General Debate
Agenda Item 4

NGO Submission

Mr. Chairman, High Commissioner, Ladies, and Gentlemen,

There are a number of issues of concern to refugee protection that NGOs would like to raise to EXCOM that we will address in our statement under International Protection. Given UNHCR's role with regards to internally displaced persons (IDPs), we would like to focus our comments now on these new developments.

There have been, for years, serious problems in the humanitarian response to IDPs. Various attempts have been made to address these problems, including the creation and strengthening of the IDP Unit, which later became the Internal Displacement Division, and the adoption of a revised inter-agency policy in 2004.

To date, these efforts have not brought about an adequate change in the response to IDPs, which is still characterised by a lack of leadership, accountability, and predictability in the system. The cluster approach, and the decision to designate UNHCR as lead in three of the clusters that are essential to the IDP response, can be seen as an important next step in addressing some of the weaknesses of the current system. NGOs welcome the fact that UNHCR has come forward to take the lead in managing these critical areas of response. We hope that the agency's depth of experience, particularly in protection, can bring much needed knowledge and expertise to situations of internal displacement. There are, however, a number of issues that need to be addressed by member states and the UN system. Otherwise, UNHCR is likely to face many of the same challenges seen to date.

The Role of Governments
In becoming involved with IDPs, UNHCR will depend on governments. Bearing the primary responsibility for the protection of IDPs, national governments must ensure unimpeded access for humanitarian agencies, in particular UNHCR, and ensure the safety of humanitarian staff, notwithstanding that, in some situations, state actors may be causing the displacement. In reality, humanitarian access is, at times, arbitrarily withheld and humanitarian staff face high levels of insecurity. States must uphold their obligations under International Humanitarian Law to ensure humanitarian access to the internally displaced.

The situation in the DRC serves as a prime example where too little is known about the plight of the Congolese IDPs, their numbers, or their needs. Due to the kidnapping of two humanitarian NGO staff near Bunia in June, medical assistance in the IDP camps around Bunia was suspended and the humanitarian presence outside the town extremely limited. In Zimbabwe, despite the recommendations of the UN Special Envoy sent to report on Operation Murambatsvina (Restore Order), the Zimbabwean authorities continue to obstruct and curtail the humanitarian operations of the UN and NGOs. What would UNHCR be able to do in such situations if it were involved with IDPs?

Given the need for increased financial resources for UNHCR to fulfil its new responsibilities, donor governments need to step up to the plate. As articulated in Principle six of Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD), there is a commitment to "Allocate humanitarian funding in proportion to needs and on the basis of needs assessments," which should be fulfilled. The organisation will not be able to respond adequately without additional resources. We have come to understand that, even now, UNHCR is facing an estimated US$92.6 million shortfall in its annual budget and an estimated $118.4 million shortfall in special operations. NGOs are highly concerned that without the additional resources required to respond to IDPs, the predictability of the response will fall flat.

A New Approach to Coordination
The cluster approach can be viewed as a new means of coordinating the response. At the same time, this new approach must focus on broader humanitarian needs, as many who are not displaced in conflict situations will have similar needs to IDPs. The overview of the relevance and impact of the response, with regards to the totality of needs, must not be lost. The clusters must be fully interwoven in a comprehensive strategy and protection must underpin all humanitarian efforts.

In implementing the cluster approach, national and local NGOs must not be excluded, which may be equally credible and as effective as their international counterparts. The approach must be sensitive to their capacities and their participation must be guaranteed in the coordination process.

Operationalising Protection
Humanitarian actors need to be realistic about their role in protection - in Darfur, even if there were large number of protection officers on the ground, they alone cannot stop attacks on the civilian population.

Many improvements can be made in the way in which protection by humanitarian agencies is provided. Protection and assistance must be part of a single strategy and all humanitarian staff should apply a protection lens in their work. Given that IDP protection has particular human rights aspects, all staff, and particularly protection staff, must understand the human rights and humanitarian law framework. Additionally, UNHCR will need to ensure that representatives will not be shy in confronting governments that may be failing in their obligations to their citizens.

The numbers of UNHCR staff who are well-versed and adequately experienced in IDP protection issues will likely require bolstering. The proposed standby Protection Capacity (PROCAP) could fill short-term staffing gaps, but UNHCR will need to build up its staffing capacity to adequately respond to IDP situations, particularly in terms of protection staff. The High Commissioner has emphasised, in his opening remarks, that implementing UNHCR's age, gender, and diversity mainstreaming strategy is a clear organisational priority. However, there has been no discussion or indication as to how this priority will be operationalised with relation to IDPs. We are concerned that the breakdown of the protection cluster into sub-clusters runs contrary to the principle of UNHCR's age, gender, and diversity mainstreaming.

Last Resort
UNHCR is to be the provider of last resort in each of its three clusters, but such a situation needs to be defined. If there is no other agency able to provide the response within the sector, what will happen if UNHCR does not have the adequate resources to provide the response? How will the predictability take shape when there are inadequate resources? This entire approach will be largely reliant on donors putting up funds and/or having adequate access to funds through the new Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF). With the CERF aiming to have only $500 million in it, there will still be additional funds to adequately respond to IDP needs.

Determining Clear Criteria
UNHCR will need to establish clear criteria for when it will not get involved in an IDP situation. It has already been mentioned UNHCR will not get involved when its core mandate is under threat. It remains unclear how this principle will be applied in practice. NGOs are willing to work with UNHCR to clarify these criteria. What are the safeguards that will be put in place to ensure that UNHCR's core protection mandate will not come at the cost of these new added responsibilities?

Much of the discussion seems focussed on responses to large groups of IDPs in the same general location. We are interested in knowing what the response planning will be towards IDPs in small, dispersed groups whose protection needs may be no less dire than those in collective situations of mass displacement. Moreover, what number of IDPs constitutes the critical mass triggering a response? While recognising that there are efficiencies in large numbers we must also recognise that smaller numbers of IDPs may need similar protection measures.

Collaborating with Partners
For this cluster approach to be put into practice, it must be brought to the field level. The discussions so far have been too focused at the headquarters level and largely have worked at bringing international NGOs into the process. Simply looking at the larger NGOs that spend the most money on humanitarian response skews the picture. Smaller, more specialised NGOs also have much to contribute to a humanitarian response. Local and national NGOs need to be brought into the discussions and deliberations, not least to build national and local capacity that may be sustained as the IDP situation moves to a long-term resolution.

NGOs welcome the High Commissioner's opening remarks, which noted that UNHCR would "count on NGO expertise" as the organisation gets more engaged with IDPs. Strategic partnerships will be key to ensuring that UNHCR puts in place the necessary systems in order to be able to better respond. One way forward in terms of ensuring such strategic partnerships might be to re-examine at the Framework Agreement on Operational Partnership (FAOP) as a potential model for further developing strategic partnerships with NGOs.

Specific Situations
We would like to end by highlighting a few of the more serious failures in the response, which require urgent attention.

In Uganda, it is estimated that there are more 2 million IDPs who are unable to return home because of insecurity. At the same time, many cannot move more than 5km from the camps in which they are living because of the insecurity, resulting in a high dependence on humanitarian assistance. Some 70% of the food comes from WFP. Medical services, even the most basic ones, are precarious and disorganised. A recent WHO mortality survey in the camps found a mortality rate of 1/10,000/day. Gender-based violence is a serious ongoing problem.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as noted above, humanitarian presence is limited as a result of insecurity, exacerbated by a wide range of actors. The estimates of IDPs are 2.17 million, but there is little understanding of their movements or needs.

The situation in Colombia has different patterns of suffering with an estimated 3.4 million IDPs. It is estimated that one in every 50 persons is displaced. IDPs from rural areas escaping from the violence of the conflict find themselves living in appalling conditions just outside of urban areas. Many IDPs are also almost inaccessible due to the conflict, leaving them isolated from any assistance. Theoretically, the Ministry of Social Protection is in charge of IDPs, enabling them to access to healthcare, basic goods, decent living conditions. Unfortunately, both a lack of information from the authorities and fear of being perceived as families of combatants keep many people from registering. Without this help, most of them live in total poverty, and without any access to help.

Nepal is another situation where access is problematic, resulting in a weak understanding of the humanitarian needs of IDPs. Without such access, assessments are inadequate to provide the necessary humanitarian interventions.

We hope that the new cluster approach will contribute to improving these and other IDP situations and that in taking the lead in specific areas, UNHCR will strengthen its strategic partnerships with NGOs.

Thank you.