researching internal displacement - eth z · researching internal displacement by birgitte refslund...

7-8 February 2003 Trondheim, Norway

NTNUNorwegian University of Science and Technology

FORCEDMIGRATIONreview

Researching Internal Displacement:State of the Art

Conference Report

T his is a summary of papers presented at the conference ‘Researching internaldisplacement: state of the art’ held in Trondheim, Norway in February 2003.It highlights lessons learned by the growing body of scholars analysing the plight

of the millions of people internally displaced by armed conflict and violence, humanrights violations, natural or human-made disasters and development projects. It sets outanswers to key questions facing IDP researchers: What distinguishes research on internaldisplacement? What are the main issues in research on internal displacement today?What are the purposes and consequences of research? How can research findings feedinto policy, protection and humanitarian response?

The conference was organised as part of a wider network project funded by the ResearchCouncil of Norway and run by the Research Group on Forced Migration at theNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in collaboration with theGlobal IDP Project of the Norwegian Refugee Council.

The conference was the first in a series – the next will be held on 16-18 September2004 – to support the objective of the network: to maintain and publicise a database oninternal displacement that includes research projects (ongoing and completed), publica-tions and a register of researchers. (For further details, see the back cover of this report.)We trust that the conference, and this report, will help put internal displacement more firm-ly on the international research agenda and create synergy between different academicdisciplines.

We are grateful to Dr Francis Deng, the UN Secretary General’s Special Representativeon Internally Displaced Persons, not only for taking time from his busy schedule toattend the conference but also for the encouragement he has given to researchers to con-tribute to policy formation.

Many thanks to the Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department of the UKDepartment for International Development (DFID) and to NTNU for funding thisreport. A special thanks to the FMR Editors for their work in preparing this report.We are also very grateful to our advisory group: Cecilia Bailliet of the University ofOslo; Birgitte Refslund Sørensen of the University of Copenhagen; Karen Jacobsen ofTufts University; and Oddhild Günther from the Norwegian Refugee Council for theirfeedback and ideas for developing the network. We also want to thank our colleaguesKjerlaug Kuløy and Radmil Popovic for their extra efforts.

Finally, thanks to all the participants for travelling long distances in order to share ideas toenable us to improve our understanding and responses to crises of internal displacement.

The full versions of the presentations summarised in this report will be available in theNTNU Department of Geography’s working paper series Acta Geographica availableboth in printed version and on the web: www.idp.ntnu.no/conference/

With best wishesCathrine Brun, Nina M Birkeland and Ragnhild LundNTNU IDP Network Secretariat

Front cover photo: UNHCR agricultural programme for psychiatric patients, Sri Lanka.UNHCR/R Chalasani

Opening remarks by Oddhild Günther 4

Opening remarks by Francis M Deng 5

The Global IDP Project by Andreas Danevad and Greta Zeender 8

Researching transnational approaches to IDP protection by Cecilia Bailliet 10

Researching internal displacement by Birgitte Refslund Sørensen 11

Social science and forced migration by Karen Jacobsen 12

What is the place of IDP research in refugee studies? by Howard Adelman 14

Reflections on regime change by Astri Suhrke 15

Home here and home there: Janus-faced IDPs in Kenya by Roseline Achieng 17

IDP information mechanisms by Jan Olav Baarøy 18

Resolving Guatemalan land disputes to prevent displacement by Cecilia Bailliet 19

Peace in Angola: IDPs on the way home? by Nina M Birkeland 20

Internal displacement in Israel by Nihad Boqai’ 21

Dilemmas of long-term displacement in Sri Lanka by Cathrine Brun 22

Should UNHCR’s mandate offer protection to IDPs? by Maria Camilleri 23

Internal displacement and gendered economic strategies in Turkey 24by Esra Erdem, Neçet Özevin and Ceren Özselçuk

Providing health services to the displaced by Rannveig Bremer Fjær 25

Obstacles to implementing the Guiding Principles in Sri Lanka 26by Danesh Jayatilaka

Taking issue with trauma by Ashraf Kagee and Arancha Garcia Del Soto 27

The trauma of Bangladesh’s Chakmas by Rajesh S Kharat 28

Gender and development-induced displacement by Renu Modi 29

Challenges of rehabilitation of IDPs in northern Ethiopia by Tamirat Mulu 30

Forced removals in South Africa: a thing of the past? by Maano Ramutsindela 31

Refugees and IDPs in Macedonia: successful returns by Aleksandar Shumkovski 32

The IDP problem in Africa: double standards? by Desire Timngum 33

Internal displacement in Indonesia by Riwanto Tirtosudarmo 34

The dilemma of Madurese IDPs by Sherly Saragih Turnip 35

Forced migrants in Istanbul by Bediz Yilmaz 36

Refugees and IDPs: are they really so distinct? by Priyanca Mathur Velath 37

When does displacement end? by Erin Mooney 38

Concluding discussion: whither the IDP research agenda? 40

Key IDP publications 42

Researching Internal Displacement: State of the Art 3

contentsResearching Internal

Displacement:State of the Art

Conference Report

7-8 February 2003Trondheim, Norway

The full texts of the articles summarised inthis report are available

online at:www.idp.ntnu.no/conference/

or many years NRC has madeefforts to raise awareness ofinternal displacement and the

destiny of the millions whose liveshave been affected by unrest. To seeall of you gathered here – dedicatedto doing research on IDP-relatedissues and to investigate possibleways of cooperation – is therefore amilestone and a great event for NRC.

NRC has made an effort to collectinformation on IDP populationsaround the world through our GlobalIDP database in Geneva. This enter-prise has been costly and sometimesmore than we thought we could man-age. However, we have overcome thechallenges and today the database isa well-known and useful tool for doc-umenting the magnitude and thescope of the IDP problem.

The high number of internet visits tothe IDP database underlines its valueand the need for such information.A database has, however, its limita-

tions, being so to speak merely thefirst step of collecting data andknowledge of IDPs. The next stepsinvolve the engagement of acade-mia, universities and researchinstitutes. You have the privilegeof time for concentration, for div-ing deeper, being more specificand detailed. While the databasestruggles to be up-to-date, bring-ing rapid changes in displacementpatterns to your attention,researchers have the opportunity todevelop a long-term perspective, toobserve the impact of displacementeven after several decades.

NRC is not only running a database.Our staff are humanitarian fieldwork-ers in 14 different countries. NGOfieldworkers are among those whostand to benefit most from IDP-relat-ed research. Our ability to work withIDPs, to understand their situationmore holistically, to empower insteadof creating dependency – doing noharm – will be an important result

from your studies.Examples can be drawnfrom NTNU’s researchin Angola and SriLanka and the deeperunderstanding of dis-placement and itsmany facets it hasbrought about.

NGOs therefore warmlywelcome the growinginterest which is mani-fested by the largegroup of researcherspresent here today.NRC hopes and truststhat networking will befruitful for us as wellas for researchers in

their everyday struggle for progressand results.

An example of a fruitful cooperationhas been the close cooperationbetween the Global IDP database andDr Deng’s office and the Brookings-SAIS Project in Washington. Ourcommon effort to disseminate infor-mation on the Guiding Principles incountries where inhabitants are suf-fering displacement has worked verywell. We have provided arenas inwhich government officials, thepolice, the military and, last but notleast, IDPs themselves have cometogether, acquired new knowledge,discussed, opened new initiatives andbrought results. This positive experi-ence of cooperation could inspire allof us.

I am convinced that you will all pro-vide valuable input to the researchnetwork created here and I am grate-ful for NTNU’s initiative and theirdedication to the cause of IDPs. Letus listen, learn, discuss, enjoy wintryTrondheim, leave our mobiles andcomputers behind and just be here –for these two days.

Oddhild Günther is acting dir-ector of the Norwegian RefugeeCouncil’s Strategy andDevelopment Department. Email: [email protected]

4 Researching Internal Displacement: State of the Art

Opening remarks by Oddhild Günther

Dear participants and Dr Deng,The Norwegian Refugee Council had thepleasure of being invited by NTNU toco-organise this seminar, a task we acceptedwith great satisfaction.

F

Kristin Storholt, representative of the Research Council ofNorway which sponsored the conference.

Researching Internal Displacement: State of the Art 5

ur host country, Norway, hasbeen in the forefront of thecountries that have supported

my mandate, both politically andmaterially.

During my country missions, I meetwith the leaders, presidents, ministersand authorities at all levels as well aswith IDPs. Then I come back andreport to the authorities: "This is whatI have found. These are the problems.This is what your people are sufferingfrom." In one Latin American countryI asked a displaced community,"What would you want me to report toyour leaders?" The response I got was,"Those are not our leaders. To thosepeople we are criminals and our onlycrime is that we are poor." In aCentral Asian state I asked the samequestion. There, thinking in ethnicterms, they said: "Those people arenot our people. We don’t have any ofour people among those people."They felt excluded or totally margin-alised. In an African country, thePrime Minister complained to a UNofficial that they were not providingenough food for refugees who hadbecome a burden on his country. TheUN official explained, "We have limit-ed resources and we are helping yourown people who are affected by thewar." The Prime Minister responded,"Those are not my people. The foodyou give to those people actually iskilling my soldiers." These were hiscitizens, nationals of his country, andyet he said, "They are not my people."His people were the soldiers who werekilling "those people". So, you havehere a national crisis of identity whichleaves a vacuum of responsibility.People who are marginalised or dis-possessed fall into that vacuum.Where do they turn but to the interna-tional community? And yet, when theydo so, they are confronted with theobstacle of sovereignty.

Internal displacement is defined interms of people forced to leave theirnormal areas of residence as a resultof violent conflicts, communal vio-lence, gross or systematic violationsof human rights and other human-made or natural disasters in whichthere is an element of discrimination.There are other causes of displace-ment which are either outside ormarginal to my mandate: thosecaused primarily by most natural dis-asters, and those related to economicneeds and migration to areas ofopportunities, such as cities, as wellas those caused by major develop-ment projects, such as dams. Some ofthese pose vast challenges that arenot easily manageable under my man-date as defined by the relevantresolutions of the Commission onHuman Rights and the GeneralAssembly and the available humanand material resources.

Among all the estimates of the dis-placed populations, the vast majorityand the most vulnerable are women,children, the elderly and the disabled.I have been to camps where there arescores of thousands of displaced peo-ple with only a small fraction of men.Once I found only 25 men among sev-eral thousand displaced people. Afteraddressing the whole camp communi-ty I asked for a smaller number ofpeople to discuss in depth the needsof the camp residents. All those whocame forward were men. I said:"I thought there were only 25 men inthe camp?" I was told, "Well, youasked for leaders". What this exampleshows is that if you have such a largegroup of women and children andthose considered qualified to discusstheir problems are a handful of menthen you begin to realise that you donot have anywhere near the necessaryinsight into the needs of the popula-tion. This raises the issue of the

power the displaced population haveover humanitarian services and thefundamental question of who decideswhat and with what consequences forwhom.

The internally displaced have exactlythe same problems as refugees interms of causes and needs but havenot crossed international borders –and there is no international agencyto protect them. The assumption isthat, because they are within theirown country, they should be protect-ed by their own government. But hereis the problem. Internal conflicts aresymptomatic of national identitycrises. They show the way a countrydefines itself and how benefits accru-ing from that definition favour onlycertain groups. The crisis for theexcluded and marginalised is aggra-vated by the fact that efforts to find aremedy from the international com-munity are constrained by theobstacles of state sovereignty.

The challenge of statesovereignty

Vulnerable third world countries oftentend to see sovereignty negatively, asa barricade against internationalinvolvement which permits leaders todo what they want, even if this meansblocking the international communityfrom assisting those in great distressand at risk of starvation.

Sovereignty was never meant to beinterpreted like this. Sovereignty is ameans of giving states control overtheir territory and people in order toestablish law and order and discipline

Opening remarks by Francis M Deng

It is a great pleasure to be in Trondheim to addresssuch an impressive gathering of scholars, academics,students and policy makers focusing on an issue thathas preoccupied me since I was appointed as theRepresentative of the UN Secretary-General onInternally Displaced Persons in 1992.

O


in trade and international relations.Sovereignty cannot legitimately beconceived as a way of closing doors tothe concerns of the international com-munity. It is, however, a veryimportant concept in internationalrelations. That is why there was con-cern over whether the UN should getinvolved with the problems of internaldisplacement – an issue that fallswithin state sovereignty. It alsoexplains why it was decided by theCommission on Human Rights not touse the normal mechanisms ofappointing a Rapporteur or a WorkingGroup but to instead appoint aRepresentative of the Secretary-General who would be more sensitiveto the concerns of governments aboutissues of sovereignty. Unlike otherhuman rights mechanisms, my task islargely a diplomatic and a persuasiveone in which I engage in dialogue withgovernments on behalf of IDPs.

I have so far undertaken 25 missions.I usually begin by indicating to a gov-ernment that I would like to visit thecountry. Most then extend a formalinvitation. Some, who do not want toexpose their problems to the world,are more reluctant to do so. It tookme quite a while to persuade Turkeyto invite me and Sri Lanka was initial-ly hesitant. Several others haveprocrastinated. Generally most coun-tries have responded positively.

The first five minutes of each missionare crucial for trying to impress uponthe President or the Minister ofForeign Affairs or whoever I am meet-ing that I recognise the problem asinternal and falling under the sover-eignty of the state, that I come withrespect for the sovereignty of thestate and, lastly, that I see my task asexploring how the international com-munity can assist the government tohelp its own people.

Once the dynamics of interactionbecome more harmonious, I explain,politely but affirmatively, that I do notinterpret sovereignty negatively. Inthis world of intense interaction andinterdependence, sovereignty is a pos-itive concept which stipulates stateresponsibility to provide protectionand assistance for its people. If a statedoes not have the means or capacity,it is duty bound to call on the interna-tional community to assist. In all mymissions discussions have been con-structive and conciliatory. No

government has ever said to me, "Thisis an internal matter and none of yourbusiness." So, to some extent, thisapproach does work.

What should we do when govern-ments fail to discharge theirresponsibilities? Are threats of sanc-tions or military intervention credible?I think that this is one of the weak-nesses of the UN system. There arenumerous instruments with standardswhich imply or even make explicitsuch threats but where enforcement isvery limited or even lacking. Still, weare much better off agreeing thatthere are standards to keep so thatwhen we do not meet them at least weknow we have failed and will try to dobetter next time and never again allowRwandan-style genocide.

By going in the name of the UN andthe international community to peoplein desperate need, one brings hope.IDPs feel elated that the world caresand will do something. And then asyou leave, you wonder, "What if theworld doesn’t do anything?" Hope willthen turn into despair. Should one getoverwhelmed by the frustration thatyou have come and left without givingthese people what they need? Or doyou do what little you can and hopethat it makes a difference? I choosethe latter and begin to negotiate witheveryone who is in a position to dosomething: a colonel in the field, thelocal administrators, the governors,the ministers, the presidents, nationaland international NGOs, the civil soci-ety, UN in-country agencies and thedonor community. In all the arenas inwhich you plead, the lower you go themore likelihood there is that there willbe immediate action and effect.

Since my mandate was created, aware-ness of IDP issues has risenenormously. One of our majorachievements has been the develop-ment of a legal framework forprotecting and assisting displacedpersons. After compiling andanalysing existing standards in humanrights law, humanitarian law andanalogous refugee law, we decided todevelop Guiding Principles – ratherthan a controversial treaty whichwould have taken 20 years to getapproved. By restating what actuallyexists, but in the form of soft law,we have been able to get the GuidingPrinciples on Internal Displacementmore easily accepted. They cover all

phases of the problem, including howto prevent displacement, how torespond in terms of providing protec-tion and assistance once people havebeen displaced and how to find solu-tions leading to their safe return withdignity, alternative resettlement andreintegration.

Within a remarkably short period oftime, the Guiding Principles have beenwidely disseminated throughout theworld, have been translated into 32languages and been the subject of rel-evant training sessions and nationaland regional seminars and workshops.They have guided legislation, policyand even court decisions. To give afew examples:

! Angola has utilised the GuidingPrinciples as the basis for their‘Norms on Resettlement’.

! Georgia has revised its law onvoting to allow IDPs to vote inlocal elections.

! Colombia’s IDP law was signifi-cantly inspired and guided by theGuiding Principles and theColombian Constitutional Courthas cited the Principles in twojudgments.

! Uganda is reviewing a draftnational law on internal displace-ment, based on the GuidingPrinciples.

! The Sudan People’s LiberationMovement and Army, afterreceiving training in the GuidingPrinciples, have developed a draftIDP policy.

We have also focused on the develop-ment of institutional arrangements.The first option we proposed was thecreation of a new agency similar toUNHCR. When it became obvious thatnobody wanted to create a new UNagency we suggested designating anexisting agency with responsibilityfor IDPs. We found, however, that theproblem was seen as too big for oneagency. The third option, which hasmet with consensus approval, was forall the UN agencies to work togethercollaboratively. Thus the EmergencyRelief Coordinator, who is also thehead of the Office of Coordination forHumanitarian Affairs (OCHA), wasgiven the responsibility to ensure thatthe internally displaced are protectedand assisted. Within OCHA, there havebeen various experimentations withcoordination culminating in 2001 withthe creation of an IDP Unit to ensure

7Researching Internal Displacement: State of the Art

that operational agencies pull togeth-er to bring assistance, relief andprotection to IDP populations.

Another important pillar of the man-date is the development of theknowledge base on internal displace-ment. Over time, the emphasis in ourresearch work has shifted to lookinginto specific issues, themes and chal-lenges in addressing the problems ofinternal displacement. Some regionalresearch projects are carried out incollaboration with local researchers aswell as international experts. Regionalworkshops and seminars on internaldisplacement offer opportunities topromote the dissemination and appli-cation of the Guiding Principles andto engage with local groups. We areshortly to publish a report on devel-opment-induced displacement.1

We are shortly to publish a report ondevelopment-induced displacement.The status of IDPs residing under thecontrol of non-state actors is anotherarea in which we are undertakingresearch aimed at facilitating con-structive dialogue in a way notgenerally easy to manage within theUN system.

Addressing root causes

Displacement is a symptom of itscauses – internal conflicts, communalviolence, violations of human rightsand human-made disasters. Thesecauses are themselves the result ofdeeper structural problems, oftenrooted in acute racial, ethnic, religious

and cultural divides and grossinequities. Not only must we addressthe needs of displaced people for pro-tection and assistance and finddurable solutions that will lead totheir return, alternative resettlementand development but – and even moreimportantly – we must also addressthe deep structural problems behindthe conflicts and human rights viola-tions. Most of those affected by theseconflicts and forced to leave belong toethnic minorities and the rural poor.Not only are the inequities they sufferintegral to their displacement butmoving to urban centres and capitalcities exposes them even more toinjustice and marginalisation. Exposedto new opportunities and yet discrimi-nated against in their newenvironment, they remain poisedbetween a new context into whichthey do not fit fully as citizens andtheir former home areas to which theycan no longer return to resume the oldway of life. Displacement therefore chal-lenges the status quo and calls for anew dispensation of justice and equalityfor all citizens without discriminationon the grounds of race, ethnicity, reli-gion, culture or national origin.

In all my reports or statements oncountry missions I always end bystressing that behind each crisis ofinternal displacement lies an opportu-nity to undertake structural reformsto make all citizens feel a sense ofbelonging on equal footing with theircompatriots. Unless this is done, theseacutely divided societies can neverenjoy full peace, security, unity, stabil-

ity and shared prosperity.

Improved understanding of the prob-lem of the global crisis of internaldisplacement is essential in order tofacilitate and support improvedresponses. In recent years there hasbeen an encouraging burgeoninginterest in research on internal dis-placement. The challenge now is tobuild upon the developing research inorder to better protect and assist theinternally displaced and promote anend to displacement. This conferenceprovides an important opportunity totake stock of the state of scholarshipon internal displacement, identifyareas in need of research and pro-mote partnerships and networks.

Dr. Francis M Deng is theRepresentative of the UNSecretary-General on InternallyDisplaced Persons. He is ResearchProfessor of International Politics,Law and Society and Director ofthe Center for DisplacementStudies at the John HopkinsUniversity School of AdvancedInternational Studies (SAIS) inWashington, DC as well as Co-Director of the Brookings-SAISProject on Internal Displacement:www.brook.edu/fp/projects/idp/idp.htm

1. Risks and Rights: The causes, Consequences, andChallenges of Development-Induced Displacementby W Courtland Robinson, Brookings-SAIS Projecton Internal Displacement, May 2003.

Dr Deng with some conference participants at FalstadMemorial

S Tu

rnip

Researching Internal Displacement: State of the Art8

The Global IDP Project: meeting the challenge of monitoring internal displacement

by Andreas Danevad and Greta Zeender

he outcome was the launch ofthe online Global IDP Database(www.idpproject.org) in

December 1999.

The backbone of the database hasbeen a set of comprehensive countryprofiles which provide users with fre-quently updated information anddirect access to source documents.Initially the database covered only thelargest and most acute situations ofinternal displacement. However,increased funding and improvedcapacity made it possible to graduallyincrease the number of countries cov-ered. By the end of 2002 the databasemonitored all the countries in theworld where people have becomeinternally displaced because of armedconflicts, generalised violence or sys-tematic human rights violations andhave not – according to availableinformation – durably returned totheir homes of origin or permanentlyresettled elsewhere in the country. As the number of IDP-affected stateshas risen, the total number of coun-tries covered by the database –including recently added profiles onthe Central African Republic andNepal – has had to be expanded to 52.

This global coverage has positionedthe IDP Project to analyse internal dis-placement nationally, regionally andinternationally and enabled the data-base team to undertake, withoutexternal assistance, the research andpreparation of the second volume ofA Global Survey in 2002. While thepreparation of the country chaptersfor the 1998 volume was outsourcedto a large number of writers usingdifferent methodologies, the latestedition was prepared by a unified

team using a common set of variablesand terminology. The book can beused as a starting point for furtherdescriptive research on internal dis-placement and as a useful tool formore comparative and empiricalanalysis.

The global analysis by the Global IDPProject aims both to quantify the IDPpopulation and to identify commonmovement patterns, coping strategiesand assessing various response mech-anisms. Due to its global coverage theproject is now able to publish its ownestimates of the size of the world’sIDP population. After allowing for var-ious methodological weaknesses, thedatabase team reported that towardsthe end of 2002 some 25 millionpeople were internally displaced byarmed conflicts and generalisedviolence.

To generate such estimates the GlobalIDP Project relies on information

made available by a range of publicsources. In some countries lack ofhumanitarian access makes it impos-sible to compile anything but a roughestimate. In some countries whereestimates vary, a median figure usingthe highest and lowest available esti-

After publishing the first volume of InternallyDisplaced People: A Global Survey in 1998, theNorwegian Refugee Council – through its GlobalIDP Project – was encouraged by the humanitariancommunity to continue the research process byestablishing an online mechanism to improve theaccessibility of IDP information.

T

Regional distribution of IDPs (2002) and Refugees (2001)

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

(Number of countries with IDPs in brackets)

IDPsRefugees

Source: Global IDP Database; UNHCR & UNWRA


mates is calculated. Having gainedsubstantial experience in the politicsbehind IDP figures in various coun-tries, the database team is able tocritically assess the reliability of thevarious sources and chose in mostcases the most conservative figureamong available estimates.

A comparison of IDP estimates at thebeginning and end of 2002 revealslarge movements of people withincountries affected by conflict duringthe year. More than three million peo-ple were newly displaced in 2002while about the same number wereable to return or resettle. In morethan half of the affected countriesthere was movement in both direc-tions: some affected populations wereable to return, while compatriots inother regions were forced to flee.

Global analysis further confirms thatphysical protection remains a majorconcern. At the end of 2002 around

11 million IDPs were struggling tosurvive in extremely dangerous envi-ronments, unable to leave zones ofongoing conflict and exposed daily togross human rights violations whichcould not be observed by humanit-arian workers or independent humanrights observers.

More encouragingly, we can see thatconflicts have stabilised in more thanhalf of the 52 affected countries.Lower levels of lawlessness and chaosopen up the possibility of findingdurable solutions to displacement aslong as there is sufficient political willon the part of national governmentsand the international community. The fact that people in these coun-tries have on average been displacedfor more than a decade underscores

the urgent need to provide assistancewith a more long-term developmentperspective aimed at moving peopleout of the poverty trap caused bytheir internal displacement.

How can researchersimprove the availability andquality of IDP information?

The Global IDP Database providesaccess to about 5,500 documentsfrom more than 1,000 differentsources. Used in the project’s globaland regional analyses, this informa-tion base represents almost allpublicly available internet-based infor-mation on IDPs produced by thehumanitarian community, as well asacademic research available throughthe Internet. As demonstrated by thegraph below, humanitarian practition-ers are the largest source of providersof quantitative and descriptive infor-mation on internal displacement.

The limited availability of indepen-dent academic research appears toreflect the reality that research insti-tutions have limited resourcesavailable with which to undertakeindependent studies of IDP situations.It also shows that the academic worldand publishers have been slow to takeadvantage of opportunities providedby the internet to disseminate andshare research findings and publica-tions. However, it should not beoverlooked that academics are alsooften humanitarian practitioners andthat much of the information on inter-nal displacement produced by the UNand by non-governmental actors suchas Amnesty, Human Rights Watch andMédecins Sans Frontières is of highacademic standard.

Most publicly available IDP informa-tion is generated in order to help planand deliver humanitarian assistance,rather than for purposes of academicresearch. A critical assessment ofavailable information quickly revealsthat reporting on internal displace-ment is often fragmented and thatthere are major geographical and the-matic information gaps. Availableinformation is often difficult to vali-date with regard to origin andreliability. Daily and weekly updatesprepared by field practitionersgenerally have no medium-term equiv-alents, leaving observers forced todevelop analyses from daily/weeklybulletins and much more non-specificagency annual reports.

Despite the widespread promotion ofinternational human rights instru-ments, terminology varies widely.Even when terms are commonly used,different actors often ascribe divergentmeanings to them. How to define anIDP is perhaps the clearest example –and a reason for caution with regardto IDP numbers. But several otherconcepts that we often take for grant-ed are not always clear. For example,‘return’, ‘reintegration’ and ‘resettle-ment’ are often confused.

Researchers must be aware of theseweaknesses. Humanitarian informa-tion often becomes the only sourceavailable and analysis based on onesource only may be inaccurate.Comparative analysis may be distort-ed by differences in the under-standing of the various dimensionsbeing studied. Although more inde-pendent academic field research isneeded, it is even more urgent todevelop better conceptual andmethodological tools for qualitativeand quantitative analysis of internaldisplacement situations. This is achallenge for academic researchersbut also an opportunity for jointefforts between humanitarian practi-tioners and the academic community.

Andreas Danevad is the DatabaseCoordinator of the Global IDPProject (www.idpproject.org)Email: [email protected]

Greta Zeender is InformationOfficer with the Global IDPProject, presently seconded to anIDP training project in easternDemocratic Republic of Congo.

Documents used by the Global IDP Database

0,00

500,00

1.000,00

1.500,00

2.000,00

2.500,00


ecause the Guiding Principleson Internal Displacement is anon-binding instrument deriv-

ing legitimacy from cross-referencingother international instruments withinthe field of human rights, humanitari-an law and refugee law – there is aneed to understand the value of theselayers of law. In particular, each rightenunciated within the instrumentrequires such analysis. I have assess-ed the rights to property, recourse(or remedy) and recovery/reparation(compensation or restitution) in orderto understand whether IDPs actuallyhave the necessary framework toassist them regain property uponreturn at the end of a war.

This review highlights a completeabsence of clarity regarding what ismeant by a right to property and torestitution. There is disagreementover whether the right to property isa civil and political right covering reg-istered property, as opposed to asocio-economic right applicable to thecustomary claims of indigenous peo-ple/farmers who link the land to theirrights to food, housing, work and theright to life itself.

General human rights instruments donot set forth a right to restitution ofproperty and the soft law is vague.There is a lack of clarity between thelayers of hard and soft law which ren-der the design of protection strategiescomplex and leaves open the questionregarding the extent to which IDPs areactually empowered. The GuidingPrinciples grant power of choice overthe form of reparation (which mayeither be compensation or restitution,but without guarantee of getting landback) to the state. The Principles ofthe International Law Association areunclear. The International LabourOrganisation Convention No. 169grants choice over form of compensa-tion to indigenous people.

Examination of the case law of theInter-American Court of HumanRights reveals how an evolutionaryapproach to interpretation of basichuman rights provides a frameworkfor stimulating change in how statesaddress responsibilities towards theircitizens. In the Awas Tingi case theCourt consulted members of thisindigenous group of Nicaraguans aswell as anthropologists in order tounderstand how to protect their prop-erty rights. The Court stated that thetribe’s tie to the land formed the fun-damental basis of their cultures, theirspiritual life, their integrity and theireconomic survival. It reasoned thatthe tribe’s relation to the land is "notmerely a matter of possession andproduction but a material and spiritu-al element which they must fullyenjoy, even to preserve their culturallegacy and transmit it to future gener-ations." The Court thus elaborated anevolutionary and contextual approachto interpretation of the right to prop-erty empowering indigenous peopleby reflecting their own definition ofproperty. IDPs can draw on this rulingto assert claims based on recognitionof their customary holdings.

The Loazya Tamayo Case involved aPeruvian university professor whowas forcibly detained by the country’santi-terrorism police, held incommu-nicado, raped and tortured. Forced toabandon her studies, after her releaseshe moved abroad, remained isolated,was subject to economic hardship andsuffered physical and psychologicalharm. She argued that this traumahad interfered irreparably with her‘life’s plan’, the attainment of person-al, family and professional goals.Finding in her favour, the Court citedthe emergence of events which "radi-cally alter the course in which life wason, introduce new and hostile circum-stances" and thereby impede personaldevelopment.

This decision is of direct relevance forIDPs in Guatemala whose ‘life’s plan’was in most casess intrinsically tiedto the land which provided them withnourishment, identity and security.There is a need for provision ofrestitution of property as a way ofrestoring IDPs’ ‘life plan’ and recog-nising the protection continuumfrom past acts to present and futureconsequences.

The duty of states to guarantee theright to live in dignity was upheld inthe Villagran Morales case whichinvolved the killing of five street chil-dren by the Guatemalan police. TheCourt asserted that the State was indereliction of its responsibility tothem even before their murder as ithad failed to prevent the childrenfrom living in misery. It called forrecognition of the indivisibility ofsocio-economic rights and civil andpolitical rights in order to enable apersons to fulfil a ‘life’s plan’. Thisdecision could also be used in sup-port of calls for restitution of IDPproperty needed to guarantee a basicstandard of living.

IDP researchers can influence policyand protection strategies. My workhas helped to:

! reverse decisions of key agenciesto declare an official ‘end’ toGuatemala’s ongoing displace-ment problems

! get Guatemala onto the GlobalIDP Database

! assist UNDP to work with donorson how to improve the concilia-tion agency in Guatemala

! provide information for reportsissued by the Centre on HousingRights and Evictions (COHRE,www.cohre.org)

! stimulate further research on ces-sation of IDP status.

Hopefully other lawyers will also pur-sue a multidisciplinary approach toresearching internal displacementwithin the field of law in order to helppost-conflict states prevent second-generation displacement. We need anew instrument on internal displace-

Researching transnational approachesto IDP protection: a legal perspective

by Cecilia Bailliet

The legal researcher seeks to assess the normativeclarity, legitimacy, enforcement potential and empow-erment function of the principles created to provide aframework for protection of IDPs.

B


ment to be pursued within the UN’sformal law-making processes whichwill serve to recognise the identity ofIDPs (including terms for cessation ofsuch status) and establish criteria tocomprehensively guarantee the rightsto property restitution as key ele-ments to attaining human dignity andassuring equal participation within

society. Finally, we must be awarethat elaboration of emancipatorynorms is meaningless if the structuralcontext remains unchanged. No pur-pose is served by giving an IDP theright to reparation if there is noeffective – and adequately funded –land distribution and compensationprogramme.

Cecilia Bailliet is a ResearchFellow at the Department ofPublic and International Law,University of Oslo. Web: www.jus.uio.no/ior/english/index.html Email: [email protected]

ow can we develop researchproblems that are groundedin the perspectives and expe-

riences of people affected bydisplacement but whose findingsremain relevant to policy? In otherwords, how do we identify not onlythe right solutions but also the rightquestions?

An immediate observation is that themain debate on internal displacementremains dominated by the actors that‘invented’ the IDP category in the firstplace. Many international actors con-centrate on sharpening their policyand legal instruments in a processthat shapes the issue in a particularfashion that is both selective andbiased. While such efforts must beacknowledged for their attempt toprovide security and protection, oneproblem with the dominant languageof humanitarian and human rightsactors is that it generalises, objectifiesand decontextualises so as to omitmuch of the social, cultural and his-torical circumstances that makeevents imaginable and meaningfulto the actors involved. Humanitarianagencies transform the individualstories of IDPs into stereotypicalaccounts of the ‘typical internallydisplaced person’, devoid of his/herparticular history and identity. Onetask for the critical researcher is to

reveal and problematise underlyingassumptions such as the following:

IDPs are invariably seen as localised,a view that is reinforced by their ten-dency (at least in some places) to fleeand settle in community-based groupsand thus to re-invoke a sense of vil-lage and community. There are,however, remarkably few tests of thisassumption or assessments of whichkinds of networks – local, nationaland global – that IDPs create andmobilise in order to rebuild theirlivelihoods as IDPs and citizens.

Most studies evade discussion of thefuture and IDPs’ longer-term aspira-tions. This may partly be explained bythe limited mandate of most organisa-tions to meet basic needs and notengage in long-term development.Clearly agencies’ perspectives are atodds with how IDPs regard them-selves and plan their lives.

Most programmes for IDPs are alsobased on the assumption that IDPsalways want to go home (a badlyunderstood notion in itself). Thoughmany indeed do want to, we need towork against standardisation of expe-riences and the taking for granted ofsupposedly ‘universal’ and ‘natural’strategies.

A second major influence on our wayof thinking about and acting in rela-tion to IDPs is the project discourseand practice that inform the work ofhumanitarian and developmentactors. Projects are taken for grantedas the way to address problems andneeds. However, one concern is thatprojects often de-politicise underde-velopment and convert it into atechnical problem that masks powerrelations and patterns of inequalityand exploitation. Another concern isthat the project culture is also a high-ly bureaucratic one, and when localorganisations (NGOs and community-based organisations) are selected aspartners for humanitarian agenciesthey are altered by the partnership.Under the guise of ‘capacity building’,so-called partners and beneficiariesare involved in a process of bureau-cratisation where they have to learndifferent kinds of accounting, report-ing, monitoring, evaluation andregulation. One could of course arguethat this enables people to attractfunding for betterment of their situa-

Researching internal displacement: what is our field and what is our goal?

by Birgitte Refslund Sørensen

As researchers strive to make their work policy- relevant, is there a danger that we may inadvertentlyadopt the perspectives and language of internationaland state actors and disregard the perspectives andexperiences of those people we refer to as the intern-ally displaced?

H

tion but at the same time such train-ing may also be interpreted as ameans of introducing further controlthrough standardisation of lived expe-riences and self-monitoring assuggested by French philosopherMichel Foucault.

A pertinent but relatively unexploredquestion is how the introduction of aproject culture affects social relationsand who assumes leadership, how dothey legitimise their position andwhich networks and alliances do theydevelop and rely on. To address thisis to acknowledge that humanitarianassistance to IDPs and other conflict-affected groups does more thatmeeting basic needs; it alters andshapes the structures, relationshipsand moralities of societies and com-munities emerging from conflict.

To summarise, researchers shouldacknowledge:

! the heterogeneity of populationswith different identities and posi-tions that is obscured by thehomogenous category of ‘IDP’

! that IDPs – like all other socialgroups – consider their optionsand act strategically to achievetheir individual goals

! the importance of not merelyexplaining ‘why’ and ‘how’ IDPpopulations have come to theirpresent state but also asking‘what next?’

! that IDPs are not necessarily root-ed to home: many wish to moveon to other places, other possibil-ities and new lives

! the need to better understandwho assumes leadership posi-

tions in post-conflict communi-ties, how they legitimise theirposition and which networks andalliances they develop and rely on

! the importance of analysingdevelopment of new leadershipstructures and understandings ofauthority and what these sayabout ideas of community andsociety

! the need to think about differ-ences between policy-directedresearch and basic research.

Birgitte Refslund Sørensen teachesat the Institute of Anthropology,University of Copenhagen. Email: [email protected]


s policy-driven research based onunsound and uncritiqued method-ology? Could the subsequent

policy conclusions which are generat-ed therefore be flawed?

The problem of inaccurate and unsub-stantiated assertions reflects a keyproblem in social science research inthe humanitarian field, namely themethods used to conduct empiricalresearch. Unlike more traditionalsocial science studies, most humani-tarian ‘field’ research has not beensubjected to critique of its methods.In all sound research it is importantthat the methods used to obtain infor-mation and data be clearly explainedin order to make it possible to repli-cate them and thereby validatefindings. But in much humanitarianfield research, key details about theapproach are never revealed. Among

the missing details not generally pro-vided are: how many people wereinterviewed, by whom and under whatcircumstances; how the subjects wereidentified and selected and how trans-lation issues were handled.

Methodological weaknessesand ethical problems

! Too many interviews – notenough data sets

Much of the published research onrefugees and IDPs is based on datathat has been collected using fairlyunstructured interviews in a small-scale setting. Although in-depthinterviews have given us a rich anduseful store of descriptive and anec-dotal data, they do not yield asufficiently representative sample ofthe population to allow us to test

competing hypotheses and causalrelationships using statistical analysis.Aside from camp surveys, there arecurrently very few data sets based onlarge-scale surveys conducted bysocial scientists of self-settled refugeeor IDP populations (i.e. those livingoutside camps), either in rural orurban areas. Existing surveys tend tofocus on public health or nutritionalissues. One particularly understudiedpopulation is urban refugees andIDPs.

! Missing control groups

Much social science research onrefugees lacks any kind of control

Social science and forced migration: some methodological and ethical issues

by Karen Jacobsen

There are a number of key methodological and ethi-cal problems confronting social scientists doing fieldwork in humanitarian situations, where the subjectsof the research are directly affected by conflict anddisplacement – whether they are refugees, IDPs orhosts.

I


group, making it difficult to assessthe extent to which refugee status isthe problem or whether other factorsare causing the variance. For example,a common research topic is the studyof security problems in refugeecamps, yet few studies are designedin such a way as to compare the secu-rity problems of refugees in campswith those living outside camps orwith those of the host community.

! Representativeness and bias

Many social scientists in the field usea ‘snowball’ sample approach. Unlikea random sample, where everyone inthe target population has an equalchance of being in the sample, in asnowball sample the subjects aremore likely to be drawn from a partic-ular segment of the community, andare likely to be similar in certain ways– church-goers and their friends, forexample, or those who are beneficia-ries of an NGO. The sample willtherefore be biased.

! The problem of bias and con-struct validity

Construct validity refers to thestrength and soundness of the vari-able we are investigating. Theconversation-like tone of in-depthinterviews can potentially prompt par-ticular responses, or inadvertentlydirect the answers, an unconsciousprocess often difficult to avoid evenby trained researchers. This potentialproblem is even more salient in par-ticipatory rural appraisal (PRA)techniques that are popular amongfield researchers. Many argue thatPRA should be used as only one

among a variety of measures – but inmuch reported field research it is theonly one.

! Determining the size of the tar-get population

Knowledge of the size of the targetpopulation is important in generatinga proper sample. In the case of urbanrefugees and IDPs, no studies haveyielded an accurate count in Africa.At best there are rough estimates.

Addressing these problems –the difficulties of studyingself-settled refugees! The problem of access

The problem of access to refugeesmeans that most researchers work incamps, which present a more logisti-cally manageable area, omitting fromtheir study those refugees/IDPs whodon’t live in camps yet who may bethe majority. The difficulties ofexploring the range of views held bythe women in a community, for exam-ple, is particularly well known; this isalso true for other more ‘hidden’social groups, including the poor andthose living in remote areas.

! Using local researchers

Western researchers work with localresearchers because it is widelybelieved that this yields better results.While it is likely that the use of localresearchers can increase the reliabilityand validity of data, there may be eth-ical and methodological problemsissues involved, such as translationinaccuracies or – when refugee assis-tants are used – biased responses.

Political or security problems mayarise for refugee assistants/localresearchers. When refugees are inter-viewed the information they revealmay be used against them either inthe camp or in their areas of origin. Ingroup discussions, a method com-monly used by researchers, there canbe no confidentiality; what may beinadvertently revealed cannot be fullycontrolled even by diligentresearchers.

Making our work morerelevant

As social scientists working in thehumanitarian field, we have a duty tobe honest researchers, conductingmethodologically sound researchwhile doing our best to confront theethical problems that all fieldworkencounters. We need to:

! be more careful about makingclaims about representativenessand about representation withinthe community

! be more careful about constructvalidity

! write more clearly, use less jar-gon and avoid over-researchedtopics and places

! use common definitions ofconcepts

! be aware of politicalrealities/incentive structures.

Karen Jacobsen is the Director ofthe Refugees and ForcedMigration Programme, FeinsteinInternational Famine Centre,Tufts University, Massachusetts.Email: [email protected]

www.idpproject.org

The Global IDP Project provides public information on conflict-induced displacement, trainingon the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and advocacy for displaced people. Aftersix years of monitoring internal displacement worldwide the Project has become a leading infor-mation source and centre of expertise on IDPs. The Project was initiated by the NorwegianRefugee Council, an organisation that has actively promoted improved protection and humanitar-ian assistance to IDPs for over a decade. When the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator assumedgreater responsibility for IDPs in 1998 he was also charged with promoting the collection anddissemination of information on IDPs. To support this function the UN Inter-Agency StandingCommittee formally asked the Norwegian Refugee Council to develop and maintain the GlobalIDP Database.


What is the place of IDP research in refugee studies? by Howard Adelman

hat political agenda liesbehind the definition andthe mode of institutionalis-

ing IDP studies? Why has it takenmore than 20 years for studies ofinternal displacement to mirror thetrajectory of growth of refugee stud-ies? What power factors and researchinterests shape development of a dis-course about displacement? Why hasthe UN chosen not to place responsi-bility for IDPs within a self-standinginternational regime or UNHCR-typeinstitution but instead taken the softoption of promoting guiding princi-ples – rather than a convention withinternational legal weight?

The terms ‘IDP’ and ‘refugee’ carry aweight of historical and political bag-gage. The interrelationship betweenthe two terms is even more burdened.The second clause of the GuidingPrinciples on Internal Displacementdefines internally displaced personsor groups as those "forced or obligedto flee or to leave their homes orplaces of habitual residence, in partic-ular as a result of or in order to avoidthe effects of armed conflict, situa-tions of generalized violence,violations of human rights or natur-al or human-made disasters, andwho have not crossed an interna-tionally recognized State border." Isuggest that this definition of IDPsand the restriction of the use of theterm ‘refugees’ to individuals whocross state borders are determinedby a political agenda.

The definition and the GuidingPrinciples applied to IDPs areintended to give citizens the ideathat they have rights and to empow-er them. The definition is integral toa nation-building exercise to fostera nation of equal citizens in whichsovereignty resides with the peopleand government is responsible forprotecting all its members withoutfavour. Such a liberal republicandefinition of a state can be used toset in place the moral and norma-tive machinery to justify

intervention in a state in order to pro-tect those being persecuted orrelocated.

I do not claim that displacement stud-ies should or should not be separatefrom that focusing on refugees. Imerely point out that knowledge sys-tems and how they are organised arepart of, and often reflect, the politicsand priorities in dealing with a prob-lem. Knowledge production is notdivorced from history and politics.As displacement research centres andnetworks are established across theglobe, it should be remembered thatacademic development will not beindependent of, and will at least par-tially reflect, the historical andpolitical status of displacement in thepolitical firmament of our time.

History shows us that we need to beaware of the forces of realpolitikbehind the new soft IDP regime. It isthe duty of scholars to unpack theinterests and power concerns that liebehind the creation of regimes, quasirights and moral agendas. We need toclarify the nature of the concepts in

policy approaches as distinct from,though overlapping with, researchresults. We must undertake researchto uncover any political agenda thatmay be behind their development. Thedebate over norms may be foughtover independently of group interestsbut can also be a reflection of dis-putes over power. That does not meanthat the legal and moral normativedebates and regime structures couldbe reduced to power issues but onlythat they may complement and rein-force a power struggle.

Current efforts to define displacementstudies separate from refugee studies,while emphasising only horizontaldisplacement and neglecting verticaland internal displacement, may reflectsimilar underlying power struggles.One of the major tasks of a self-con-scious research effort is to use criticaltheory, structural and historical analy-sis to try to discern what that powerstruggle is about.

Howard Adelman is Professor ofPhilosophy, Centre for RefugeeStudies, University of York, Canada. Web: www.yorku.ca/crs Email: [email protected]

The search for an answer gives rise to furtherquestions.

W

Howard Adelman and Astri Suhrke at conferencesession chaired by Nick van Hear.

Tim

Mor

ris


hat are the parallelsbetween the developmentof the international refugee

regime and equivalent policies andsupport structures relating to IDPs?Why is the current IDP regime lightlyinstitutionalised and weak in compari-son with the mechanisms andprocesses dealing with refugee flows?

The development of the internationalrefugee regime was a process thatreflected problem-solving concerns atthe state level as well as hegemonicstate interests. At times, it was alsoan agency-driven process. In many ofthe major displacement crises sinceWorld War II refugee problems havebeen seen as problems of internation-al order. In recent years, the firstmajor expansion of UNHCR and itsactivities occurred in the 1970s, andwas the result of the impact of theIndochinese refugee crisis. Here theUS played the role of a hegemonicactor and was a driving force behindregime expansion. A similar surge inactivity happened in the 1990s inresponse to crises in the Balkans.

The end of the Cold War has openedup space for new ideologies.Sovereignty is now interpreted interms of the rights of both states andindividuals. Yet, the idea of humanrights and ‘individual sovereignty’ hasits limits. As we haltingly movetowards a new regime for IDPs, whatis now striking is the absence of astate ‘promoter’: a powerful nationplaying a role akin to that undertakenby the US to expand the internationalrefugee regime in the 1970s. Yet, therehave been moments of expansion.

The defining event that pushed the IDPissue over the threshold of attentionand led to institution building was theGulf War. Security Council resolution688 authorised humanitarian assis-tance to all those in need in northernIraq without any mention of whetherthe Kurds in need of assistance were

refugees or IDPs. The US made a majorbreach in the wall of sovereignty bydemanding that IDPs in northern Iraqshould be internationally supportedwithout regard to the government ofIraq.

While not milestones, further stepsfollowed. In 1992, the UN Secretary-General appointed a SpecialRepresentative for InternallyDisplaced Persons, Dr Francis Deng.During the mid-1990s, he was instru-mental in articulating a set of GuidingPrinciples for rights of, and supportto, IDPs. In 1992 a central UN officefor humanitarian affairs was estab-lished, later renamed OCHA. Althoughnot generally an operational agency,and weak relative to the heavy UNagencies, OCHA has an over-allresponsibility for coordinating assis-tance to IDPs. To that extent, theoffice represents a further institution-alisation of responsibility for thispopulation. In these and relatedregime-building activities for IDPs inthe 1990s, smaller states (such asNorway) and international NGOs wereimportant actors. This new, light IDPregime has been able to be developedwith the tacit permission of the USacting as a ‘passive’ hegemon.

Since 11 September we are facing adramatically different situation and anew world order. What are the impli-cations for IDPs? Two differentscenarios can be envisaged.

! Are we embarking on a protract-ed humanitarian interlude? Asthe US again becomes an activehegemon, will action on IDPissues be subordinated to the‘war on terror’? This may entailweak or strong support for IDPs,depending on how it fits in withthe agenda of the US. It thereforedoes not entail a regime but adhoc and unpredictable responses.

! As the dust of the second GulfWar clears, will slow and piece-meal regime building again cometo the fore as it did during the1990s? In that case, are we talk-ing about regime building properwhere a range of actors work tostrengthen international and stateinstitutions for a more robust IDPregime?

Amid this uncertainty it is incumbenton IDP researchers to rigorouslyunpack the concepts, policies and jus-tifications used by political actorswhen they define IDPs and developmechanisms to offer them assistanceand protection.

Basic questions should also berevisited. A fundamental questionunderlying the demand for an interna-tional regime to assist the IDPs is theassumption that IDPs constitute aparticular category of persons that,by virtue of being internally dis-placed, have particular needs and,further, that these needs can best bemet through a separate institutionalstructure of support, that is, a sepa-rate regime. This is not necessarilyself-evident. A contrary assumptionholds that the needs of IDPs can bemet through the various existingagents of humanitarian assistance(such as ICRC, NGOs, WFP, UNICEFand UNHCR) in a patchwork mannerand under existing human rightscodes. Institutionalising a new catego-ry of beneficiaries could risk creatingvested interests at the internationalaid level that serve to perpetuate suchneeds and related dependencies.

Astri Suhrke is a Senior ResearchFellow at the Christian MichelsenInstitute, Bergen, Norway. Web: www.cmi.no Email: [email protected]

This is a summary of an oralpresentation.

Reflections on regime changeby Astri Suhrke

How do concepts about displaced people change?

W


House: loss, refuge and belongingNTNU Research Network on Internal Displacement

Second conference: Trondheim, Norway 16-18 September 2004

What is the meaning of ‘house’ for forced migrants?

The issues of home and belonging have received much attention in forced migration

studies in recent years. The house may be considered as an embodiment of these aspects.

The next conference arranged by the NTNU Research Network on Internal Displacement

will explore how the relationship between displacement and house has material, cultural,

social, economic, legal and political dimensions: the house as a physical structure,

the house and property rights, the house as shelter and security and the house

as symbol of belonging and identity.

For further details, email: [email protected]

In the House of My Father by Donald G Rodney. Photographer: Andra Nwlkie. The artist used his own skin

(removed during an operation) to produce this image.


onor pressure led the govern-ment to initiate an IDP returnprogramme. Organisers

assumed that IDPs would go homeand pick up livelihoods as if nothinguntoward had happened. The UNDevelopment Programme thought itcould implement its mandate to pro-vide an enabling environment forreturn without analysing what hadhappened and without assessing thepotential for rebuilding trust betweenIDPs and those who had displacedthem.

However, as the programme got underway it was soon clear there was a lackof political will to restore security,redress injustices against the dis-placed and find lasting solutions toproblems of land shortage and tenureinsecurity. Particularly in the RiftValley, returnees faced struggles inresuming livelihoods. A decade aftertheir displacement women and men insome of the worst hit areas are stillunable to return home or access farm-land.

My research was among internally dis-placed Kikuyu women, from an areacalled Burnt Forest, who are now liv-ing 65 kilometres away in the ‘noman’s land’ of Langas. Langas is madeup of makeshift houses built in aswampy depression by IDPs from avariety of ethnic groups. Ties to homeare manifest in the use of the namesof Kenyan towns of origin for areas ofthe shanty differentiated by drainagelines. Neighbourhoods are ethnicallyconstituted. Ethnic sensibilities areencouraged by associations that dis-tribute news, food and music from‘home’ and organise ceremonies.

For these displaced women home ishere but also there – in Burnt Forestwhere they retain use rights to land.

Home here – the actual place oflived experience, where contesta-tions and negotiations take place –is opposed to home there – ametaphorical space of personalattachment, exemplar of ‘howthings used to be’ and a space fornegotiating the former order. Therelationship between home hereand home there is trans-local. Forthese IDPs the construction ofmeaning is part of a power struggleon the meaning of places and gen-der relationships.

The continuation of ties to theirformer homes is also reflected inland-labour relations and theexchange of subsistence goods thatexist between the Kikuyu women andtheir displacers – Kalenjin young men.Displaced women, keen to preventtheir fields being permanently appro-priated, access their land by rentingto the Kalenjin or hiring them to till,weed and harvest. Through appealingto societal institutions, friendship tiesand networks women are negotiating‘good neighbourliness’ strategies thatlink them to their displacers.

Many IDP women are engaged in theillicit brewing and sale of alcohol.They depend on each other for con-tacts and support in buying off policeand health inspectors threatening toarrest them. Makeshift bars are usedby women to exchange news fromhome and to offer and seek help.

If we are to grasp the meanings thatIDPs give to events, processes andplaces they encounter, we need to:

! adapt an interactive and genera-tive research methodologyseeking to understanding therationality and agency of theactors

! understand that IDPs andrefugees face different realitieswith different livelihoods options

! realise that communities in crisisre-organise, form groups or asso-ciations or provide themselveswith space in which to initiatecoping strategies

! stop seing IDPs as a homogenouscategory: some want to return,while other have found new mean-ings in their lives in new locales

! base support to reintegration onwhat IDPs themselves have initiat-ed and want.

Roseline Achieng is a Ph.D studentat the Sociology of DevelopmentResearch Centre, University ofBielefeld, Germany, and aResearch Associate of the Centrefor Refugee Studies, MoiUniversity, Kenya. Email: [email protected]

Home here and home there: Janus-faced IDPs in Kenya

by Roseline Achieng

Prior to elections in 1992 and 1995 ethniccleansing initiated by political leaders left some300,000 Kenyans homeless.

D


ow can data collection mecha-nisms be standardised andimproved in order to obtain

information on IDPs and better meettheir needs with appropriate levels ofassistance?

In 2001 UNICEF’s Division of Policyand Planning launched a pilot projectto assess the accuracy of data collec-tion mechanisms for children affectedby armed conflict. Field visits toAngola, Colombia and Sri Lanka havehighlighted challenges in plugginggaps in our knowledge of how to col-lect information on IDPs.

There are established systems ofregistering IDPs in all three countries.Angola has a single registrationsystem with aggregated numbers,whereas in Sri Lanka the governmentand the UN have a joint project toregister all displaced persons and togather disaggregated information. InColombia there are various systems ofregistration by supply and demand ofservices and by means of varioussocio-demographic characteristics.

Quantitative estimates of total IDPnumbers are generally formulatedfrom multiple sources. In Colombia,one organisation uses a system ofverified sources to estimate the mag-nitude of forced displacement causedby the armed conflict. In Angola, the UNmonitors population movements andIDP influxes down to the communallevel on a monthly basis.

In Sri Lanka UNHCR has conducted anumber of assessments and small-scale household surveys. Data arecollected on the number of familiesand individuals, their place of origin,condition of shelter and land, waterand sanitation facilities, their prob-

lems and needs. In Colombia there arecommissioned household surveys forIDPs in conflict zones. In Angola, theMultiple Indicator Cluster Survey pro-vides disaggregated data on a widerange of demographic and healthindicators.

As there is no designated organisationresponsible for the coordination ofassistance to IDPs, it is inevitable thatwhere there are large numbers of dis-placed people there is a multiplicityof agencies and statistics. There is nostandard reporting format. Eachagency has its own system of datacollection and may have an organisa-tional interest in how it quantifies andpresents numerical data. Internationaldatabases on population movementssuch as OCHA’s are compiled from avariety of sources of highly variablequality.

Data may continue to be cited eventhough dynamic security situationsmay have rendered it out of date.Multiple registration systems withincompatible criteria make compila-tion and comparisons difficult. Healthand social indicators gathered fromsmall samples may not necessarily berepresentative of entire IDP popula-tions. There is no coordinatedprocedure for data collection, verifica-tion, assessment and analysis. How can we work towards a bettersystem and improved data collectioninfrastructure? UNICEF calls on states,UN agencies and NGOs to:

! do more to counteract risks ofover- and under-estimation

! ensure that estimation is basedon multiple sources, includinggovernmental, national and inter-national humanitarianorganisations

! recognise that governmentsshould be the main actors in reg-istration and estimation – withsupport from the UN if necessary

! develop standardised reportingformats with disaggregation ofdata – at least by gender and ageand ideally additionally by dis-placement history, location andliving conditions, education,employment and resettlement/relocation preferences

! identify and cooperate with alead agency responsible for coor-dination of data collection,management and dissemination

! strive towards distinct data onIDPs where household surveyscover areas of mixed IDPs andnon-IDPs

! develop strict guidelines foraccepting and analysing sec-ondary data in consolidateddatabases.

Jan Olav Baarøy works in theStrategic Information Section,Division of Policy and Planning,UNICEF New York. Email: [email protected]

IDP information mechanisms:challenges from Angola, Colombia and Sri Lanka

by Jan Olav Baarøy

Guesstimates of IDP populations in conflict-affected countries vary enormously as many differ-ent humanitarian actors gather and present data.

H

The full texts of the articles summarised in this report are available online at: www.idp.ntnu.no/conference/

As internal displacement is often anindicator of state failure, Guate-mala’s ongoing displacement crisiscannot be analysed without regard to the country’s legal system and thepolitical and economic context inwhich it functions.

o what extent are displacedGuatemalans able to accessjustice, pursue the right to

remedy and receive legal aid andtranslation facilities to do so. Is theGuatemalan legal system responsiveor repressive to IDPs? Does it seek toemancipate them from marginalisa-tion or does it maintain an inequitablepolitical and economic structure?

Guatemala’s penal code serves thelandowning élite by providing themwith a framework to pursue a policyof forced eviction of indigenous peo-ple and other campesinos who try toassert customary claims to land. TheConstitutional Court misinterpretsindigenous practices thereby dispos-sessing indigenous people of theirlandholdings. Data relating to inter-personal trust, respect for the law,equality before the law, cognisance ofrights and confidence in the judiciaryand other institutions shows thatmost Guatemalans consider that theirstate and its legal institutions prim-arily uphold economic equality ratherthan promote social justice.

The government of Guatemala createda conciliation mechanism (CONTIER-RA) to address property disputes andto foster social capital by promotinglinkages within displaced communi-ties and with state agencies. However,it has faced serious difficulties fulfill-ing either function as a result of thelack of a substantive land redistribu-tion programme or property

restitutionlegislation. Myreview of con-ciliation caseshas demon-strated thatCONTIERRAwas limited inits ability tostimulatetrust betweenrural inhabi-tants and thestate due tothe lack ofland reform,limited man-date ofstate-led landagencies, inef-ficiency, lackof coordination and insufficientresources.

The Guatemalan government’s elabo-ration of alternative disputeresolution in the land arena coincidedwith an increase in the number ofclaims for property restitution andcompensation made by IDPs, landlesscampesinos and rural workers. Thestate became inundated with claimswhich it was unable or unwilling toredress. Remedial legal or quasi-legalmechanisms require reforms withinthe economic and political systems ifthey are to succeed. Prosecution ofthose who have grossly violatedhuman rights via scorched earth tac-tics during the war and by illegitimate

takeovers of land is essential if therule of law is to be restored and jus-tice to prevail in Guatemala.

Cecilia Bailliet is a ResearchFellow at the Department ofPublic and International Law,University of Oslo. Web: www.jus.uio.no/ior/english/index.html Email: [email protected]

See also the author’s article ‘Unfinished business:the IDP land question in Guatemala’, FMR7, pp16-19.


Between conflict & consensus: resolving Guatemalan land disputes to prevent internal displacement by Cecilia Bailliet

TU

NH

CR/R

Ram

irez


he causes of displacement inAngola are multi-complex. Warmay have been the most promi-

nent cause of flight in recent decadesbut IDPs also cite environmental degra-dation and lack of access to schools,health posts, transport facilities andmarkets as reasons for leaving home.This interweaving of the causes of dis-placement must be understood. Inorder to minimise future internal dis-placement both national andinternational actors need to realise thatthe formula for causes of forced dis-placement is more complicated thanwar = IDPs : no war = no IDPs

Many IDPs are going home. Theyrequire not only political and militarysecurity but help with resuming liveli-hoods. Though the state hasre-established itself in all communesand municipalities, these tiers of gov-ernment are minimally resourced toinitiate and assist local development.Peace has led to an increase in therate of return. Most returnees arrivewithout food, seeds, agriculturaltools or house-building materials.Demining is also urgently needed inmany locations.

Focus on local and regional develop-ment to secure rural livelihoodopportunities is essential to promoteviable return for Angola’s many IDPs.In recent months there has been anencouraging, albeit modest, increasein agricultural production. To main-tain momentum, small farmers needaccess to credit to buy seed, fertilisersand draught animals. Surpluses willnot be able to reach markets on anyscale without rapid reconstruction ofinfrastructure.

Spontaneous return movements havetaken place alongside new displace-ments. As some areas have becomerelatively safe once again, many ofthose living under horrendous condi-tions in regional towns have startedreturning home. Many families havesplit up, with some household

members remaining close to placeswhere international agencies andNGOs provide assistance and othersreturning to hamlets to rebuild hous-es and resume agriculture.

Peace dividend?

Peace has opened up the prospect forlarge-scale return of IDPs and compre-hensive national development of alleconomic sectors – not simply oil anddiamonds. Investments and access tocredit are needed in all regions.However, although humanitarian anddevelopment needs have becomemore apparent since April 2002, fund-ing has slowed down. As a result ofthe peace there has been a reductionin international assistance. TheAngolan government appears indiffer-ent to the need to increase nationalfunding for education, health services,infrastructure and reestablishment ofrural livelihoods.

Angola is a rich country. The $900mthat the International Monetary Fundhas identified as ‘missing’ from theAngolan government finances in 2000is about three times the value ofhumanitarian aidreceived by the coun-try in the same year.

While internationaldonors are now right-ly demanding that theAngolan governmentmust take responsib-ility for humanitarianand developmentneeds, external fund-ing is being reduced.While the pace ofchange has beendramatic in the lastyear, the mindset ofthe élite has remainedunchanged. Theymust acknowledgetheir obligationstowards the civilianpopulation.

Just because they travel round by air,they must not forget that their com-patriots need roads, railways andbridges if they are to escape hungerand economic deprivation.

The Angolan authorities can no longerpay only lip service to the situation ofthe displaced and expect the interna-tional community to pick up the bill.At the same time the UN and otherinternational actors cannot walk awayfrom populations in need just becausethe government is not taking respon-sibility. The transition from war topost-conflict is challenging for all.

The crisis of displacement has notcome to an end in Angola. Peace willlead to a dramatic reduction in thenumber of new IDPs. But until there isimproved recognition of the multi-complex nature of forced migration inAngola and until this new thinking isreflected in the design of emergencyand development programmes, therisk of future displacements hangsover Angola.

Nina M Birkeland is a ResearchFellow at the NTNU ResearchGroup on Forced Migration andlecturer in Human Geography atNord Trøndelag UniversityCollege. Email: [email protected]

Peace in Angola: IDPs on the way home?by Nina M Birkeland

Angolans have now lived in peace for a whole year.The official number of IDPs declined from 4.1 to 2.8million in 2002. Has the crisis of displacement inAngola finally come to an end?

T


srael has destroyed, demolishedand confiscated housing and landand denied IDPs the right to

return to their homes. As Israelbecomes more politically unstable, asignificant percentage of the country’sArab minority are threatened withstate-sponsored or -tolerated forcedeviction from their homes.

Palestinian IDPs belong to the largergroup of Palestinians displaced/expelled in 1948. After Israel’s estab-lishment some 150,000 Palestiniansremained within the borders of thenew state. Displacement did not endin 1948. Under the system of militaryrule which continued until 1966,Palestinian Israelis were forcibly relo-cated from areas zoned for IsraeliJews. Depopulated Palestinian villageswere either replaced with Jewish set-tlements or razed to become part ofstate forests which today hideevidence of previous Palestinian set-tlement. In the southern Negev desert,the Israeli military forced the Bedouinto abandon their traditional nomadiclifestyle and herded them into desig-nated zones. Military regulations wereused to override decisions of theIsraeli High Court supporting IDPs’rights to return to places of origin.

Some IDPs were relocated to newhousing units in designated ‘sheltervillages’ where they remain today.As a condition of being given newhousing units, IDPs were required toformally forfeit housing and propertyrights in their villages of origin. Asmall number did so, many of whomwere ostracised by other IDPs andPalestinian political movements. Israeldoes not recognise the existence ofIDPs nor the right of internationalorganisation to focus on their plight

More than 50 years after their dis-placement, the experience ofdisplacement and dispossession has avisible impact on the socio-economic

status of Israel’s IDPs. Peasantshave been transformed into mar-ginalised unskilled workers in theIsraeli economy. Many have hadproblems in rebuilding their livesin the villages that provided shelterin 1948. As Palestinian citizens ofIsrael, they face overt discrimina-tion in employment and stateprovision of health, education,housing and other services. In shel-ter villages, Palestinian Israeli citiesor in Arab neighbourhoods ofmixed Arab-Jewish cities, IDPs arespatially segregated in neighbour-hoods which often take the name ofvillages of origin. IDPs are poorerthan their non-IDP neighbours. ThoseIDP entrepreneurs who have succeed-ed in establishing businesses mostlydepend on an IDP clientele.

While the relationship between thegeneration who witnessed the Nakba(cataclysm) of 1948 and the village oforigin was a connection of remem-brance, among the second and thirdgenerations the connection to thevillage of origin with the second andthe third generation is more romantic– at times the village of originbecomes a ‘shelter’ from the sheltervillage. However, the refugee identityof IDPs inside Israel remains as strongas it has been since 1948.

Driven by the experience of displace-ment, IDPs have always been morepolitically active at the national levelin Israeli politics than other sectors ofPalestinian society in Israel. This isparticularly true of second and thirdgeneration IDPs. Some members ofnon-Zionist parties in the Knesset areIDPs. Over the last decade the cam-paign to highlight IDP rights hasassumed new proportions as bothIDPs and refugees throughout thePalestinian diaspora have felt shut outby the Oslo peace process. The exclu-sion of refugee rights from thenegotiation process and the crisis of

representation at the Palestiniannational level have engenderedincreased interest and awarenessabout Palestinian refugees and IDPs.The Association for the Defence ofthe Rights of Internally DisplacedPalestinians (ADRID) is now recog-nised by Palestinians as therepresentative forum of IDPs insideIsrael. ADRID annually commemoratesthe Nakba on the anniversary of theestablishment of the state of Israeland organises conferences which havegenerated new support for the rightof return of both IDPs and refugees.

IDPs in Israel are challenging not onlyIsrael’s persistent refusal to recognisetheir existence or their right to returnbut also the social structures of shel-ter villages where the relationshipbetween locals and IDPs remains oneof estrangement. Palestinian IDPsremain a minority within a minoritybut have taken their place within thebroad and increasingly vocal right toreturn movement.

Nihad Boqai’ is a Researcher atthe Badil Resource Centre forPalestinian Residency andRefugee Rights, Bethlehem,Palestine. Web: www.badil.org Email: [email protected]

Over a quarter of a million Palestinian citizens ofIsrael, 25% of the country’s Palestinian Arabpopulation, are internally displaced.

I

The hidden Palestinian displacement: internal displacement in Israel

by Nihad Boqai’


ow can we contribute to dis-cussions about the formationof categories and definitions

by deconstructing, questioning andchanging their meanings and con-tents? My work in Sri Lanka looks atthe common understandings of theIDP category and how it affects poli-cies and the lives both of theinternally displaced and their hosts.

In Sri Lanka there is a visible discrep-ancy between the intentions behindthe IDP category and the way the dis-placed are labelled on the ground.The IDP category was established tosecure rights and protection for thosedisplaced who have not crossed aninternationally recognised boundarybut are living as displaced in thecountries where they are citizens.However, ascribing someone the sta-tus of an IDP may also separate thedisplaced from their co-citizens and,far from preventing discrimination,may actually give rise to it.

The paper of which this is a summaryexplores the outcome and unintendedconsequences of applying the IDP cat-egory in situations of prolongeddisplacement in Sri Lanka. It particu-larly discusses the situation of thenorthern Muslims who were expelledfrom their homes in the north by theLiberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam(LTTE) in 1990 and who have sincelived as IDPs in the North WesternProvince.

There is a myriad of institutions, committees and organisations work-ing with displacement and assistinggroups of IDPs in Sri Lanka. There aretwo dominant understandings of whatan IDP is: firstly, IDP is understood asa ‘category of need’ and, secondly,IDPs are regarded as being only tem-porarily present at the place ofdisplacement.

These two understandings have impli-cations for the situation of theinternally displaced and their hosts.They contribute to making stereo-types and standardised images of thepeople connected with the IDP catego-ry and express power relations thatlead to processes of exclusion andinclusion. In contrast to many otherimpoverished people, those includedin the IDP category are entitled toassistance.

However, host populations, who areclosely affected by forced migration,are often overlooked. They may nothave had to move but welcominglarge groups of forced migrants maycreate considerable burdens and bringdramatic change to their lives. TheIDP category contributes to the con-ceptual and actual separation of hostpopulations from forced migrationprocesses and their non-recognitionby humanitarian agencies. The exclu-sion of some groups strengthensidentities and consolidates differ-ences between those who are includedand those excluded from a category.Such identity formations may giverise to the kind of anti-IDP antago-nism or hostility which is oftenexpressed by host populations in SriLanka.

Another process of inclusion andexclusion is related to the securing ofrights for IDPs. Categorising someoneas an IDP tends to exclude her or himfrom some citizenship rights. In pro-tracted situations of displacement theIDP status of displaced populationsseems to create a state of permanentimpermanence: they are out of placeand only waiting to return to theirhome place – an attitude often advo-cated by Sri Lankan authoritieswanting to return the displaced inorder to restore the apparently pre-existing ethnic balance. However,during this waiting game IDPs are not

regarded as local citizens of the placewhere they live and consequently areexcluded from rights enjoyed by theirco-habitants – their hosts. In the caseof Sri Lanka, these include rights toproperty, political freedom andemployment.

Of the many dilemmas involved inworking with protracted internal dis-placement, a crucial one is the makingof the category of internal displace-ment. Clearly, we do need categoriesand definitions of internal displace-ment if we are to assist people.Categories are vital to avoid the nor-malisation and passive acceptance offorced migration, to distinguishbetween forced and voluntary migra-tion and to highlight the injusticemeted out to the millions of forcedmigrants in the world. As researcherson internal displacement, one of ourkey roles should be to discuss theunintended consequences of cate-gories and the way labelling affectspeople’s lives and to work to improvesystems of categorisation.

Cathrine Brun is a Post DoctoralFellow at the Department ofGeography and the NTNUResearch Group on ForcedMigration. Email: [email protected]

Permanent impermanence: dilemmas of long-term displacement in Sri Lanka

by Cathrine Brun

As researchers, one of our roles should be to challengetaken-for-granted attitudes and policies related to internal displacement.

H


ince the General Assemblyapproved UNHCR’s establish-ment, it has on several

occasions passed resolutions extend-ing UNHCR’s mandate to facilitateassistance for people displaced withinthe region of their own domicile.

When the then UN Secretary-Generalinvited UNHCR in 1991 to "assist inbringing relief to needy internally dis-placed persons affected by theconflict" in Yugoslavia, this was justi-fied in terms of "helping to avoid thefurther displacement of population."Kofi Annan subsequently noted thatproviding protection and developmentsupport for IDPs is "a humanitarianissue that falls between the gaps ofexisting mandates of the differentagencies."

While the Geneva Conventions of1949 and the additional protocols of1977 are the primary basis by whichIDPs are encompassed within thesphere of international humanitarianlaws, these regulations were estab-lished for people in conflict situationsduring an era when conventional warwas the standard. Yet the current IDPcrisis results from conflicts that arebeyond the boundaries of previousrules and laws. Since the end of theCold War we have seen mass displace-ment carried out by the verygovernments supposedly responsiblefor the protection and welfare of theircitizens. Subject to harassment andhuman rights abuse, IDPs are oftenutilised in conflict as a shield forinsurgent activities.

Constrained by its formal mandate,UNHCR is unable to render expedi-tious, long or short-term aid to IDPs

without specificallyreceiving temporaryextensions of its mandatefrom the UN. While itsmandate is specifically ofa ‘non-political’ nature,UNHCR’s efforts to pro-vide effective protectionput the agency into directconflict with governmententities. Nowhere was thisbetter exemplified, or theconsequences so grave, asin 1995 when Yugoslaviaenabled Serb forces toflout the UN Security CouncilResolution establishing Srebrenica asa safe haven and to subsequentlymurder 8,000 Muslims.

Since his mandate was established in1993, Francis Deng, the SecretaryGeneral’s Special Representative onInternally Displaced Persons, hasshown that IDP populations comprisea unique, and often marginalised, sec-tion of war-affected populations andthat gaps and grey areas in interna-tional humanitarian law prevent theinternational community from meet-ing their particular requirements.

Are we any closer to moving towardsthe goal set out by Sadako Ogata in1994 that we need convergence ofrefugee law, international humanrights law and international humani-tarian law in order to better protectthe internally displaced? Momentumseems to have been lost. RuudLubbers, the current HighCommissioner, has suggested thatdue to severe funding constraints anddonor fatigue UNHCR should focus onits traditional role, rather than pursuethe option of becoming the institu-

tional focus of IDP support and pro-tection.

In former Yugoslavia, Western govern-ments assigned UNHCR funds tosupport IDP populations not frompurely humanitarian motives, but toencourage containment (refugee pre-vention) by assisting the dispossessedwithin their own territory in order tostop them adding to the alreadyheavy refugee and asylum flows. IfUNHCR were to be generally entrustedwith the overall care of IDPs, it wouldhave an international obligation to ren-der assistance prior to the fact andavoid as many refugee situations aspossible. This obligation to the inter-national community should overridethe lack of any formal mandate andjustify UNHCR’s mission within a sov-ereign territory.

Maria Camilleri is a Ph.Dstudent at the London Schoolof Economics. Email: [email protected]

Refugees in all but name?Should UNHCR’s mandate offer protection to IDPs?

by Maria Camilleri

UNHCR’s mandate does not specificallyrefer to IDPs per se – hardly surprising, asthe IDP concept was not in existence whenthe agency was established.

S


an Kurdish IDPs return fromthe cities to which they fled?What strategies are needed to

help displaced Kurds resume disrupt-ed livelihoods? How can Kurdishwomen be empowered to play a majorrole in reconstruction?

Internal displacement in Turkey tookplace as a result of:

! revenge attacks from securityforces attacked by the KurdistanWorker’s Party (PKK)

! flight born of fear of attack bythe security forces or PKK

! forcible evacuation for reasons of‘military security’

! villagers escaping pressure to joinpro-government village guards

! abuses of power by village guardsusing violence to settle old dis-putes

! state-imposed embargoes ondelivery of food and medicine

! military closure of areas neededfor grazing

IDPs have neither received compensa-tion, been allowed to return to theirvillages nor been given the choice ofsettling in a new locality of their ownchoosing. Given the discriminationthey face, only some 20% of IDPs havethought it worth taking formal legalsteps against injustices suffered and amere 0.2% have won a ruling in theirfavour. The majority of IDPs – facingproblems of chronic unemployment,health, nutrition, shelter, safety, dis-crimination, police harassment anddenial of access to public services –would like to leave urban shanties andreturn to their villages. However, thestructural reasons leading to displace-

ment remain in place. The Turkishstate is still unable to develop ademocratic political response to theKurdish issue.

Current efforts to address the KurdishIDP problem are not meeting with suc-cess. Focused on the integration ofIDPs into local economies, resettle-ment in model villages and thedevelopment of a modern agro-indus-try in Kurdish populated areas, theyare derived from the dominant mod-ernisation paradigm which views theeconomy in Kurdish-populatedregions as characterised by ruralbackwardness. Conventional plansignore gender issues and the multifac-eted survival strategies employed bydisplaced Kurdish women before andafter their flight. They can offer littlemore than a limited range of low-pay-ing jobs for a skilled population whoinstead deserve the chance to usetheir capacities to become economicactors in their own development. IDPswill continue to constitute a cheap,unskilled labour force for the urbaninformal sector.

The centre-piece of state-led develop-ment plans is the massive SoutheastAnatolian Project (GAP) to construct aseries of hydroelectric dams and toopen new areas for irrigation, thussupposedly encouraging the cultiva-tion of high value, globally marketableproducts. GAP is controversial. Thescheme has embarked on a few pilotprojects to assist those newly dis-placed by dam construction but iscompletely ignoring the needs of thefar greater number of local peoplepreviously displaced by conflict anddiscriminatory policies. GAP has led

to the loss of productive fertile landand forests. The project only pays lipservice to participatory rhetoric.Forced migration will continue torecur in Turkey, and cannot bereversed, until there is a decisive shiftaway from the authoritarian and mili-tarist system (that finds itsarticulation in the 1980 constitution),the systematic ethnic discriminationpractised by the security courts, dra-conian emergency laws, unpunishedabuses of human rights and denial ofthe right of democratic organisation.

A participatory research project weare developing – working with IDPs ina number of urban settings – aims tomake a modest contribution topolitical and economic democracy in

Internal displacement and gendered economic strategies in Turkey

by Esra Erdem, Neçet Özevin and Ceren Özselçuk

Between 1984 and 1999 continuous low-intensity conflict between Turkish security forces and Kurdishinsurgents in south-east Turkey led to the evacuation ofaround 3,500 Kurdish villages and produced one of theworld’s largest IDP populations – estimated by NGOsat around three million.

C


uring flight their health isendangered by extremes oftemperature, lack of shelter,

food and clean water and physicaland psychological stress. The WHOprinciples of primary health care canbe used for medical evaluation andfor designing relevant health servicesthat should be provided to displacedpopulations.

During a two-month stay at an ICRCreferral clinic for Kurdish refugees innorthern Iran in 1991, evaluation ofthe causes for referral of patients tosecond line health care producedevidence of the great strains sufferedby the displaced. Before tents weredistributed patients had had toremain outside for three days in coldand rainy weather. Mothers lost theirmilk and women had abortions duringtheir flight.

Our team of six members – three doc-tors, a midwife and two nurses – ran areferral clinic for 80,000 refugees andtreated 120-160 outpatients and 20-30 inpatients per day. Many of thosehospitalised were severely ill. Theharsh conditions caused a substantialrise in morbidity and mortality mainlycaused by respiratory tract infection,diarrhoeal disease and malnutrition.In the unhygienic conditions in thecamps, scabies and epidemics oftyphoid fever and cholera broke out.The rise in crude mortality rate dur-ing the first weeks of displacementgradually declined.

Achieving WHO’s goal of‘Health for all’ necessitatesprovision of primary healthcare (PHC) which covers thebasic health needs of a com-munity at an affordable cost.PHC as advocated by theWHO, has eight elements:education; local disease control; the ExpandedProgramme of Immunisation(EPI); maternal and childhealth and family planning;essential drugs; nutrition;treatment of diseases andsafe water and sanitation.

A timely and effective meansof rapid delivery of PHC todisplaced populations is theNorwegian Mobile Medical Aid Systemdeveloped by the Norwegian JointMedical Military Services. The aim isto expeditiously reach such vulnerablegroups as women and children andreduce rates of under-five and mater-nal mortality. The different modulesin the system – a doctor's office,surgery, maternity, rehydration/nutri-tion, vaccination and laboratoryfacilities and drugs – can provide ser-vices up to the level of hospital care.It is made available to the UN andother humanitarian organisations bythe Norwegian Ministry of ForeignAffairs and may be prepared fordeparture from an international air-port within a few hours.

Clearly the most vulnerable groups ina displaced population are small chil-dren and pregnant and lactatingwomen. To reduce mortality inrefugee emergencies, emergency PHCteams with specialist expertise in pae-diatrics, gynaecology and obstetricsshould be ready to assist. We mustnot forget that successful emergencyinterventions depend on socio-geographic mapping prior to theemergency and on medical intelli-gence based on a needs approach inthe acute and post emergency phaseof a disaster.

Rannveig Bremer Fjær is a paedi-atrician working with the JointMedical Services, NorwegianDefence Forces. Email: [email protected]

Providing health services to the displacedby Rannveig Bremer Fjær

Displaced people are vulnerable because theirresources have been depleted by war, conflictor natural disasters.

D

Turkey. We want to get away fromnarratives and practices based onpowerlessness, to give IDPs in Turkeyan economic voice by repositioningthem as skilled economic actors oper-ating within the context of dynamiccommunity economies, to documenttheir gendered capabilities and to

actively involve them in the process ofdeveloping emancipatory economicalternatives at the local level.

Esra Erdem and Ceren Özselçukare attached to the Department ofEconomics, University ofMassachusetts at Amherst, USA.

Emails: [email protected] [email protected]

Neçet Özevin works for theFederation of Progressive People'sAssociations, Berlin. Email: [email protected]


Obstacles to implementing the GuidingPrinciples in Sri Lanka

by Danesh Jayatilaka

ethods used included advo-cacy work at central govern-ment level in Colombo,

training workshops, leaflet/posterdissemination, formation of districtmonitoring working groups, consulta-tions, listening to IDP focus groupsand participatory evaluation assess-ments. When the project began therewere 492 government-run IDP welfarecamps across the island. One in threeinhabitants of the Northern regionwas displaced.

Populations at risk have got used topre-emptive flight, reacting to warn-ings of attacks to come and knowingfrom bitter experience the conditionsto expect when fighting breaks out.For some Sri Lankans in the conflict-torn sector, flight has become asroutine as making a pot of rice or cupof tea. Many have been coerced intorelocation – the forceful eviction ofthe entire Muslim population from theNorth by the Liberation Tigers ofTamil Eelam (LTTE) in 1990 – or fleden masse when trapped between thegovernment and LTTE. The average SriLankan IDP has been displaced atleast five times. State, UN and non-governmental agencies may haveprovided assistance to mitigate theeffects of conflict but have beenunable to prevent displacements fromhappening in the first place.

By listening to the displaced, the pro-ject’s researchers produced evidencethat IDPs:

! are irked by frequent impositionof senseless and often counter-productive restrictions onmovement: people feel trappedinside a cage and unable toaccess health, education, labourand livelihood opportunities

! constantly live in fear: threats ofdeath, assault and torture arecommon and camp managers arefrequently not informed of thefate of residents who have beendetained

! are often too frightened to lodgecomplaints about human rightsviolations to the ICRC or theHuman Rights Commission

! live in congested living quarterswith resultant high rates of fami-ly breakup, extramarital affairs,incest, suicide and other traumas

! are vulnerable to having theirchildren forcibly recruited bymilitias and home guards andespecially by the LTTE for theirchild brigades

! from Sinhala villages in borderareas are frequently attacked inreprisal and ethnic cleansing raidsby the LTTE: the plight of the sig-nificantly large Sinhala IDP groupgoes largely unnoticed by theexisting humanitarian structure

! are at considerable risk from theminefields planted by the armyand the LTTE and from unexplod-ed ordnance

! are inconvenienced by deliverydelays, irregularities and diver-sion of food rations

! have to put up with water andsanitation facilities which arebelow Sphere minimum standards:toilets and hand pumps remainun-repaired and latrines are notpumped out due to lack of man-agement and maintenance

! are discriminated against by thestaff of government hospitalsbecause of inadequate facilitiesand difficult working conditionsfaced by doctors and nurses

! are constrained from accessingservices or passing throughcheckpoints by lack of docu-mentation

! have been ‘encouraged’ to ‘return’to areas not of their own choos-ing by reductions in welfareprovision or intimidatory troopmovements

! feel that dialogue initiated bygovernment only pays lip serviceto participation and consultation.

In order to cease discriminationagainst IDPs on grounds of ethnicityor status, we need to:

! encourage a radical paradigmshift in attitude to promote trans-parency, information sharing andcollaborative management andpartnership between programmeadministrators and recipients

! stop preparing policies in haste ! do more to sensitise local popula-

tions to the problems faced byIDPs

! openly discuss how settlementprojects affect the overall dynam-ics of the conflict in order thatmicro and macro perspectivesfeed into national systems andfuture policies

! give greater attention to meetingthe particular needs of elderlyand disabled IDPs

! do more to overcome proceduralobstacles to providing IDPs withrecognised documentation.

Danesh Jayatilaka worked as theProject Coordinating Officer forSri Lanka’s Consortium ofHumanitarian Agencies. Web: www.humanitarian-srilanka.org Email: [email protected]@hotmail.com

In 2001, prior to the current cessation of hostilities, theConsortium of Humanitarian Agencies in Sri Lanka,in collaboration with UNHCR and the Brookings-SAIS Project on Internal Displacement, embarked ona programme to operationalise the Guiding Principlesin order to enhance protection and assistance for theestimated 0.8m IDPs in the north and east of theisland.

M


hat methodological prob-lems inhibit psychologicalresearch on trauma in

Africa and the relevance of the mean-ing that the continent’s 12 millionIDPs individually and collectivelyattribute to their experience?

The experience of internal displace-ment is an extraordinary lifeexperience, often shared collectively,and is capable of causing in any per-son a wide range of physical andpsychological suffering and disability.Many researchers into symptoms oftraumatisation in societies in conflictroutinely diagnose post-traumaticstress disorder (PTSD). They usechecklists or questionnaires whichoften produce dubious statistics suggesting states of mass trauma. A survey among a random sample ofcommunity members in Sierra Leonewent so far as to suggest that only 1%were not suffering from war-relatedPTSD.

We should remember that:

! Endorsement of psychologicalsymptoms on a checklist neednot necessarily mean that thesesymptoms have a salient meaningfor survivors: respondents whosetrauma checklist scores are saidto exceed commonly-used cut-points may, nevertheless,continue to function well in theirdaily lives.

! While symptoms of distress suchas sadness, depressive symptoms,feelings of social isolation andsleep problems often exist, mostof the time among IDPs there is asense of resiliency and a desire toregain control of their lives.

! For some IDPs the most traumaticevent in their lives is not internaldisplacement per se but subse-

quent changes in family function-ing, inability to find employment,poverty or political frustration.

! Whereas previously IDPs mighthave framed their experiences inreligious, legal or ideologicalterms, framing has becomechiefly psychological due to theinfusion of psychological termi-nology into popular discourse.

! The assumption that internaldisplacement not only causessuffering but necessarily resultsin psychiatric disturbance risksvictimising and pathologisingsurvivors by framing them aspsychiatric cases passively depen-dent on the ministrations ofmental health practitioners.

! The assumption that verbalisa-tion of emotions is integral to theamelioration of psychologicaldistress may be inaccurate – inMozambique, for example, silenceabout the past has in someinstances become an importantway of coping.

! Psychological interventions thatencourage cathartic expressionmay be misplaced and even exac-erbate some psychologicalsymptoms.

! Questions posed by an evaluatormay sensitise respondents to thenature of the disorder that isbeing assessed, resulting in theirendorsement of symptoms byvirtue of what is perceived asbeing expected, rather thanphenomenological experience.

! In many contexts where peopleare affected by violations ofhuman rights, political turbulenceor severe social stressors,researchers may be seen as tryingto capitalise on such experiencesin order to study these pheno-mena.

We need to move from a unidimen-sional psychiatric analysis of theeffects of internal displacementtowards a broader and indigenousparadigm. In order to be respectful,empathic and non-pathologising,researchers require new skills in orderto convey empathy without projectinga sense of pathology onto the respon-dent. There is an ongoing need forresearch that takes into account localcontexts through the collaborativeefforts between mental health profes-sionals, relief workers, academicresearchers and, most importantly,IDPs themselves. Methodologicalapproaches that consider local con-texts and personal meanings of IDPsare likely to yield important data indetermining the psychosocial needsof the displaced.

Shaheen Ashraf Kagee is anAssociate Professor at theDepartment of Psychology,University of Stellenbosch,South Africa. Web: www.sun.ac.za/psychologyEmail: [email protected]

Arancha Garcia Del Soto isDirector of Refugee Initiativesat the Solomon Asch Centre,University of Pennsylvania. Web: www.psych.upenn.edu/sacsec Email: [email protected]

Taking issue with traumaby Ashraf Kagee and Arancha Garcia Del Soto

Do psychiatrists understand the consequences of theviolence and human rights abuses suffered by IDPs?What happens when the hegemonic Western psychi-atric model of traumatisation is applied to IDPs?

W


he CHT, which is the singlelargest forest-clad area ofBangladesh, owes much of its

economic value to the role given bythe British to the Chakmas, the largestgroup of Jummas, in commercialforestry.

The first displacement of Chakmas,and tensions between the Buddhistlocal population and Muslim incom-ers, occurred when the newly-established East Pakistan Governmentdammed the Karnafuli river to gener-ate hydro-electric power. Despitegovernment efforts to provide arableland to the 100,000 people displaced,many Chakmas were unable to main-

tain traditional livelihoods. Chakmaslost political influence after their tra-ditional leader supported Pakistan inBangladesh’s war of independence.The new constitution of Bangladeshmade no provision for Jummademands for autonomous rule. Byrecognising the rights of allBangladeshis to free movement andsettlement within all parts of thecountry’s boundary, it encouragedmigration to the CHT of Bengali-speaking Muslims from the country’soverpopulated plains.

By the early 1980s migrants com-prised almost half the CHTpopulation. In response, the increas-ingly alienated tribals formed a rebelorganisation to protect their interests.Indian media highlighting of theplight of Chakma families facing the‘atrocities’ of the Bangladesh armyand support given by Bangladesh torebel tribal groups in north-east Indiaadded to tension. In 1977 the firstexodus of displaced Chakma acrossthe border into the Indian state ofTripura took place. As the plight ofthe Chakmas became internationallyknown in the 1980s, and the Chakmaexiles assimilated to the cultures ofthe peoples of Tripura, they faced thepredicament of whether to definethemselves as Indians or as refugees.

In the early nineties India andBangladesh began discussing repatria-tion of the Chakma refugees. Despitethe goodwill and cooperation of bothgovernments the process of repatria-tion was slow moving. The 1996election victory of Sheikh Hasina’sAwami League inaugurated a new erain India-Bangladesh relations and ledto the signing of the CHT peaceaccord in December 1997. It wasagreed that refugees could return andthat devolution would give new

powers to the indigenous residents ofCHT.

This has not happened. Bangladesh’sfailure to honour the accord hasdashed hopes of an end to the traumaof the Chakmas. Forcibly repatriatedto Bangladesh, the Chakmas foundthemselves unable to reclaim housesand farms taken over by BengaliMuslims enjoying army and govern-ment protection. Bangladesh hasunilaterally imposed its own defini-tion and enumeration of IDPs. Thearmy has failed to honour commit-ments to withdraw from tribal areas.A commission set up to investigateland expropriation grievances hasbecome moribund as unfavourabletop-down adjudication of land dis-putes in favour of the powerfulremains the norm.

Three decades after their first dis-placement, more than 60,000Chakmas and other Jummas are stillIDPs. Low-intensity conflict charac-terised by terrorist attacks continuesin the CHT. People of goodwill need tocome together, supported by theinternational community, to end abus-es of human rights and displacementin this strategic area of the Indiansub-continent on which the peace andsecurity of other South Asian statesand peoples depend.

Rajesh Kharat is a Reader inPolitics at the University ofMumbai, India. Email: [email protected]

IDPs to refugees to IDPs: the trauma of Bangladesh’s Chakmas

by Rajesh S KharatThe Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), located in south-eastern Bangladesh between India and Burma, arecomprised of jungles inhabited by non-Bengali ethnicminorities known collectively as Jummas. Formerly apart of East Pakistan, it become a part ofBangladesh in 1971.

TU

ND

P D

haka

/Ban

glad

esh


ow have women’s lives, liveli-hoods and coping strategieschanged by the inundation

caused by the construction ofZambia’s Kariba Dam and the SardarSarovar Project (SSP) on India’sNarmada river? Have women benefit-ted from resettlement programmesand been adequately compensated forloss of access to forests, land andother common property resources? IsWorld Bank resettlement policy asgender-sensitive as it purports to be?

Answers are sought within the frame-work of the impoverishment risk andreconstruction (IRR) model formulat-ed by Michael M Cernea. The IRRmodel identifies the major risk fac-tors that cause impoverishmentfollowing involuntary resettlement:landlessness, joblessness, loss ofaccess to common property resources,community disarticulation, marginali-sation, food insecurity, homelessnessand increased morbidity.

The two development-induced dis-placement and resettlement (DIDR)case studies are separated in time andplace. The Kariba hydroelectric pro-ject, completed in 1963, is one of theearliest dams commissioned by theWorld Bank. Designed to exploit theregion’s industrial potential, the damdisplaced about 56,000 people on theZambezi River’s Zambian bank and31,000 on the Zimbabwean side. TheSSP, the largest and the most expen-sive dam of the Narmada ValleyDevelopment Project, has displacedthe residents of the valley since themid 1980s.

The key principles driving the WorldBank policy on involuntary resettle-ment are to:

! avoid and minimise involuntaryresettlement wherever possibleand explore viable alternatives

! identify trade-offs between damheight and the amount of popula-tion displacement planned

! see resettlement as an opportuni-ty for development where livingstandards can be improved or atleast restored to their currentstandards of living

! consider social factors as anintrinsic part of technical evalua-tion studies during the cost-benefit analysis of a project.

Research findings highlight the mar-ginalisation of displaced people as aconsequence of these and other DIDRprojects. They show that:

! those displaced are worse offthan they used to be

! transforming farmers and fisher-men into wage labourers cannotbe described as ‘resettlement’

! unequal compensation paymentshave violated principles of equityand divided hitherto interdepen-dent communities

! resettlement policies have beenstate-driven and not involvedgenuine participation of thosedisplaced

! the suffering of women in partic-ular and families in general hasnot been mitigated either in thecase of the SSP or the earlierKariba project: post-Kariba WorldBank’s guidelines have not mademuch difference

! in India the worst burden hasfallen on women in adivasi(tribal) families

! although they have evolved overthe years World Bank DIDR guide

lines have failed to have a trans-formatory potential or a positiveimpact on women’s lives in termsof access to improved infrastruc-ture or land rights.

When the resettlement of the KaribaDam took place, DIDR discourse paidlittle attention to concerns for genderequity and justice. By the time of theSSP resettlement this was no longerthe case. However, despite growingawareness about social justice by theWorld Bank policy, the distributionaland gendered impact was no better.Equitable outcomes to forced dis-placement in the name of progresscan only be achieved if resettlementpolicies and their implementation aregender sensitive and work towardswomen’s empowerment.

Renu Modi teaches at theDepartment of African Studies,University of Mumbai, India.Email: [email protected]

Gender and development-induced displacement: case studies from Zambia and India

by Renu Modi

While we are becoming aware of the impact of largedams on the lives of marginal peoples, do we knowenough about the different effects on men and women?

H

For further analysis of devel-

opment-induced displacement,

see Forced Migration Review 12

the International Network on

Displacement and Resettle-

ment (www.displacement.net)

and the Friends of River

Narmada (www.narmada.org).


ow can war-affected areas ofEthiopia meet the challengesof post-war recovery at the

household and community level inorder to enable an effective return toproductive and secure lives?

Women and children comprise threequarters of those displaced. Many aremalnourished, have untreatedinjuries, are without productive assetsand are forced to live in makeshiftcamps and caves. They have lost bothlivelihoods and dignity. Their childrenno longer attend school.

While around 70% of IDPs have beenable to return home since the signingof the Algiers peace agreement inDecember 2000, full resumption ofagricultural production is still limitedby lack of adequate inputs, proximityto areas which have not been de-mined, unexploded ordinance andlack of shelter in communities whereoriginal housing was destroyed.

Food assistance has been provided bythe World Food Programme andUSAID and other donors have lentfunds to enable repair of damagedinfrastructure and restoration ofgovernment services. NGOs haveadditionally provided medicine,clothing, blankets, plastic sheeting,building materials and safe water.As food needs increase elsewhere inEthiopia, WFP is under pressure toend food assistance to IDPs.

Among the key challenges fac-ing displaced communities, theEthiopian authorities and theinternational community are:

! painfully slow progress inclearing the one millionanti-personnel and anti-tankmines planted on 100,000hectares of land along the border

! the continuing closure of theEthiopian-Eritrean border due toongoing tension and failure tosettle outstanding border demar-cation issues

! inability of communities toresume the cross-border tradewhich previously constituted amajor source of income on whichthe livelihoods of large numbersof households depended

! the prevalence of HIV/AIDS,spread throughout war-affectedareas by the high concentrationof military personnel and com-mercial sex workers andincreased high risk behaviouramong IDPs

! lack of alternative income oppor-tunities for displaced women leftwith no choice except to engagein prostitution.

There is an urgent need to:

! increase and accelerate deminingprogrammes

! make more rapid progress onfinal demarcation of the disputedborder

! initiate and fund peace, reconcili-ation and confidence-buildingprogrammes

! provide IDPs with counselling andvocational training to help thembecome more self-reliant

! continue provision of food aid toIDPs until they are able to startearning an income

! address the particular rehabilita-tion needs of such vulnerablegroups within IDP populations asfemale-headed households.

Tamirat Mulu works in theEmergency Response Departmentof USAID, Ethiopia. Web: www.usaidethiopia.org Email: [email protected]

Challenges of rehabilitation of IDPs innorthern Ethiopia

by Tamirat Mulu

The border conflict that erupted in May 1998along the thousand-kilometre border betweenEthiopia and Eritrea left behind a legacy of dis-placement, insecurity, damaged publicinfrastructure and the loss of household assetsand livelihoods of more than 300,000 IDPs anda further 95,000 Ethiopians forced to leaveEritrea.

H


n recent years, the forced removalof people from their homes inblack townships has resumed.

This time round it is justified by adesire to improve living conditionsfor those affected. Could displace-ment of people to areas which offer abetter quality of life contribute toenvironmental justice? Or do therationales for removals in a democrat-ic South Africa fail to stand up toscrutiny?

Unlike officially defined IDPs, thevictims of apartheid-era removals toblack ‘homelands’ were not eligiblefor any assistance, despite the heavylosses they incurred. In urban areas,policies regarding non-whites as tem-porary residents resulted in themushrooming of informal settlementsthat today pose a serious challenge toideals of a healthy environment.

The question of compensation tovictims of apartheid-era removals hascome to the fore. The post-apartheidconstitution provides a right to landrestitution. If the primary aim ofrestoring land rights is not achievable,consideration is given to providingalternative land, payment of compen-sation and priority access togovernment housing and land devel-opment programmes. However, theprocess is bogged down as mostAfricans were not registered at thetime of removal. With only a handful

able to return to original land, theproblem of how to improve theenvironmental conditions of vic-tims of forced removals remainsunresolved.

Virtually every government initia-tive in South Africa is presented asnecessary for addressing the legacyof apartheid. When it forcibly relo-cated people from the Johannes-burg township of Alexandra in2001, the Gauteng provincial gov-ernment argued that their removalwas a means of helping thoseneglected by successive white minori-ty governments and creating a healthyenvironment in which residents wouldbe spared risks from cholera andflooding. The fact that many weresimply dumped on the veldt withoutfacilities led critics – including theSouth African Human RightsCommission – to cite comparisonswith apartheid-era removals.Subsequent research shows that onegroup of those removed feels they arenow living in a healthier and prefer-able environment, while anotherresents their displacement. Such find-ings are typical of such cases ofdevelopment-induced displacement.

South Africa is failing to sufficientlyaddress the plight of those living in‘areas beyond repair’. As South Africagrapples with the vexed question ofhow to work towards improving the

quality of people and their environ-ment, we need to ask whetherremoving people is a viable optionand to consider the implications.Progressive researchers must assistthe search for policies to secure theimprovement of the quality of life ofthose removed. The unfulfilled aspira-tions for justice and a better qualityof life of the estimated 3.5 millionpeople forcibly removed by theapartheid regime remind us that weneed mechanisms to address theneeds of IDPs long after their dis-placement has occurred.

Maano Ramutsindela is a Lecturerat the Department of Environ-mental and Geographical Science,University of Cape Town. Web: www.uct.ac.za Email: [email protected]

Forced removals in South Africa: a thing of the past?

by Maano Ramutsindela

Under apartheid, South Africa witnessed massivepolitically-motivated displacements, condemned bythe UN as crimes against humanity.

I

reviewThe leading international forum on refugee and internal displacement issues.

Full text of all FMR articles on IDP and refugee issues is available online at: www.fmrview.orgFree subscriptions are available to residents of the South and students.FMR is also published in Arabic (www.hijra.org.uk) and Spanish (www.migracionesforzadas.org)

For further information, email: [email protected]

he Macedonian constitutionand national legislation guaran-tee the right to asylum and

provide procedures for refugee deter-mination. Criteria for acquisition ofrefugee status are in line with the1951 Convention as well as the 1967Protocol.

Macedonia has hosted refugees sincethe early 1990s when 32,000 Bosniansand Croatians sought shelter fromconflict in the former Yugoslavia. InMay 1999 some 360,000 Kosovarssought protection in Macedonia andwere offered the status of temporaryhumanitarian assisted persons(THAPs). NGOs provided free legal aidto Kosovar refugees to assist them inregistration and document issuanceand worked with UNHCR and IOM toassist those seeking repatriation orthird-country resettlement. NGOs alsoran campaigns to inform refugees oftheir rights.

Humanitarian evacuation was initiallyexercised as a means of reducing thehuge number of refugees who arrivedin Macedonia. Resettlement to safethird countries was carried out:

! to facilitate family reunification! to send a refugee to medical

treatment abroad (if he or shecould not get an appropriatemedical treatment in Macedonia)

! to protect a refugee whose physi-cal security is endangered inMacedonia

In 2001 ethnic conflict in Macedonialed to the displacement of some140,000 people. Ethnic Albanians fledSkopje while Macedonians fled fromTetovo and Aracinovo. A considerablenumber of houses were damaged ordestroyed. There was a danger thatthe country would split into two eth-nic enclaves. Most IDPs sheltered withrelatives and had better access tofood, hygiene and medical suppliesthan those forced to live in collectivecentres. A small number – dubbed‘micro-IDPs’ by the American RedCross – continued to commute towork but did not return to their ownhomes at night.

After the crisis was resolved by theinternationally-brokered OhridFramework Agreement signed inAugust 2001, preconditions werecreated for the return of IDPs andorganised reconstruction of damagedand destroyed property. In April 2003it was reported that some 137,000IDPs had gone home, with a further3,000 still unable to do so due toongoing security concerns and delaysin repair of housing. The MacedonianRed Cross and NGOs have providedhumanitarian assistance to IDPs andthe Ministry of Health free health ser-vices to IDPs. UNHCR and bilateraldonors have provided funds, whichhave enabled returning families toreceive financial and material supportto rebuild their houses.

UNHCR has played a key role in facili-tating IDP returns, building

confidence in the peace process andencouraging a climate of trust andreconciliation. It has promoted free-dom of movement in ex-conflict zonesby providing bus services, supportedpsychosocial activities for IDPs, pro-vided winter clothing, firewood andrepairing heating systems in collectivecentres and administered infrastruc-ture projects to restore livelihoods inconflict-affected areas.

The key lessons that can be drawnfrom Macedonia’s success in facilitat-ing the return of significant refugeeand IDP populations are that:

! Adequate support must besecured from communities pre-pared to accept displaced people.

! Neither military action norhumanitarian assistance can sub-stitute for political action totackle inequities at the heart ofconflict.

! Careful planning is needed toensure successful resettlement.

Aleksandar Shumkovski works atthe Centre for Refugees andForced Migration Studies, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University,Skopje, Macedonia. Web: www.crfms.org.mk Email: [email protected]


Refugees and IDPs in Macedonia: successful returns

by Aleksandar Shumkovski

Recently Macedonia has hosted large numbers of refugees fleeing conflict informer Yugoslavia while also dealing with major internal displacement generated by ethnic conflict.

T

The full texts of the articles summarised in this report are available

online at: www.idp.ntnu.no/conference/


hy are certain categories ofpeople excluded? How dothe double standards in

international refugee law affect Africa’s13.5m IDPs? Can state and non-stateactors in Africa work to build a credi-ble IDP protection regime?

The IDP problem-solution modelseeks a holistic and a critical examina-tion of issues of the internallydisplaced as well as participatorysolutions methods. It operates on thepremise that states, humanitarianagencies, NGOs, non-state combatants,policy makers, researchers and acade-mics may be worsening the socio-economic situation of IDPs bydestroying their dignity and self-confi-dence. Many African states deny theexistence of internal displacement.The Chad-Cameroon pipeline projectprovides an example of how state-driven development projects causedisplacement which is ignored: nei-ther government is prepared toacknowledge the displacement it hascaused and the existence of IDPs.In Zimbabwe – as in many countries –state censorship constrains mediacoverage of displacement for fear thisencourages human rights critics andtarnishes the country’s image. Aiddeliveries to opposition strongholdshave been hindered.

Among the many complications inprotecting African IDPs or providingthem with humanitarian assistanceare:

! the fact that IDP conferences areorganised in settings which denyparticipants opportunities to livethe experiences of IDPs: IDPs arerarely included in conferencesthat concern their issues andstate and non-state actors rou-tinely speak on their behalf

! the role of donors in shaping theacademic research agenda

! the absence of clear proceduralmandates on the protection andassistance to IDPs

! the failure of researchers to meetthe challenge of determining thenumbers of IDPs in need ofassistance

! the danger that concern for ethicscan lead researchers not to askrelevant questions.

Burden sharing is fast becoming bur-den shifting. Responsibility sharing isgradually becoming irresponsibilitysharing and commitment is givingway to non-commitment to protectthe displaced. It is essential that:

! African states sign and respect allinternational human rights andhumanitarian laws and incorpo-rate them into national law

! African governments acknowl-edge the extent of displacementand do more to assess IDP needsand to deliver assistance request-ed by IDPs themselves

! regional groups cooperate toshare resources and improveburden sharing

! more be done to humanise rebelgroups and educate them aboutthe human rights of IDPs

! financial support to rebels beblocked

! academics and researchers thinkbeyond donor expectations whendeveloping research aims

! local actors play a greater role indistribution of aid supplies

! IDPs be encouraged to speak forthemselves and have input intopolicy formation

! support be given to programmeswhich draw on religious faith topromote reconciliation and reacti-vate a spirit of hope in IDPs.

Desire Timngum is a Ph.D studentat the Graduate School for theHumanities and Social Sciences,University of the Witwatersrand,South Africa. Email: [email protected]

The IDP problem in Africa: double standards?by Desire Timngum

IDP debates have focused more on the nature of protection rather than on imbalance between levels of assistance and protection provided to different groups.

W


hat ideological and politicalpurposes were served by thetransmigration policy? How

has the presence of transmigrants,mostly from Java, contributed to ten-sions, conflict, sectarianism anddisplacement? As current policyreforms promote decentralisation andregional autonomy, can local govern-ments cope with IDPs crises?

Transmigration’s goals were tostrengthen national security andimprove social welfare through open-ing up new areas of land. Themovement of people to outlying partsof the Indonesian archipelago fromover-populated Java – and to a lesserextent from the islands of Madura andBali – was justified in order to pro-mote goals of assimilation andnational building. National integration– an obsession of the ruling élitessince independence – has resulted inviewing heterogeneity as a threat tonational unity.

Transmigrasi aroused resentment aslocal populations found more fundsallocated to transmigration settle-ments than to non-transmigrant areas.Expenditure on road construction,schools, agricultural offices andhealth facilities was disproportionate-ly concentrated in transmigrationareas. Across the archipelago localsresented the extent to which incomersdominated civil service and local busi-ness and perceived developmentprojects as benefiting an exploitativecentral state.

In recent years a series of seeminglyintractable conflicts involving sepa-ratism, ethnicity and religion havechallenged the notion of national sov-ereignty and the nation state inIndonesia:

! In Irian Jaya/West Papua,migrants concentrated around thesite of a major copper mine are inconflict with indigenous peopleopposed to a project they see as

providing no benefits and as des-ecrating a sacred site.

! In Christian areas of Flores andWest Timor, conflict has flared atalleged outrages againstChristianity by Javanese migrants.

! In West and Central Kalimantan,Madurese migrants have been dis-placed by indigenous Dayaksprotesting alienation of the land,forests and rivers on which theirlivelihoods have traditionallydepended.

! In Ambon, ethnic and religiousconflicts between local Christiansand Butonese Muslim migrantsdeveloped into a wider communalconflict which soon spread toother islands in Maluku.

! In Aceh, as in West Papua, thecentral government has beenunable to contain the latentsecessionist movement.

The state has been unable to containthe economic downturn which hasincapacitated the state’s repressiveapparatus. Since the demise of theSuharto regime in 1998 the NewOrder’s hegemonic power to forcefullymould and unite the different aspira-tions of ethnic groups has collapsedas its basic economic foundationcould no longer be sustained. Longsuppressed latent conflicts havebegun to surface. Tensions due to

economic and political dominationover the local populations in theregions are now beyond the state’scontrol. The increasing incidence ofreturn migration to Java, Madura andBali and the more than one milliondislocated persons living in temporaryshelters throughout the countrydemonstrate that pluralism and socialcohesion are currently disintegratingin Indonesia.Tensions and conflicts betweenmigrant and local populations arelikely to greatly complicate implemen-tation of new regional autonomy laws– flawed legislation rushed onto thestatute books to bolster political sup-port for ex-President Habibie. Amidthe confusion, the move towardsregional autonomy is at risk of beingmanipulated by contending local andnational political actors and by thearmy which opposes the process.

Planning for regional developmentmust take a more comprehensiveapproach in which the achievement ofeconomic welfare should be accompa-nied by the fulfilment of the politicalaspirations and human rights of thelocal people. There is a risk, however,that enhancement of narrow ethno-territorial political identities isincompatible with the process ofstrengthening democracy and civilsociety and resolving crises of internaldisplacement.

Riwanto Tirtosudarmo is a SeniorResearcher at the IndonesianInstitute of Sciences. Email: [email protected]

Internal displacement in Indonesia: nation building gone wrong?

by Riwanto TirtosudarmoWhat are the ongoing consequences of the demo-graphic engineering carried out in Indonesia toimplement ex-President Suharto’s New Order?

W


y the end of 2002 it was esti-mated that some 1.42 millionhad been displaced and were

living scattered around the Indonesianarchipelago. Women and childrencomprise 70% of IDPs. Almost all ofthem have been through a long periodof forced migration before arriving atsafer locations.

Sampit is the major city in the Sambasregion of central Kalimantan provinceon the island of Borneo. The indige-nous population are Dayaks. Whilesome Dayaks are Muslim, the majorityretain their traditional religion. Livingalongside them are the descendantsof people who migrated to Kalimantanfrom the distant island of Madura atthe time of the Japanese invasion in1942. Madurese came to work aslabourers but the second and thirdgeneration have achieved success astraders and were comfortable living inthe multi-ethnic society of Sambas.Having been born in Sambas, mostMadurese regarded themselves aslocals. This is not the case with theMelayunese, Muslim immigrants fromthe island of Sumatra.

Conflict in Sampit erupted in February2001 and rapidly spread throughoutSambas, claiming the lives of peoplefrom all three ethnic groups.Madurese IDPs and their families havebeen traumatised by threats and vio-lence from the Dayak population.Many have moved outside Sambas toother towns in Kalimantan. Some havechosen to leave the island and havebeen encouraged to do so by the pro-vision of government transport totake them to the ‘home’ island ofMadura. While resettlement in Maduraseemed to be a sensible solution andthe IDPs were initially welcomed, seri-ous problems have arisen.

Although there has been considerablepublicity about the plight of MadureseIDPs little attention has been paid tomental health issues and to overcom-

ing the traumas and mistrust whichimpede hopes for reconciliation andmutual respect among different ethnicgroups.

My research, seven months after theirflight, sought to identify the sense ofethnic identity of Madurese IDPs whofled from Sambas after the riots. Allof the subjects were born in Sampit,attended school with Dayaks andMelayunese and speak a distinctivedialect of the Madurese language.Despite the fact that many fellowMadurese had lost their lives, theystill retained a sense of belonging toSambas and to Kalimantan. Manyhope they can return home, as theybelong to nowhere else. Those whohave lost relatives are more likely tobe resigned to living in Madura.

Many IDPs suffer from feelings ofhelplessness, depression, irritability,sleep disorders, alcoholism, addictionto gambling and post-traumatic stressdisorder. From being respectedtraders in Sampit, they have becomeanonymous. As one man told me:

"Now I’m not very respected anymore.People just see me as one of manyIDPs and they do not know who Iused to be." Children are less disci-plined and less respectful of authorityat home and in school.

Indonesia’s unstable and resource-starved government faces greatdifficulties in addressing the massiveproblem of internal displacement andis dependent on NGO assistance pro-grammes. Policy makers need tochallenge the idea behind theMadurese ‘resettlement’ – that IDPsshould be relocated to islands of ‘ori-gin’ where returnees share an ethnicidentity which will necessarily facili-tate their integration with residents.We need to remember that theprocesses of identity formation andthe manner in which values whichgive meaning to life are very complex.

Sherly Turnip is a student at theInternational Community HealthDepartment, University of Oslo.Email: [email protected]

Going home or going away from home?The dilemma of Madurese IDPs

by Sherly Saragih Turnip

Conflicts in several areas in Indonesia have displaced large numbers of people.

B


hese forced migrants areamong the most destitutepeople in Istanbul. Why were

they forced to migrate? How are theircircumstances different from econom-ic migrants? What are the forcedmigrants’ survival strategies?

Between 1984 and 2000, armed con-flict between the Kurdistan WorkersParty (PKK) and the Turkish armykilled more than 32,000 people andgenerated great social and economicupheaval. In conflict-affected areasindustrial and agricultural productioncame to a standstill. Significant causesof forced migration were forciblerecruitment of civilians as villageguards to fight the PKK and the state-sponsored depopulation of aroundthree thousand villages and hamlets(plus burning of homes and fields) inorder to deprive the PKK of logisticalsupport. Nearly three million peoplehave fled to the cities.

According to a report by HumanRights Watch in 1995, "the govern-ment’s counterinsurgency methodshave created a huge underclass ofembittered and impoverished internalrefugees, whose homes and liveli-hoods have been abruptly destroyedby the state. These refugees havemoved to squatter settlementsthroughout Turkey’s cities, providingthe PKK with a potential base forfuture organising and presentingTurkey with a difficult social and eco-nomic crisis".

What makes this new migrant popula-tion different from previous ruralinhabitants who have migrated to thegecekondu (squatter) settlements ofTurkish cities is:

! the newcomers had to migrate aswhole families, whereas their pre-decessors were part of chain-migration process, leaving theplace of origin gradually as thepioneers settled down in thecities and found employment

! Kurdish conflict-affectedmigrants had to leave theirvillages with no preparation: theycontinue to literally arrive in thecity overnight

! all contact with the villages is cutoff, since either the village isdestroyed completely or is, to allintents and purposes, inaccessi-ble; forced migrants areconsequently deprived of the pos-sibility of subsistence-provisionfrom the villages, an importantresource of subsistence for rural-to-urban migrants.

The survival strategies of forcedmigrants in Tarlabasi consist of gener-ating additional income by makinguse of additional labour – childlabour. Street vending constitutes thebulk of employment in Tarlabasi andchild labour is extensive. For familieswith no income or income-generatingskills, child labour is usually the onlyway they can assure their own sur-vival. Children also work in manufact-uring warehouses for extremely lowwages. Families struggle to minimiseexpenses by trying to secure maximumexternal assistance in terms of materialgoods such as food, clothing, medi-cines and fuel, etc.

While these are distributed by districtand municipal officials (and duringelections by political parties) the abili-ty of the state to provide welfare isdeclining under the impact of struc-tural adjustment. Deepening incomeinequity, worsening living conditionsof the poorest and the spatial concen-tration of poverty in certain neigh-bourhoods of Istanbul and other citiessuggest that without radical economicand political change in Turkey the tra-ditional family, kinship, religion orethnicity based networks of solidaritywill come under unprecedentedstress.

Bediz Yilmaz is a PhD student atthe Institut Français d’Urbanisme,University of Paris 8. Email: [email protected]

Coping with the metropolis: forced migrants in Istanbul

by Bediz Yilmaz In Tarlabasi, an inner-city slum neighbourhood ofIstanbul, the majority of the population are Kurdswho, in the last 10-15 years, have migrated fromtheir villages in eastern and southeastern Anatolia.

T

Working children in Istanbul

GO

C-D

ER


his paper locates the uniqueposition of IDPs among otherforms of forced migrants

through a comparison with refugees.It draws attention to the neglectedcategory of DIDs and uses evidencefrom India to argue for their inclusionwithin the IDP category.

Conceptually both refugees and IDPsare involuntary. Examples from theformer USSR and East Pakistan showhow today’s IDPs can become tomor-row’s refugees and refugees can turninto economic migrants, without anyspatial migration whatsoever. Thespheres of voluntary and forcedforms of migration are often indis-tinct and overlapping.

Governments and inter-governmentalbodies try to impose strictly definedcategories. Refugee definitions havevery explicitly excluded internally dis-placed groups. IDPs are noted to bethe largest ‘at risk’ population in theworld, yet arriving at an appropriatedefinition for them has been a slowand complex task. The current work-ing definition formulated by the UN’sSpecial Representative on IDPs is thebroadest one at use at the internation-al and regional level. But theboundaries of the category IDP arestill fluid and the numbers of peoplewithin the category even more so.

Although internal displacement is nota new phenomenon we still lack acomprehensive count of IDP numbers

simply because they are not docu-mented. While worldwide refugeefigures are declining, those of IDPsare increasing. The gap between themhas widened such that there arealmost twice as many IDPs asrefugees. Since 1995 the number ofcountries reporting the presence ofIDPs has kept increasing: often thesame countries report the highestnumbers of both IDPs and refugees.

Study of the neglected phenomenonof development-induced displacementin India shows the unsustainability ofattempts to draw distinctions betweenIDPs and DIDs. DIDs in India undergoviolation of human rights at thehands of their own national and stategovernments and deserve to be treat-ed as IDPs. They are inadequatelycompensated and state agencies havebeen unable to deliver promised quan-tities of land for those whoseproperty and livelihoods have beenlost. The large number of displaceeswho held no formal title to the landthey used to cultivate have receivednothing.

While refugees have an internationalsystem of protection to appeal to,IDPs have only national laws concern-ing land, rehabilitation andresettlement to depend on – if theyexist. On the grounds that develop-ment projects are planned and thoseaffected are compensated and reset-tled, DIDs are not treated as IDPs.However, in countries such as India,

the level of compensation is unjustand rehabilitation and resettlementare woefully inadequate. As the act ofdisplacement is clearly a form of per-secution those who are displacedshould be treated as IDPs.

States which displace in the name ofdevelopment must:

! stop assuming that displacementis inevitable

! recognise that although thephysical act of displacementoccurs only at one point of time itsets off a spiral of social andeconomic impoverishment, com-pounded by psychological traumafor landless, jobless and foodlessDIDs

! stop granting rehabilitation as anact of reluctant generosity andstart considering it an entitlementor a right

! search for non-displacing andenvironmentally friendly alterna-tives to disruptive infrastructureprojects.

Priyanca Mathur Velath is an MScstudent at the Refugee StudiesCentre, University of Oxford.Email: [email protected]

Refugees and IDPs: are they really so distinct?by Priyanca Mathur Velath

Are we at risk of making artificial distinctionsbetween different groups of displaced people?Has the category of people who may be described as Development-Induced Displacees (DIDs) beenoverlooked by the IDP community?

T

Master of Science in Forced Migration

A nine month postgraduate degree course grounded in a multi-disciplinary approach that includes the

perspectives of sociology, anthropology, law, politics and international relations.

For more information, visit the RSC website: www.rsc.ox.ac.uk or email: [email protected]


ow are decisions currentlymade and with what conse-quences? Are common criteria

needed? As we work to developgreater clarity on the criteria used todetermine the end of displacement,what is the role of the IDP researchcommunity?

There is now a keen interest amongIDP actors to address the issue ofwhen, in any particular situation, thephenomenon of internal displacementcan be considered to have ended.Recognising the need for a coherentresponse, the UN Office for theCoordination of Humanitarian Affairs(OCHA) has asked Dr Francis Deng,the Representative of the Secretary-General on Internally DisplacedPersons, for advice and guidance onthis issue. Many of the papers pre-sented at this conference havetouched on this theme. The questionof when internal displacement ends isan issue that strikes a chord with vir-tually all of the stated researchthemes addressed at this conference.

The Brookings-SAIS Project is current-ly exploring this issue in collaborationwith Georgetown University’s Institutefor the Study of InternationalMigration. A publicly available discus-sion paper, legal commentary andoptions paper have been circulatedfor discussion. There are many com-pelling reasons why researchers,practitioners and policy makers needto reach consensus on how to decidethat internal displacement has indeedended, including:

! Operational agencies, NGOs andgovernments require data on thenumber of internally displacedpeople in order to formulate pro-grammes and policies addressingtheir needs.

! We need to know when national –as well as international – respon-sibility, attention and resourcesshould shift from a specific focuson the needs and vulnerabilitiesof IDPs to a more holistic com-munity-based rehabilitation anddevelopment agenda.

! Arbitrary decisions that displace-ment has ‘ended’ mean that somedisplaced populations effectivelydisappear as a specific group ofconcern.

! Perhaps most importantly of all,IDPs themselves are entitled toknow where they stand.

The fact that varying interpretationscurrently exist as to when displace-ment ends leads to dramatic variat-ions in statistics which impede a co-ordinated approach. Currently,decisions on when internal displace-ment ends are made, if at all, on anad hoc basis. The methodologies usedand the conclusions reached differamong actors. To give just one exam-ple: the Global IDP Database reportsthat estimates of the number of IDPsin Guatemala range from zero to aquarter of a million.

Three lenses

We have been looking at this issuethrough three different lenses: theGuiding Principles on InternalDisplacement which shape all ourwork, analogies with refugee law andpractice and the realities of actual sit-uations of internal displacement.

1. The Guiding Principles stipulatethat "displacement shall last no longerthan required by the circumstances"(Principle 6.3). Understanding whatthese circumstances are, and whendisplacement can and should be con-sidered to end, is therefore vital forthe application of the Principles them-selves. The fact that the Principles donot contain a cessation clause was notan oversight on the part of the draft-ing team but a deliberate decision. Itwas recognised that the definition of‘internally displaced person’ is notdeclaratory but is descriptive innature, denoting the factual situationof being displaced within one’s coun-try rather than conferring a legalstatus to be granted, much lessrevoked. This does not precludestates or other actors from introduc-ing administrative measures, such asregistration for the purposes of prov-

ing entitlement to special assistancetargeting IDPs. However, from thestandpoint of international law, suchregistration processes have no bearingon the descriptive reality of beinginternally displaced.

An end to internal displacementwould therefore be contingent on achange in the factual situation thatthe term denotes. For those displacedpersons who remain in their countryof origin, the Guiding Principles envis-age three possible solutions to theirsituation of internal displacement:return to their home areas or place ofhabitual residence; integration in thelocalities where they go to once dis-placed; or resettlement in anotherpart of the country. The GuidingPrinciples specify the responsibilitiesof national authorities to facilitatethese three solutions and in particularto:

! enable return or resettlement tooccur voluntarily and in "safetyand dignity"

! ensure that those returning orresettling do not suffer discrimi-nation as a result of having beendisplaced and are able to partici-pate in public affairs and enjoyequal access to public services

! assist IDPs to recover or receivecompensation for property andpossessions destroyed or ofwhich they were dispossessed asa result of their displacement

When does displacement end? by Erin Mooney

Is it too early to be asking this question? Do we need to decide when the entitle-ments and benefits as well as possible restrictions of IDP ‘status’ should end?

H


2. Refugee law contains cessationclauses – in Article 1C of the 1951Convention on the Status of Refugees.Of the six circumstances mentionedunder which an individual would nolonger be eligible for refugee statusand the international protection itaffords, only one (paragraph 5, allow-ing for cessation if "the circumstancesin connection with which [s/]he hasbeen recognised as a refugee haveceased to exist") could be applied tointernally displaced persons by analo-gy. However, this provision concernsthe cessation of a legal status which,as noted earlier, is a concept alien tothe Guiding Principles as well as tointernational human rights law fromwhich they are largely derived.

Analogies with refugee law may there-fore not be very helpful to thediscussion of when internal displace-ment ends.

However, the experience of cessationof refugee status does highlight dan-gers that:

! application of the cessation claus-es for refugees can lead to (andoften has) an automatic andunwarranted assumption thatinternal displacement has endedas well – this was the case whenUNHCR ended refugee status forall Mozambican refugees at theend of 1996

! cessation of refugee status mayactually lead to an increase in thenumber of IDPs – this was theresult both in Bosnia after theDayton Agreement and morerecently in Afghanistan asrefugees were compelled to repa-triate but unable to return home.

Clearly, we need an integrated andcomprehensive approach to the issueof when displacement ends that takesinto account the effects of such deter-minations on both groups of forcedmigrants.

3. Looking at experiences of internaldisplacement reveals that many dif-ferent criteria are used fordetermining when internal displace-ment ends. To give just two examplesof different approaches by govern-ments:

! Colombia’s decision to acknowl-edge IDPs as such for only three

months (with a possible once-offextension) and only if they areable to register with the state isa case where the duration ofinternal displacement is deter-mined by the capacity orreadiness of the state to provideemergency humanitarian assis-tance.

! Croatian regulations allowing forrevocation of IDP ‘status’ andbenefits for those who refuse tocomplete household chores instate-run centres reflect a puni-tive approach to the issue ofwhen displacement ends.

Clearly, less arbitrary approaches arerequired.

Three sets of criteria

One way to look at the issue would beto focus on the causes of internaldisplacement and consider whetherthe existence of ‘changed circum-stances’ from those that hadcompelled flight in the first placemight signal an end to displacement.Experience in post-conflict Bosnia andAfghanistan suggests, however, thateven when the immediate causal fac-tors of displacement cease to exist adurable solution to the plight of dis-placed persons does not necessarilyfollow. Georgian and Azerbaijani IDPsare deliberately kept in a state oflimbo, unable to go home in theabsence of a peace settlement but inthe meantime denied equal rights ascitizens. Basing decisions on simplycause-based criteria can end displace-ment prematurely or, where theoriginal causes persist, perpetuate astate of displacement indefinitely andto the detriment of the displaced.

A solutions-based criteria approachfocusing strictly on when IDPs canphysically return home or resettle canlead to controversy. Examples includethe US Committee for Refugees deem-ing displacement to have ended inGuatemala in 1998 and the decisionby the Sierra Leonean government andinternational agencies that there wereno longer any IDPs as of mid 2002. Inboth cases, critics have pointed tolack of safety in areas of return, inad-equate reintegration assistance, lackof property compensation and inabili-ty of ‘ex’ IDPs to vote, access publicservices or obtain identification docu-ments. We must question the

argument that a mere change ofaddress is an adequate basis on whichto deem displacement to have ended.

An approach based on needs-basedcriteria determines if needs and vulnerabilities specific to IDP popula-tions no longer exist. The displacedneed not necessarily have permanent-ly resettled or returned, and may stillbe in need, but they would no longerhave specific needs different from therest of the population which areattributable to their displacement.The Guiding Principles are useful inpointing to needs that would be rele-vant in this regard.

The way forward

We are continuing work on refiningand further elaborating guidance andcriteria on when internal displace-ment ends to be presented to theInter-Agency Standing Committeewhich brings together UN and otherinternational humanitarian, develop-ment and human rights actors. Wewill also convene a meeting withdonors and international financialinstitutions, together with selectedcountries affected by internal dis-placement, to get their perspective onthe issue and refine the criteria asnecessary. In discussing with donorsthe issue of when displacement endswe must safeguard against approach-es that are simply resource-drivenand seeking expedient exit strategieswithout due regard to the needs ofthe displaced.

The challenge will then be to applythe criteria as a benchmark as well asa basis for advocacy in support oftruly durable solutions for IDPs.Supporting effective application ofthe criteria will open up whole newareas of empirical research for abroad range of specialists from suchvarious disciplines as law, politicalscience, anthropology, sociology,demography, architecture and statis-tics.

I have identified at least eight follow-up questions relevant to the subjectof when internal displacement ends.How can researchers and practitionerswork together to:

1. bolster the criteria now beingdeveloped with monitoringmechanisms?

2. additionally include criteria for


situations of displacement due tonatural disasters and development?

3. more systematically analysenational legislation on the issue ofwhen displacement ends?

4. collect and disseminate more infor-mation on what actually happensto people once they return orresettle?

5. chronicle and disseminate bestpractices for supporting the dura-bility of return or resettlement aswell as effective reintegration?

6. better understand and resolve theroot causes of displacement?

7. consider the influence of urbanisa-tion, whether as a mixed cause(together with conflict, forinstance) for the original displace-ment or as a reason why IDPsdecide not to return?

8. develop a more nuanced notion of‘home’ which embraces perspec-tives of the displaced andrecognises that ‘home’ may bemore a metaphysical concept thana geographical one?

Erin Mooney is the DeputyDirector of the Brookings-SAIS

Project on Internal Displacementand of the Center forDisplacement Studies at theSchool of Advanced InternationalStudies (SAIS) of Johns HopkinsUniversity. Email: [email protected]

Documents prepared by the Project in connectionwith its research project on the end of IDP statusare online at www.brook.edu/fp/projects/idp/idp.htm.

Forced Migration Review 17, co-edited by theProject, focuses on questions around the end ofinternal displacement. See www.fmreview.org

he papers presented at theconference highlighted thethematic and disciplinary het-

erogeneity of research on the globalphenomenon of internal displace-ment. Participants noted thatalthough relevant and high qualityanalysis of IDP situations is beingproduced, current research tends tobe fragmented and does not lenditself to cross-country studies andcausal analysis.

It was recognised that researchersneed to be more self-critical, accurateand open to the possibility of chang-ing and improving methodologies andtheoretical constructs. Research chal-lenges and issues relevant for aresearch agenda brought out in thecourse of the conference were sum-marised.

Among the key research challenges isthe definition of internally displacedpeople: should the research communi-ty agree on a global definition foranalytical purposes and, if so, whatshould it be and how should we movetowards agreement on doing so?Questions of definition are also

related to what would be a durablesolution for internally displaced peo-ple and, in particular, how todetermine when displacement ends.

While some participants argued that aglobal definition is problematicbecause it tends to pre-empt and cir-cumscribe research, others stated thatwe need a definition to be able tocompare different IDP situations andto quantify regional and global num-bers of IDPs. However, definitionsmay not need to be fixed: it was sug-gested that they should be open andflexible in order to deal with specificsituations of displacement. Statisticsare required by policy makers, donorsand humanitarian practitioners. Arange of participants called forimproved coordination in countingdisplaced populations and develop-ment of methods that enablecontext-specific and relevantly disag-gregated information about displacedpopulations.

Dilemmas around definitions andenumeration are closely related to thechallenge of making academicresearch more relevant for policy

makers and advocacy organisations.While it may not be clear exactly howto do so, it is essential that research-ers do not underestimate the presentimpact of their research on policydecisions and operational planning.

Concluding discussion: whither the IDP research agenda?

chaired by Karen Jacobsen and Andreas Danevad

The concluding discussion centred on the overarchingissue faced by all researchers from different disci-plines and traditions: what should be the purposes of our research and how should we improve ourresearch practices on internal displacement?

T


Researchers should continue to reflecton how presentation of findings canhave the greatest potential impact ondecision-makers. Discussantsacknowledged the need for a closerlink between research and humanitari-an action and called for the creationof mechanisms for more systematicinteraction and communication betweenresearchers and policy makers.

Some participants argued that as longas researchers concentrate on doing‘good’ research, policy makers will lis-ten to their advice. However, this viewwas contested by many of the partici-pants who pointed to the constraintsimposed by the political context manyresearchers find themselves in whenundertaking research on situations ofinternal displacement. In many placesresearch on internal displacementcontests existing policies and is seenas threatening by authorities. Whenthis is the case good research alonemay not always lead to policychanges. These are questions alsorelated to ethical issues and security –security both of researchers and thesubjects and the people who assistthem in the field.

We should aspire to conduct goodquality research. Researchers need toapply, establish and develop morediverse research methodologies.Information has to be collected forpractical and policy purposes, not justto fulfil ‘pure’ research goals. We needto be more concerned about issues ofvalidity and reliability and to be ableto generate much more comprehen-sive data sets that will allow us to testhypotheses, establish relationshipsbetween variables and conduct cross-country comparative research.

At the same time we need to be moreproactive in encouraging interdiscipli-nary research and welcoming theperspectives of disciplines that arenot currently well represented inresearch on forced migration. Theseinclude economics, history, architec-ture, urban studies and law. Issuesaround legal rights and entitlementsneed to be more actively addressed.Internally displaced people have mul-tiple legal identities all of which arecovered by other legal instrumentsand complementary protectionregimes, and we need to take theseissues into account.

In order to deal with the complexsituations of internal displacementthere is a need to analyse displace-ment in a wider context and toconsider the situations of the intern-ally displaced but also of hostpopulations and other actors involvedin the displacement situation. The con-ference clearly showed that research isneeded to produce more knowledgeabout those complex issues and tomake increased knowledge about inter-nal displacement available to a widerrange of donors, governments andhumanitarian actors.

On an upbeat note, Dr Deng conclud-ed the conference by calling on theresearch community to support hismandate by providing knowledgederived from research. Such informa-tion is required to enable him, and hiscolleagues, to better engage in dia-logue with regimes which areresponsible for displacement. This isa vital step in improving the lives ofthe millions of internally displacedworld wide.

Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/b/principles.htm

Representative of the UN Secretary-Generalon IDPs www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/b/midp.htm

Brookings-SAIS Project on Internal Displacement www.brook.edu/fp/projects/idp/idp.htm

Global IDP Project www.idpproject.org

Internal Displacement Unit, OCHA www.reliefweb.int/idp/

NTNU Research Network on InternalDisplacementwww.idp.ntnu.no/conference/

UNHCR and IDPswww.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home?page =PROTECT&id=3b84c7e23

Bibliography on the Global Crisis of InternalDisplacement www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2001/brookings-idp-13dec.pdf

Exodus Within Bordershttp://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815749546/html/index.html

Masses in Flight: The Global Crisis of InternalDisplacement http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815715110/html/index.html

IRIN Web Special on Internal Displacement www.irinnews.org/webspecials/idp

Response Strategies of the Internally Displaced:Changing the Humanitarian Lenswww.fmreview.org/oslo/osloidp.pdf

International Committee of the Red Cross:www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/refugees_displaced_persons

Webguide to IDPs

Selected Bibliography on theGlobal Crisis of InternalDisplacementby Gimena Sánchez-Garzoli,Brookings-SAIS Project on InternalDisplacement. Dec. 2001. 73pp. Free.

This bibliography of materials on IDPscontains more than 800 items. Thebibliography includes various them-atic categories: basic texts andsources of information, webresources, early writings on internaldisplacement, general overview of displacement caused by conflict andhuman rights violations, displacementcaused by development projects, legalframework including the GuidingPrinciples on Internal Displacement,institutional framework, vulnerablegroups, protection strategies, return,resettlement and reintegration, anddevelopment strategies. Geographicalcategories include region-specific listings for Africa, the Americas, Asia,the Middle East and Europe and 56individual country listings. Availableonline at: www.brookings.edu/fp/pro-jects/idp/resources/bibliography.htm

Please forward any items for inclusionin future editions to: Gimena Sánchez-Garzoli. Email: gsanchez@brookings. edu

Available in hard copy (from aboveaddress) and in PDF format atwww.brookings.edu/fp/projects/idp/resources/bibliography.htm Tel: +1 202 797 6000. Fax: +1 202 797 6004.

The Internally DisplacedPeople of Iraqby John Fawcett & Victor Tanner.Brookings-SAIS Project on InternalDisplacement. October 2002. 54pp.Free. Online at www.brook.edu/fp/pro-jects/IDP/articles/iraqreport.htm

This report is one of a series of publi-cations and activities to focusattention on IDPs in areas largelyclosed off from view. Numbers of IDPsin Iraq continue to grow; estimatesrange from 600,000 to 800,000 in thenorth of the country and up to

300,000 in the south. This reportdiscusses why this state of affairs hascome about, how effective attempts tohelp have been, and the role of the UNand the government of Iraq.

Contact: Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli,Brookings-SAIS Project on InternalDisplacement. Tel: +1 202 797 6168.Email: [email protected]

Internally Displaced People:A Global Survey: 2nd editionby the Global IDP Project/NorwegianRefugee Council, Earthscan 2002.

The second, updated edition of theGlobal IDP Project’s acclaimedoverview of conflict-induced displace-ment has information on internaldisplacement in 47 different countries.

To obtain a copy, contact AndrewLawday, Global IDP Project, 59 CheminMoïse-Duboule, 1209 Geneva, Switzerland. Email: [email protected]. Tel: +41 22 799 0703. Or contact Earthscan Publications Ltd,120 Pentonville Road, London N1 9JN,UK.Tel. +44 (0) 20 7278 0433. Fax +44 (0)20 7278 1142. Email: [email protected]: www.earthscan.co.uk/howto-order.htm

Caught Between Borders:Response Strategies of theInternally Displaced Edited by Marc Vincent and BirgitteRefslund Sørensen.ISBN: 0745318185 (paperback)0745318193 (hardcover) 336pp£16.99/US$23.95 (paperback)

Draws together information on theinformal protection mechanisms thatenable people to cope with the experi-ence of displacement. Drawing oncase studies and testimonies from dis-placed people from across the globe,it vividly illustrates the methods andnetworks used by IDPs. The authorsidentify crosscultural patterns of cop-ing strategies and examine theireffectiveness. A series of recommen-dations urges the internationalcommunity to listen to and work withIDPs and ensure that relief and pro-tection activities build on andreinforce existing coping mechanisms.

Caught Between Borders is publishedby Pluto Press, 345 Archway Road,London N6 5AA, UK. Tel: +44 (0)20 8348 2724. Fax:+44 (0)20 8348 9133. Email: [email protected]: www.plutobooks.com


Key publications on internal displacement

Masses in Flight: The GlobalCrisis of InternalDisplacementby Robert Cohen and Francis M Deng,Brookings Institution Press, 1998.c. 414p. Cloth, 0-8157-1512-9, $52.95.Paper, 0-8157-1511-0, $22.95.

Exodus within Borders by David A Korn, Brookings InstitutionPress, 1999. c. 160pp.Cloth, 0-8157-4954-6, $22.85.Paper, 0-82157-4953-8, $22.95.

The Forsaken People: CaseStudies of the InternallyDisplacedRoberta Cohen and Francis M Deng,Brookings Institution Press, 1998.c. 528pp. Cloth, 0-8157-1514-5, $52.95.Paper, 0-8157-1513-7, $22.95.


For further information about all Brookings-SAIS publications, please contact:

Gimena Sánchez-Garzoli, Brookings-SAIS Project on Internal Displacement,

1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20036, USA. • Tel: + 1 202 797-6000

Fax: +1 202 797-6004 • Email: [email protected]

The Brookings-SAIS Project on Internal Displacement

To access or download FMR

17 (feature section on

‘when does displacement

end?’), – FMR 1 (feature

section on 'internal

displacement') – or the

November 2001 IDP

conference report –

Please visit:www.fmreview.org

Risks and Rights: TheCauses, Consequences andChallenges ofDevelopment-InducedDisplacementby W Courtland Robinson,Brookings-SAIS Project on InternalDisplacement. May 2003. 64pp.

Guiding Principles onInternal Displacement: Annotationsby Walter Kalin, The AmericanSociety of International Law and theBrookings Institution, 2000.

Response Strategies of the Internally Displaced:Changing the Humanitarian LensSeminar ProceedingsReport of a seminar held in Oslo, Norway, 9 November 2001

organised by the Norwegian Refugee Council in cooperation with the Norwegian University of Technology and Science

published by the Refugee Studies Centre in association with the

Norwegian Refugee Council/Global IDP Project

17May 2003

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL

review

Plus articles on:

Iraq · Mauritania ·

Thai-Burma border ·

international benchmarks

When does internal

displacement end?

The Brookings-SAIS Project

on Internal Displacement

Institute for the Study

of International Migration

The new database on IDP research can be accessed at

www.idp.ntnu.no. After development and evaluation it will become

an integrated and complementary component of the Norwegian

Refugee Council's Global IDP database (www.idpproject.org).

The NTNU database will provide a meeting place for developing

better links between academics, practitioners and policy makers

concerned with IDP issues. The database will enable donors and aid

workers to learn what research is taking place and will improve IDP

information access for policy makers, advocates, NGOs and others in

the IDP community. Improved access to academic information

should encourage researchers to address research gaps in current

understanding of displacement. We hope it will also enable

researchers to tailor research findings to address the interests,

priorities and needs of donors.

The Network will complement already existing databases and networks related to IDP research and

forced migration in general. We also want to increase our cooperation with other research institutions

working with internal displacement. In order to create the database, we need to hear from researchers

and organisations working with IDPs. We ask all interested researchers to spend a few minutes of their

time to register their interest. Please ask colleagues to do so.

NTNU Research Network on Internal Displacement

The NTNU Research Group on Forced Migration, in collaboration with the Global IDP Project, is estab-

lishing a network for researchers working on issues of internal displacement. The main activities of the

network will be convening academic conferences on IDP issues and maintaining a searchable database

with information about researchers, projects and publications dealing with internal displacement.

The Network’s first conference, from which this report originates, was held in Trondheim in February

2003. The second conference will be held in Trondheim in September 2004.

www.idp.ntnu.no

Contact details: Research Group on Forced Migration, Department of Geography,NTNU, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway.

Tel: +47 73 55 02 46. Fax: +47 73 59 18 78. Email: [email protected]

The Network is funded by the Research Council of Norway.

Mai

n ph

oto:

Chak

ma

IDPs

, Ban

glad

esh

– U

ND

P D

haka

/Ban

glad

esh

Smal

l pho

to:R

etur

nee

IDPs

, Sri

Lan

ka –

Muh

amm

ad A

li M

ubar

ak