Response Strategies of the Internally Displaced:

Changing the Humanitarian Lens

Seminar 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

Response Strategiesof the InternallyDisplaced:Changing the Humanitarian Lens

Report of a seminar held in Oslo, Norway, 9 November 2001organised by the Norwegian Refugee Council in cooperation with theNorwegian University of Technology and Science

The seminar, which was attended by over 100 participants from around theworld, had four main purposes:

■ to expand the humanitarian community’s understanding of the response

strategies of the internally displaced and develop a research agenda forfurther investigation and analysis

■ to increase awareness among humanitarian actors of the internally

displaced as a valuable resource in emergency operations and discussrecommendations on how external actors can support and strengthenresponse strategies of the internally displaced

■ to identify resource materials for humanitarian field workers to support

self-help activities and response strategies among the internally displaced

■ to launch Caught Between Borders: Response Strategies of the Internally

Displaced for the international and Norwegian audience

The seminar’s opening plenary session consisted of two welcoming speechesfollowed by six key presentations. Each of the five subsequent working groupsessions involved two or three further presentations followed by discussion.This report includes the text of all speeches and presentations plus sum-maries of issues and recommendations discussed in the five working groupsand in the final plenary session.

The seminar was funded by the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Seminar organisers: Nina Birkeland of NTNU and Thomas Horne of NRC.

Publication of this report has been coordinated by Marion Couldrey and DrTim Morris, Editors of Forced Migration Review which is published in associa-tion with the Norwegian Refugee Council.

Norwegian Refugee CouncilPO Box 6758St Olvas plassN-0130 Oslo

NorwayTel: +47 23 10 9800Fax: +47 23 10 9801Email: nrc@nrc.no

Website: www.nrc.no

Chemin Moïse-Duboule 59CH-1209 Geneva, Switzerland

Email: idpsurvey@nrc.chTel: +41 22 799 0700Fax: +41 22 799 0701

Website: www.idpproject.org

Norwegian University of Technology and Science

N-7491 TrondheimNorway

Tel: +47 73 59 5000Fax: +47 73 59 5310

Website: www.svt.ntnu.no

Forced Migration ReviewRefugee Studies CentreQueen Elizabeth House

University of Oxford21 St Giles

Oxford OX1 3LA, UKTel: +44 01865 280700Fax: +44 01865 270721Email: fmr@qeh.ox.ac.uk

Website: www.fmreview.org

Designed by Colophon Media

Printed by Litho & Digital

Impressions Ltd, Witney

Environmentally friendly paper

◆ ◆ ◆

◆ ◆ ◆

◆ ◆ ◆

NTNU

Welcome 4by Steinar Sørlie

Introductory address 5by Kim Traavik

IDPs: an anthroplogical perspective 6by Birgitte Refslund Sørensen

Response strategies: the need to involve the displaced 8by Marc Vincent

Internal displacement in Georgia: a personal perspective 11by Julia Kharashvili

My experience as a leader of the displaced in Colombia 14by Antonio Perez Ballestero Hober

IDPs: time to move forward 15by Kofi Asomani

The Guiding Principles: how do they support IDP response strategies? 17by Roberta Cohen

I. The research agenda 20

II. The humanitarian response 25

III. Setting up structures that listen to the needs of the displaced 29

IV. Forced migration and livelihoods: creating livelihoods in war and conflict situations 32

V. Protection 37

Final plenary discussion and recommendations 43

Final remarks 45by Fredrik Arthur

Resources 46

Caught Between Borders: ordering details 47

3

Plenary session

Working groups

contentsResponse Strategies of the

Internally Displaced:Changing the Humanitarian

Lens

NRC’s interest in the confer-ence is twofold:

irstly, as an NGO active in pro-moting the rights of theinternally displaced, NRC want-

ed to look at the responsemechanisms of the displaced aroundthe world in different contexts andsettings. Caught Between Borders andthis conference are an attempt to bet-ter understand the situation facingthe displaced by looking more closelyat what they do for themselves andamong themselves to respond to thetrauma and upheaval of displacement.What we learned was a testimony tothe ingenuity and courage of the dis-placed.

Secondly, while improved knowledgeand understanding by themselves areimportant, the objective of greaterunderstanding was to enable NRC as ahumanitarian organisation to respondbetter to the needs of the displacedand contribute to the wider objectivesof the humanitarian community. Thechallenge now is to ensure that this

perspective is included in the plan-ning and implementation of allprogramme activities.

By bringing together experts fromaround the world as well as contribu-tors to the book, some of whom aredisplaced in their home country, wecan together seek ways to improveour response to the needs of the dis-placed and identify ways to enable usto better support the activities andstrategies they undertake.

We hope that this conference will be afirst step in defining practical meth-ods and tools for both practitionersand researchers working with protec-tion and assistance to IDPs on how tobuild on self-help activities andresponse strategies. Specific recom-mendations and workable proposalson how to proceed are needed.Equally important is the need todefine responsibilities for follow-up.

The job will not be easy. As we watchevents unfold in Afghanistan, thecomplexity of the task is clear. On the

one hand, humanitarian organisationsneed to respond quickly and efficient-ly in an emergency in order to avoidloss of life. At the same time, howev-er, in order to respond appropriately,we need to understand and workwithin a complex and changing socialfabric. How do we balance thesesometimes competing interests andneeds?

We hope that today we will make asmall step forward in our under-standing.

◆ ◆ ◆

4

F

Welcome address by Steinar Sørlie, Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council

On behalf of the Norwegian Refugee Council, it is a pleasure for me to welcome you all to this conference.

NRC/Lars Torjesen

5

n the one hand, they have oftenbeen let down by their ownnational authorities that were

supposed to protect them from becom-ing IDPs in the first place. On the otherhand, unlike refugees, they do not havean international organisation to dealwith their plight. The basic principle ofstate sovereignty limits the ability ofthe international community to providethem with assistance and protection.

During the past few years, increasedinternational efforts have been made toimprove the lot of the internally dis-placed. Their sheer number has madethem a phenomenon in world politicsthat cannot be ignored. InfluentialNGOs like the Norwegian RefugeeCouncil have also helped to put IDPson the international agenda.

Norway for one has been among thosestates that have worked to involve theUN in this respect and the NorwegianUN Mission is currently hard at workpromoting this year’s main GeneralAssembly resolution on IDPs. Ourguiding principle is that the interna-tional community has the right andthe obligation to ensure that thehumanitarian and human rights ofIDPs under international law arerespected. Nevertheless, we maintainthat it is the national authorities thathave primary responsibility for provid-ing protection and assistance to IDPswithin their jurisdiction.

Since IDPs have become an object ofinternational diplomacy, the focus hasbeen on protection and assistance.Progress in this area, as in so manyother areas of international diplomacy,is slow. But I am pleased to note that

we are moving steadily forward. Someof the prime movers whose contribu-tions to the IDP cause have been trulysignificant are with us here today. It isa privilege to have here one of the prin-cipal architects behind the milestonedocument The Guiding Principles onInternal Displacement, Roberta Cohen,as well as the UN Special Coordinatorfor Internal Displacement, KofiAsomani.

The Norwegian Refugee Council hasplayed a leading role in focusing worldattention on the internally displaced,especially through its global IDP data-base, and I am happy to see that onceagain the Council is pioneering a newunderstanding of IDPs. Whereas the ini-tial centre of attention has been on theinternally displaced as victims in needof protection and assistance, the nextstep is to recognise the immensehuman resources that IDPs represent.They need to be given a voice. This willimprove our understanding of their sit-uation and enable us to better targetour efforts on their behalf.

The book that is being launched today,Caught Between Borders: ResponseStrategies of the Internally Displaced,does give the IDPs a voice – indeed, several voices. And we owe it tothem to listen. It is a groundbreakingcontribution to enhancing our com-prehension of how individuals, familiesand communities respond to the expe-rience of displacement. I am sure thatthe book will offer insights that willbenefit IDPs and their cause.

Today’s seminar will also give theinternally displaced a face. ThorvaldStoltenberg, the former Norwegian

Foreign Minister and UN HighCommissioner for Refugees, entitledhis recently published memoirs It’s aquestion of human beings. We must getpast IDPs as an abstract notion andappreciate that they are individuals,like you and me. Although they sharecertain aspects of the experience ofdisplacement, the circumstances oftheir displacement and their reactionsto it may be quite different. Each inter-nally displaced person respondsaccording to his or her character andbackground.

This notwithstanding, I still believethat IDPs have common elements andinterests that make it worthwhile pur-suing an international policy towardsthem as a broad category. Our chal-lenge continues to be to fill in the largeand small cracks that still trap millionsand millions of our fellow humanbeings. My hope is that today’s eventwill help meet this challenge. I wishyou every success.

◆ ◆ ◆

Introductory address by Kim Traavik, State Secretary (Conservative Party),

Ministry of Foreign AffairsIn Norwegian we have an expression: ‘to fallbetween two chairs’. I think the English equivalent is to ‘fall between the cracks’. In many ways, thisdescribes the situation of IDPs.

O

6

he relevance of this topic isbeyond dispute. I would espe-cially like to thank and

congratulate NRC for its support tothe project that preceded this seminarand which has resulted in the bookCaught Between Borders that I editedwith Marc Vincent. What I find mostcommendable here are not simply thetime and money invested by NRC butrather the approach and attitude thathave been expressed.

Practitioners and researchers tend towork in separate worlds. Practitionersdefend this position by arguing thatresearch is too time-consuming orirrelevant to practice and policy.Researchers, on the other hand, claimthat practitioners are governed bytheir own organisations’ agendas,always impose their own worldviewand categories and resist the complex-ities of life. However, there are alsosome with a keen interest in findingways in which the existing gapbetween research, practical work and

policy making can be bridged. NRC,I believe, belongs to this last cate-gory. This project is an example ofhow the agendas and interests ofpractitioners and policy makers onthe one hand and those ofresearchers on the other can becombined in a joint effort toenhance the understanding andhopefully improve the responses toa particular situation.

This leads me to my own role inthe project – and my own agenda.When I participated in a similarseminar organised by NRC in 1997in order to get IDPs on the interna-tional agenda, I was surprised anddisturbed to hear most participantsspeaking only about how ‘we’ couldhelp ‘them’. It became clear that

IDPs were in the process of becominga new category of humanitarian con-cern, defined primarily by its lack –lack of home, lack of rights, lack ofresources and lack of a proper legaldefinition.

Let me immediately stress that I donot dispute that those forcefully dis-placed as a result of war are often inneed of various forms of assistance.Rather, my objection concerns, firstly,the grouping together of some 20-25million people from several continentsinto one single humanitarian categorywith little attention to the aspects thatdefine the internal differences of thatcategory. Secondly, it concerns thespeedy conclusion that these people‘have lost everything’, a judgementwhich is the basis of many well-intended humanitarian interventionsbut which also strips people of theirhistory and identity and disregardstheir capacity to act in response to thecrises in their lives. In other words,internal refugees become defined asvictims and beneficiaries, not as

people and actors. More attentionmust be paid to how IDPs, like otherpeople affected by war, seek to re-con-struct their own livelihoods – socially,psychologically, economically, political-ly and culturally.

I believe that what I, and others ofsimilar orientation, said at that con-ference was an important input intocreating the Response StrategiesProject. When I was later invited tocoordinate with Marc Vincent the pre-sent project on how IDPs respond tocrisis and displacement we agreedthat our starting point would be tosee IDPs as actors – even when theywere clearly victims. We also agreedthat, insofar as possible, our investi-gation of the issue should be based onfield research, interviews and partici-patory methods that would betterallow us to see things from IDPs’ ownpoint of view. All are aspects that arecharacteristic of an anthropologicalapproach.

Finally we agreed to adopt FrancisDeng’s Guiding Principles as a themat-ic guideline for all the country casestudies. Regardless of the initial moti-vation for choosing these as aframework, they also turned out to beuseful in linking the humanitarian andthe research agendas and creating ashared framework, focus and language.

Employing an anthropologicalapproach has allowed broader, morepersonal and, perhaps, more in-depthaccounts to be voiced. Practitionerswith responsibility for a programmeor project, of course, also interviewpeople at various stages in the projectcycle. My own experiences tell me thatoften you end up steering the inter-view and only listen partially. Basicallywhat you are interested in hearing iswhat needs people have that somehowmatch your mandate and capacity asan organisation. That this is the caseis, for instance, reflected in the differ-ent ‘shopping lists’ that people inareas with many humanitarian agen-cies prepare – they know exactly whatto tell SCF, Oxfam, UNICEF and others.The diversity of lived experiences istranslated into a limited and tangible

T

IDPs: an anthropological perspectiveby Birgitte Refslund Sørensen

I would like to thank the Norwegian RefugeeCouncil, NTNU and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs(MFA) for inviting us all to this seminar on theresponse strategies of people who are displaced byconflict within the borders of their country.

number of ‘needs’ that are defined by‘availability and supply’.

I do not claim that we arrived atwhole truth and nothing but the truthbut I do think that because we did notcome to the task with any precon-ceived ideas we got a broader andmore complex picture. If people’sresponses can be used to make ajudgment, it was significant andheartening that so many peopleexpressed their appreciation that“finally somebody has listened to our story”.

There were other benefits too. Thefield studies brought out the internaldifferentiation of the IDP category.Despite often stressing how importantit is to remember this we frequentlyfall back on the general IDP category.‘IDP’ has different histories and socialand political meanings in differentconflicts. Rather than being an objec-tive universal descriptive category, itis one that is constantly being sociallyand politically constructed. The pro-ject also reminded us that differencesin religion, ethnicity, gender, age and

occupation influence not only howand to what extent people are affect-ed by forced displacement but alsothe response strategies that peopledevelop. In several case studies itbecame apparent that forced displace-ment is never the only axis of identityand that in most cases it is far frombeing the most important one.Religion, ethnicity, gender, age, occu-pation or other aspects of identify aremore important than being an IDP.

This leads to the second point regard-ing the interpretation or narrative ofdisplacement. Humanitarian thinkingidentifies conflict and displacementas the main cause of displaced peo-ple’s current predicaments and oftenfalsely assumes that displacement isthen also the most important event inpeople’s lives. There is a furtherassumption that displacement is atemporary deviation from normal life,that it exists only between brackets,so to speak, and that consequently alldisplaced people long for return andresettlement. Studies showed, how-ever, that other events, positionsand relationships were often evoked

in explanation of a person’s currentsituation. Getting married or marry-ing off your daughter were, forinstance, often seen as more signifi-cant events, which changed aperson’s social identity and status ina more fundamental way.

Another point that was brought outclearly was that in several cases dis-placement was interpreted within aspecific cultural framework that gaveit a particular meaning and some-times even purpose as part of agroup’s or community’s self-realisa-tion. The study showed that thenotion of ‘home’, which is so centralin the discussion of displacement andresettlement, was much more ambigu-ous than we tend to think. The ideathat ‘home’ is your community, yourvillage, the place where you, yourancestors and relatives come from,the soil where your identity is rootedand where you have an almost naturalsense of belonging, is only partly true.IDPs’ accounts revealed that this wasonly the case for some. For others,‘home’ was something that wasalways in a process of being created,

7IDPs: an anthropological perspective

UNHCR/M Kobayashi

IDPs returning toEast Timor.

IDPs: an anthropological perspective8

depending as much on future oppor-tunities as on past experiences.

This shows us that while we tend tothink of displacement as a temporarydeviation from normal life, a disrup-tive event to be corrected, thepossibility also exists that some peo-ple see displacement as anopportunity for change. People do notonly look back; they also look to thefuture and try to plan for it.

The third point I would like to includeconcerns the social meanings of socialand economic activities. Often whendiscussing the initiatives of people, orthe projects of agencies, we focus onthe activity itself in a narrow sense.For instance, when talking about eco-nomic activities we simply talk abouttrade or business, maybe including adescription of the items being traded.Our interviews showed that an activitysuch as ‘making baskets and sellingthem at the local market’ could meanvery different things to different peo-ple. It could be a continuation of arecognised pre-war activity, providing

a guaranteed level of income whilealso defining the person’s social iden-tity as member of a community. Itcould be a new activity that impliedlearning new skills, entering new rela-tionships, reworking domestic genderroles and perhaps even risking socialstigmatisation and marginalisation. Inthat case economic gains would havetremendous social costs. The generalpoint here to remember is that IDPs –like any other social group – inhabitparticular social and cultural worlds.

We must not lose sight of the capacityof people to analyse their own situa-tion. When we gave IDPs the chance totalk about what they had done priorto, during and after displacement,rather than what their needs were (thestandard project needs assessmentsapproach), many of them demonstrat-ed great capacity to analyse theirsituation and make risk assessments.Their analyses were translated intoactions that prepared them for whatmight come but also informed theirconstant adjustments of responsestrategies and learning from past

experiences. In fact, their analyseswere often more in touch with recentdevelopments and more precise (con-taining more variables and concretedetails) than those provided by theexternal agencies.

In conclusion, I believe that theapproach taken by this initiative,which has focused on documenting‘conflict and displacement as the IDPsexperience it and respond to it’, hascontributed many novel insights andperspectives. Many issues remainunexplored and not yet well under-stood. I hope that you, practitionersand researchers, will take this oppor-tunity to identify and discuss possibleshared interests, so that in the com-ing years we will see a number of newinitiatives in this direction.

Birgitte Sørensen is AssociateProfessor, Institute ofAnthropology, University ofCopenhagen. She is co-editor ofCaught Between Borders. Email: birgitte.soerensen@anthro.ku.dk

e felt that, while there was alot of emphasis on institu-tional dilemmas and issues

of sovereignty, we needed to lookmore closely at how real peoplerespond to displacement. This wasparticularly important if we were tobegin working on our second objec-tive which was to try to see how wecan develop concrete recommenda-tions as a humanitarian community toimprove our response.

These objectives are not particularlynew. Indeed, the refugee field and theanthropology field have been talkingabout them for a long time. So what

exactly have we tried to do that wasdifferent?

Firstly, although many of the condi-tions facing IDPs may be the same asthose facing refugees, we know thattheir context can be very different asa result of their closer proximity tothe actual armed actors or potentialsecurity and protection threats. Inorder to better understand the protec-tion issues we wanted to focus someof our attention on that particulararea.

Secondly, as many of us who areworking in the humanitarian fieldknow, we frequently talk about theneed to better integrate and includethe displaced in our decision-makingprocesses. This is something which isclearly supported in the GuidingPrinciples on Internal Displacement.Often, however, the difficulty is find-ing out how best to integrate and

Response strategies: the needto involve the displaced

by Marc VincentI would like to start with an overview of theResponse Strategies Project. We started with twoprincipal objectives, the first of which was to under-stand how individuals in communities respond todisplacement.

W

9

include them. It always seems thatwhen emergencies begin and when weare doing evaluations, it is not untilthe end of the process or after the so-called ‘emergency phase’ that wedecide to consult the displaced. Weneed to involve the displaced earlierin the process – indeed, from the verybeginning. For that reason we wantedto start from the very beginning, bylooking at what the displaced do forthemselves and among themselves.

What did we learn from this process?The first lesson for me was to recon-sider the lens through which weviewed the problems of internal dis-placement. As humanitarian workerswe tend to see things in logisticalterms, in terms of emergencies anddelivering assistance as fast as wecan, or we think in terms of protec-tion. And so we often see thedisplaced through a one-dimensionallens: we see them as victims ratherthan as human beings with varioushistories and backgrounds, ambitionsand resources. As Birgitte RefslundSørensen has said, there are differentaxes of identity and all these differentaxes have an impact on how peoplerespond to displacement.

Narrow perspective on vulnerability

By using the uni-dimensional lens wecreate our own dilemmas and expec-tations as well as false dichotomies. Iam reminded of a workshop that werecently held in Burundi where therewas much discussion about vulnera-bility. The question was askedwhether IDPs are more vulnerablethan people living in their own com-munity and whether refugees aremore vulnerable than IDPs. First, thequestion assumed that IDPs must bevulnerable and, second, the ensuingdiscussion created a pointless cate-gorisation of who is more vulnerable.Some of the chapters in the bookCaught Between Borders actually tell amore nuanced story.

The research showed that sometimesa person may be displaced yet notnecessarily be vulnerable. In fact, itshowed that some people even man-aged to improve aspects of their lifeduring displacement – such as findingaccess to education which they werenot able to do before. In anotherexample the research in Angola andAfghanistan showed that people who

are not displaced may be more vul-nerable than those who weredisplaced, because some were unableto flee because of financial reasons.

The point I am trying to make is that,generally, it is important that weagree that the internally displaced arefrequently more vulnerable than othervictims of conflict precisely becausethey have been forced from theirhomes and communities. However, inorder to really understand their situa-tion and what we need to do torespond, we need to look at them asindividuals at the family and commu-nity level. That is why we have chosento use the term ‘changing the humani-tarian lens’ for this conference. It isnot easy for us to step outside thathumanitarian role but I think it issomething that we have to do if weare to better understand what IDPsthemselves are doing and how weshould respond.

It is only when we do change the lensthat we get to see both variety andingenuity among the displaced. Andwe also get a better view of what weshould be doing as a humanitariancommunity to respond to displace-ment without upsetting the delicate

UNHCR/M Kobayashi

IDP children in SriLanka

10 Response strategies: the need to involve the displaced

social balance and fabric – or makingthings worse than they already are.

Preparation for displacement

One area that I found particularly fas-cinating during the research was thelevel of preparation for displacementamong IDPs. For me, it turned theidea of the displaced as victims on itshead and came as a surprise.Comments from Burundi, for example,illustrated that those who survivedthe first instance of flight had muchbetter chances of surviving subse-quent displacements because theybecame better informed, they werebetter able to identify the risks andthey had been able to identify somecontingency plans. There was a clearlearning curve. It showed up in theidentification of essential supplies. InBurma, for example, those displacedwere able to pre-position suppliesalong potential escape routes prior tothe arrival of military patrols. In othercountries there was a change in atti-tude towards goods and belongings;mobile assets – something that youcould carry with you – and personalskills became increasingly important.

In another example from Angola, thechapter describes a tailor who hadbeen displaced several times. Healways brought his sewing machinewith him because it gave him someform of survival capacity after dis-placement; this was something he had

learned after the first experience oflosing everything.

Another example of the learningprocesses of the displaced was thedevelopment of escape routes andsafe havens. One revelation was thenumber of information networks andearly warning systems that existedamong displaced communities. Thesecould be based on groups and fami-lies, on kinship or community. Whendisplacement occurred regularly theseinformation networks were extremelywell developed. In Columbia, forexample, the potentially displacedrelied on both traditional warning sys-tems – such as cattle horns – or moresophisticated messages hidden withinradio programmes to warn of thepresence of armed actors and enablethose potentially in danger to move tosafe areas. However, although thisreveals the resources and capacityavailable, we must be cautious andnot assume that these mechanismsalways work. Despite all the mecha-nisms that exist in Colombia, manypeople still preferred to escape theirhome areas altogether and move inanonymity to large urban settings.

Learning to listen

What kind of implications does thisresearch have for the humanitarianresponse? The first implication isclearly the need to listen better.Obviously, the displaced are much

better prepared than the humanitariancommunity gives them credit for.Humanitarian organisations often pre-fer to rely on their own analysis of asituation rather than giving credenceto local analysis. And this can oftenhave disastrous consequences.Humanitarian organisations need tomake more of an effort to listen toand learn from local analysis. Theycan then support local actors in devel-oping feasible contingency plansshould they be displaced again.

Another area of great importancewhich came out in the research wasthe area of shifting gender and gener-ational roles. The case-studies clearlyunderscored the importance of sup-porting changes in family life and inthe extended community. These arethe structures that play such animportant part in sustaining responsebut they are also the structures thatundergo a great deal of strain. Forexample, many of the contributors tothe book noted that men seemed tosuffer more from losing their housesand employment because that losshad a direct consequence on theirsense of identity and dignity. Thesestrains were reflected in destructivebehaviour ranging from increased alco-holism to violence and direct challengesto women’s role as bread-winners.

For women, displacement prompted awide range of emotions from despairabout providing for their family toenthusiasm about their newly-wonfreedom and their new roles withinthe family. The humanitarian commu-nity frequently looks at womenseparately or at women and childrenas vulnerable groups but perhaps weshould be looking more closely at therelationship between women and menand children so that we can minimisethose strains.

Another area of importance that cameout of the research was the questionof documentation. We often underesti-mate the value of documentation butit is incredibly important for freedomof movement and for accessing socialservices. It would be worthwhile look-ing at how the humanitariancommunity could more regularly facilitate access to documentation.

Marc Vincent was until December2001 the coordinator of theGlobal IDP Project (www.idpproject.org). He now works for OCHA’s newly created IDP Unit. Email: vincent.m@un.org.

IDPs in PavarandoCamp, Colombia

UNHCR/J Spaull

speak also as a leader of an NGOwhich I set up with severalfriends to organise psycho-reha-

bilitation programmes for ourtraumatised children and vocationaltraining programmes for the disabledwomen in our community; and, final-ly, as a member of the UN team inGeorgia who has been given theopportunity to promote the needs ofthe IDP community at the UN level.From all these points of view I want togive you one message: we do not wantto be IDPs. We do not want our chil-dren to be labelled as IDPs; we wantto return home and – until this is pos-sible – we want to live as equalcitizens, with dignity and equal rights.

Prospects of return

After the breakup of the Soviet Union,military conflicts in Georgia led tomassive displacement of the mainlyGeorgian population from the zonesof conflict (Abkhazia and theTskhinvali regions). Abkhazia thenannounced its independence and defacto separation from Georgia. Thereturn of IDPs is now dependent onrestoring Georgian jurisdiction overthe territory of Abkhazia (or on thecreation of international mechanismsfor guaranteeing security).

According to official data, there areabout 282,000 IDPs in government-controlled Georgia. Approximately40% live in so-called communal cen-tres – former public buildings, such ashostels, hotels, hospitals, kinder-gartens and shops. The rest live‘temporarily’ with relatives or friends;some eventually manage to buy pri-vate accommodation. Eight years havepassed and those IDPs who have man-aged to adapt and find jobs representthe minority. The majority of IDPsstill need to think about survival. Thecommunal centres are overcrowded,most IDPs live in miserable condi-tions, unemployment is very high andthe prospect of political settlement ofthe conflict is uncertain.

Security of returnees: peaceinitiatives and prospects

There have been official peace talkssince 1994 but no real achievements.The concept of the status of Abkhaziain the framework of a united Georgia,which was prepared by the SpecialRepresentative of the UN SecretaryGeneral for Georgia, was recently onceagain rejected by the UN SecurityCouncil due to the position taken bythe Russian delegation.

Success is more evident at the level ofcivil society, where Georgian andAbkhaz NGOs have established coop-eration and even managed jointimplementation of some projects.Unfortunately, this cooperation stopsimmediately whenever the question ofIDP returns is raised.

The only zone of possible return forIDPs is the border region, the Gali dis-trict, which before the war (and evennow) was populated almost exclusive-ly by Georgians. From time to timethey return to work their lands butnobody takes responsibility for their

security. The Georgian governmenthas no access because this zone iscontrolled by Abkhaz and Russiansecurity forces. As a result, Georgianreturnees are subject to all kinds ofviolations of human rights – in partic-ular personal security and right toemployment. Women are major vic-tims of these violations because theyrepresent the majority of returnees.Schools which were reopened in theGali district were ordered by the defacto Abkhaz government to operatein the Russian language which, inpractice, is not yet possible as theteachers cannot teach in Russian. Inthe long term it is feared the Georgianlanguage will be eliminated from theregion.

Economic and social statusof IDPs in Georgia:prospects for survival

The social and economic situation ofthe IDP community is a subject ofconcern. Humanitarian needs are stillgreat, especially in remote areaswhere hunger is rife. IDPs with noaccess to land and who live in com-munal centres cannot ensure even aminimal standard of living: the stateallowance is wholly inadequate (US$7per month) and paid very irregularly.The overall deterioration in the situa-tion in Georgia has brought evengreater frustration for the IDP popula-tion. In the face of electricity andwater shortages, the advent of winter,increasing political instability andgovernmental crisis, the prospects forimprovement and positive action forIDPs look doubtful indeed.

For a number of years, the Georgiangovernment recognised only oneoption for the IDP population: returnto Abkhazia. At the same time,because of the lack of progress inofficial negotiations, it was clear thatthe displaced should have the oppor-tunity at least to gain temporaryintegration. UNDP, UNHCR, the WorldBank and NGOs involved in IDP issuestried for a long time to promote theright of IDPs to participate on an

11

Internal displacement inGeorgia: a personal perspective

by Julia Kharashvili

I speak as an IDP woman whose husband was miss-ing after the war in Georgia, and who was displacedwith two small children, no shelter and no job.

I

12 Internal displacement in Georgia: a personal perspective

equal basis in development pro-grammes; finally in 1999 the Georgiangovernment and the UN togetherlaunched a “new approach to IDPassistance”. The Georgian Self-Reliance Fund (GSRF) was created: apilot fund for the support of self-reliance initiatives which should beinnovative and appropriate for the IDPcommunity. The “new approach” wasan attempt to include the internallydisplaced in a general framework ofdevelopment and to ensure theirequal rights to employment, housingand social services.

Initial contributions for the fund wereprovided by the UN agencies, USAIDand the Swiss Agency for Development.Unfortunately, the GSRF has not yetbecome an instrument for realchange, firstly because it is only apilot fund and secondly because theprocess was developed too slowly. Atthe same time, expectations in the IDPcommunity were and continue to bevery high. It is important to mentionthat there is still a great interest inthis fund among the IDP population.No fewer than 85 projects were sub-mitted to the current, second roundof competition.

There are several opportunities forimprovement of this “new approach”initiative and for transforming it intoa real tool for social change in the IDPcommunity:

■ The new approach should beimplemented in its entirety, notfocusing only on GSRF; the firstarticle of this initiative, for exam-ple, stated that the UN shouldcontinue to promote the right ofIDPs to return to Abkhazia.

■ Equal rights and access to infor-mation should not only befinanced through GSRF but alsoadvocated at all levels; here theUN can cooperate more explicitlywith the NGOs.

■ More international and nationalNGOs should participate in thedesign and monitoring of this ini-tiative.

■ It is important that the initiativescoming from the UN or otherintergovernmental organisationsare gender-sensitive and recog-nise the role that IDP womenhave played – and continue toplay – in their community’s sur-vival during the emergency andpost-emergency stages.

■ It is vital to ensure that theguidelines of the new approachreflect the vision of the IDPsthemselves, not the donor com-munity’s vision.

■ Most importantly, the newapproach initiative should havesufficient financial backing to

ensure that all real initiatives canbe financed and implemented.

■ The UN and other initiators ofthe new approach should ensurethat useful and innovative pro-jects approved by the GSRF canbe replicated in different regionsfor both the IDP and the residentcommunities (such as road infra-structure and rehabilitation ofpublic buildings).

Recent paramilitary operations inAbkhazia have shown that ex-combat-ants, veterans and war invalids can beeasily recruited into the armed forcessimply because they have no positivealternative. In Georgia, the interna-tional community has always beenreluctant to work with this categoryof IDPs. No nationwide demobilisationprogrammes, retraining or specialeducation have been undertaken.Their skills are a resource whichshould be harnessed to stabilise thesituation and to give these IDPs achance to participate in preparationsfor peaceful return or integration.

The word ‘integration’ continues to bepainful for IDPs. Even when they havethe chance to integrate with the resi-dent community, it is difficultpsychologically as they would still pre-fer to return if Georgian jurisdictionover Abkhazia were restored. Providinga meaningful legal guarantee thatimprovement of IDP living conditions

Corn-growing pro-ject for 100 AbkhazIDP families whoseprospects of return

are limited.

UNHCR/A Hollmann

in government-controlled Georgiawould not imperil the chance ofreturning to Abkhazia would makedevelopment programmes much moreattractive for the displaced population.

The IDP community in Georgia repre-sents very different groups, rangingfrom peasants from the Gali to a high-ly educated community (about 45%with a university degree) fromSukhumi. Many have experience intechnology, agricultural managementand industry. With their knowledge ofresources, skills and implementation,they have created their own develop-ment strategies which could easily beincluded in the international commu-nity’s development programmes. Atthe same time, humanitarian assis-tance has almost ground to a halt andthe most vulnerable IDPs have fewsurvival resources.

Who can and should give avoice to IDPs today?

The government in exile, recreated inexile after displacement, initiallyserved as a means of communicationwith the central government but hasnow almost lost this function.Economically, the government hasshowed no ability to mobilise resourcesfor development of the IDP community.They are not sufficiently trusted by theinternational organisations and donorcommunity and cannot set up real sup-porting structures.

From the beginning, international andlocal NGOs in Georgia have beenworking shoulder to shoulder to pro-tect the rights of the displaced, toraise the capacity of IDPs and toaddress their most urgent needs. Theworking groups from the GenevaConference on Migration has created anetwork to promote equal politicaland social participation of IDPs. Atthe same time, over the last few yearsthe IDP community itself has not beenvery active at the level of civil societyand has tried mainly to achieve itsgoals through political demands andactions. Several NGOs existing thendid not significantly change the gener-al picture.

During the last year, however, somechanges in the social structure of theIDP community have been evident.When the process of establishing non-governmental and community-basedorganisations was reinforced both bydonor policy (such as the newapproach initiative) and by the failure

of official negotiations for peacefulreturn, at least four different net-works of IDP NGOs were created inthe capital and in the regions.Recently, a forum of NGOs of IDPsand refugees from the SouthernCaucasus was held in Tbilisi to dis-cuss the opportunities and challengesfacing them. Many constructive pro-posals were put forward.

The Guiding Principles on InternalDisplacement present a range of waysto increase social participation of IDPsand to improve their standard of liv-ing and status in the community. Insome regions, such as Samegreloregion which has a very large IDP pop-ulation, both local authorities andIDPs themselves have a poor under-standing of the Guiding Principles. Inother areas, however, organisationsare starting to use them as a tool ineveryday practice. In 2001 a new elec-toral law was approved which,because of NGO lobbying, allows IDPsthe right to fully participate in parlia-mentary and municipal elections. It isnecessary to raise awareness of theGuiding Principles not only ingovernment-controlled Georgia butalso in the zone of possible return sothat the de facto authorities also knowthe legal rights of returnees.

Conclusions

■ There are many untappedresources within the humanitari-an and intergovernmentalorganisations, as well as withinthe IDP community itself.

■ After eight years of displacement,civic activists from the IDP com-munity are ready to take onresponsibility. The creation ofNGOs and community based

organisations is enabling them toidentify and make more effectiveuse of the intellectual and socialcapital of the IDP community.

■ Programme design shouldacknowledge the capacity andvision of the IDP community.

■ The state, together with interna-tional organisations, shoulddesign programmes which willemploy both IDPs and residentsliving in the same areas, in thesame type of work, for the bene-fit of the whole of society.

■ Vulnerable groups should beassisted within the framework ofdevelopment programmes, draw-ing on Georgia’s experience from1998 when emergency assistancewas provided within the frame-work of development.

■ Project blueprints should bedeveloped – to be implementedby the Georgian government withsupport from the UN, internation-al organisations and NGOs –which realistically meet theobjectives of the new approach:better housing, better employ-ment, equal human rights andequal benefits for IDPs and resi-dent communities.

■ The Guiding Principles onInternal Displacement should bepromoted to the de facto authori-ties in conflict zones which arepossible areas of return.

Julia Kharashvili is Director of the IDP Women’s Association inGeorgia and a UN Volunteer. Email: julia.kharashvili@unv.org.ge

13

UNHCR/A Hollmann

UNHCR workingwith local NGOAtinati to providepsychosocial rehabili-tation programmesfor IDP children from Abkhazia.

14

t the end of the 1990s, I wasliving with my family inMonteria where I had been

working as a primary teacher for eightyears. I was also studying for a degreein Spanish and Literature. I was com-munity leader for the district where Ilived, developing social programmesto help improve the quality of life ofthe residents.

In 1998, the army’s 11th Brigade initi-ated a major project to build twooxidation lakes for the treatment ofsewage effluent from military installa-tions on the perimeter of the district.Aware of the potentially harmfuleffects for the environment and thehealth of the inhabitants, the commu-nity opposed their construction. Theywrote letters, held protests and con-vened a Public Environmental Hearing.

As president of the Committee forCommunal Action and as one of theleaders opposing the project, Ireceived verbal threats from membersof the B-2 military intelligence organi-sation. Armed B-2 agents visited myhome. Eventually in May 1998 I had toleave with my family.

After our arrival in Bogota, our livingconditions were very poor. I receivedno assistance from the governmentand had to look elsewhere to survive,seeking help from the churches, NGOsand local communities to support myfamily – my wife and two sons of oneand eight years.

We initially rented an apartment. Wedid not try to access governmentassistance as, in addition to the lackof information about how to apply, wealso feared for our safety in case the

authorities denounced us to the army.This situation lasted for five monthsuntil we received emergency humani-tarian assistance from the Ministry ofthe Interior.

In 1999 we set up the Association ofDisplaced People for PeacefulCoexistence (ADESCOP) in order tooffer solidarity to displaced familiesand to develop assistance pro-grammes in accordance withColombia’s 1997 Law 387. This organ-isation, of which I am president,currently includes 250 families.ADESCOP is part of the Bogota Desk

on Internal Displacement, formed bythree organisations of displaced peo-ple working with an NGO devoted toformulating proposals for solutionsand to developing dialogue withnational and local government author-ities. Since 2000 ADESCOP has beeninvolved in the National Coordinationof Displaced Persons, an attempt atawareness-raising by IDP organisa-tions in different regions of thecountry. Despite many difficulties, wehave tried to establish a dialogue withthe National System for Care of theDisplaced Population.

In February 2001 I was electedRepresentative of the Displaced in theDistrict Council for Care of theDisplaced Population, responsible forthe development of the District Planfor Care of the Displaced Populationand for ensuring its coordinatedimplementation by the DistrictMayor’s office and by the public enti-

My experience as a leader ofthe displaced in Colombia

by Antonio Perez Ballestero Hober

In the 1980s the department of Cordoba started tobe affected by the presence of paramilitary groupsand by their actions against the civil population,especially against peasant, community and unionleaders.

A

CINEP (Centro de Investigación y Educación Popular)

ties at national level. Despite the factthat the representatives of the dis-placed in this council have beenconstant in participation and in puttingforward proposals for action, aftereight months of meetings the DistrictPlan has still not been approved.

In my experience, the main difficultiesfor the organisations of the displacedand for its leaders are:

■ the dispersal, heterogeneity andanonymity of the displaced popu-lations in Bogota

■ lack of information among thedisplaced population regardingtheir rights and regarding theprocesses for access to the fewgovernment programmes thatexist

■ the continuation of persecution,threats and attacks by armedgroups

■ discrimination and rejection bylocal authorities and communities

■ Despite the existence of a lawprotecting the rights of the dis-placed, the response of the stateis less than generous, usually lateand generally focused on emer-gency assistance. Furthermore,the authorities delegate their

responsiblities to national andinternational NGOs.

■ Facing this situation, the dis-placed population is then at thewhim of offers of help and ofpressure by political sectors andarmed groups.

■ Basic operating conditions do notexist for organisations nor forthe practice of leadership anddialogue with the state. The gov-ernment does not support theorganisations; its relations withthem are characterised by dis-trust, lack of transparency andverbal aggression. Also, in thefew instances of participationand dialogue, the governmentwill not offer logistical assistance(offices, transport, photocopiesof documents, etc) which meansthat most of the organisationsare weak and it is difficult for theleaders to do their work and sup-port their families.

■ The government does not meetits obligations under Law 387 tooffer protection to IDPs andtheir leaders, many of whom areonce again victims of threats,attacks and repeated displacement.

On the other hand, my experiencedoes offer some positive results:

■ Despite all the above constraints,the displaced population persistsin its attempts to organise inorder to rebuild its social fabricand to demand that the govern-ment fulfil its legal duties to carefor and protect IDPs.

■ Through its efforts in organisa-tion and training, the displacedpopulation has succeeded in for-mulating and disseminatingseveral proposals for widescalesolutions (such as resettlementand urban integration) andpressed demands for truth, jus-tice and reparation.

■ There has been some progress inrelations between the organisa-tions for the displacedpopulation and national andinternational NGOs, UN agenciesand other sectors of Colombiancivil society.

Antonio Perez Ballestero Hober is president of ADESCOP(www.colombiaproject.org/aboutus/about_us_adescop.jsp).Email:adescop@yahoo.com

15My experience as a leader of the displaced in Colombia

n order to strengthen the interna-tional community’s response insituations of internal displace-

ment, a new Unit has been establishedunder the UN Inter-Agency StandingCommittee. The Unit will bring togeth-er major agencies working for IDPs. In July 2000 the UN Inter-AgencyStanding Committee, a body thatgroups agencies involved in humani-tarian work, decided to establish anInter-Agency network on internal dis-placement composed of focal pointsfrom different organisations. The net-work was to be an ad hoc body whichwould look at the questions of inter-nal displacement and come up withrecommendations. A special co-ordi-

nator was appointed, my predecessorDennis McNamara. This group hasundertaken a number of missions todifferent IDP situations, visitingEthiopia, Eritrea, Burundi,Afghanistan, Colombia and Angola.The network came up with recommen-dations on ways of improving theresponse to IDP situations in thesecountries.

In addition to the missions, one of thetasks of the network was to proposeinstitutional mechanisms for respond-ing to these situations of internaldisplacement. In August 2001 it wasdecided to create a Unit. Putting thisUnit together is one of the tasks that Ihave undertaken. The Unit is expectedto strengthen the hand of theEmergency Relief Coordinator whoheads the UN Office for the

IDPs: time to move forwardby Kofi Asomani

Governments and the UN believe that the responseto internal displacement has often been ineffective.

I

IDPs: time to move forward16

Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs(OCHA) and to find ways of support-ing the system when there is anemergency concerning IDPs. The Unitwill be small, non-operational andcomposed of staff seconded fromsuch key IDP agencies as UNICEF,WFP, UNDP and IOM, as well as NGOs.The recommendation to set up theUnit has been endorsed by the UNSecretary-General and we expect theUnit to be fully operational from 1January 2002.

In addition to the involvement of UNorganisations, the Unit will workclosely with other intergovernmentalorganisations and the large range ofNGOs working with IDPs. We will alsoestablish close liaison with theRepresentative of the Secretary-General on IDPs, Francis Deng,particularly in support of his ownadvocacy functions.

The Unit will have a great opportunityto make a difference in three particu-lar areas where there have been gapsin the way that the international com-munity has dealt with IDPs. First of allwe need to have more accountabilityin terms of what the international sys-tem does. There are too manyrecommendations, too many missions,too many ideas which are not imple-mented. By ensuring thatrecommendations are actually fol-lowed up, the Unit will add value topresent arrangements.

Secondly, we hope to sharpen ourresponse in terms of protection. Themissions of the network have con-cluded that in many cases theprotection response was very weak or,in some places, non-existent. One ofthe first tasks of the Unit will be toestablish a small sub-committee ofagencies dealing with protection. Wewant to discover ways of operational-ising the Guiding Principles onInternal Displacement, to come upwith ways of dealing practically withprotection in situations of internaldisplacement.

A third area where we need to moveforward quickly is that of solutions.There should be a bigger thrusttowards finding actual solutions tothe problems faced by displaced per-sons. We have seen this happen inplaces where it has been possible toget communities together with author-ities to come forward with solutionsallowing more or less permanent reso-lution of the situation of displacement.

At times there is a lack of in-depthanalysis and a lack of sensitivitytowards the communities with whomthe UN is supposed to be dealing. Thisin turn leads to a situation where thedesired activities of the UN do nothave the desired impact. Capacitiesexist either within IDP populations orin the wider environment in whichthey live which could be mobilised torespond effectively to the situationsthat we are faced with.

We sometimes lack access: the abilityto provide IDPs with assistance andprotection. Resources available to usare in many cases deficient. We needto stress the importance of promotingempowerment of IDPs and vulnerablepopulations so that they themselvescan recognise possibilities, recognisetheir aspirations and identify ways ofsupporting the response strategy fordealing with their own situations.Fortunately, there is a growing under-standing that this is a dimension ofthe international community’s effortson behalf of vulnerable populationswhich needs to be expanded. I amtalking not only about economicempowerment but also about protec-tion. In Colombia and elsewhere, wehave seen that IDPs can play a keyrole in protecting themselves. In situa-tions where communities were awarethat they were the objects of displace-ment, the fact that they were very wellorganised enabled them to be able towithstand and to foresee the impactof displacement. In some contextsthey were even able to avoid displace-ment, because they were organised. Insome situations, they were able toassert themselves as a communi-ty and, at the same time, claimtheir rights.

We think it is necessary tohelp IDPs to help them-selves, particularlyin the search fordurable solutions.The activities in thisregard must have asa starting pointsupport of thecapacities ofthe groupsthemselves.

They should aim not just at support-ing them to be resilient but also athelping them promote in a construc-tive manner their recovery andreintegration. We have examples ofhow this has been done. We haveexamples of IDP communities beinghelped to help themselves in Georgia,Azerbaijan and elsewhere in the fieldsof professional training, income-gen-erating activities, credit schemes andso on. As a Unit we will try hard todevelop and expand activities in theseareas. We are planning a review ofactivities in Georgia and Azerbaijan inorder to draw out lessons which canbe applied elsewhere.

We want to broaden the UN response,to make it more effective and moretimely. We will also be looking at thewider environment. We will focus onwhat IDPs can do and what opportuni-ties are presented by situations sothat they can respond to their ownneeds.

Kofi Asomani is the UN SpecialCoordinator on InternalDisplacement. Email: asomani@un.org

UNHCR/A Hollmann

IDPs in Azerbaijan

also thank them for the collabora-tion they have extended to theRepresentative of the UN

Secretary-General on IDPs, FrancisDeng, and for today’s programmewhich focuses on an aspect of internaldisplacement often overlooked: theresponse strategies of IDPs and howthe international community can sup-port them.

The Guiding Principles on InternalDisplacement are an important toolfor IDPs. Presented to the UN in 1998,they are the first international stan-dards for IDPs. They consist of 30Principles which identify the rights ofIDPs and the obligations of govern-ments and insurgent groups towardthese populations. They also provideguidance to all other actors engagedwith IDPs – in particular internationalorganisations and NGOs. They coverall phases of displacement – prior todisplacement (the right not to be dis-placed), during displacement andduring return or resettlement andreintegration. They are based on inter-national human rights law,international humanitarian law and

refugee law by analogy. They bringtogether into one document all theprovisions of international humanrights and humanitarian law relevantto IDPs. What is unique about thePrinciples is that in addition to restat-ing provisions of existing law theytailor the provisions of the law to thespecific needs of IDPs.

The Principles were developed by ateam of international legal expertsunder the direction of the Represent-ative of the Secretary-General and inconsultation with a wide range ofinternational organisations, NGOs andresearch institutions. Although theyare not a legally binding documentlike a treaty, since their presentationto the UN Commission on HumanRights in 1998 they have fast acquireda good deal of international standing,moral authority and acceptance. Onereason for this is that they are basedon, and are consistent with, bindinglaw. Another reason is the overridingneed for a document relevant to IDPs.Prior to their preparation, there wasno single document to turn to oninternal displacement.

International organisations, regionalbodies, non-governmental groups anda growing number of governmentshave acknowledged the Principles andare using them as a basis for policyand law. Indeed, a unanimouslyadopted resolution by 53 states during the April 2001 UN Commissionon Human Rights recognised that anincreasing number of states, UN agencies and regional and non-govern-mental organisations are making useof them. The resolution called fortheir further dissemination and application.

How can the GuidingPrinciples support theresponse strategies of IDPs?

There are five principal ways.

First, the Guiding Principles providea framework for understanding theproblem. In many countries IDPs donot realise that they have certainrights or that local authorities haveobligations toward them. They are notaware of internal displacement as aphenomenon or do not realise thatpeople in other countries are suffer-ing in the same way and that inter-national approaches are being devel-oped to address the issue. InIndonesia, for example, I found IDPsinterested to learn about a documentthat explained their plight andshowed them that internal displace-ment is a worldwide problem forwhich solutions are being sought andthat there might even be an emerginginternational responsibility towardIDPs. In Macedonia, where I have beenon two different occasions to lead dis-cussions on internal displacement andthe Principles, displaced persons wereinterested in learning more abouttheir situation and how it comparedwith other situations in Europe. ThePrinciples thus are a valuable frame-

17

The Guiding Principles:how do they support IDPresponse strategies?

by Roberta Cohen

It is a great pleasure to be in Oslo again. I wouldlike to thank the Norwegian Refugee Council and itsSecretary-General Steinar Sørlie and the GlobalIDP Project led by Marc Vincent for the importantwork they are doing worldwide for IDPs.

I

work for promoting a greater under-standing of what is happening topeople when they become forcibly dis-placed.

Second, the Guiding Principles are anempowerment tool. When displacedpeople learn that certain standardsexist which bear on their plight itgives them ideas for empoweringthemselves. Just look at the languageof the Guiding Principles. They assert,for example, that IDPs have the rightto request and receive protection andhumanitarian assistance from nationalauthorities. They speak of participa-tion of IDPs in planning anddistributing supplies and in planningand managing their return and reinte-gration. This is empowermentlanguage. I saw this to be the case inColombia when meeting with a groupof internally displaced women fromall parts of the country. Despite thesecurity threats they faced and thematerial deprivation they suffered,they were heartened to learn that adocument existed with articles specif-ic to their particular needs. Inparticular, Principle 20 on the right ofwomen to have documents in theirown name resonated with thesewomen. This is something they coulduse, they said. Right now, theBrookings-CUNY Project on InternalDisplacement, which I co-direct, isworking with NGOs in Colombia todevelop an outreach campaign to dis-placed communities based on theGuiding Principles so that these com-munities can better use the Principlesin support of their own responsestrategies.

Third, the Guiding Principles are amonitoring tool, a valuable bench-mark for measuring conditions in acountry. At present, a number ofregional and non-governmental organ-isations are monitoring conditions inparticular countries in terms of thePrinciples. Displaced communities canbegin to undertake monitoring aswell. One can see the beginnings ofthis in Colombia, Sri Lanka, Georgiaand Macedonia, where the Principleshave been translated into the locallanguages and outreach programmesare underway.

Fourth, the Guiding Principles canserve as an advocacy tool. Of course,this works best when IDPs are alreadyin conditions of relative safety andcan pursue advocacy vis-à-vis theirlocal and national authorities. In the

Southern Caucasus, for example, IDPsare working together with lawyers inGeorgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia toexamine the laws and regulations intheir countries in terms of theGuiding Principles and to advocate forlegislative reform. When discriminato-ry electoral laws were identified inGeorgia, a group of IDPs made anappeal to the Supreme Court. Whenthe court did not rule in their favour,IDPs together with NGOs appealed tothe government which announced atthe UN that it would explore bringingthis particular law and other laws intoline with the relevant provisions inthe Guiding Principles. Another com-pelling example can be found in SriLanka where an NGO consortium (theConsortium of HumanitarianAgencies) organised a meetingbetween IDP camp commanders andIDP representatives using the GuidingPrinciples as the framework. At themeeting, the representatives of theIDPs advocated for better conditions,in particular more ample food rations,more timely deliveries of food, cleanwater and more personal security inthe camps. They found the Principlesa valuable vehicle for making theirconcerns known.

Fifth, the Guiding Principles define‘protection’ for IDPs and provide aframework for developing protec-tion strategies. IDPs not only needfood, medicine and shelter. They alsorequire protection of their personalsecurity and human rights. Indeed,IDPs often point out that protectionagainst assault, rape and forcedrecruitment is as essential to them asmaterial assistance. While there is nointernational consensus on whoshould undertake protection activitiesin support of the response strategiesof the displaced, the Handbook forApplying the Guiding Principles, pub-lished by the UN and the BrookingsInstitution, does set forth the kinds ofsteps that can be taken to enhanceprotection for IDPs. It contains sec-tions on ‘What You Can Do’ whichoffers a framework for a protectionstrategy. The Handbook, for example,suggests that channels of communica-tion should be opened betweendisplaced communities and nationalor local authorities and it shows howinternational organisations and NGOscan assist in achieving this. It alsocalls for members of displaced com-munities to visit proposed relocationsites with a view to evaluating theirsafety. On a trip to Angola last year,

the Representative of the Secretary-General recommended that NGOs andinternational organisations consultwith displaced populations to developprotection strategies using theGuiding Principles and Handbook asthe base.

To be widely used, the GuidingPrinciples will have to be translatedinto local languages. So far, the UNhas translated the Guiding Principlesinto its six working languages. Inaddition, governments, UN agenciesand international and local NGOs havehad the Principles translated into afurther 15 languages. Even this ishardly enough: requests come in regu-larly from different countries. Forexample, there are requests fromUganda to translate the Principles intoGulu for use in IDP camps, from Iraqto translate the Principles intoKurdish, from East Timor to translatethe Principles into Tetum and fromthe Sudan for a Dinka translation.Priority needs to be given to theserequests by the UN and resourcesmade available.

The Handbook for Applying theGuiding Principles must also be trans-lated and disseminated in the morethan 40 countries affected by internaldisplacement. Here, an even worsedeficiency exists. The Handbook existsat the UN in published form inEnglish only, even though theHandbook sets forth (and indeed isthe only text that does set forth) whatinternational organisations, NGOs andIDPs can do to reinforce responsestrategies. Unfortunately, the UN hasnot fully focused on the importanceof empowering local displaced

18 The Guiding Principles: how do they support IDP response strategies?

19The Guiding Principles: how do they support IDP response strategies?

communities. It has not initiatedtranslations of this booklet into theUN’s working languages or developedoutreach strategies to use the bookletin these languages.

To fill this gap, the Brookings-CUNYProject has recently had the Handbooktranslated into French and the UN hasagreed to publish it. Next, we willfund the translation of the Handbookinto Russian and will again ask the UNto publish it. In Colombia, NGOs andthe Pan American Health Organisationhave translated the Handbook intoSpanish and the Brookings-CUNYProject has agreed to help with thepublication and dissemination of thebooklet in Latin America.

However, translations of theHandbook are needed not only intothe UN’s working languages but alsointo local languages, and outreachcampaigns are needed to disseminatethe Principles to IDPs. Here, some ini-

tiative has begun to be shown by theUN. In Indonesia, for example, theOffice for the Coordination ofHumanitarian Affairs (OCHA), togetherwith the Brookings-CUNY Project, is having the Handbook translatedinto Bahasa Indonesia and an out-reach campaign is being developed byOCHA and OXFAM. This kind of pro-gramme could well be replicated inother countries.

In Sri Lanka, with help from UNHCR,the Norwegian Refugee Council andthe Brookings-CUNY Project, an NGOconsortium has published a Toolkit inEnglish, Sinhala and Tamil, based onthe Guiding Principles and theHandbook, to help empower andstrengthen the capacities of IDPs. The University of Skopje, with support from UNHCR and theBrookings-CUNY Project, has translat-ed the Principles and the Handbookinto Macedonian and Albanian. TheUN must give greater priority to thiseffort and hopefully will do sothrough its newly-formed IDP Unitheaded by Kofi Asomani.

Strengthening the response strategiesof IDPs is one of the most importantways we can help. As emphasised inthe Norwegian Refugee Council’s newbook, Caught Between Borders, IDPsare not just victims but resources. Wemust work to reinforce their capaci-ties and help provide them with thetools they can use to help themselvesand in the languages in which theyneed them.

In closing, I would like to recount anexperience from the human rightsarena to emphasise the importance ofmaking the Guiding Principles and

Handbook available to displaced pop-ulations. Back in the 1970s, throughmy human rights work I had the occa-sion to meet a Soviet dissident whohad been confined to a psychiatrichospital because of his political views.He had been injected with painfuldrugs, abused and partially starved.Because of an international campaign,he was released. When I met him inNew York, I could not help but askhim: “How did you get through all ofthis?” In response, he took a crum-pled piece of paper from his backpocket, and said, “This is how.” Thepaper was the text of the InternationalCovenants on Human Rights, the UN-adopted standards on civil, political,economic, social and cultural rights.This man had memorised them andknew them by heart.

When I asked him how it was possiblethat this document had sustained himwhen his government did not abide bythe standards in the Covenants, hereplied: “Oh, they know about them,they adopted resolutions on them atthe UN, in fact they have ratifiedthem, and one day they will have toobserve them.” Holding up theCovenants, he said, “This documenthas power.” He proved to be right. I believe this story should be instruc-tive for today’s discussions about theGuiding Principles and how they canreinforce the response strategies ofIDPs.

Roberta Cohen is Co-Director ofthe Brookings-CUNY Project onInternal Displacement(www.brook.edu/fp/projects/idp/idp.htm). Email: RCOHEN@brookings.edu

Testimony of a displaced woman trained in community protection and conflict resolution at Salga Camp, LuandaProvince, Angola:

“I knew that we had rights, just like any other person. Now that I know exactly what theyare, it is my responsibility to ensure that my community understands them too. I am awidow, a mother of four. I never went to school. I am thankful for this opportunity tolearn and teach about our rights. If we know about the Guiding Principles and the[Angolan] Norms [on Resettlement], we know our lives can improve.”

rom this study and other ongo-

ing research projects emerge a

number of other themes which

are important in the process from

conflict to peace and about which we

still have very little knowledge and

understanding. One that I will be

working on in the coming years is the

role of local organisations and institu-

tions in helping communities or

households to cope with conflict-

induced problems and to grasp new

opportunities which present them-

selves.

Armed conflicts can affect local

organisations in numerous ways.

Some cease to exist as a result of dis-

placement or lack of resources or

because they are no longer relevant to

people’s lives. Others continue to

exist but adjust activities and respon-

sibilities to suit the new

circumstances. Some find that their

role and influence are enhanced. War,

displacement and new economic

forces may give rise to new local

organisations and institutions.

Humanitarian agencies have long been

interested in building on, supporting

and working through local organisa-

tions. Arguments in support of this

strategy variously point to notions of

‘ownership’, ‘partnership’, ‘sustain-

ability’ or ‘accountability’. In practice,

humanitarian agencies usually either

support and reinforce some existing

organisations (while marginalising

others) or they create new organisa-

tions or institutions after judging that

existing local NGOs do not have the

capacity or commitment to match the

agencies’ expectations.

Such changes in the organisational

and institutional landscape naturally

affect what kinds of leadership

emerges and how leaders relate to the

population at large. Seen from a wider

perspective, these processes enable us

to get a glimpse of the kinds of future

societies and political cultures that

are emerging. For practitioners, the

main concerns remain how to develop

and implement sustainable projects

and to identify suitable partners. For

researchers the task is to understand

societal development in its totality or

at least from a broader and longer

perspective.

Research into processes of social and

political change in local organisations

and institutions involves seeking

answers to a variety of questions.

What are their ‘ground rules’? Are

they working toward unity or frag-

mentation? Are claims to authority

made through means of force or dis-

tribution? Who do their leaders take

as their role models – kings, rebels,

entrepreneurs or administrators? Are

they perceived and judged by the pub-

lic in terms of charisma, insight, their

ability to access and share resources

or by their capacity to bring justice?

Do organisations and leaders eventu-

ally work toward peace or new social

and political conflicts?

We need to identify traditional and

new organisations and institutions in

different localities and document

what kind of activities they assume

responsibility for. We need to explore

how different organisations create

and define their constituencies and

the kinds of relationship or exchange

between them. How are their presence

and influence negotiated and legit-

imised? How do traditional and more

recent forms of leadership and organ-

isations relate to each other? Does

one form marginalise the other? Do

they agree upon a division of labour

or are they forever locked in conflict?

On a more theoretical level the

answers which will hopefully emerge

may shed new light on the meaning of

terms like ‘civil society’, ‘community’

and ‘politics’ in societies emerging

from conflict.

Birgitte Sørensen is Associate

Professor, Institute of

Anthropology, University of

Copenhagen. She is co-editor of

Caught Between Borders:

Response Strategies of the

Internally Displaced.

Email: birgitte.soerensen@anthro.

ku.dk

See p 47 for details of Caught

Between Borders.

20 Working Group I: research

Transformations in local organisations, institutionsand leadership

by Birgitte Refslund Sørensen

The Response Strategies project has broken newground in identifying IDP response strategies.

F

21

The response strategies ofIDPs: questions to be asked

by Cathrine Brun

hat are the gaps? What arethe priorities? Where do wego next? How should we do

research with IDPs?

Empirical experience from Sri Lanka’sprotracted crisis of internal displace-

ment provides some answers. My PhDproject is about the Muslim IDPs whowere expelled by the Liberation Tigersof Tamil Eelam in 1990. After 11years as IDPs they have slimprospects of return in the near future.I have been analysing how thoseinvolved with and affected by dis-placement are creating and recreatingsocial organisation and relationships,livelihood strategies and sense ofplace.

In Sri Lanka and elsewhere there is lit-tle knowledge of either why internaldisplacement is often so protracted orhow hosts are involved in and affect-ed by internal displacement. Howdoes the meaning of the IDP categorychange for the people involved withdisplacement? What are the needs andrights of IDPs that should be acknowl-

edged at different stages of their dis-placement? Now that researchersunderstand that people who areforced to move do not necessarilybecome powerless and lose their iden-tities, why do we still know so littleabout how power relations and identi-ties change, or do not change, due todisplacement?

As time goes on it is not necessarilythe case that IDPs and hosts becomemore and more integrated. Evidencefrom Sri Lanka, where the IDP conceptis well known, shows that perpetuat-ing the categories of IDP and non-IDP(in order to access resources from dif-ferent external actors) results in astatic dichotomy which restricts localintegration and normalisation ofsocial relations. In some long-termcases of displacement, the length ofthe displacement may cause furthertensions and the integration processmay be reversed. There should bemore research on the whole history ofintegration processes. We also need to

Despite what we think there are huge gaps in ourunderstanding and knowledge of the response strategies of IDPs.

W

IDPs in Sri Lanka.

UNHCR/M Kobayashi

22 The response strategies of IDPs: questions to be asked Working Group I: research

know more about what happens in anarea when humanitarian agencieswithdraw but IDPs remain.

Since Chambers wrote in 1986 thatthe poor are the ‘hidden losers’ incrises of displacement there has beena rhetorical commitment to includingthe hosts in academic, policy andpractical work. However, very littlesystematic research has been under-taken that actively studies andanalyses the situation of the hostsother than as complementary back-ground actors. More knowledge isneeded on the role of the hosts inprotracted cases of displacement. A

more active and systematic involve-ment of the hosts and a realisationthat actors involved in displacementinclude both the people who flee, thepeople who stay behind and the hostsare needed to get a more holisticunderstanding of crises of internaldisplacement.

Studies of the crises of internal dis-placement often tend to emphasisethe civil war or other type of conflictcausing the displacement but payinsufficient attention to social con-flicts among IDPs or between IDPsand their hosts. How to make sense ofsuch social conflicts in times of civil

war is a challenge that requires closerconnection with all parties to a con-flict. We need to ask how well we asresearchers and aid workers makesense of people’s explanations andrationale on both the causes of con-flicts and of their involvement inthem.

Cathrine Brun is completing aPhD at the Department ofGeography, Norwegian Universityof Science and Technology(NTNU). Email: cathrine.brun@svt.ntnu.no

hen does a displaced personcease to be considered dis-placed? If someone was

displaced ten years ago but is nowintegrated into the local community,should they still be considered anIDP? Should there be a cut-off point?

In Angola, government policy is toclassify people as ‘displaced’ for thefirst six months after which they arejudged to be ‘integrated’ even if therehas been no change in their circum-stances. What criteria should we useto differentiate IDPs from other war-affected populations such asdemobilised soldiers, their depen-dants and camp followers, returningrefugees and street children? Is it pos-sible to, and should we, differentiateIDPs from the urban poor?

Amid these uncertainties, it is hard toreach agreement on a realistic esti-mate of IDP numbers. The kind ofquantifiable data required by donorsto formulate budgets, policy and pro-grammes is lacking.

Compounding these difficulties arepolitical and security-related con-straints on reaching and talking to

IDP communities. IDPs are often asensitive issue for governments whomay be unwilling to cooperate withinformation gathering. The Sudanesegovernment has in the past preventedor frustrated efforts to collect data ondisplaced populations because thedisplaced are perceived as a politicaland security threat to the authorities.This attitude has made it difficult toobtain information about places oforigin, location, numbers, nutritionalstatus and duration of displacement.The government’s position has alsocreated difficulties for local researchorganisations working on IDP issues.Some of the data in our chapter onSudan in Caught Between Borders wasgathered by a local Sudanese researchorganisation working in collaborationwith the Feinstein InternationalFamine Center at Tufts University. Forsecurity reasons, the name of thisorganisation could not be mentionedin the publication.

Governmental sensitivities about IDPscan also lead to disputed informationon such issues as the number of dis-placed persons and their regionaldistribution. In Sudan there is a long-standing disagreement between the

Some problems with conducting research on IDPlivelihood strategies

by Karen Jacobsen

Compared with studying refugees or other researchpopulations, the task of defining what we mean by‘IDP’ and counting their numbers is fraught withdifficulty.

W

government and the UN and interna-tional NGOs over when displacementoccurred, relief strategies and defini-tions of categories. These problemsare exacerbated by weaknesses innational census data.

As researchers, advocates and policymakers, we need the following kindsof information in order to supportIDP livelihoods:

■ better data on how many (andwho) we are dealing with

■ improved understanding ofpatterns of movement, andprogressive impoverishment(A widespread pattern is for ruralpeople to move to local towns insearch of security or food andthen, when towns become unsafe,to migrate further afield, perhapstowards the capital, the numbersof those on the move growing asresidents of small towns join theflow. In Sudan, Angola and manyother war-affected countries we

see a trend for people to move toalready overcrowded government-controlled urban areas.)

■ the extent of social and economicinteraction with local communi-ties (What factors enable orobstruct the pursuit of livelihoodsin the context of displacement?)

■ the priorities of IDPs and whetherassistance strategies in officialand unofficial settlement areasaddress them. (What other priori-ties can be identified beyond theneed for health care, shelter,food, water and cash? In manypoor and marginalised communi-ties education for their children isoften stated as the biggest need,one for which many people areprepared to make significantsacrifices.)

■ the impact of humanitarianassistance on patterns ofdisplacement, including returnmovements (What are the primaryfactors affecting the ability ofIDPs to move? Is it fear of

recurring conflict, landmines,insurgency movements, policies ofgovernments and/or the prospectsof maintaining existing livelihoodand survival strategies?)

Finally, we need to ask what kinds oflivelihood interventions can realisti-cally be aimed at IDPs. In manyconflict-affected countries, IDPs arepredominantly rural subsistencefarmers forced off their land intonearby government-controlled townsand cities. How can the livelihoods ofsubsistence farmers or pastoralists besupported in urban areas?

Karen Jacobsen is VisitingAssociate Professor at the FletcherSchool of Law & Diplomacy atTufts University and Director of the Refugees and ForcedMigration Program. Email:karen.jacobsen@tufts.edu

23Working Group I: research Some problems with conducting research on IDP livelihood strategies

The group noted that their group hadthe smallest number of participants.Does this reflect the apparent lack ofinterest on the part of practitioners/donors in research? Are researchersand practitioners not talking the samelanguage?

Definitional problems continue tobedevil research. Is the ICRC’s ‘war-affected population’ a more accurateterm than ‘IDP’? What do we callreturned refugees who subsequentlybecome displaced? What is the cut-offpoint for being an IDP? Is it helpful tomaintain this identity long after dis-placement? Do IDP and non-IDPcategories restrict integration?

Are the large numbers of people dis-placed by development projects andenvironmental change to be thoughtof as IDPs? In places such as Indiaand Sri Lanka, where civil society isactive and the Guiding Principlesbecoming increasingly well known,what is the role of researchers inhighlighting the aspirations of peopledisplaced by dams, mines, forestryprojects or other development pro-

jects who might like the protectionand publicity accorded by beingrecognised as IDPs?

When IDPs become mixed with theurban poor (as in Khartoum), can orshould they be distinguished from therest of the population who are per-haps just as much at risk? In anurban environment, can a rights-based approach identify and targetthose most in need?

Is the standard assumption that IDPsare conceptually linked with refugeesnecessarily helpful? Does it obscurethe connections between IDPs andmigrants?

Exact numbers of IDPs rarely seem tobe of concern to researchers or prac-titioners. Researchers need to tacklethe persistent tendency to bandyaround spuriously-rounded up num-bers of IDPs which are never verified.Thus the 1.4 million IDPs inKhartoum have assumed an iconicsignificance despite the lack of proof.Researchers must help get a betterhandle on numbers.

Researchers face serious practicalproblems in doing research. ThoseIDPs to whom researchers are allowed(by state and non-state actors) to talkare not likely to be the most repre-sentative. Researchers need to bemore explicit about how reachingagreements with governments andnon-state actors can seriously com-promise research findings.

The group identified gaps in currentknowledge, indicating the need formore empirical research. Theseinclude:

■ What are the pre-flight strategies– commonly from village to townto city – used by those fearingdisplacement?

■ Local community-IDP interactions:more needs to be learned aboutlarger-scale ripple effects and ten-sions over land and otherresources. Getting informationabout hosts is much harder thanabout the displaced butresearchers can do more.

Working group I: researchAdditional issues raised

■ The impact of humanitarian assis-tance: in many contexts we do notknow whether humanitarian assis-tance encourages or discouragesthe prospects of return. What isthe impact on existing and newlivelihood strategies?

■ What happens to displaced andlocal populations when externalfood assistance is suddenly cur-tailed by WFP or other agencies?

■ Are the common, invariably top-down, income-generation andmicro-credit schemes for IDPsreally practical? Do they reflectthe reality that most IDPs are dis-placed farmers struggling to findlivelihoods in urban environ-ments? Are the needs of displacedpastoralists being met?

■ What is meant by self-reliance?What do the variety of agency def-initions and concepts ofself-reliance indicate about thesustainability of interventions?

■ Gender implications of displace-ment and return: what happenswhen women have been empow-ered and/or undertaken newresponsibilities during displace-ment and have this threatened bythe prospect or reality of return?

■ The geographical spread of IDPfamily/kin links, both nationallyand transnationally, is rarelyexplored.

■