Attachments
The Purpose
What have been the dynamics of internal displacement in Colombia and the main policy lessons that can be drawn from more than 20 years of history?
This document aims to explore these questions by reviewing the paper Promoting recovery and resilience for internally displaced persons: lessons from Colombia (2022) written by Ana María Ibáñez, Andrés Moya, and Andrea Velásquez (Part 1). The discussion will be complemented using the PDETs Population Triage developed by the National Statistics Oce (DANE) to delve deeper in the contexts of regions that historically have been the most aected by the conflict (Part 2). It is expected that this discussion about academic research can be used for operational purposes by UNHCR, following an evidence-based approach that enhances the response to the needs of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).
Key Messages
-
The legal framework in Colombia is considered one of the most progressive and comprehensive in the world and has made progress in assisting IDPs. However, 62% of IDPs remain vulnerable as of 2021, according to the Victims Unit, which calls for more eorts to be put into overcoming vulnerability, improving the living conditions, and promoting solutions for IDPs.
-
The evidence suggests that internal displacement causes permanent shocks in monetary and non-monetary dimensions, which must be addressed. IDPs, on average, recover only 40% of income and 70% of consumption after a year of being forcibly displaced, contributing to the persistence of vulnerability over time. The permanent shock can be attributed to the loss of support networks, diculty in finding formal jobs that match their skills, deteriorated mental health due to the violence, increased protection risks and incidents suered (Ibáñez, Moya and Velásquez, 2022).
-
Complementary poverty measures (monetary and multidimensional) show that IDPs have historically presented higher poverty rates than the national average, doubling by 2020 (18% of non-IDP households are aected by multidimensional poverty, compared to 33% of households in regions with large share of IDPs - PDET territories). IDP households also face more deprivations than non-IDP households:
▪ A larger proportion of IDP households have low educational achievement.
▪ Educational underachievement and nonattendance are higher for IDP households.
▪ A larger portion of IDP households lack access to formal employment (no guarantee of social protection or income stability).
▪ Improving housing conditions, access to clean water sources and adequate sewerage is critical for IDP households, as this dimension has the most significant gaps compared to non-IDPs.
- Public policies and the response of international organizations should focus on breaking the vicious cycle of the negative impact of forced displacement, as well as the repercussions of dierent generations