30 January 2001  

Purpose

Earlier this year the UN Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) agreed to establish a Senior Inter-Agency Network on Internally Displaced to assess current efforts to provide protection and assistance to the internally displaced. NGOs are represented on the Senior Network through three umbrella groups: ICVA, InterAction, and the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response. In addition to evaluating gaps and possible remedies at the country-level, the terms of reference for the Senior Network include the intention of making long term recommendations to strengthen future inter-agency responses to the internally displaced. A preliminary report from the Senior Network is expected sometime in March and is likely to make recommendations to the UN Secretary-General on mechanisms to improve response.

Since NGOs have long been seen as the 'frontline' in terms of meeting the needs of the internally displaced, it is crucial that non-governmental organisations interested in the IDP issue provide input into the deliberations of the Senior Network prior to formulation of the report and the forwarding of recommendations to the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) and the IASC. While the recommendations will focus on appropriate UN response mechanisms, NGOs, both national and international, are the organisations in closest proximity to the displaced and, therefore, have a vested interest in ensuring that the proposals reflect their involvement and best interests.

This paper is meant to stimulate debate and discussion among NGOs interested in the IDP issue, which can then be fed into the deliberations of the Senior Network. It quite obviously assumes that the current arrangements are not sufficient and improvements in the UN response, as well as the whole humanitarian community, are required.

The paper begins by highlighting some of the steps that have been taken, or discussed over the last 10 years in the determination of UN involvement vis-à-vis IDPs. Given that there have been discussions - not all of them public - at many different levels, as well as in different fora, we have chosen to relate only the most obvious steps.

Four possible avenues to improve the UN response are presented. It is not the intention of this paper to propose detailed institutional arrangements, mechanisms or fora, since one cannot cover the myriad of possible administrative and political variations. Furthermore, this paper does not favour any one option over the other. Rather, the intention is to present some of the more obvious possible arrangements in order to encourage NGOs to reflect on what, from their point of view, should be considered by the Senior Network in its deliberations on future options.

In order not to limit the discussions to incremental improvements, NGOs are encouraged to examine all options equally, as well as to suggest others. A list of issues is included at the end to facilitate NGO discussions on the subject.

Background and History of the Institutional Debate

There are many UN agencies, inter-governmental organisations, and NGOs working with the internally displaced.¹ Each approach the issue according to their various mandates and while all are contributing to the response, none are meeting 100% of the needs of the internally displaced. Some organisations are involved in assistance, some in protection, some in logistics, some in a combination of activities. Their capacities vary widely.

In terms of the UN involvement, the last decade has seen several developments and ongoing discussions to improve capacity and the response to internal displacement.

1990

• The General Assembly assigned to its Resident Coordinators (RCs) the function of coordinating assistance to the internally displaced.²

1991

• The post of Emergency Relief Coordinator was created to improve overall coordination of the UN response.
• The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) requested the UN Secretary-General (UNSG) to prepare an analytical report on IDPs.

1992

• At the request of the CHR, the UNSG appointed a representative to raise awareness of the problem and investigate ways to improve protection and response.
• The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) was created and chaired by the Emergency Relief Coordinator. It comprised the heads of major humanitarian and development organisations including UN agencies, the Red Cross Movement, and three NGO umbrella groups. It was intended to strengthen coordination in emergency situations.
• The IASC created an IDP Task Force, which operated until 1997
• The IASC designated the ERC as the UN reference point for protection and assistance to IDPs

1993

• A comprehensive study prepared by Mr. Francis M. Deng presented to the Commission on Human Rights stated, "There is at present no single organisation within the United Nations system responsible for the protection and assistance of the internally displaced. Several organisations, most notably UNHCR, operationally manage programmes that reach internally displaced persons, but only in an ad hoc manner. Given the magnitude of the problem and the likely increase in the numbers of the internally displaced, the United Nations is called upon to create some mechanism, whether a Representative, Rapporteur or Working Group, that can serve as a focal point for international protection, help mobilise the efforts of existing United Nations bodies involved with assistance and protection, and can act to dialogue and advocate on behalf of internally displaced persons….In the longer run, it would be desirable for the United Nations either to explicitly mandate UNHCR or set up an equivalent body to cater more specifically to the needs of internally displaced persons. Indeed, one of the subsidiary objectives of the Representative of the Secretary-General may well be to study the available options and to recommend action at an appropriate time." (E/CN.4/1993/35, 21 January 1993, paras 127, 130)
• In order to clarify its role the UNHCR takes the step of preparing an internal policy. It requests all Resident Representatives and/or Heads of Mission to submit to HQ any request to get involved with the internally displaced. It also stated that the Office's involvement will be based on certain criteria namely: a request from the UNSG, GA, or other competent UN body; evidence that the office has the expertise; consent of the concerned state; and the availability of necessary resources. (UNHCR, IOM/FOM/ 33/93)

1996

• The Representative of the UNSG concludes in his report to the CHR, "Because there is no one organisation, or collection of organisations, mandated to take responsibility for the internally displaced, there are institutional gaps in the international system. At the same time, there is no political will to create a new organisation mandated to protect and assist these persons. Nor is it likely that an existing institution will be mandated to assume full responsibility for the internally displaced. The residual option is that of a collaborative arrangement among a wide variety of bodies and organisations whose mandates and activities are relevant to the problems of internal displacement." (E/CN.4/1996/52, 22 February 1996, para 16)

1997

• In the UN Secretary-General's reform programme, the ERC was reaffirmed as the focal point for protection and assistance to IDPs

1998

• Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement were presented to the Commission on Human Rights by the Rep. of the Sec. Gen. on IDPs.
• Specific terms of reference were developed for the role of the ERC: (i) global advocacy on both assistance and protection requirements; (ii) resource mobilisation and the identification of gaps, (iii) collection and dissemination of global information, and (iv) support to the field on related humanitarian issues, including negotiation of access to internally displaced persons.
• IDPs were made a permanent item of the agenda of the IASC and terms of reference were drawn up for the committee, which included among other items (i) regularly reviewing all issues relating to internally displaced persons and making recommendations to the ERC; (ii) reviewing specific field coordination arrangements by the Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator and country team; (iii)providing guidance to the RC/HC; (iv) recommending to the ERC ways to address obstacles in the provision of assistance and protection of IDPs, particularly vulnerable groups including women, children and the elderly; (v) promoting respect for international law.

1999

• A Protection Policy Paper is endorsed by the IASC in December 1999, which outlines the protection response by the international humanitarian community to internal displacement. It advocates a flexible approach, which will vary according to the competency and comparative strengths of various actors as well as the context of displacement.

2000

• US Ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke, makes a statement to the UN Security Council. "We are deeply concerned about the inadequate and uneven protection afforded to internally displaced persons. We must reassess and energise our institutional structures to deal with this. It's unacceptable that legalistic distinctions prevent people from receiving the same assistance simply because they're classified as something called IDPs instead of refugees.…I do not personally believe that shifting responsibility of different agencies to head the operation in different areas will work. I believe that "co-heads" means no heads and I'm glad that we have an opportunity to keep attention on this enormous issue that affects tens of millions of people." (Statement by Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, "Maintaining Peace and Security: Humanitarian Aspects of Issues before the Security Council," Security Council, 9 March 2000)
• Supplementary guidance to RC/HCs is finalised by the IASC on their responsibility towards IDPs. It reiterates the so-called 'collaborative approach.' "The origin, magnitude, and the multi-faceted nature of displacement crises have led the IASC to recognise that an effective and comprehensive response to the protection and assistance needs of displaced persons necessitates a collaborative approach with a clear allocation of responsibilities. Thus, the management model for assistance and protection in situations of internal displacement is one that involves the Government and local authorities, UN agencies, international organisations, international and local NGOs, working together." Aside from the already elaborated role of the ERC and IASC, it specified the HC/RC, in consultation with the UN Country Team and other relevant partners, can recommend to the ERC an allocation of responsibilities for the protection of, and assistance to, IDPs.
• UNHCR revises its policy on involvement with IDPs. While the criteria for involvement are mostly the same, the agency claims it is "committed to greater engagement."
• A Senior Inter-Agency Network on Internal Displacement is created with the purpose of reviewing field-based arrangements and providing recommendations for a long-term solution.

The Options

The debate to assign or develop institutional responsibility for the internally displaced has seen a number of arrangements proposed or discussed. Based on those discussions it is possible to identify at least four possible scenarios; three of them draw from various proposals made over the last decade while the fourth is a melange of elements from options two and three.

1. A strengthened OCHA based on the current collaborative approach;
2. Increased capacity within the office of the Representative of the UNSG on IDPs;
3. UNHCR as the assigned or designated IDP agency; and
4. An assigned protection and advocacy unit drawing on the expertise of both UNHCR and OHCHR.

This list is by no means exhaustive and it is not suggested that one solution is preferred over another. The following descriptions are meant to serve as a starting point for debate and discussion within and amongst NGOs, which can then be fed into the Senior Network's deliberations.

A Strengthened OCHA

A strengthened IDP unit within OCHA would build on the evolution of responsibility under the IASC and ERC seen over the last 10 years. It could integrate the current functions of the Senior Network by conducting country reviews and continuing to provide operational assistance and advice to country teams.

Other tasks that increase capacity within OCHA could be added and built upon such as strengthening information flows from the field to partner agencies and improved efforts to strengthen protection interventions by the RC/HC. Closer ties with other protection-mandated organisations, such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) could also be undertaken.

An Expanded Operational Role by the OHCHR and/or the RSG

A unit, based in the OHCHR and complementing or supplementing the mandate of the RSG, could review the protection response to IDPs in a given situation, in close collaboration with all partners, including humanitarian and human rights NGOs. The protection response would be reviewed on the basis of the Guiding Principles on IDPs with the purpose of identifying gaps and recommending action or follow-up by agencies. This follow-up action could include recommendations for specific protection mechanisms for a given situation. Efforts at coordinating assistance activities would remain as they are.

UNHCR as an IDP Organisation

The differences between refugees and internally displaced are mostly a question of legal status and discrepancy in international response. Causes of displacement, conditions of temporary settlement and requirements for a durable return are often the same. Since UNHCR is an existing agency with an expertise in forced displacement, an extension of its responsibility is logical. Existing operational capacity would have to be strengthened and special efforts would need to be undertaken to establish clear operating procedures, which would avoid situations where the provision of protection to IDPs inadvertently undermines refugee protection.

An OHCHR-UNHCR IDP Protection/Advocacy Unit

Given that IDPs find themselves within the legal jurisdiction of their national government, in essence the international protection of IDPs can only be achieved through human rights mechanisms (and humanitarian law, where relevant). The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is the most relevant international body that can ensure that human rights mechanisms are effectively used and/or put in place to protect IDPs.

At the same time, IDPs are often found in refugee-like situations. In this respect, UNHCR is often cited as the operational agency most suited to address the needs of IDPs. In particular, UNHCR's protection expertise and experience is most significant in operationalising protection for IDPs.

Hence, an institutional arrangement, which combines the roles and functions of the OHCHR and UNHCR might be considered. The coordination of assistance needs of IDPs would continue to fall under the traditional UN coordination mechanisms.

Issues

Providing a model or describing the ideal agency in detail is not necessary and may not be possible at this point. However an indication of how NGOs think the choice should be made and what elements should be considered will provide helpful input to the Senior Network's deliberations.

The following questions might assist in identifying important issues and considerations.

1. What arrangement or solution is likely to be the most feasible and effective in today's climate?
2. What is the best option for providing protection to IDPs and is a protection or operational capacity at the field level required?
3. Can the additional responsibility or change in mandate be realistically incorporated into the organisation or office to which it is being assigned? Does the office or organisation want the additional responsibility?
4. What would be the reaction of states, including donor states, less developed states (i.e. the G77) or the host state?
5. What would be the relationship to the IASC/ERC/UNSG? What would be the lines of authority? Who would be in charge?
6. What is necessary to incorporate the best interests and contributions of NGOs?

NOTES

1.For a summary of the institutional involvement of various organisations please refer to the annex in the IASC Protection Paper (available on the ICVA website and at www.idpproject.org).

2.Description of initiatives from 1990-1992 are drawn from Roberta Cohen and Francis Deng, Masses in Flight, Brookings Institution Press, 1998.