Millions are newly displaced each year in the Philippines, mainly by natural hazard-related disasters such as typhoon and floods, but also by conflict and violence most of which is concentrated in the southern island group of Mindanao. The number of people newly displaced fell by more than half, from 7.5 million in 2013 to around three million in 2014. The absence of a major disaster of equal severity to Haiyan – the super-typhoon which devastated the region in 2013 – largely explains this drop.

As of February 2015, IDMC estimated that nearly half a million people were living in displacement. Around 80 per cent had been displaced by disasters while an estimated 95,000 had fled conflict and violence in Mindanao. The total number of people displaced by conflict and violence reached its lowest level since 2011. A reduction in the number and intensity of fighting incidents largely explains this decline.  

The government has made considerable efforts to address the immediate needs of those displaced by conflict and natural hazard-related disasters. In the wake of typhoon Haiyan, a massive response by the government and the international community provided essential support to help mitigate the consequences of a large-scale humanitarian crisis. Little information is available however about progress towards solutions for the approximately four million people who had returned home following Typhoon Haiyan.  Housing and livelihood needs in Haiyan-affected areas remain considerable, with few having managed to complete their recovery.

Delays in reconstruction and restrictions placed on return also slowed progress towards solutions for those displaced by the 2013 conflict in Zamboanga city. Poor donor response to the Zamboanga Action Plan (ZAP), with only 47 per cent of the $12.8 million requested covered by the time the ZAP closed in August 2014, and limited engagement from development actors, seriously hampered the international community’s capacity to respond and the search for durable solutions. The adoption in October 2014 by the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) of a durable solution strategy for IDPs in the Mindanao city of Zamboanga has laid the basis for continued international involvement and more attention being paid to long-term solutions, in particular with regards to the right to adequate housing for the most vulnerable IDPs.

Within the last 12 months, the Philippines has experienced three major natural hazard-related disasters - typhoon Bopha in December 2012, the Bohol earthquake in October 2013 and typhoon Haiyan in November 2013. These three disasters and others have directly affected 23 million people and internally displaced as many as eight million. Nearly 1.4 million homes have been damaged or destroyed, and millions of livelihoods lost. As of early December 2013, it was estimated that around 4.5 were displaced throughout the country, most of them in Western and Eastern Visayas, the regions most affected by Haiyan. In Mindanao, despite significant progress in the peace negotiations between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) -the main Muslim rebel group-ongoing conflicts between the government and several other rebel groups, and clan-related violence, have continued to cause displacement, forcing nearly 200,000 people to flee their homes since January 2013. This includes an estimated 120,000 people who fled fighting in Zamboanga city in September 2013, of whom at least 72,000 are still displaced.

Typhoon Haiyan’s devastating power left millions of people in need of life-saving food, shelter, clean water and health assistance. To date the government and aid agencies have faced immense logistical and transport challenges in reaching affected communities, particularly those in the most remote locations, and many people have been unable to access humanitarian aid. Nearly two weeks after Haiyan struck, more than half of the estimated 2.5 million people were still waiting for emergency food assistance. Vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, children, older people and the disabled often require particular attention. Displaced and separated children are at risk of exploitation and abuse, including trafficking. Haiyan is thought to have displaced as many as 1.7 million children.  

Many internally displaced people (IDPs) reportedly returned to their homes within a few days of Haiyan’s passing, and the majority of those still displaced are expected to do likewise in the coming weeks. Given the scale of the destruction, returnees are in urgent need of materials to repair or rebuild their homes. Those who lost their official land ownership or tenancy documents in the disaster will need help, both in ensuring that their paperwork is reissued and in accessing compensation if return is not permitted, particularly in areas considered at high risk from future disasters. Informal settlers will also need assistance in protecting their land rights.

IDMC estimates that as of July 2015 at least 31,400 people are internally displaced as a result of conflict and violence in Indonesia. Nearly all are protracted internally displaced persons (IDPs) who have been living in displacement for more than 15 years. The majority are living in the provinces of East Nusa Tenggara and in Maluku. Others live in North Sulawesi, North Sumatra, East Java and West Nusa Tenggara. Historically, Indonesia has been considered one of the most conflict-prone countries in the Asia-Pacific region. However new displacement has remained relatively infrequent since 2004.

A far greater number, an estimated 943,059 people, were newly displaced as a result of natural hazards and disasters in 2014, with flooding and landslides the main triggers of displacement (IDMC, July 2015). Based on government data, a further 98,400 people were displaced in the first six months of 2015 (BNPB, 9 July 2015).    

Nearly all the 31,450 people currently displaced by conflict and violence in Indonesia were forced to flee their homes more than 15 years ago. The majority live in West Timor in the province of Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT) and are at risk of being forgotten by the national authorities and the international community. Southeast Asia’s biggest economy, over the years Indonesia has made considerable efforts to resettle the province’s internally displaced persons (IDPs). Between 1999 and 2013 the government assisted by the UN and international non-governmental organisations helped some 92,000 IDPs in camps to settle elsewhere in NTT, the majority in West Timor. Today however, an estimated 22,000 people continue to live in at least four main camps without access to land, adequate housing and tenure security. Thousands of former displaced also face an uncertain future in some 80 resettlement sites across the province mainly as a result of lack of livelihood opportunities and poor access to basic services. 

As of February 2014, four-and-a-half years after the end of Sri Lanka’s internal armed conflict, there were thought to be as many as 90,000 people still living in internal displacement as a result of it, most of them with host communities. Of more than 480,000 internally displaced people (IDPs) registered as having returned to their places of origin in Northern and Eastern provinces, the situation of tens of thousands also remains a cause for concern.

Independent and comprehensive figures on internal displacement in Sri Lanka are increasingly hard to come by. Official numbers have fallen since the end of conflict as the government has deregistered IDPs, but no comprehensive assessment has been carried out to determine whether or not they had achieved a durable solution.

Both current and former IDPs face a number of obstacles in their search for a durable solution. These include the military occupation and state acquisition of land, other land issues, the militarisation of civilian life, and gaps in the areas of housing, water and sanitation, livelihoods and food. It is hoped that the joint needs assessment the government plans to undertake in early 2014 with its humanitarian and develop-ment partners will go some way to documenting progress towards durable solutions.

Sri Lanka has no legislation or policy on internal displacement. A draft policy currently under development contains useful elements, but it has significant shortcomings too. Revisions are needed so that it addresses not only conflict-induced displacement, but also that caused by natural disasters and development projects. All phases of displacement should be included, and stakeholders including IDPs, host communities, civil society organisations and local authorities should be consulted and participate in the revision process. The policy should also put the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and other relevant international standards into practice in the Sri Lankan context. Previous and more comprehensive Sri Lankan documents and processes such as the 2008 draft bill on IDPs’ protection and the 2008 national consultation on their status are still relevant in this sense and should be built upon.

More than three years after the end of the 26-year armed conflict between the Sri Lankan armed forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), nearly 470,000 people displaced during its various stages have returned to their home areas. This does not mean, however, that there is no internal displacement in the country any more. As of the end of September 2012, more than 115,000 internally displaced people (IDPs) were still living in camps, with host communities or in transit sites, or had been relocated, often against their will, to areas other than their places of origin.

Among those registered as having returned, many have not been able to achieve a durable solution but continue to face difficulties in accessing basic necessities such as shelter, food, water and sanitation, in rebuilding their livelihoods, and in exercising their civil rights. De-mining operations are still ongoing in livelihood areas. Unresolved land issues have been a major obstacle to durable solutions for IDPs and IDP returnees.

Conflict-affected areas remain highly militarised, which has made progress towards achieving durable solutions more difficult. The military has become an important economic player and a key competitor of local people including returnees in the areas of agriculture, fishing, trade, and tourism. It has also been involved in areas that would normally come under civilian administration. It continues to occupy private land, thereby impeding IDPs’ return.

The government has failed to make durable solutions a priority, and humanitarian organisations have faced funding shortages and restrictions on programming and access. All these challenges have the potential to lead to new grievances which could spark further violence among the population in the north and east.

At least three million Indonesians have been internally displaced by armed conflict, violence and human rights violations since 1998. Most displacement took place between 1998 and 2004 when Indonesia, still in the early stages of democratic transition and decentralisation, experienced a period of intense social unrest characterised by high levels of inter-communal, inter-faith and separatist violence.

Although the overwhelming majority of Indonesia’s IDPs have long returned home at least 90,000 remain in protracted displacement, over a decade after the end of these conflicts. Many are unable to return due to lack of government assistance to recover lost rights to housing, land and property. In areas affected by inter-communal violence communities have been transformed and segregated along religious or ethnic lines. Unresolved land disputes are rife with former neighbours often unwilling to welcome IDPs back. IDPs who sought to locally integrate in areas where they have been displaced, or who have been relocated by the government, have also struggled to rebuild their lives due to lack of access to land, secure tenure, livelihoods and basic services. 

Over the past ten years, new displacement has also continued in several provinces of Indonesia, although at much reduced levels. According to official government figures some 11,500 people were displaced between 2006 and 2014, including 3,000 in 2013 alone. Most displacement has been triggered by clashes linked to unresolved ethnic or religious tensions, land disputes or attacks on religious minorities.

During 2011, thousands of people were displaced by renewed inter-communal violence in Maluku province and by counter-insurgency operations targeting Free Papua Movement (OPM) rebels in Papua province. Between April and December, an unknown number of Papuans were displaced in the central highlands region of Puncak Jaya. The largest reported displacement took place in mid-December in Paniai regency, where more than 10,000 people were forced from their homes in more than a hundred different villages. In September, as many as 500 homes in Maluku’s capital of Ambon were set on fire and nearly 5,000 people were displaced, some of them losing their homes for the fourth time in 12 years.

There are no reliable figures for the current number of internally displaced people (IDPs) in Indonesia, but the total could be as high as 180,000. This figure includes those who fled their homes during 2011 and have been unable to return, and those among the estimated 2 million people displaced between 1997 and 2004 who have failed to achieve a durable solution by integrating locally or settling elsewhere. Tens of thousands of IDPs have been unable to exercise their basic rights to the same extent as the general population, and the help they have received has not enabled them to overcome their displacement. They face economic, social and political segregation, and their difficulties in asserting ownership or tenancy over land and property have not been addressed.

The government has provided relief assistance to those displaced in Maluku during 2011 and has committed to rebuilding their homes, but in Papua humanitarian concerns have been overridden by military objectives. IDPs there are more likely to be considered potential OPM members or sympathisers than victims in need of assistance and protection. Severe restrictions in access to areas affected by displacement have made it difficult to assess needs and provide help. After the government wound up its IDP strategy in 2004, people displaced by conflict were no longer recognised as a vulnerable group deserving specific attention. In cooperation with the international community, the government has continued to provide help to some, but this has been through programmes that aim to address both their needs and those of their host communities.

Since 2004, there has been a resurgence of violence in Thailand’s southern provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat, where the government is facing the violent opposition of a number of Malay Muslim insurgency groups. Close to 5,000 people have been killed and nearly 8,000 injured. Buddhists, estimated to represent around 20 per cent of the total population of the three provinces in 2000, have been disproportionately affected by the violence; they account for nearly 40 per cent of all deaths and more than 60 per cent of all injured. Civilians from both communities are the main victims of the violence. As a result, many have since 2004 fled their homes and moved to safer areas.

There are no reliable figures on the number of people displaced since 2004, but available information suggests that at least 30 per cent of Buddhists and ten per cent of Malay Muslims may have left their homes. While some have fled in direct response to the violence, many have moved because of the adverse effects of the conflict on the economy, on the availability and quality of education or on the provision of social services. Many of the displacements are also intended to be only temporary, and have split families, the head of household staying and the wife and children moving to safer areas.

Buddhist civilians targeted by the insurgents because of their real or perceived association with the Thai state have fled their homes in large numbers, either seeking refuge in nearby urban areas or leaving the three provinces altogether. They include government employees, teachers, doctors, nurses, monks but also peasants and rubber tappers. Malay Muslims have also left their homes, most of them moving to safer areas within the region or crossing into neighbouring Malaysia to seek employment there.

Some people who have been unable or unwilling to flee the violence have joined armed militias. The government, which has since 2004 increasingly relied on paramilitary groups to fight the insurgency, has strongly encouraged civilians to defend the “Thai homeland”. It has selectively provided training and arms to Buddhists and also given financial incentives to encourage government employees to stay. While probably stemming the exodus of Buddhists, this policy has resulted in an increased ethno-religious polarisation and has heightened risk of incidents and abuses between both communities.

While those who moved outside the affected provinces have at least managed to reach safe areas and achieve some form of durable solution, the majority of IDPs have moved to urban areas inside the conflict-affected provinces. There, like the rest of the population, they remain at risk of violence from both sides and face challenges in accessing basic social services. Though early in the conflict the government assisted some Buddhists fleeing violence, it has mostly limited its assistance to vic-tims of violence caused by insurgent activities and their families.

As of April 2015 an estimated 616,140 people were displaced in India as a result of armed conflict and inter-communal violence. Over half, or 364,100, are concentrated in two areas: the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir, where there are 251,000 internally displaced people (IDPs), most of them since 1990, and the north-eastern state of Assam, which is hosting some 113,000 IDPs, the majority of whom fled inter-communal violence in late 2014. Some 252,000 IDPs are found in the capital, Delhi, and in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Nagaland, Telangana, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh. At least 346,000 were newly displaced by conflict and violence between January 2014 and March 2015, most fleeing inter-communal violence in Western Assam. 

Many IDPs live in protracted displacement, having been displaced for up to 25 years and having failed to return or successfully find other durable solutions. The majority live in camps, including informal ones, where they often have only limited access to food, clean water and adequate sanitary facilities and little opportunity to secure sustainable livelihoods. Relief assistance provided by local authorities in government-run camps has included food, water and shelter but has tended to be temporary, only lasting a few weeks or months, after which camps are officially closed and IDPs are expected to either return or find alternative solutions on their own. Those who fail to do so often end up in nearby informal makeshift camps where they are left to fend for themselves. There is little information on IDPs living outside camps, including in urban areas.  

The main obstacles to return are linked to ongoing insecurity, including hostility from former neighbours and unresolved disputes around demarcations of state boundaries. Insufficient state assistance to support IDPs’ local integration or settlement elsewhere is preventing nearly half a million IDPs from achieving durable solutions, in particular in the states of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir. In Gujarat and Tripura return has been hindered by a failure to restore their enjoyment of housing, land and property (HLP) rights.
 
States, not the central government, are charged with assisting IDPs. In the absence of any national policies and procedures, the response is often ad-hoc and focused only on meeting immediate humanitarian needs. International humanitarian agencies continue to face barriers to assisting IDPs, including a number of government restrictions and insecurity in conflict-affected areas.

The designation of an IDP focal point at the national level and the adoption of a policy and regulatory framework upholding the rights of IDPs would help ensure a more comprehensive countrywide response.