Questions and answers about IDPs

How many persons displaced internally by persecution are there?

The United Nations estimates that, in all, there are around 23.7 million in 52 countries, half of them in Africa. UNHCR currently helps care for 6.6 million people from this group, in addition to some 8.4 million refugees.

How do IDPs differ from refugees?

Both groups often leave their homes for similar reasons. Civilians are recognized as ‘refugees’ when they cross an international frontier to seek sanctuary in another country. The internally displaced, for whatever reason, remain in their own states.

How are the two groups treated?

Newly arrived refugees normally receive food, shelter and a place of safety from the host country. They are protected by a well-defined body of international laws and conventions. The UN refugee agency and other humanitarian organizations work within this legal framework to help refugees restart their lives in a new state or eventually return home.

And IDPs?

The internally displaced often face a more difficult future. They may be trapped in an ongoing internal conflict. The domestic government, which may view the uprooted people as ‘enemies of the state,’ retains ultimate control of their fate. There are no specific international legal instruments covering the internally displaced, and general agreements such as the Geneva Conventions are often difficult to apply. Donors are sometimes reluctant to intervene in internal

The IDP problem recently became more widely debated. Why?

In the wake of World War II, the international community focused its attention principally on helping the most obvious victims of conflict – refugees. In the immediate post-war years, UNHCR was established to further that goal and an international legal framework for refugees was created. As the cold war ended, the nature of conflict began to change from superpower confrontation to smaller, internal struggles. These wars helped produce far larger numbers of internally displaced victims.

How has the international community reacted?

These civilians received limited assistance in the past. The International Committee of the Red Cross, as the guardian of the Geneva Conventions, has been active in this field for many decades. Other agencies and governments began a wider debate in the last few years and in 2005, acknowledging a widespread failure to adequately help internally displaced civilians, they adopted what they described as a more coordinated, expansive and ‘predictable’ approach to tackle the problem.

What is UNHCR’s position vis-à-vis the internally displaced?

The agency’s mandate specifically covers refugees, but in the last 30 years it has assisted in more than 30 IDP operations around the world, from Colombia to Liberia to Afghanistan. A comprehensive agreement reached in 2005 reinforced and made more explicit the roles of the international community and specialist agencies in helping internally displaced people. Under this agreement, UNHCR will assume the lead responsibility for protection, emergency shelter and camp management for internally displaced people. As of January 2006, UNHCR took on this role in several countries, with the possibility to further expand its functions if performed effectively.

With this extra attention, is the number of IDPs decreasing?

The overall number of internally displaced has remained relatively stable at around 23-25 million in the first years of the new millennium. The refugee agency currently cares for around 6.6 million people in this group, a 22 percent increase compared with 2005. This rise is largely explained by the inclusion of 1.2 million Iraqi IDPs and 400,000 Somalis in the 2005 figure of IDPs of concern to UNHCR.

Guiding Principles

The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are a set of 30 recommendations, which define who IDPs are, outline a large body of existing international law protecting a person’s basic rights and describe the responsibility of states. Although not legally binding, they constitute a comprehensive minimum standard for the treatment of IDPs and are being applied by a growing number of states and institutions. They also contribute to the empowerment of IDPs and their representatives.

Operationally, how does UNHCR respond?

The plight of refugees and IDPs often overlaps and sometimes a single coordinated operation has been the most sensible solution, especially during repatriation operations when IDPs are often in the same geographical locations. Under the new regime, UNHCR will take a specific ‘lead’ role in the areas where it can bring widespread expertise to bear – protection, shelter and camp management. Other agencies will undertake similar roles in water, sanitation, health, food and logistics. It is hoped that donors will provide the necessary funding to enable UNHCR and its partners to fulfill their responsibilities for both IDPs and refugees.

Is there any friction between UNHCR’s role with refugees and IDPs?

The organization’s Statute has been interpreted flexibly to allow it to work with IDPs and the new cooperation will strengthen this. However, there have been restraints in the past including a lack of security and refusal of access to the displaced by governments or insurgents. There have also been difficulties at times in helping refugees and IDPs simultaneously. Programs designed to help IDPs may, by their very nature, complicate asylum procedures for those who have fled to neighbouring countries.

Have there been other problem areas in the past?

In the former Yugoslavia, Timor and more recently during the crisis in Lebanon, UNHCR decided to provide protection and assistance to all uprooted peoples on the basis of humanitarian needs rather than refugee status. Refugees are sometimes a relatively small component in a displacement that is largely contained inside a country’s borders – Colombia and DR Congo being current examples. Effective reintegration of returning refugees may also require assistance to be extended to the internally displaced – as happened last year in Liberia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Togo – in order not to create potentially provocative disparities between groups living next to each other.