Attachments
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As the international aid community seeks to improve responses to internal displacement, the UN Secretary General’s Action Agenda provides an opportunity for the industry to consider how it can better deliver for those seeking a solution to their displacement, including by looking at the role of states who are ultimately responsible for delivering services to their own displaced populations.
However, the Action Agenda is anchored with the offices of UN Resident Coordinator at a country level, resulting in a focus on development responses and less considering the actions of humanitarian responders throughout the displacement cycle. It has also meant that civil society and IDPs themselves have had limited involvement within this approach.
This paper seeks to explore how recent responses to internal displacement in the Middle East have sought to ensure equitable access to services and assistance for IDPs and the agency that IDPs perceive they have had in obtaining access to assistance. Focussing on the recommendations in the Action Agenda to enhance equitable access to public services and aid assistance and based on practitioners' insight into the most prevalent concerns for IDPs, this research has spoken with IDPs and those attempting a return in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen to understand some of their experiences. The results validate the call for improved responses, confirming an inconsistent approach in how IDPs have been able to access vital state services including water and education, and how challenging it can be to have lost documentation re-issued, providing a significant barrier to living a dignified life in displacement. There are also geographic differences, with some locations facing higher levels of active conflict, or having differing levels of access for international and national aid actors. Respondents also reported that they routinely find aid responses confusing to deal with, with multiple registrations to receive aid from different organisations and a concern that aid agencies do not effectively coordinate with each other to ensure equitable, timely and relevant aid provision.
From this sample, very few IDPs are asked their intentions for the future and where they are discussed most perceive the focus to be on an eventual return home, even if that is not the preference of the individual.
With these countries all being conflict settings it was notable how many IDPs, and especially males under 30, identified how they felt first treated as a security threat rather than a citizen of their country, which they felt further marginalised them in society.
Therefore, much can be done to consider how access to services and assistance can improve, including in the first phase of a response coordinated through humanitarian architectures. The Office of the Special Adviser on Internal Displacement and the Resident Coordinators in relevant countries should continue to bring in the expertise of civil society and IDPs themselves to inform their responses now and in the future if we are to ensure the aims of the Action Agenda are delivered upon.