Russian Federation: Displaced people still struggling to lead a normal life

Download pdf version (650 kb)
^{31 December 2008}

Up to 98,000 people remained displaced in 2008 due to the inter-ethnic and separatist confl icts which have affected two republics in the north Caucasus since the early 1990s. In Chechnya, an estimated 850,000 people were displaced by successive confl icts which broke out in 1996 and 2000. They fled within Chechnya, to other republics in the north Caucasus and to western areas of the Russian Federation. Conflict in North Ossetia in 1992 displaced an estimated 64,000 people, mostly into neighbouring Ingushetia.

Return to Chechnya continues to be hindered by the lack of jobs and housing, and continued skirmishes in the absence of a political resolution. The Government of Chechnya deregistered the remaining IDPs in the republic in 2007 and IDPs subsequently reported being put under pressure to leave collective centres there. Despite government offers of alternative accommodation, many remain without adequate housing. Although some stayed in collective centres, most live in private housing and mainly with relatives and friends.

While some 700 IDPs returned to North Ossetia from Ingushetia in 2008, displacement has continued for other IDPs from North Ossetia, for some because return has been blocked as their home areas have been declared part of water conservation zones, and also because there has been no reconciliation between ethnic Ingush and Ossetians over the contested Prigorodny district in North Ossetia.

The Law on Forced Migrants has facilitated IDPs’ access to basic rights, including government benefits and services, and the Federal Migration Service (FMS) made transport, housing and food assistance available to IDPs during the first years of displacement. Though some IDPs still enjoy housing assistance, most report that the FMS has been of little use to them.

The principal concerns facing remaining IDPs throughout the Russian Federation include achieving an adequate standard of living, particularly of housing, and accessing documents, services, livelihoods and pensions. Compensation is offered for lost housing, but payment has been interrupted several times and the amount has increasingly become insufficient to enable IDPs to buy property and so most live in rented accommodation. The government acknowledged this and included some IDPs in a federal housing programme, though it has so far proven unreliable.

Access to documentation such as residence registration, forced migrant status, pension documents and internal passports is essential to IDPs and their absence presents problems: for example IDPs who have lost documents of their working history do not receive the pension to which they are entitled. As a result, some 40,000 displaced elderly are living on a minimum pension and sometimes working odd jobs to make ends meet. Ethnic Chechens have also faced discrimination which has made it harder for them to get jobs, find accommodation and move freely outside Chechnya.

There are few NGOs with an explicit IDP focus, but some with wider human rights mandates have given important legal and medical assistance to IDPs, and provided an important advocacy voice in criticising the government’s response. UN agencies and international NGOs have also had an important role in identifying and addressing protection risks faced by IDPs not covered by government programmes.

IDPs’ situations will not be resolved until there is long-term security in Chechnya and the wider north Caucasus, ethnic Chechens are treated equally throughout the Russian Federation, their access to adequate housing, jobs, documentation and public services is more consistently realised, and the rule of law has a stronger hold, with perpetrators of human rights violations in the north Caucasus facing judicial process. A government approach based more on individual human rights would benefit from greater consultation with IDPs and the organisations working with them.