The Legacy of the UN Special Adviser on Solutions to Internal Displacement

Lack of government commitment

As a general rule, durable solutions for large groups of IDPs can only be achieved if the government directly affected takes ownership of this goal and actively pursues it. Without its leadership, the endeavour is doomed to fail from the outset. But this is precisely what is lacking – protracted internal displacement in particular can often be traced back to state culpability or government deficits and is therefore highly politically sensitive. International efforts to address the plight of IDPs more systematically are therefore often rejected by affected governments as unacceptable interference in internal affairs. Donor countries, on the other hand, hardly prioritise the issue: Unlike in the case of cross-border displacement, wealthy states are not directly ex­posed to the consequences of internal dis­placement in other regions of the world. Accordingly, the phenomenon has long been ignored in key international processes. It is not adequately reflected either in the UN 2030 Agenda’s 17 Sustainable Develop­ment Goals or in the Global Compacts on Refugees and Migration.

Inadequate linking of international support

Another challenge lies in the structure of the international aid system. Despite long-standing efforts to achieve greater synergies, the humanitarian and the development sector continue to follow their own logics of action and priorities. This often hinders joint data collection and analysis, planning, and programming – with the result that short- and longer-term support services in the area of internal displacement are insufficiently interlinked. In addi­tion, the implementation of the third pillar of the HDP Nexus, peacebuilding, which is urgently needed for durable solutions in cases of conflict-induced internal displace­ment, so far remains inadequate. Furthermore, the institutional responsibilities for IDPs within the UN system are unclear. This leads to conflicts over mandates, par­ticularly between the International Orga­nization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Financing gaps

Durable solutions are costly and can hardly be realised without adequate financial re­sources. The most significant hurdle is not a lack of overall humanitarian funding. Instead, the main problem is that the con­cerns of IDPs are not sufficiently taken into account in development financing and that there is a lack of financing instruments spe­cifically aimed at addressing internal dis­place­ment. As a result, many of those af­fected no longer receive adequate support once humanitarian emergency aid runs out. This threatens to perpetuate the dis­advantages and vulnerabilities arising from displacement, leading to protracted internal displacement. There is a lively debate within the international community as to whether it is more expedient to treat internal displace­ment as a cross-cutting issue or to create separate instruments for this purpose. How­ever, there is consensus that protracted internal displacement has serious negative development impacts and that it is there­fore necessary to make more development funding available for sustainable solutions.

Developing concrete solution pathways

One of the main objectives of the Special Adviser was to develop solutions for up to 10 million IDPs in 15 pilot countries by the end of 2024: Afghanistan, the Central Afri­can Republic, Chad, Colombia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Libya, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Vanuatu, and Yemen. On numerous trips to these countries, Piper engaged in high-level lob­bying to promote the understanding that a decisive commitment to finding durable solutions for IDPs would have a positive development impact on society as a whole. This, in turn, would be an important con­tribution to the 2030 Agenda. As a result, some tangible successes have been achieved. For example, governments in the Central African Republic, Colombia, Ethiopia (Somali region), Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, and Somalia have committed to place around 8.5 million IDPs on solutions pathways. This amounts to a commitment to gradually restore the equal economic, social, and po­litical participation of affected IDPs. To this end, strategies and roadmaps have been developed at the national or sub-national level. These strategies are particularly valu­able if they have a clear link to national development plans and, in the form of costed plans, not only identify priority areas for action, but also the expected costs that will be incurred through sector-specific measures. Some also contain financial com­mitments by the governments concerned. For example, the Nigerian states of Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe have pledged to use be­tween 5 and 15 per cent of their respective budgets for the implementation of their respective action plans over three years.

Despite such progress, considerable chal­lenges remain – even in countries whose governments have signalled commitments through solution-oriented strategies or action plans. The Iraqi leadership, for exam­ple, is prioritizing the rapid closure of IDP camps by offering IDPs money to return to their respective homes. The individual dis­placement situation is then officially con­sidered to be over, although serious security risks and a lack of sources of income often force people to move again. There are simi­lar problems in the Nigerian state of Borno, which is still largely inaccessible to humani­tarian actors due to the presence of Boko Haram militias. Due to the poor security situation, an actual return is often not pos­sible. Instead those affected find refuge in regional urban centers, without access to arable land or other sources of income. Here, the UN Secretary-General’s Action Agenda threatens to be misused as a rhetori­cal justification for the premature closure of IDP camps. The Ethiopian government is also pushing for the return of IDPs after the end of the conflict in Tigray – even to regions where the security situation remains critical and public infrastructure is barely functional.

These examples share a number of com­monalities: governments often push for the return of IDPs without respecting their free­dom of choice between different solutions and without involving them in relevant planning and decision-making processes. The focus is therefore on the physical relocation of IDPs and not on restoring their rights or strengthening their capacity to act. The ongoing marginalisation of those affected points to the highly political nature of conflict-related internal displacement, in particular. Purely technical support from the international community can make an im­portant contribution to finding durable solu­tions. However, displacement-specific dis­advantages can only be comprehensively eliminated if corresponding measures are sys­tematically integrated into peace and recon­ciliation processes and are accompanied by viable compromises e.g. in land conflicts.

An additional stumbling block at the country level is inadequate data. Despite the pioneering work of the Internal Dis­placement Monitoring Centre, there is a lack of reliable data on the extent of inter­nal displacement in many places, as well as on the specific vulnerabilities, needs, and capacities of IDPs and host communities. In addition, there is a lack of national moni­toring and evaluation systems that could be used to measure success in the implementation of solutions. There has been consider­able progress in this area, for example, in the form of a development-oriented indicator system developed by the Joint Internal Dis­placement Profiling Service and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), financed by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). However, there is still a lack of reliable socio-economic data and standardised analysis. In some country contexts, UN actors and (sub)national governments also work with competing data sets and incon­sistent definitions of when exactly a dis­placement situation has been resolved.

Strengthening internal UN coordination

A second field of action for the Special Ad­viser is to sensitize relevant UN actors along the entire HDP Nexus to the importance of the development policy implications of internal displacement. This goes hand in hand with the aim of integrating corresponding solutions more effectively into existing UN processes and mechanisms. Concrete progress has also been made here. While only IOM and UNHCR had developed institutional strategies for addressing inter­nal displacement before the Special Adviser took office, this is now the case for eight UN organisations. UNDP, in particular, is committed to greater institutional responsi­bility in the area of internal displacement – both in terms of solutions and prevention – and is thus closing an existing gap in the UN’s commitment in this area. At the same time, a Steering Group for Solutions to Internal Displacement (hereafter Steering Group) was established in line with the Action Agenda. It consists of eight relevant UN organisations (as well as the World Bank as an observer), promotes their exchange at the global level, and thus improves the coordination of UN activities regarding internal displacement.

Realizing such coordination at the coun­try level is proving to be much more chal­lenging. UN Resident Coordinators (RCs) play a central role here. As the highest-rank­ing representatives of the UN development system, they lead the UN country teams and also act as humanitarian coordinators in times of crisis. In line with the Action Agenda, the UN Secretary-General has fur­ther strengthened their role in order to effectively coordinate efforts on the ground and support governments in developing solutions to internal displacement. RCs in all pilot countries (except Vanuatu) are sup­ported by Solutions Advisers who are funded by various donors through a dedicated facil­ity (the so-called Solutions Advisers Deploy­ment Facility) established by UNDP – cur­rently France, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Switzerland. As capacities in RCs’ offices are often lim­ited, Solutions Advisers play a key role in coordinating and promoting solutions work at the country level. This is done through stra­tegic and technical advice to RCs and UN country teams, high-level advocacy work, and country visits by the Special Adviser, as well as through steps to engage humanitarian, development, climate, and peace actors.

As an additional instrument, the Special Adviser launched the Internal Displacement Solutions Fund (IDSF) in August 2023. This is a new fund designed to provide a fast and flexible source of catalytic funding for col­laborative and cross-sectoral program work by UN country teams that promotes durable solutions. The fund’s resources are still far from the target of US$100 million. So far, Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland have pledged a total of just under US$19 million. Nevertheless, the projects financed by the fund can strengthen practical collaboration between different UN organisations and contribute to themati­cally focused capacity building of state authorities in individual country contexts.

Once the mandate of the Special Adviser has expired, the main responsibility for the UN’s internal realignment and the newly created structures (including the steering group and fund) is meant to rotate between UNDP, IOM, and UNHCR. This is an indica­tion that these three organisations could form a functional “leadership trio” in the area of durable solutions in the future. De­spite this progress, internal UN coordination at the country level remains difficult. The ongoing competition for financial resources, which is increasing due to dwindling funds, often perpetuates clearly separate humani­tarian and development activities without common objectives being developed or pur­sued.

Systematic involvement of multilateral development banks

The Special Adviser sees great untapped potential for a solutions-oriented approach to internal displacement with international financial institutions, above all with multi­lateral development banks (MDBs). Piper has therefore used his term in office to engage MDBs in strategic dialogue and cam­paign for greater consideration to be given to IDPs in the design of financing instruments. The results in this area are mixed. The Asian and the African Development Bank have each initiated processes to iden­tify suitable entry points for solution-ori­ented program design or for additional investment in the collection and analysis of relevant data. A significant development at the World Bank is that IDPs have been included in the new internal target system (“World Bank Group Scorecard”). The issue of internal displacement is also gaining increasing visibility, for example, as part of the annual World Bank Fragility Forum. However, the Bank’s management has so far rejected the idea of creating a separate financing instrument for countries affected by internal displacement or host communities. One reason for this is that the respon­sibility for IDPs lies clearly with the respec­tive government and their support is there­fore – unlike the reception and care of cross-border refugees – not considered a contribution to the global common good. In addition, the World Bank generally seeks to avoid the strong earmarking of funds made available to it.

Establishing sustainable governance structures

Another area where the work of the Special Adviser has so far fallen short of expectations is the long-term anchoring of the issue of internal displacement in the agenda of the international community. The Action Agenda proposes the establishment of an intergovernmental platform for UN mem­ber states to exchange experiences, progress, and best practices, but so far this has failed due to the lack of commitment from mem­ber states. This points to a central dilemma of Piper’s comparatively short mandate. He has prioritized concrete progress in pilot countries based on the reasonable assumption that such tangible successes are essen­tial to create political momentum for the international community to address inter­nal displacement. At the same time, how­ever, this came at the expense of efforts to establish a sustainable governance structure that could sustain momentum beyond the end of his mandate.

The fact that states are holding back here is in part due to a lack of attention and re­sources resulting from a multitude of com­peting issues. However, there is also a fundamental scepticism on the part of states towards a global public debate on inter­nal displacement, which is due to the inherently political nature of the issue. This applies not only to cases in which governments as parties to the conflict have directly caused or contributed to internal displacement. Rather, long-lasting displacement situations, regardless of the original trig­gers, signal that the respective government is neglecting the task of restoring the rights and participation of the affected people, thereby failing to live up to its responsibil­ity towards its own nationals.

Keeping IDPs on the international agenda

The so-called “Group of Friends” plays a decisive role in efforts to place internal displacement on the international agenda in the long term. It consists of the 15 pilot countries and 15 donor countries (including Germany) and has closely supported Piper’s mandate from the outset. The German government should work to maintain and expand this group, which meets in Geneva, and drive forward discussions on how and where the issue of internal displacement should be institutionally anchored. A forum where UN member states meet regularly would be conceivable, enabling affected countries to report on their experiences and progress, involving multilateral develop­ment banks and ensuring that the voices of IDPs are heard. Germany’s existing con­vening power could be further strengthened if the German government were to take over the co-chairmanship of the Group of Friends. In parallel to the primarily humani­tarian discussions in Geneva, Germany could make a decisive contribution to mobi­lizing the international community in New York, where key development policy deci­sions are made. The fact that the goal of facilitating access to durable solutions for IDPs is included in the recently adopted UN Pact for the Future constitutes an important new point of access for related advocacy efforts.

Leveraging development and climate financing for IDPs

As a shareholder in international financial institutions and an important voice, par­ticularly on the World Bank Board, Germany should advocate for the specific needs of IDPs to be given greater consideration in development financing. This can either take the form of dedicated financing instruments to relieve the burden on particularly affected governments or by systematically taking the needs of IDPs into account in existing in­struments. The ultimate goal is to create incentive structures that encourage state authorities in affected countries to recog­nize internal displacement as a development challenge and to make credible volun­tary commitments. If such commitments exist in the form of costed plans, the respec­tive government should be given access to viable additional sources of funding. In the case of disaster-related internal displace­ment, cross-financing from the climate sec­tor is also conceivable. Among other things, the new Loss and Damage Fund established in 2023 takes the issue of internal displace­ment into account. The German government should work to ensure that this trans­lates into de facto access to loans and grants for countries particularly affected by inter­nal displacement. To contribute to the im­proved prevention of internal displacement, it should also work towards increasing funding for climate adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and resilience-building measures.

Strengthening participation and accountability

Protracted internal displacement represents a fundamental breach in the relationship between the government and its citizens. Durable solutions can only be achieved if those directly affected are included. This is often not the case, especially with regard to women, young people, and marginalised groups such as indigenous populations, LGBTQIA+ people, or people with disabilities. In line with its feminist foreign and development policy, the German government should ensure that related programs it funds are developed in a participatory manner, in line with the bottom-up ap­proach according to the HDP Nexus. IDPs should thus be given the opportunity to choose among different solutions. To sup­port implementation, it is essential to set up a transparent data, monitoring, and evaluation system in the respective country: Context-specific goals and indicators are needed to make progress towards durable solutions measurable and to ensure account­ability on the part of state authorities.