To the New High Commissioner: IDPs Must Remain a Global Priority

Whoever the next High Commissioner for Refugees is, they will have a difficult balance to strike. The UN is at a painful crossroads of budget shortfalls, staffing cuts, and proposed mergers with other UN agencies – all alongside states like the United States that are intent on shirking their obligations under international and domestic law. It will be an uphill battle simply to maintain some UN presence in any number of crises and protracted displacement situations. The cuts are undoubtedly some of the most painful in the UN’s history, and will reshape its presence in the world.

One group that stands to lose – perhaps more than any other group – are internally displaced people (IDPs). IDPs make up one of the largest groups of displaced people in the world (some 83.4 million people, or 60 per cent of the world’s displaced), yet receive far less attention and resources than other groups. Too often, IDPs have been an afterthought for global support, receiving ad hoc responses across UN agencies and limited efforts by states and other stakeholders to find durable solutions to their displacement. Many IDPs have fled persecution, and may find themselves in similar situations as refugees – yet do not bear the refugee label because they have not crossed an international border. Others have fled climate-related events, natural disasters, generalized violence or other types of violence and conflict. Most IDPs live in developing countries with limited capacity to provide desperately needed assistance. They are increasingly found in urban areas, though some are in camp or settlement-like locations.

The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the UN’s lead agency on protection, along with the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and others (eg UNICEF, UN Women), must work together to ensure that assistance and protection to IDPs is not lost in this massive reshuffling and restructuring. Even before the aid cuts, IDPs were less likely to receive international protection resources, and risk being lost or left behind when organizations merge. UNHCR in particular should lead this effort, given its unique mandate to prioritize protection. In the potential scenario that some or all of these agencies are combined, there should be a subset of actors dedicated to IDP issues and with a background in and commitment to protection. Moreover, as Welsh and Bradley argue, the UN needs to avoid pitting IDPs and refugees against one another as funding cuts take root. Indeed, IDP and refugee situations are often linked, and responding to one can improve conditions for the other.

In the face of budget cuts – UNHCR is losing around 30 percent of its resources – the UN, donor states and others can and should apply pressure to governments with IDP populations to do more to protect and assist them. Yet, a sober look at state responses to IDPs today reveals that we cannot always count on states to provide adequate protection and assistance. In some cases, states themselves are the cause of displacement through persecution. Ideally states will step up. But historically, this has not been the case. A UN that is active on IDP issues – and that recognizes their unique humanitarian and development needs, rather than lumping them in with a wider population in need –  is necessary.

That said, IDP-led organizations and community groups are best-suited to design, execute and manage responses to their displacement. International donors and organizations should do their best to provide resources to these groups, following their lead and offering support. Refugee-led organizations and their partners have already built a body of best practices around how to do this better. Groups like the IDP Advisory Group, comprised of IDP leaders from around the world, have provided guidance on the importance of supporting IDPs in leading and crafting their own responses. As aid groups are shrinking and pulling out of IDP situations, this is more important than ever.

IDP protection and response cannot be on the chopping block as the UN reshapes its work. Driving power and resources directly to IDP-led organizations should be the future, both for moral and pragmatic reasons. As the UN moves to a new structure, and as a new High Commissioner for Refugees will soon be selected, IDPs need to remain a priority.