IDPs versus refugees: Similar plight, different treatment

Today, more than 50 million people are estimated to have fled their homes as a result of conflict and persecution. Of these, 38 million are reported to be living in displacement camps within the borders of their own country. Great strides have been made over the past decade in profiling internally displaced persons and addressing their protection and assistance. Through the creation of the cluster approach — groups of humanitarian organizations with clear responsibilities for coordination in each of the main sectors of humanitarian action — the 2005 process of humanitarian reform has proven to be key in improving the international community’s response to displacement. Often destitute for the same reasons as refugees, IDPs grapple with many similar problems — including lack of adequate shelter, food, water, sanitation and health care. However, they do not always enjoy commensurate assistance and protection. In Iraq, for instance, the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement and the International Rescue Committee found that Syrian refugee camps are “some of the better refugee camps in the world.” Camps dedicated to displaced Iraqis, on the other hand, are “among the worst.” So how should one understand the disparity of treatment between IDPs and refugees? Devex takes a closer look. Legal differences International laws and conventions are in place to protect and assist refugees. Thanks to this well-defined legal framework, the Office of the U.N. High Commission for Refugees — which is mandated to ensure the protection of refugees — works with other aid organizations to provide them with food, shelter and a safe environment in their country of refuge. By contrast, the specific rights of IDPs are not upheld by any international convention or treaty. While a number of local and international aid agencies are often involved in the response effort to IDPs, The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement entrust the primary duty and responsibility for helping IDPs to national authorities. And according to the Norwegian Refugee Council’s Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, that is precisely where part of the problem lies. “While the state is primarily responsible to provide for IDPs, it may be incapable or unwilling to do so,” they told Devex. “For this reason, whereas refugees benefit of the international protection regime, IDPs, despite being entitled to human rights protection on an equal basis with the rest of the population, are often left without concrete institutional protection.” In many countries, national capacity to assist and protect IDPs is often pushed to breaking point. In Iraq, the recent surge in IDP movement caused by the advance of militants from the Islamic State group has led several governorates to seal entry points “due to a lack of resources to host them.” In other cases, states may be the perpetrators of abuses leading to displacement, or be engaged in action purposely intended to cause displacement. As noted by Chaloka Beyani, the U.N. special rapporteur on IDPs, displacement has been used as a strategy of war in Syria, with government forces deliberately targeting civilians and forcing them to flee. Meanwhile, where progress has been made in developing legal and policy frameworks for IDPs’ assistance and protection, implementation often remains slow and mired in practical obstacles. Colombia, for example, has one of the world’s most well-rounded support systems for IDPs — including laws, justice mechanisms and dedicated social services — but weaknesses at the local level continue to hinder the implementation of solutions. Aggravated operational constraints Many of the challenges to protecting and assisting refugees are similar to the ones faced by humanitarian partners when responding to the needs of IDPs. “In both cases, camps can experience security problems, whether camps are infiltrated by armed groups like some refugee camps in South Sudan, or targeted by parties to the conflict, such as the recent bombing of an IDP camp in Yemen,” an expert at the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, highlighted to Devex. But discrepancies in the treatment of IDPs and refugees tend to arise when IDP support is needed in close proximity to armed conflict and ongoing violence. While these are areas where IDPs are usually found, combatants and political actors can be hostile to the presence of humanitarian personnel — thus hampering the international community’s capacity to intervene. National authorities themselves are not always willing to grant outside agencies with access. In Sudan, the government continues to deny humanitarian access to thousands of people in rebel-held areas. Humanitarian groups also need permits from multiple government agencies to travel — which can take weeks to obtain, or may never be granted at all. “International humanitarian agencies are doing what they can to improve the quality of access [to IDPs in Sudan],” said Damian Rance, a spokesman for OCHA in Sudan. “But this is not easy, given the strong desire of the authorities to see greater national ownership of humanitarian action, and distrust at some levels of government of the broader agenda of the international community.” Additional practical hurdles relate to the difficulty of profiling IDPs. Because most of them live outside camps or settlements, their identification is an extremely laborious and difficult undertaking. “The displacement situation may be volatile, or IDPs may have fled to inaccessible areas. In addition, identification of certain groups of IDPs such as urban IDP or IDPs living with host communities in urban and rural areas may be particularly difficult due to the fact that they live dispersed within the broader population,” IDMC underlined. “While similar problems may arise also in refugee contexts, generally refugees are individually registered.” Such a situation has had adverse effects on the ability of local and international responders to address the distinct challenges associated with displacement. “The general lack of understanding of the specific vulnerabilities and needs of IDPs … has led to the lumping of IDPs together with other conflict-affected populations on the part of international responders. This makes it less likely that their specific needs — for shelter, services and livelihoods, reunification and protection, for example — will be met,” an expert at OCHA explained to Devex. Outstanding gaps in coordination and funding Initiated in 2005, the U.N.’s humanitarian reform spurred the creation of three clusters to specifically address the needs of IDPs: protection, camp management and camp coordination, and emergency shelter. In conflict situations, UNHCR is in charge of ensuring coordination within these three clusters. In disasters, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies is tasked with facilitating the emergency shelter cluster, while the International Organization for Migration leads the cluster on camp management and camp coordination. All of this is done under the overall coordination and supervision of resident or humanitarian coordinators. By ensuring the accountability of specific agencies by sector, such a system has brought more predictability to IDP protection and assistance. But because support remains an interagency effort grouped according to organizations’ respective areas of expertise, some IDPs fall through the cracks. “Different programs are developed, and different agencies may then respond to the needs of different populations,” the OCHA expert asserted. Another issue is the difficulty to track financial flows specifically dedicated to internal displacement. Whereas budgets for refugee operations are well-defined and transparent, funds devoted to IDPs are rarely separated from allocations directed to other population groups. “The total amount devoted by the international community for the IDP response should be calculated within the broader strategic response plans developed for single humanitarian crises,” IDMC told Devex. “Nevertheless such plans include interventions for all persons affected by such crises, not only IDPs.” In this context, underfunding is a recurrent problem in IDP work — and is unlikely to improve as the number and complexity facing the global humanitarian community continues to grow. In 2013 alone, U.N.-coordinated appeals targeted 78 million people for assistance and called for $13.2 billion in funding — but only 65 percent of needs were met. Short-sighted interventions A final, but no less important area where the discrepancy in treatment between IDPs and refugees is especially stark relates to long-term solutions. While policies, frameworks and strategies for the repatriation, local integration and resettlement of refugees currently exist — and continue to be strengthened, as illustrated by UNHCR’s recent efforts to establish a multiyear, solutions-oriented planning cycle — national and international aid groups assisting IDPs focus most of their attention on the delivery of immediate relief and transitional shelter solutions. Indeed, efforts to engage the development sector in the response to displacement remain minimal. Initiatives such as the Solutions Alliance — a group of public, private, humanitarian and development actors committed to finding innovative ways to address protracted displacement — have just started to emerge, and continue to be the exception rather than the rule. And this is in spite of the fact that many durable solutions for IDPs are linked to development issues — such as re-establishment of livelihoods and rule of law — rather than humanitarian ones. Further compounding the problem is the overall failure by humanitarian donors to prioritize the transition to development programming. A particularly illustrative example can be found in Zamboanga, Philippines, where about 28,000 IDPs are still living in camps and transit sites 20 months after conflict forced them out of their homes. However, barely half of the U.N.’s strategic response plan for the city is currently funded, and as of June 1, the early recovery cluster has still not received any financial support. The way forward Although refugees have been at the top of the global community’s agenda for decades, concern for IDPs has only gained momentum in the past 25 years. As of today, few will deny it has reached its highest point yet. But progress in addressing their plight largely pertains to short-term responses, with little effect on the ability to protect them from new displacement or find durable solutions. So how can actors — both national and international — move toward a more sustainable approach to IDP protection and assistance? The answer is one that all humanitarian experts agree on, and which is well-summarized by two powerful advocates of IDP rights. “We need to make sure that humanitarian aid is given on the basis of need — whether those in need are refugees or IDPs and whether they live in camps or among the community,” Elizabeth Ferris and Melanie Teff wrote in a recent blog post. A strengthened response to IDPs will also require fresh and concerted action to bridge the gap between humanitarian and development work. Filling it will require unprecedented commitment and collaboration from a wide range of stakeholders. But progress is not impossible. Check out more insights and analysis for global development leaders like you, and sign up as an Executive Member to receive the information you need for your organization to thrive.