Internal displacement can limit affected people’s ability to contribute to the economy and generate specific needs that must be paid for by IDPs, their hosts, their government or other aid providers. This report presents our first estimates of the financial impact of major displacement crises in eight countries: the Central African Republic, Haiti, Libya, the Philippines, Somalia, South Sudan, Ukraine and Yemen. Using publicly available data and an original methodology, this report assesses the costs and losses associated with internal displacement’s most direct consequences on health, shelter, education, security and livelihoods.

Although they uncover only a fraction of the economic impacts of internal displacement, these estimates amount to a noticeable share of the countries’ GDP. Multiplying the average impact per IDP per year ($310) to the total number of IDPs recorded across the world - 40 million as of the end of 2017 - would amount to nearly $13 billion. Though more research is needed to analyse more countries and account for more impacts, this report already points to the risk internal displacement represents, not only for security and human rights, but also for national development.

Internal displacement impacts the livelihood, health, access to housing, infrastructure and education, security, social life and environment of all people affected by it. Yet men, boys, women, girls and people from sexual minority groups suffer from uneven repercussions in each of these areas.
 
Building on a review of nearly 1,000 publications, this paper presents some of the most frequently reported gender inequalities linked with internal displacement and calls for better disaggregation of all related data and research.
 
Bridging this knowledge gap is essential to propose tailored solutions for internally displaced men, women, boys, girls and people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, intersex or queer (LGBTIQ), to mitigate the damages caused by internal displacement on society as a whole. 

The situation of internally displaced people (IDPs)in Zimbabwe varies widely, depending on the reasons for their displacement and the length of time they have been displaced. Accordingly, their needs range from emergency humanitarian assistance to interventions aimed at securing durable solutions. A significant proportion of IDPs would choose to integrate in the place they were displaced to, but their lack of security of tenure presents a major obstacle to this.

Since the formation of the Government of National Unity in February 2009, the government’s approach to internal displacement has begun to improve. While previous governments did not acknowledge internal displacement in the country, in August 2009 the government participated in a rapid IDP assessment with the United Nations, and has called for a more comprehensive nationwide survey of IDPs to be conducted. This has not yet taken place and is one cause of the lack of information on the scale of continuing internal displacement. Meanwhile, under the new government, the access of humanitarians to IDPs has improved considerably.

Displacement occurred as a result of different government policies and actions. The two largest groups of IDPs are farm workers and their families who have been displaced as a result of losing their employment on farms which were seized and reallocated during the fast-track land reform programme, and people displaced as a result of evictions in Zimbabwe’s towns and cities. Others were displaced by government campaigns against informal mine workers, and by politically-motivated violence. Of the last group, most were able to return home after the 2008 elections, while many of the first three groups have been able to find other durable solutions. There has been an increase in 2011 in initiatives by the government and civil society organisations to promote durable solutions, in which IDPs and host communities have actively participated.

In October 2009, President Mugabe was the second head of state to sign the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of IDPs in Africa (the Kampala Convention).

Since the 2006 signing of a cease-fire agreement between the government of Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army there has been significant return of those displaced by conflict in northern Uganda. The overwhelming majority of the 1.8 million internally displaced people (IDPs) who lived in camps at the height of the crisis have returned to their areas of origin or resettled in new locations. Driven by their cultural ties to the land and the region, most have opted for return. The majority of the 30,000 still confined to camps lack financial resources to move home, are aged, disabled or unwell or have no land to return to. Support for recovery and development in areas to which IDPs have returned has been insufficient. Returnees have faced continuing difficulties due to inadequate basic services and limited support to rebuild their livelihoods. The return process has been marred by land conflicts, sometimes leading to violence.

Uganda has forged policies to respond to internal displacement and foster durable solutions. The government’s Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda sets out a comprehensive approach to support reconstruction and IDP return. In practice however, this, and other ambitious recovery and development programmes in northern Uganda, have suffered protracted delays. Considerable resources have been invested but positive impacts to enable IDPs to find durable solutions remain limited.

Now that international humanitarian agencies have scaled down their activities development actors must focus efforts on ensuring that remaining IDPs and returnees are helped to pursue durable solutions.

Since the 2006 signing of a cease-fire agreement between the government of Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army there has been significant return of those displaced by conflict in northern Uganda. The overwhelming majority of  the 1.8 million internally displaced people (IDPs) who lived in camps at the height of the crisis have returned to their areas of origin, driven by their cultural ties to the land and the region, or resettled in new locations. Support for recovery and development in areas to which IDPs have returned has been insufficient. Returnees have faced continuing difficulties due to inadequate basic services and limited support to rebuild their livelihoods. The return process has been marred by land conflicts, sometimes leading to violence.

Internal displacement continues to be reality in Uganda, as people flee to avoid the impact of disasters such as floods and landslides, inter-communal violence, or are evicted from their land to make way for development projects.  

Uganda has shown considerable leadership in its efforts to address internal displacement and foster durable solutions. It developed one of the first national policies on IDPs in 2004, and its Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda (PRDP) set out a comprehensive approach to support reconstruction and IDP return. In practice, however, development programmes in northern Uganda have suffered protracted delays. Considerable resources have been invested but positive impacts to enable IDPs to find durable solutions remain limited.

Now that international humanitarian agencies have scaled down their activities, development actors must focus efforts on ensuring that IDPs and returnees are helped to pursue durable solutions.

As the third anniversary of South Sudan’s independence approaches and as the three-year conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile continues, the situation in Sudan remains deeply worrying. There is on-going fighting between non-state armed groups and the government (including aerial bombardment), inter-communal violence and tensions over land and other resources. The number of internally displaced people (IDPs) rose in early 2014 due to an escalation of military campaigns in South Kordofan and inter-communal violence in the Darfur region. As of December 2013, there were an estimated 2,426,700 IDPs in government- and opposition-held areas of Sudan, predominantly in Darfur and the states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile but also in other areas. In addition, floods also displaced thousands of people in 15 states in 2013.

The UN has estimated that 6.1 million people – 17 per cent of Sudan’s population – require some form of humanitarian assistance in addition to development aid in 2014 (OCHA, June 2014). Among the most vulnerable of this population, IDPs have tremendous needs and are victims of human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law.

The Government of Sudan’s approach to addressing the needs of IDPs in areas under its control has been piecemeal. Restrictions on access to certain areas in Darfur and South Kordofan and Blue Nile states and on the activities of national and international humanitarian actors continue to have dire consequences for affected communities, making prospects of achieving durable solutions to displacement remote. The launch in April 2014 of the second stage of the government’s “Decisive Summer” campaign to crush opposition armed groups is already causing further displacement and could cause further deterioration in an already dire humanitarian situation (Sudan Tribune, April 2014; OCHA, May 2014).

With humanitarian attention focused on massive displacement crises in the neighbouring states of South Sudan and the Central African Republic, lack of international attention to Sudan’s equally grave internal displacement crisis and on-going conflicts has resulted in an inadequate funding response. Thus the immediate and long-term needs of IDPs are not being addressed by either the national authorities or the international community.

After more than 50 years of civil war, the Republic of South Sudan declared independence from Sudan on 9 July 2011. Until that point, Sudan had been the largest country in Africa and as of the end of 2010 it was home to up to 5.2 million internally displaced people (IDPs) – more than any other country in the world (IDMC, 23 December 2010). 

South Sudan’s declaration of independence took place amid escalating violence and conflict along its northern border with Sudan, which in the town of Abyei alone led to the displacement of at least 110,000 civilians. The new country has faced enormous challenges during its first months of statehood, including disagreements with Sudan over the demarcation of their border and the water and grazing rights of nomadic groups who move across it; unresolved disputes over the sharing of oil revenues - oil fields are mostly in the south but the refining and export infrastructure is in the north; large return movements from Sudan; an internal displacement crisis caused by inter-tribal conflict and fighting between government forces and new militia groups; and widespread food insecurity.

The government is working to establish new state institutions and capacity, but South Sudan remains one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world.

Violence has spread quickly throughout South Sudan since the outbreak of civil war on 15 December 2013, when tensions flared within the army in events the government has called an attempted coup. Other armed groups have joined the conflict, as what began as a struggle between two leaders has become a vehicle for people to express complex political, social and economic grievances.

More than a million people, or around one in ten of the country’s population, have been internally displaced and more than 390,000 have fled the country (OCHA, June 2014). Attention and assistance has focused on the 95,000 internally displaced people (IDPs) sheltering in the UN peacekeeping mission’s military bases (UNMISS, June 2014), but 90 per cent of those fleeing their homes have taken refuge elsewhere, and have little access to protection, services or humanitarian aid.
 
Displacement in the country is primarily a protection concern, and extends far beyond the material needs of the newly displaced for food, water, shelter and non-food items. What is now South Sudan has a long history of underdevelopment and conflict, and the multiple causes of displacement make for complex dynamics that frequently overlap. Some key drivers, however, can be identified in escalating armed conflict, recurrent natural hazards and considerable development challenges, which are all further complicated by a lack of inclusive governance and socio-economic marginalisation.

The capacity and willingness of government and opposition forces to protect civilians is questionable, given that both parties have committed grave abuses against them (protection cluster, May 2014). It has largely fallen to the international community to protect and assist IDPs, but many humanitarians and their donors have been caught off guard by the scale of the crisis and have not been able to respond immediately and effectively.
 
In February 2014, the UN declared the situation in South Sudan a level-three emergency, the most serious possible. Despite this, the response continues to be hampered by insecurity, logistical constraints, the looting of aid supplies, the harassment of aid workers, bureaucratic obstacles and uncertainty about funding.

Two years after South Sudan’s independence, the scale and seriousness of the country’s internal displacement situation is often under-reported and remains a major concern. The recent violence in Jonglei has brought the issue to the fore, at least as far as that particular state is concerned, but it has also highlighted the many challenges involved in responding to complex and often entrenched displacement dynamics.

The complexity of the situation is reflected in the wildly varying data available. In Jonglei, for example, current estimates for the number of internally displaced people (IDPs) range from 11,000 to as many as 120,000. Challenges in terms of access and verification, combined with humanitarian mandates and structures that focus primarily on conflict-related displacement, mean that figures generally fail to paint a complete picture. Gauging the impact of repeated and protracted displacement is particularly difficult. Over five decades of conflict, much of the South Sudanese population has become highly mobile as a basic survival strategy, with families often splitting up in the process. 

As such, any attempts at “in/out” counting are often at odds with the realities on the ground. Diverse and often longterm survival strategies and their impact on social structures also pose obvious challenges in defining what constitutes a durable solution in the South Sudanese context. This is arguably a basis for greater focus on IDPs’ specific vulnerabilities rather than the geographical options of return, local integration and resettlement elsewhere.