19/54 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Chaloka Beyani

GE.11-17597

Human Rights Council Nineteenth session Agenda item 3 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,

political, economic, social and cultural rights,

including the right to development

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Chaloka Beyani

Summary

This report, submitted in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 14/6, provides an account of the activities of the mandate and the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Chaloka Beyani, during the reporting period. It also provides a thematic analysis of the particular situation of internally displaced persons living outside of camps or compact settlements, and whose assistance and protection needs are often neglected. The Special Rapporteur examines the various factors responsible for this situation, the particular nature of displacement in urban contexts, the role of host communities and local authorities, and offers recommendations for a more effective, systematized and equitable response to internally displaced persons outside camps, and the host communities assisting them.

Contents Paragraphs Page

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1–2 3

II. Achievements and activities of the mandate ........................................................... 3–19 3

A. Strengthening the normative framework on the basis of the Guiding Principles .......................................................................................... 3–5 3

B. Trainings and other capacity-building initiatives ............................................ 6–7 4

C. Mainstreaming activities ................................................................................. 8–9 4

D. Cooperation with regional and international organizations ............................ 10–11 5

E. Country engagement ....................................................................................... 12–19 5

III. A more systematized and equitable response to internally displaced persons outside camps .......................................................................................................... 20–54 7

A. Introduction and overview ............................................................................. 20–29 7

B. Three areas of focus ........................................................................................ 30–55 11

IV. Conclusions and recommendations ......................................................................... 56–59 18

3

I. Introduction

1. The present report by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Chaloka Beyani, is submitted in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 14/6. The first part of this report provides an account of the activities undertaken by the Special Rapporteur since his last report to the Human Rights Council, which detailed his mandate priorities.

2. The second part of this report provides a thematic analysis of the particular situation of internally displaced persons (IDPs) living outside of camps, and whose assistance and protection needs are often neglected. This was one of the four mandate priorities identified by the Special Rapporteur in his last report to this Council. The Special Rapporteur highlights why IDPs outside camps require specific interventions by humanitarian and development actors, and details three specific areas of focus, namely, IDPs in urban contexts; relationships with host communities; and the role of local authorities. The report offers recommendations for a more systematized and equitable response to internally displaced persons outside camps, and the host communities assisting them. The recommendations and approaches suggested in this thematic report are founded on the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (Guiding Principles) and in international human rights standards.

II. Achievements and activities of the mandate

A. Strengthening the normative framework on the basis of the Guiding

Principles

3. The Special Rapporteur is pleased to report that the Guiding Principles continue to represent an “important international framework for the protection of internally displaced persons”.1 The authority of the Guiding Principles has more recently been reaffirmed in General Assembly resolution 66/165, which welcomes their increasing promotion and application, and encourages all relevant actors to make use of them when dealing with situations of internal displacement, including development partners and individual States in the development of domestic legislation and policies.2

4. Recognizing the effects of climate change as contributing to environmental degradation and extreme weather events, and resulting human displacement, the same resolution encourages the Special Rapporteur to continue exploring, with all relevant stakeholders the “human rights implications and dimensions of disaster-induced internal displacement with a view to supporting member States in their efforts to build local resilience and capacity to prevent displacement or to provide assistance and protection to those who are forced to flee.”3 This is consistent with the efforts being undertaken by this mandate, including, the development of the revised Operational Guidelines on the Protection of Persons in Situations of Natural Disasters (Operational Guidelines), presented as an addendum to this Council in 2011, and formally endorsed by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC).4 Since then, these Operational Guidelines have been widely disseminated, translated into a number of languages, and are increasingly being used by relevant stakeholders for operational guidance in the field, and as a key reference and

1 2005 World Summit Outcome, General Assembly resolution 60/1, para. 132. 2 General Assembly resolution 66/165, paras. 2, 7-8, 12-13, 18-20, 24. 3 Ibid, para. 4. 4 See A/HRC/16/43/Add.5.

training tool for situations relating to natural disasters.5 Moreover, the Special Rapporteur dedicated his thematic report to the sixty-sixth session of the General Assembly (A/66/285) to climate change and internal displacement, in which he highlighted the dynamic and types of internal displacement triggered by the effects of climate change, and provided guidance on the application of the Guiding Principles to such situations.

5. The Guiding Principles have also either been integrated into or served as the key reference in the formulation of regional and domestic frameworks to address internal displacement. For example, in Kenya, the mandate contributed to the development of a draft IDP policy in 2010 which is based on the Guiding Principles, and is currently engaged in supporting the development of a draft IDP Bill. The Special Rapporteur is pleased to note that the Kampala Convention, the ratification of which he has actively been promoting, is also based on the Guiding Principles, and represents the first regional human rights instrument specific to IDPs.

B. Trainings and other capacity-building initiatives

6. During the reporting period, the mandate contributed to training and capacity- building activities, including: the Seventh Annual Course on the Law of Internal Displacement in San Remo (7-12 June 2011), which provided training to 21 high-level Government officials working on internal displacement from 14 displacement-affected countries; the Regional Workshop on “Protecting and promoting rights in natural disasters in the Great Lakes Region and East Africa” and the “Forum on the African Union Convention on Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons” in Africa (15- 17 June 2011) in Kampala; and the Kenyan Capacity-Building Forum with the Parliamentary Select Committee on Internally Displaced Persons (23 May 2011), in Mombassa.

7. The Special Rapporteur also had the opportunity to participate in a number of other international conferences and events. In the context of his engagement on issues relating to climate-change-induced displacement, he participated in an Expert Roundtable on Climate Change and Displacement (22-25 February 2011) in Bellagio, Italy, and the Nansen Conference on Climate Change and Displacement in the 21st Century (6–7 June 2011) in Oslo. Additionally, he participated in: the Second Expert Seminar on Protracted Internal Displacement (19-20 January 2011) in Geneva; a live web seminar on the Kampala Convention at Harvard University (22 March 2011), in Boston; and a panel discussion on climate change and displacement at the Brookings Institution (7 October 2011) in Washington D.C.

C. Mainstreaming activities

8. The Special Rapporteur considers the mainstreaming of the human rights of IDPs, including through his participation in the IASC and collaboration with other key United Nations agencies, to be a central aspect of his mandate, as contained in Council resolution 14/6. During the reporting period, the mandate holder and OHCHR staff supporting his mandate participated at all levels of the IASC (Principals, Working Group, Task Forces). The Special Rapporteur further engaged with the IASC by providing briefings on his country visits and thematic issues, both in New York and in Geneva, in the context of the

5 For translations of the Operational Guidelines, see:

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0106_operational_guidelines_nd.aspx; they have been used in trainings, such as the Regional workshop on natural disasters and IDPs, in Fiji, organized by the Brookings-LSE project on internal displacement, 3-6 May 2010.

5

IASC special weekly meetings. He considers the IASC to be a strategic venue within which to mainstream the human rights of IDPs into the wider humanitarian agenda.

9. In addition to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which is the principal United Nations office supporting his mandate, the Special Rapporteur has also maintained close cooperation and benefited from the valuable support provided by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This cooperation and support has included inter alia: periodic briefings by the Special Rapporteur on thematic or country activities; participation in key events organized by these agencies; regular meetings with regard to country situations and priorities for visits; strategy meetings to elaborate or coordinate approaches and activities; exchange of substantive expertise on thematic and country specific issues; and the invaluable assistance provided by these agencies in the preparation and conduct of country visits. The Special Rapporteur wishes to express his appreciation for the support provided to the mandate by these United Nations agencies, and his intention to continue this constructive collaboration.

D. Cooperation with regional and international organizations

10. In addition to the above, the Special Rapporteur is pleased to report on his ongoing collaboration with a number of regional and international organizations during the reporting period, including, African regional organisations and mechanisms, the World Bank, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and civil society organizations and networks. As per his mandate priorities, he has engaged closely with regional organisations in Africa for the promotion, ratification and implementation at the national level of the Kampala Convention. Towards this end, he participated in, inter alia: the first Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Ministerial Conference on Humanitarian Assistance and Internal Displacement in West Africa (6-7 July 2011), in Abuja; the Regional Consultative Meeting on the Plan of Action on the Kampala Convention for the Eastern and Central Africa region (20-21 May 2011) in Kinshasa; the Regional Consultative Meeting on the Plan of Action on the Kampala Convention for the Southern African Development Community (SADC), (17-18 March 2011) in Lilongwe, Malawi; and the Summit of Heads of States of the International Conference for the Great Lakes (14-16 December 2011) in Kampala.

11. The Special Rapporteur has also maintained constructive collaboration with the World Bank, and more specifically the “conflict, crime and violence unit”, the International Committee of the Red Cross, with whom he is pleased to continue the annual open dialogue session on issues of mutual concern, and with civil society organizations, both at headquarters and in the field. More particularly he would like to express his appreciation for the support provided to his mandate through the Brookings-London School of Economics (LSE) Project on Internal Displacement. He is also appreciative of the strong cooperation with the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), including on thematic and capacity-building activities.

E. Country engagement

Maldives

12. At the invitation of the Government, the Special Rapporteur conducted an official visit to the Maldives from 16 to 21 July 2011, during which he sought to examine the situation of persons internally displaced as a result of the 2004 tsunami, and study issues related to risks of potential internal displacement in the future, including due to the effects of climate change (see A/HRC/19/54/Add.1).He found that climate change and other factors specific to the low-lying island environment of the Maldives were already affecting

the livelihoods and rights of residents of many islands, including the rights to housing, safe water and health. Moreover, other factors such as more frequent storms and flooding, coastal erosion, salination, overcrowding and the existential threat posed by rising sea levels, point to increased risks of potential internal displacement in the future.

13. On the basis of his visit, the Special Rapporteur concludes that the Government has made important efforts in recent years to put in place national development and disaster- risk reduction plans, and climate change adaptation strategies which are comprehensive in scope and address the socio-economic dimensions of these issues as well as the need for physical protection. The Government has also addressed the internal displacement resulting from the 2004 tsunami as a national priority, by providing assistance to over 12,000 IDPs, and establishing institutional structures to facilitate and coordinate IDP programmes.

14. In the context of the various challenges faced by the Maldives, however, the Special Rapporteur believes that disaster risk reduction and adaptation strategies, while essential, will not be sufficient to prevent internal displacement altogether, and that increased national attention and commitment to address issues related to internal displacement should now be a priority for the country. In particular, he urges the Government, with the support of the international community, to set in place a national framework on internal displacement, in line with international human rights and the Guiding Principles.

15. Towards this objective, he recommends that the Government: finalize and adopt the Bill on Disaster Management, and integrate within it a framework on IDPs; put in place policies, implementing legislation, and guidance documents to ensure a comprehensive national response to internal displacement, whether due to sudden and slow onset natural disasters; and strengthen the capacity of institutional support structures, such as the National Disaster Management Centre, and relevant local authorities. The Special Rapporteur further urges the Government to review the situation of the estimated 1,600 persons still displaced as a result of the 2004 tsunami, at the earliest opportunity in order to address their dire living conditions and assist them in finding durable solutions.

Kenya

16. The Special Rapporteur conducted an official country visit to Kenya from 18-27 September 2011, in order to study the current situation of IDPs in the country, including those displaced as a result of the 2007/2008 post-election violence and other causes such as natural disasters and environmental conservation projects (see A/HRC19/54/Add.2). He found that the Government of Kenya had taken a number of significant steps to address internal displacement in the country, including by developing a draft IDP policy, and assisting the return and resettlement of some IDPs affected by the last post-election violence - which had resulted in the displacement of nearly 664,000 persons. At the time of writing of this report, a new Bill on IDPs, was also being developed. In view of the repeated waves and multiple causes of internal displacement in Kenya‟s recent history,

however, the Special Rapporteur believes that a comprehensive strategy is necessary in order to prevent forced internal displacement in the future, and provide effective assistance, protection and durable solutions to displacement affected communities.

17. Based on his field visits to sites of displacement while in the country, he found there was an urgent humanitarian need to address the current living conditions and human rights of many IDPs, including persons displaced by the 2007/2008 post-election violence, and the Mau Forest evictees. He stressed that in many of the sites he visited, IDPs had been living in abject conditions over many years, under old emergency tents which no longer offered adequate shelter, appeared to be affected by various respiratory and other diseases (especially children), frequently suffered from lack of sufficient or nutritious food, and many children lacked regular access to a primary school education.

7

18. The Special Rapporteur further found that the lack of accurate and efficient systems of registration and disaggregated data collection had resulted in a situation where many IDPs were not included in assistance, protection and durable solutions programmes. He remains concerned by reports of an increase in street children, many of whom are believed to be IDPs, in some parts of the country in the aftermath the 2007/2008 post-election violence, and believes that many other IDPs who have never been registered or assisted may have seen their situation similarly deteriorate due to displacement. He urges the authorities, with the support of the international community and civil society, to review data collection and registration systems with a view to assisting IDPs still in need, to identifying particularly vulnerable groups, and to developing a more timely, effective and comprehensive data collection system which is inclusive of all categories of IDPs.

19. The Special Rapporteur further recommends that the Government of Kenya put in place a legal and policy framework on IDPs, including by adopting the draft policy and draft Bill on IDPs, and by ratifying the Kampala Convention at the earliest opportunity. With regard to durable solutions he stresses the importance of ensuring that these are safe, voluntary and informed; of adopting a broad approach, which includes resettlement, return and local integration; and of providing sufficient resources to achieving these. He highlights that assisting IDPs in achieving durable solutions is an important step towards reconciliation and peace in Kenya. In this regard he was pleased to note the community peace-building and reconciliation activities being undertaken in the country and encourages the Government and civil society, with the support of the international community, to continue these efforts.

III. A more systematized and equitable response to internally displaced persons outside camps

A. Introduction and overview

20. While common images of IDPs often portray them as living compactly in large camps, spontaneous informal settlements or collective IDP centres, the reality is that most IDPs live outside these clearly defined settings, or “outside camps”.6 The expression IDPs outside camps in this report refers to IDPs who may live instead in a variety of settings or situations; they may be in urban, rural, or remote areas, renting, owning a housing, sharing a room, living with a host family, homeless, occupying a building or land that they do not own, or living in makeshift shelters and slums. A number of factors often result in the neglect and virtual “invisibility” of IDPs outside camps, thereby affecting their access to protection, assistance and durable solutions to their displacement. While the importance of the issue has gained increased recognition over the last several years, more concerted attention is necessary, including by the international community, in order to achieve a more equitable humanitarian response and lasting solutions for IDPs outside camps, as well as better support structures to communities which may be hosting them. Such an approach also ensures compliance with international law relating to IDPs, including international humanitarian and human rights law, regional instruments such as the Kampala Convention, and with international standards such as the Guiding Principles, which provide guarantees of non-discrimination and make no distinction between IDPs in or outside camps or other settings.

6 Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), Internal Displacement: Global Overview of

Trends and Developments in 2010, March 2011, p. 13; Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), 7th Working Group Meeting, “Internally displaced persons outside camps: achieving a more equitable humanitarian response”, WO/1006/3492/7, paras. 4, 7.

21. The following report is intended as a contribution by the Special Rapporteur towards a larger process which will require consultations and the continued engagement of a broad range of stakeholders. It highlights why IDPs outside camps require specific interventions by national authorities, humanitarian and development actors, and details 3 specific areas of focus, namely, IDPs in urban contexts, host communities, and the role of provincial and municipal authorities. This report is also in follow-up to previous work by the mandate on the issue, including: reports to the Human Rights Council which identify this as a key challenge in the field of internal displacement and a priority area for the mandate;7 steps bringing it to the attention of the wider humanitarian community via the IASC;8 and specific attention to the issue in the context of country visits by the mandate. Several other areas of special relevance to IDPs outside camps are also mentioned in this report, such as data collection, and suggested for attention by relevant actors.

22. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that several other aspects relating to IDPs outside camps may also need attention or require more specific analysis than is provided in this initial contribution, including assistance to IDPs living in rural or isolated settings, and possible distinctions between natural disaster, conflict and complex emergency situations. He further acknowledges the valuable comments made in the course of previous consultations, including discussions within the IASC in July 2010, during which both substantive and process issues were raised on how to achieve a more equitable humanitarian response to IDPs outside camps.9 These point to the range and complexity of the issues and the need for an ongoing process of developing expertise and enhanced operational response by all concerned actors. The Special Rapporteur intends to maintain close engagement with national and international stakeholders on all of these issues, in addition to the particular aspects addressed in the present report.

Overview of the current situation

23. An estimated 27.5 million people in the world today remain displaced within their own countries due to armed conflict, generalized violence and human rights violations.10 An additional 42 million were internally displaced due to sudden-onset natural disasters in the course of 2010.11 It is estimated that only a minority of these live in camp-like settings.12 Although camps have their own particular disadvantages (e.g. isolation from the community, dependency on external assistance) it has generally been considered easier to provide assistance to IDPs living in collective settlements than to those dispersed throughout the population. The former are more visible to authorities, easier to distinguish from the local population, and delivery of services is rendered logistically simpler than when communities are dispersed. In the case of persons displaced due to generalised violence and armed conflict, it has been found that “in countries where IDPs were living in

both gathered and dispersed settings, national authorities and humanitarian actors were twice as likely to provide assistance and protection to IDPs in gathered settings than to those in dispersed settings”.13

24. Numerous guidance tools and coordination structures to respond to the needs of IDPs living in camps, such as the Camp Coordination and Camp Management Cluster, have

7 A/HRC/16/43; A/HRC/13/21. 8 IASC, 7th Working Group Meeting. 9 IASC, minutes of the discussion at the IASC 7th Working Group Meeting, on „Internally Displaced

Persons Outside Camps‟, WO/1006/3492/7. 10 IDMC, Internal Displacement, p. 13. 11 IDMC, Displacement due to natural hazard-induced disasters: Global estimates for 2009 and 2010,

June 2011, p.4. 12 IASC, WO/1006/3492/7, paras. 4, 5, 7. 13 IDMC, Internal Displacement, p. 13.

9

been developed over the years. By contrast, relatively little exists for IDPs outside camps. A number of factors often converge to focus assistance and attention to IDPs in camp situations. In many case, camps or settlements are constituted spontaneously by mass influxes of IDPs seeking protection and assistance, or in reaction to emergency situations in which immediate and often life-saving responses require concentrated assistance in certain areas (e.g. sites of natural disasters). With the passage of time, however, protracted displacement in artificial camp settings has often given rise to important humanitarian, protection and development concerns, for the IDP population, the country and sometimes for a region as a whole. In some instances, they may even become a pull factor for poor sectors of the population who may move into camps in order to have access to its basic services and assistance, thus compounding the problem.

25. In this regard, weaknesses in response systems, such as the gap between humanitarian, and early recovery and development interventions (which promote durable solutions), have been recognized and are increasingly being discussed. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that in addition to addressing such weaknesses, a more effective and systematized management of IDPs outside camps can also improve the overall response to internal displacement, anchor it within a human rights based approach, and contribute to durable solutions. Moreover, he notes that the benefits of improved responses to IDPs outside camps may become increasingly relevant in the context of global trends such as rapid global urbanization, and climate change induced displacement.

Addressing the causes of neglect of IDPs outside camps: through data collection

26. Relevant normative frameworks, including international and regional human rights instruments and international standards on internal displacement, all emphasize the primary responsibility of national authorities for providing protection and assistance to IDPs. The first concrete task in the discharge of this responsibility is the collection of data and “credible information on the numbers, locations and conditions of the internally displaced

[which] is essential to designing effective policies and programs to address their needs and protect their rights”.14 Yet, a recent survey of 15 displacement-affected countries found a striking lack of accurate figures on IDPs outside of camps.15 Establishing this information at the outset and during displacement is a fundamental step but is often jeopardized by the lack of effective and timely data collection and response systems. Such systems are especially crucial in the early phase of an emergency and at the first site to which IDPs have fled, in order to ensure that IDPs who later become dispersed within the larger population (rather than remaining in camps), can be followed up on and assisted. In some cases, political or financial pressures may limit or inflate the numbers of IDPs,16 as can the methodology, scope and timelines of data collection or registration procedures for example. Particularly in conflict situations, data collection and registration procedures, should contain sufficient safeguards to protect the confidentiality and human rights of IDPs, and ensure the purely humanitarian nature of the exercise. The collaboration of the international community in such exercises, amongst other measures, could contribute to such safeguards.

27. At times, information and data collection on internal displacement will only be possible or take place when IDPs are already dispersed and mixed within the wider population. IDPs may prefer not to be identified at the beginning of displacement due to security concerns, or data collection systems may simply not yet be in place. New and

14 The Brookings Institution-University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement, Addressing Internal

Displacement: A Framework for National Responsibility, undated, p. 14. 15 Brookings-LSE Internal Displacement project, "From Responsibility to Response: Assessing National

Approaches to Internal Displacement" 2011, p. 51. 16 Global Protection Cluster Working Group (GPC), Handbook for the Protection of Internally

Displaced Persons, March 2010, p. 345.

different methodologies are usually required in order to gather data on IDPs in these contexts.17 Important efforts have been made in recent years, to improve data-collection methodologies at these different stages and in different contexts of internal displacement. These include methodologies, such as: profiling which can be used to estimate figures and needs of IDPs outside camps;18 population-tracking mechanisms; disaggregated data collection techniques (according to location, age, gender etc) and vulnerability criteria, which enable more targeted assistance; household surveys which permit the identification of IDP needs while avoiding singling them out; and community outreach approaches, which use local partners and community structures to identify and reach out to IDPs.19 However, continued efforts in this regard, both of a technical nature and in terms of awareness- raising, are necessary. In many countries, included those visited by this mandate, the lack of effective and timely data collection and profiling systems, have resulted in a lack of identification and assistance to large numbers of IDPs outside camps, with a direct impact on their human rights and durable solutions.

IDPs outside camps and host communities have specific needs

28. There has often been an implicit assumption that IDPs living outside of camps are less in need of protection and assistance because they are being cared for by family, neighbours or friends, or that they have somehow found a solution on their own. While some may indeed have elected to stay out of camps because they did not want or need assistance, and others managed to progress towards durable solutions on their own, many IDPs outside camps are not in these situations. In some cases, IDPs may need the assistance and protection of an organized camp, but may not have that option: they may be displaced in isolated or remote locations (where there is no camp or host community), not be able to physically make it to camp areas, fear detection by authorities, or camps may be simply be closed or discouraged due to government policies. Moreover, even when IDPs outside camps benefit from initial resources and the support and structures of a host community, these resources tend to degrade over time. In many cases IDPs with sufficient resources to cope in the initial months of displacement, often find these quickly dwindling as they struggle with the high costs of housing, lack of access to land and livelihoods, inability to access social services, the loss of most of their material possessions, and the absence of their usual support structures. As a result, some IDPs outside camps may become more vulnerable over time.

29. Moreover, while family, friends and communities may initially welcome and assist IDPs, when their stay drags on, for months or years, strains on resources may lead to an eventual breaking point and the need for IDPs to find alternative assistance or living arrangements, often resulting in secondary movements and a more precarious situation. Even when specific IDP assistance exists in the form of food or other emergency assistance, distribution of assistance to non-camp IDPs, often tends to be one-off distributions at the beginning of displacement rather than the sustained assistance which is needed.20 Similarly, while State assistance programmes may sometimes be available for vulnerable groups in society, these will often be insufficient to take into account the heightened needs brought about by displacement, may be contingent on local residency or identity documents which IDPs may not be able to provide, or IDPs may not access them out of fear of drawing attention to themselves, for security reasons. Discrimination on the basis of their being displaced may also create an additional barrier to accessing State services. The

17 GPC, Handbook for the Protection, p. 345. 18 Profiling is a technique developed through an inter-agency initiative. For more information:

http://www.idp-profiling.org/profiling-resources.html. 19 GPC, Handbook for the Protection, p. 345; IDMC, Internal Displacement, p. 10. 20 IASC, WO/1006/3492/7, para.10.

11

considerations below aim to provide an initial framework for strengthening humanitarian and development responses to the needs of IDPs outside camps and those of their host communities.

B. Three areas of focus

1. IDPs in urban contexts

IDPs in urban areas reflect broader urbanization trends

30. Recent trends in internal displacement point to a significant and growing number of IDPs living in urban areas, the majority of whom do not live in formal camps.21 Once in urban environments, IDPs tend to live mixed among the general population and become difficult to identify, protect or assist. Many reasons compel IDPs to move to urban areas, including employment opportunities and in some cases the relative safety of anonymity. By 2030 it is estimated that urban populations will exceed 5 billion and that 80 per cent of these will live in urban centres in the developing world – regions where urban growth is accentuated by increasing number of refugees and IDPs who tend to move to cities.22

31. Urban areas are viewed by many IDPs as environments where they can rebuild their lives, have better access to public services, employment opportunities, and resources, either for an interim period or on a long-term basis. With the necessary support systems, urban planning and frameworks, many cities and towns can offer more likely sites for local integration than segregated IDP camps or remote and rural displacement locations. At the same time, IDPs outside camps who live in urban settings – and particularly certain categories of vulnerable groups or those with few resources or support - are often exposed to a number of dangers. As newcomers with little, if any, access to financial resources, documents or proof of income necessary to rent housing elsewhere, IDPs often have to resort to living in slum areas or dangerous and impoverished parts of a city which offers no security of tenure, less access to services, are more prone to disasters, and make them potential targets of urban violence, forced evictions and secondary displacements. The high rents characterizing many urban centres around the world, a trend also likely to increase, render IDPs particularly vulnerable to homelessness and to precarious housing situations – thus contributing to the increase in slums. In the context of the visit to Iraq by this mandate in late 2010, it was found that in Baghdad alone more than 200,000 persons, many of whom were believed to be IDPs, were living in slum settlements, in inadequate shelters, with little or no access to water, and other services such as sanitation and garbage collection. IDPs in many of these sites, who resorted to living there due to an inability to pay high rents or of their host families to continue supporting them, were also at risk of imminent eviction.

32. During his recent country visit to Kenya in September 2011, the Special Rapporteur found that of an estimated 664,000 IDPs resulting from the 2007/2008 post-election violence in the country, over 300,000 had dispersed into the wider population (many in towns and cities) and neither been registered nor assisted by the State. Many displaced in previous cycles of displacement (e.g.1990s) in Kenya were also unassisted. While it is generally presumed that these IDPs found their own solution through host families and friends, the Special Rapporteur remains concerned that many of these IDPs, a large part of whom had already been poor, had seen their situation further deteriorate and could be living in urban slums or on the street. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur received reports of a

21 IDMC, Internal Displacement, pp. 10-11, 13. 22 Wilton Park, conference report, Urban risks: moving from humanitarian responses to disaster

prevention, 22-25 November 2010, p. 1.

significant increase in street children, many of whom were believed to be IDPs, in a number of large towns and cities since the 2007/2008 post- election violence.23

Addressing the needs and rights of IDPs in the context of broader urban poverty

33. While in many cases, non-camp IDPs living in impoverished urban environments have many needs in common with others living in these environments, they also have specific needs and should be part of assistance programmes, and political and durable solutions strategies to address internal displacement in the country. This process may include, but is nonetheless distinct from the general socio-economic and development challenges related to urban poverty. Failing to recognize this often results in a “policy by default” which only treats IDPs within the wider, and often intractable problem of the urban poor. The Special Rapporteur believes that a combined approach, which includes community-based approaches and punctual IDP specific interventions is necessary in most contexts – in order to address IDP specific needs, constraints, human rights concerns and durable solutions, while taking into account the wider host community needs. Moreover, such an approach prevents harm through the exacerbation of poverty resulting from the neglect of specific IDP needs and solutions to their displacement. Assisting IDPs, particularly when combined with support to host communities, can reduce overcrowding, joblessness, poverty, homelessness and consolidate peace and reconstruction efforts, for the benefit of IDPs and the city as a whole.

34. In situations where mass internal displacement is due to political, ethnic or sectarian violence, addressing internal displacement is also necessary to national reconciliation and peace processes.24 IDPs dispersed in urban areas should be included and participate in such processes, and related durable solutions.

Urban IDPs, natural disasters and climate change, and intra-city displacement

35. The predicted increase in internal displacement due to the effects of climate change and related frequency and severity of natural disasters is a further factor pointing to the need to develop a more consistent, equitable and systemized response to IDPs outside camps. The erosion of livelihoods, in part provoked by climate change, is considered a key “push” factor for the increase in rural to urban displacement and migration, most of which is likely to be to urban slums and informal settlements offering precarious living conditions. The Special Rapporteur believes that the urban dimensions of climate-change-induced displacement should be a key consideration in medium and long-term national development strategies, as well as adaptation measures.25. These should include strengthened systems to monitor influxes of IDPs, and to address the assistance and durable solutions needs of IDPs outside camps living in urban areas. IDPs, who are more likely to be unlisted and undocumented, are also likely to have less access to services and livelihoods, and to live in slum areas which are often situated in hazard-prone locations such as low-lying areas and landfill sites –thereby making them vulnerable to further risks, including to their physical safety, the loss of housing, and secondary displacement.26

36. In addition to displacement into cities, natural disasters, violence and conflict are also likely to cause complex intra-city displacement, such as was the case in Haiti in the

23 See also A/HRC/19/54/Add.2 24 See press releases by mandate: “Iraq: helping internally displaced persons improve their

lives and finding durable solutions, key aspects of peacebuilding”, 29 September 2010; and “UN Expert: Comprehensive strategy on internal displacement essential to secure human rights of IDPs and consolidate peace and reconciliation in Kenya”, 27 September 2011. Also: Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement, Integrating Internal Displacement in Peace Processes and Agreements, 2010.

25 See also A/66/285, paras. 66-69 26 A/66/285, para.68; Wilton Park, Urban risks, p. 3.

13

aftermath of the 2010 earthquake. By virtue of the concentration of populations, resources, assets and services in cities, the impact of damages to cities due to conflict or natural disasters can be especially debilitating, including to humanitarian and recovery efforts. In such situations, an approach which addresses IDP-specific needs, as well as wider community needs (e.g. infrastructure and basic services needs) through a neighbourhood- or community-based approach, as has been advocated by this mandate, will likely be the most beneficial.27

2. IDPs and host communities

Current “solutions” within host communities: both illusion and reality

37. While IDPs living in both camp and non-camp settings are greatly affected by relations with host communities, non-camp IDPs are particularly entwined with their hosts, as in many cases, they may not be able to rely on other actors such as international organizations or aid groups. In one analysis of IDP trends, it was found that in the majority of countries reviewed, most IDPs in non-camp settings had no assistance beyond that provided by the host community or host family.28 Better understanding of the role and specific assistance provided by host communities may therefore suggest ways of supporting them in their effort to assist the displaced living among them.

38. The term “host community” has been used to depict a community hosting a camp, or a non-camp population. However it has also become a “catch-all” term, which often obscures the complexity and variety of communities in which IDPs live. The kinds of host communities vary widely across contexts. In many cases, „host communities‟ simply refers to communities in which relatives or friends take in a family member. At other times, they refer to communities in locations to which IDPs have fled and remain during their period of displacement. Often host communities and host families may be poor or living in precarious conditions themselves. They may lack physical security, adequate access to basic services, and may have been impacted by conflict or a natural disaster as well. In some cases host communities are receiving new arrivals while in others they may be reintegrating returnees. In other contexts, such as those subject to repeated or cyclical displacements, host communities may be made up of IDPs who have simply been displaced longer.

39. Despite these challenges, host communities are often the key to ensuring essential assistance services to IDPs, to the work of humanitarian organizations, and to finding durable solutions. They are most often the “first responders” to a crisis, and may welcome, support and assist IDPs upon their arrival. But as displacement becomes protracted, tensions can often result due to competition over scarce resources, employment opportunities, or from underlying religious, ethnic, cultural or other differences – frequently related to or exacerbated by the conflict causing the displacement in the first place. Without IDP frameworks and institutions in place to respond to the particular context and needs of IDPs living within these communities, these tensions and competition over resources and services will usually have a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable IDP groups, such as female-headed households, children and older persons, and leave them exposed to human rights violations, exploitation and poverty.

40. Tensions may also arise due to perceptions by host communities that their own needs are being neglected or that IDPs are receiving preferential treatment. A recent study29

27 United Nations, press release by mandate, “Haiti still in crisis, says U.N. Expert on Displaced

Persons”, 18 October 2010. 28 IDMC, Internal Displacement, p. 13. 29 Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement and the International Committee of the Red Cross,

The effects of internal displacement on host communities: A case study of Suba and Ciudad Bolivar Localities in Bogota, Colombia, 2011.

in two urban neighbourhoods in Bogota, Colombia, found tensions between host communities and IDPs, due largely to IDPs being regarded as receiving preferential treatment in a context of widespread urban poverty. In Guinea, host communities struggling to rebuild after attacks on their community, became increasingly vulnerable as they shared meagre resources with IDPs.30 While some of these challenges can also arise in the context of IDP camps, IDPs who live within the community will be especially affected given their level of dependency on informal community support. In this respect, a greater focus on assisting host communities in tandem with IDP assistance in order to prevent tensions, inequalities or the increasing vulnerability of hosts is a challenge for both development and humanitarian actors.

Articulating existing practices and gaps: towards the development of a more systematized

and predictable response

41. A number of actors, both national and international, have already been implementing a community-based approach to IDP assistance and protection programmes, or have included IDPs in wider community projects, such as poverty reduction strategies and livelihood projects. Many of the experiences gained in the implementation of such initiatives provide valuable lessons learnt or good practices. Yet, these often remain discreet, ad hoc, or undocumented. As a result they have not articulated or included in efforts to strengthen and systematize the overall humanitarian and development response to IDPs outside camps. However, some initial steps have more recently been taken in this regard: the issue of IDPs outside camps was discussed within the IASC in 2010, and several agencies or IASC sub-groups have initiated their own review or other processes, such as the collection of good practices.31 This mandate has also included considerations relating to IDPs outside camps and community-based approaches, in the course of country visits, and the development of guidance tools.32 More concerted and comprehensive efforts however, will continue to be necessary in this regard.

42. The Special Rapporteur has consistently encouraged donors, humanitarian and development agencies to expand their focus to supporting the communities which host IDPs. He believes that while the displacement-specific needs of IDPs must be addressed, a community based approach which also addresses the needs of displacement-affected communities and host families is necessary.33 The development of more predictable support systems, good practices and standards for this purpose would greatly facilitate such strategies. The Special Rapporteur is also of the opinion, however, that in order to be successful, assistance to displacement-affected communities and IDPs must often go beyond the delivering of humanitarian aid and include recovery and development interventions.34

Assessing needs and providing assistance in hosting arrangements

43. Improved and more systematized responses to IDPs outside camps, can also help address a number of other issues, including the precarious nature and protection problems raised by unmonitored and unassisted hosting arrangements such as those between IDPs and host families or friends. Highly or entirely dependent on the assistance and shelter

30 IDMC, “Host communities struggle to bear burden of hosting IDPs,” November 2004. 31 For example: a draft handbook, “Humanitarian Action through Community Based Capacity

Development for displaced populations AND host communities in urban areas”, developed by UNICEF and the IFRC, is soon to be released; and see „Meeting Humanitarian Challenges in Urban Areas‟, 2010, by the IASC Task force on Meeting Humanitarian Challenges in Urban Areas

32 See, A/HRC/16/43/Add.5, pp. 25-26; A/HRC/13/21/Add.4, paras.34-43; press release, Haiti. 33 A/HRC/16/43, para.74. 34 See also A/HRC/13/21/Add.4,para.43

15

provided by host families, certain groups of IDPs, such as vulnerable categories of women, children and the elderly, may be particularly at risk of a number of protection concerns, including abuse, exploitation, and sexual violence by their hosts. In this regard, this mandate has recommended the establishment of appropriate monitoring and ombuds- mechanisms, and other activities such as visits by social workers, working with local associations and counselling centres, and the establishment of a hotline, in order enhance the protection of IDPs living within host-family arrangements.35

44. The establishment of emergency assistance and complementary support structures are also necessary in order to address situations when host family arrangements break down or are insufficient. In many cases, the assistance and hospitality provided by hosts may be primarily based on affiliations with some members of the family and not others (e.g. one of the spouses), so that when the nuclear IDP family disintegrates during the period of displacement, some members may have to leave and find their own solutions. In other situations, the strains of assisting and providing shelter to IDPs for prolonged periods may be such that host families may simply no longer be able to continue providing this support unassisted. In all of these situations, IDPs will in many cases need to leave the host family. Ensuring that systems are in place to support hosting arrangements, and to provide protection and assistance alternatives for IDPs who can no longer remain in these arrangements, will be vital in order to prevent the most vulnerable IDPs from having to adopt negative coping mechanisms, such as early marriage, dangerous and exploitative livelihood activities, and from living in precarious settings.

3. Role of provincial and municipal authorities

45. Since the State has the primary responsibility for protection and assistance to IDPs, a whole-of-government approach is both required and encouraged in IDP responses. However, it is provincial and municipal authorities who are often in the front line, addressing both the immediate humanitarian aspects of an IDP influx, and the longer-term pressures related to prolonged displacement and the extension of basic services to them. Yet, they frequently lack the necessary resources to meet this challenge, indicating gaps between policies decided in the capital and what is implemented locally, and complex relationships between local and national authorities and international actors working within the country. This is perhaps most acutely felt in the case of IDPs outside camps, who are less likely to benefit from alternative assistance provided by non-governmental organizations. At the same time, provincial and municipal authorities have specific responsibilities and a critical role to play in upholding the human rights of IDPs within their communities, implementing IDP-specific and community based programmes, and facilitating durable solutions, including local integration.

Upholding human rights within their communities

46. On account of their direct contact with IDPs, and their immediate role in the provision of local services, and formulation of local development strategies, local authorities are often the best placed to identify and assist IDPs outside camps living in their communities. They can support IDP profiling exercises, and facilitate the replacement or acquisition of identification, residency or other documents – both important steps enabling IDPs outside camps to access the assistance, rights and benefits to which they are entitled, both as IDPs and as citizens. This assistance will enable them to benefit from national social security systems, public services and resources available to residents, and to access a series of other rights (e.g. relating to property, civil status, housing). For example, in the case of Iraq, where food security was a problem for a large part of the population, this

35 See also A/HRC/16/43/Add.5, p. 21

mandate received reports that IDPs moving from one governorate to another were often unable to transfer their food ration cards to new areas of displacement.36

47. IDPs are often the victims of direct or indirect discrimination in host communities based on their situation or categorization as IDPs. In some cases this discrimination may be based on ethnic or other differences, while in others it is due to more structural problems. In the context of his country visits, the Special Rapporteur has found that IDPs are often denied access to basic services such as primary education and health services, due to the fact that local schools or health facilities are already underfunded or overcrowded, or for purely bureaucratic reasons.37 In these contexts, local health and educational institutions may request proof of residency or special fees from IDP families (for services normally free of charge), so as to be able to effectively expand their services to them. Such situations reflect the need for more effective coordination and timely financial transfer systems between central and local authorities, including the areas from which IDPs fled, which can take into account a local influx of IDPs and their related needs.

48. Demographic and ethnic factors, or the political priorities of local authorities may influence the degree to which they welcome and assist IDPs or adopt an informal “policy” of non-assistance. This is particularly relevant in situations where internal displacement may affect the ethnic, religious or other composition of an area. IDPs outside camps are especially easy targets in such situations, as they are often stereotyped as 'IDPs' in their immediate neighbourhoods, and may be subject to discrimination, security problems including arbitrary detention, attacks, and secondary displacements if they are „pushed‟ out of their host communities. Certain processes can exacerbate this situation, including the conduct of national or local census, or electoral processes.38 Local authorities can play a crucial role in such contexts, by promoting a culture of respect for human rights, rule of law and diversity, making public statements to this effect, and taking active steps to ensure IDPs are effectively protected from discrimination, harassment and persecution. Special measures to reach out to, protect and facilitate access to rights by particularly vulnerable IDP groups, including youth, female headed households and the elderly are necessary as well.39

Implementing IDP specific interventions, and community based programs

49. Even when central authorities have adopted national IDP frameworks, local authorities may not always be able or willing to fully implement these. They may face limitations in applying IDP legislation and programmes due to structural issues, the competing needs of other local groups within the community, or lack the capacity, financial resources, political will or understanding of IDP needs. By adopting national IDP specific programmes and frameworks, national authorities have a corresponding responsibility to set in place operational and institutional capacity to ensure their local implementation, and the timely transfer of funds for related activities. However, measures to address these challenges, including through the development of more flexible procedures which can be activated in emergency situations, are often not included in national preparedness and IDP frameworks.

50. From a technical perspective, IDPs outside camps represent a further challenge. The failure to identify and assess the needs of IDPs outside camps in municipal localities, may make it more difficult or impossible for local authorities to justify a request for additional resources or to tap into existing IDPs specific programme. In turn, this may act as a

36 See also A/HRC/16/43/Add.1, para. 45, 53. 37 See also A/HRC/16/43/Add.1, paras. 45 and 53, and A/HRC/19/54/Add.2. 38 See also A/HRC/16/43/Add.1, para.55. 39 Ibid, paras. 37-38.

17

powerful disincentive to include them in these programmes or to ensure their access to services within the community - thus pointing to the need to support local authorities in the essential task of collecting disaggregated data on the number and specific needs of IDPs outside camps.

51. Provincial and municipal authorities can play a key role in liaising with their national Government authorities and displacement-affected communities, as well as in the development and implementation of IDP-specific and community based programmes. Supporting local authorities in the development of community based programmes may be particularly appreciated when authorities must contend with the competing demands of other vulnerable sectors of the population who may feel their needs are being neglected. Such programmes should be based on disaggregated data on both IDPs and the host community, which includes their specific vulnerabilities, needs and coping mechanisms, and be participatory and inclusive. Community-based programmes can vary significantly depending on the context, but can include financial or in kind assistance to host families; community revitalisation programmes; or the expansion and strengthening of local infrastructures and services. Support to local authorities, through awareness raising and training, including on technical matters such as the conduct of consultative processes, data collection and programme design, should be areas for investment.

52. Political considerations must often have to be borne in mind. In addition to working with central authorities towards the elaboration of policies, international actors may need to remain mindful of and develop strategies to work with local authorities and address their local sensitivities. This is particularly so, when the government is decentralized, when State authority does not reach or have effective influence over all parts of the country, or when the central authority cannot impose its policies too strongly on local affairs.

Durable solutions

53. Provincial and municipal authorities responsible for local development, social services and security in their areas have a particular responsibility and interest in ensuring that IDPs outside camps, receive assistance in achieving durable solutions. In some cases, durable solutions will imply local integration in the host community, a process in which local authorities play a key role, and with regard to which the collection of good practices would be valuable. They can also however, contribute towards other durable solutions, including returns and resettlement elsewhere in the country, including by: ensuring that IDPs in their communities are identified and included in national durable solutions programmes; improving access to information for IDPs; and facilitating the transference of documents or benefits they may have acquired during their displacement. They can also facilitate transitional or a combination of solutions, such as permitting IDPs to retain certain rights, e.g. residency permits in host communities while they set up their new life in their area of return and ascertain its safety, or by facilitating procedures so that some members of the family may remain working in the host community while the rest of the family returns to the place of origin. Where IDPs originally from the host community are returning to it, local authorities will also play a central role in reinstating their rights, and addressing issues such as secondary occupancy which may emerged as a result of their prolonged absence.

54. When local integration is the preferred solution of IDPs, further measures will often be necessary, both for the benefit of IDPs as well as their local constituencies. Foremost among these are land, housing and livelihood measures, often necessary in order to deal with conditions of overcrowding, dependency and illegal tenure which often affect IDPs during their displacement. Consultations and the participation of affected communities, both hosts and IDPs, will be essential in this process, in order to avoid unsuccessful programs and secondary displacements. IDPs should also be given access to national and

international humanitarian and development actors.40 In many situations, local integration will constitute a peace-building and community-reconciliation challenge, requiring mediation and other special measures in this regard.

55. National policies related to local integration must be “translated into both political and financial support for local authorities and communities”.41 Profiling exercises, and surveys of intentions among IDPs in order to gage what particular durable solutions they are envisaging42 can assist in assessing the resources and measures which are necessary. These will be important for planning purposes, and allow improved access by provincial and municipal actors to national and international funding, including by development actors. Most effective local integration programmes will combine IDP-specific interventions with community-wide programmes. Where the numbers of IDPs warrant it, the integration of displacement issues in local development, poverty reduction plans and labour market integration schemes, can also represent an effective strategy, which can be enhanced by the active participation of IDP representatives.43 Furthermore, other sources of practice and experience can be tapped, such as innovative local integration practices which have been used in the context of refugee integration programmes, or community revitalization projects.

IV. Conclusions and recommendations

56. While they represent the majority of internally displaced persons in the world, IDPs outside camps, and the host communities supporting them, are frequently

unidentified and unassisted, both with respect to humanitarian support and durable

solutions. IDPs living amongst host communities and in urban centres become mixed

within the general local population, while others may seek shelter in remote and

isolated areas. In both cases, they are difficult to identify and thus may become

neglected IDPs. Although often assumed to have found their own solution, IDPs

outside camps often experience a serious deterioration in their enjoyment of a series of

human rights, including the right to adequate housing and protection from forced

evictions, and to education and health, and are particularly at risk of marginalization,

poverty, exploitation and abuse. If left unidentified and unassisted, they will de facto

be excluded from assistance and protection measures, and durable solutions to their

displacement, (e.g. in the context of national reconciliation and reconstruction

processes); measures which could also alleviate pressures otherwise imposed on social

structures within host communities.

57. The lack of a systemic, equitable and human rights based approach to IDPs outside camps frequently results in protracted, secondary or repeated waves of

displacement, and the exacerbation of poverty and vulnerabilities for IDPs, those

hosting them, and for the society as a whole in countries where mass and unassisted

displacements are frequent.

58. In the context of global trends such as rapid urbanization, including in less developed States, and a predicted increase in the frequency and severity of natural

disasters due to the effects of climate change, the phenomena of urban IDPs outside

camps is predicted to grow. Both in urban and other settings, host communities and

40 See also A/HRC/13/21/Add.4, paras. 34-43. 41 Brookings, IDMC, Norwegian Refugee Council, IDPs in protracted displacement: is local integration

a solution? May 2011, p. 7. 42 Ibid, p. 9. 43 Ibid.

19

provincial and municipal authorities have a key role in assisting IDPs outside camps,

and should be supported in this regard.

59. In view of the above, the Special Rapporteur makes the following recommendations:

A. General recommendations to national and international stakeholders

• While practices to assess the needs and assist IDPs outside camp and their host

communities already exist among some international and national actors,

greater efforts and more comprehensive and predictable systems are required.

Towards this end, humanitarian and development actors (including the donor

community) at the national and international levels, and with the participation

of civil society and affected communities, should:

• Conduct assessments with view to identify good practices, gaps and

challenges in the assistance and protection of IDPs outside camps, and

host communities;

• Develop relevant strategies to address these gaps, and set in place a more

equitable, effective and systemised response to IDPs outside camps, and

affected communities;

• In addition to the specific issues, areas of focus and recommendations

below, support research and improved responses in other areas meriting

attention, including: IDPs outside camps living in rural, remote or

isolated areas; distinguishing characteristics of conflict, natural

disasters, and intra-city displacement contexts which may affect

responses; and the needs of especially vulnerable groups of IDPs outside

camps;

• Promote, develop and implement strategies which extend the concept of

assistance to include early recovery and development interventions in

order to strengthen basic services and infrastructures of affected

communities, and enhance the achievement of durable solutions for IDPs

outside camps;

B. Data collection

• Engage with affected States and other stakeholders in awareness-raising,

capacity-building and the implementation of effective, comprehensive,

disaggregated and timely data collection/profiling systems for IDPs outside

camps. These should include methodologies appropriate to: early identification

of IDPs and their needs immediately during or after a crisis so as to allow for

follow up once IDPs have dispersed; and to when IDPs are already living

among host communities in urban or other settings. Due safeguards must be in

place to protect IDPs who may not wish to be identified due to security or other

reasons. Rapid needs and protection assessment tools should include

mechanisms to identify: IDPs outside camps and their needs; the reasons why

they stay out of camps; the support provided by and the needs of host

communities and host families; and mechanisms for vulnerability analysis in

different settings;

C. Documenting and analysing existing/good practices

• Develop further initiatives for the collection, dissemination and analysis of

existing and best practices on: protection, assistance and durable solutions for

IDPs outside camps; methodologies for identify, reaching and engaging them;

and community based approaches which support and take into account the

needs of host communities. Based on this information, analyse good practices,

including positive coping practices employed by IDPs and host communities

themselves, and lessons learnt, with a view to enhancing existing programs and

wider national and international responses to IDPs outside camps and their

host communities;

D. IDPs outside camps in urban contexts

• Further understanding and improve methodologies for integrating the specific

vulnerabilities and needs of IDPs outside camps in: disaster risk reduction and

response strategies, and urban early recovery and development planning;

• Enhance mechanisms and understanding with regard to data collection and

assistance methodologies, and factors permitting or inhibiting successful local

integration in urban settings;

• Promote specific research on patterns of internal displacement: into urban

centres, including those resulting from sudden and slow onset disasters due to

climate change; and secondary displacements from or within urban centres;

• In the context of the distinctive nature and complexity of intra-city emergencies

and displacement: develop better understanding, tools and collection of good

practices on both IDP specific vulnerabilities and interventions, and community

based approaches, which promote early recovery and avoid protracted

displacement – including through real time analysis and learning in urban

responses, and by including IDPs outside camps in efforts to address the urban

vulnerability gap;

E. Host communities

• Compile good practices, identify gaps and develop specific guidance on

arrangements and approaches to support host communities and host families,

including: mechanisms to support, manage and monitor host family

arrangements; and wider community-based approaches which enhance the

absorption capacity and resilience of host communities, such as support to

community infrastructures, services, and livelihoods. Work towards the

establishment of more predictable and systematized support systems to host

families and host communities, which are participatory, based on needs

assessments, and combined with IDP specific interventions which address their

particular needs and vulnerabilities, and maximize the achievement of durable

solutions;

F. The role of provincial and municipal authorities

• Promote awareness-raising with regard to the specific role and responsibilities,

and the support and obstacles which municipal and provincial authorities may

face in the protection and assistance of IDPs outside camps. In particular,

collect information on structural, political and economic or budgetary factors

21

affecting their response, both with regard to the provision of humanitarian

assistance and to durable solutions such as local integration. Promote better

understanding and capacity-building at the level of local authorities, with a

view to: protecting the human rights of IDPs living within their communities

(e.g. through non-discrimination, equal access to services); developing and/or

implementing IDP-specific assistance and protection programmes, and

community based approaches; facilitating durable solutions; and including

IDPs outside camps in poverty reduction and local development plans;

G. To the humanitarian community, as a follow-up to previous

engagements on the topic by this mandate, in the framework of the

Inter Agency Standing Committee

• Within the framework of IASC, initiate a process to consider the existing

practices, gaps and relevant issues relating to IDPs outside camps, with a view

to the development of strategies and mechanisms to strengthen related

humanitarian and development responses. Suggested steps could include:

• Adequately taking into account IDPs outside camps in all relevant IASC

work, including its task forces;

• The undertaking by agencies, on a voluntary basis, of a stocktaking

exercise or survey of their programmes and practices which relate (or

extend) to IDPs outside camps and host communities;

• The collection of good practices in this regard, and an analysis of existing

protection and assistance gaps which hinder the institutional response by

the humanitarian and development communities;

• On this basis, a reference group could collect and analyse the above

information, with a view to: identifying common gaps and areas for

focus which have a system wide impact; and develop strategies and/or

processes towards a more equitable and systematized approach to the

humanitarian, human rights and development issues facing IDPs outside

camps and affected communities.