more complex dynamics. However, addressing land issues, poverty and political stability could contribute to reducing risks.
Because of the complexity of its causes and triggers, internal displacement cannot always be avoided. Nonetheless, preventive measures and a comprehensive approach encompassing human development, economic vulnerability, environmental sustainability and political stability can contribute to mitigating its scale. To achieve this, internal displacement should be mainstreamed in national development plans, poverty reduction strategies and disaster risk reduction plans.[ix]Global initiatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals, which have targets for human development, environmental sustainability and refer to internal displacement, can also contribute towards this without adding pressure on governments.
The international community should push for the adoption of binding instruments reaffirming the rights of IDPs at the regional and global levels. The Kampala Convention – first legal binding instrument addressing internal displacement – has proven to be a good leverage for advocacy and policy development. Such frameworks must of course be domesticated into national policies or mainstreamed into existing frameworks and reform agendas in order to meet local realities. In fact, mainstreaming internal displacement in all sectors would allow for the comprehensive approach necessary for its prevention. It would also facilitate implementation, for focal points and financing mechanisms would already be in place.
The existence of frameworks, however, means very little without the adequate implementing capacity. It is therefore crucial for key players in the sector to help governments reinforce their conceptual understanding of internal displacement, design monitoring tools and strengthen their response capacities. Donors should put internal displacement higher in their priorities and avail resources for technical capacity reinforcement. The challenges are significant and the means to address and respond to internal displacement should be proportional to the amplitude of the crisis.
Notes/References
[i]This figure refers to the number of IDPs displaced by conflict as of the end of 2018.
[ii]IDMC, Global Report on International Displacement 2019, 2019.
[iii]Durable solutions mark the end of internal displacement and consist in three options: voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement. When durable solutions are achieved, assistance and protection needs, as well as potential violations of human rights associated with displacement do no longer exist.
[iv]IDMC, Unveiling the cost of internal displacement, February 2019.
[v]Global Protection Cluster, Global Database on IDP Laws and Policies
[vi]IDMC, Global Report on International Displacement 2019, 2019.
[vii]IDMC, Global Report on International Displacement 2019, 2019.
[viii]IDMC, Global Report on Internal Displacement 2018, 2018.
[ix]IDMC, Global Report on Internal Displacement 2018, 2018.
