For States

• Recommendation 1: States that have not yet done so, should expedite their ratification of, or accession to, the Kampala Convention.

• Recommendation 2: States party to the Kampala Convention should initiate and complete actions to incorporate treaty obligations in domestic law and policy processes, including criminal prohibitions, requesting advice and technical support if/as needed.

• Recommendation 3: States should take steps to promote knowledge of the Kampala Convention by all the actors concerned, including IDPs themselves, host communities, civil society and public authorities, at central, regional and local levels.

• Recommendation 4: States should ensure that all relevant public authorities – including armed and security forces – are fully informed of their obligations and instructed to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law.

For other actors

• Recommendation 5: International and humanitarian organizations should continue to offer technical advice and support to AU Member States, not only for ratification of the Kampala Convention, but also for the full range of domestic implementation measures required under national legal and policy frameworks.

• Recommendation 6: The AUC, RECs, RMs, and other organizations with expertise in this domain should expand public awareness-raising and capacity-building activities on the Kampala Convention, in coordination with States and local civil society actors. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) and its special rapporteur on refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced persons can also play a part in this regard, in accordance with their mandates and the role attributed to them by the Convention.

• Recommendation 7: The AUC and AU Member States should ensure that the first Conference of States Parties takes place as soon as possible and adopts a comprehensive plan of action/road map on the operationalization of the Kampala Convention.

For States

• Recommendation 8: States should take steps to ensure that the designated coordinating authority or body has the necessary mandate and legitimacy to mobilize all ministries and agencies concerned, and is granted adequate resources (human and financial) to function effectively.

• Recommendation 9: Public authorities should develop adequate capacities at all levels to gather and maintain solid and current data on the needs, vulnerabilities and capacities of IDPs, as well as on durable solutions, including disaggregated data (by sex, age and other relevant factors).

• Recommendation 10: Public authorities should proactively ensure consultation and active engagement of IDPs and host communities in order to ensure their participation in decision-making on actions undertaken on their behalf. This engagement should take into account the diverse profiles of the displaced population (e.g. sex, age and other factors).

• Recommendation 11: Public authorities at all levels with responsibilities for delivering assistance should establish mechanisms for monitoring short and longer-term outcomes. These should incorporate appropriate elements of accountability to IDPs.

For other actors

• Recommendation 12: When supporting States to develop laws and policies, including national strategies on internal displacement, other actors should favour approaches that ensure the maximum ownership on the part of the authorities.

For States

• Recommendation 13: Assessments should look at the needs and capacities of IDPs, as well as those of host communities, local authorities and services, to continuously inform the design of programme responses.

• Recommendation 14: States should develop capabilities to foresee, assess and respond effectively to the multiple needs of IDPs.

• Recommendation 15: States should ensure that all relevant public authorities – including armed and security forces – are fully informed of their obligations and instructed to facilitate rapid and unimpeded access of humanitarian organizations to IDPs. They should also ensure that IDPs can meet their basic needs (water, food, shelter, etc.) and access essential services (medical care, education, etc.).

For other actors

• Recommendation 16: Other actors should ensure that requests for rapid and unimpeded access to IDPs by humanitarian organizations, as well as activities carried out pursuant to such access, be in full accordance with the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence of humanitarian actors.

For States

• Recommendation 17: States should ensure that all relevant public authorities – including armed and security forces – are fully informed of their obligations and instructed to facilitate freedom of movement and residence of IDPs.

• Recommendation 18: Public authorities should develop adequate capacities at central and local levels to create and maintain an updated register of all IDPs. This can provide an agreed-upon baseline for all the actors concerned.

• Recommendation 19: Public authorities should endeavour to allocate adequate efforts and resources to ensure that IDPs are able to obtain personal identity documents and other official documents within a reasonable time.

• Recommendation 20: Public authorities should strengthen their laws, policies and concrete measures to ensure that the civilian and humanitarian character of IDP sites is maintained.

For other actors

• Recommendation 21: International and humanitarian actors should provide coordinated support to States to ensure a practical and effective system to address family tracing and family reunification needs.

For States

• Recommendation 22: States should ensure that all branches and agencies of the public authorities are fully informed of the need for meaningful consultation with and active engagement of IDPs and host communities in decision-making on durable solutions.

• Recommendation 23: States should proactively initiate dialogue with international and national partners and donors on issues related to durable solutions in order to fulfil their own international obligations.

• Recommendation 24: States (and other relevant stakeholders) should ensure that any peace agreement contains specific provisions and recommendations on addressing and solving existing situations of internal displacement, as necessary, taking into account the challenges of the context.

For other actors

• Recommendation 25: The UN and other international actors that are in a position to do so should contribute to monitoring conditions of return, with particular attention to the perspectives and concerns of the IDP communities in question. They should also help ensure the voluntary and safe character of return and other durable solutions, as well as safety, dignity and adequate conditions for IDPs in their current places.

***

Summary of key obligations

1. (a) Incorporate obligations under the Kampala Convention in domestic law (Article 3.2(a));

2. (b) Ensure individual criminal responsibility for arbitrary displacement (Article 3.1(g)).

Lessons learned

The lessons learned in the areas of ratification or accession and incorporation in domestic law are perhaps predictable for any public officials or other experts who have worked on treaty domestication, but are nonetheless important.

First and foremost, experience across Africa confirms that it is crucial for States to take action on ratification or accession and domestic implementation of the Kampala Convention before a crisis occurs that would result in internal displacement. Regardless of the causes of internal displacement in a given situation, it is rare that it develops slowly enough to allow policy makers and lawmakers to respond in real time by putting appropriate laws and policies in place.

With this in mind, States may find it useful to initiate their own review on how they could revive or expedite the procedures required in their particular jurisdiction to join the Convention and implement it at the national level. In particular, they may wish to follow the example of the numerous States that have taken advantage of the technical support available to expedite their ratification or accession and national implementation processes. In this regard, one very useful starting point is the AUC, which developed a draft Model Law and has already advised a number of States on its application. International organizations such as the IDMC, NRC and UNHCR organise training for public officials, without charge, on the national implementation of the Kampala Convention, and support States in adopting laws and policies on internal displacement.Footnote ²⁵ In June 2015, the GPC, led by the UNHCR, established a TTLP as a technical entity to coordinate global efforts on law and policy-making on internal displacement. As part of its activities, the TTLP organizes learning and technical support opportunities to strengthen States’ capacity to develop and implement national IDP legislation and policies.Footnote ²⁶ For its part, the ICRC's Advisory Service on IHL has produced a series of tools and publications providing technical support and guidance on adopting national legislation, as well as analysis of State practice to address humanitarian issues.Footnote ²⁷ The ICRC also provides, on a regular basis, confidential advice to the authorities on developing domestic normative and policy frameworks that reflect Kampala Convention obligations.

It is evident that States will achieve the best results where there is a clear and sustained political will to discharge their responsibilities. This is the case both in incorporating the Kampala Convention into domestic law, and in preventing and responding to internal displacement. Officials with responsibilities for IDP-related matters would be well advised to consider anew how they might build ownership and momentum in their own country towards becoming party to the Convention and especially to its implementation.

One important lesson learned from the ICRC's field consultations and many years of work on behalf of IDPs in Africa, is that the domestic implementation of the Kampala Convention requires an inclusive process. This means engaging all key domestic actors in consultations, information sharing and decision-making. These include ministries and governmental agencies concerned, at central and field levels, municipal authorities and civil society organizations, as well as IDPs and host communities.Footnote ²⁸ Without an inclusive process, the necessary ownership by these actors will likely be lacking. This could potentially result in delays at one or more points in the domestic implementation process.

Public education and raising awareness of the Kampala Convention and the plight of IDPs are important factors in translating political commitments into concrete measures. These activities can be usefully carried out with the public authorities and civil society, as well as with IDPs and host communities. They can serve to encourage the public's interest and engagement, and their dialogue with public authorities, on the issue of internal displacement. This in turn can help ensure that addressing internal displacement remains a priority that enjoys sustained political will.Footnote ²⁹ Special attention should be given to ensuring that draft or adopted laws and policies are made available in all official languages and, if different, in the languages of the most affected stakeholders, whether IDP or host communities.

It is crucial that laws and policies on internal displacement contain provisions for adequate means (institutional/mandate, human resources, budget) for their implementation and operationalization. This has been an important and sometimes difficult “lesson learned” in numerous places, where implementation processes have been initiated with serious effort, but have stalled because of a lack of adequate resources to sustain the work. Often this failure to ensure sufficient resources has been to the detriment of the specific protection and assistance needs of IDPs.

Finally, strong and clear criminal prohibitions relating to displacement can have an important deterrent effect and can contribute to broader efforts to combat impunity for violations of IHL. For decades, the ICRC has worked closely with States in developing tools and resources to support domestication of IHL obligations, including on criminal responsibility and on mechanisms for coordination among public authorities to strengthen prevention of and accountability for serious violations of IHL.Footnote ³⁰

Some examples of good practices

Across Africa, States have taken a range of actions to realise the national implementation of the Kampala ConventionFootnote ³¹ and to more broadly develop a national approach to IDP-related challenges. While there is, of course, no single “template” or one single “best” approach, the number and diversity of efforts undertaken provide practical examples for other States, as they move to join and/or implement the Convention in their own particular context.

Uganda was a pioneer, adopting The National Policy for Internally Displaced Persons in 2004,Footnote ³² long before the Kampala Convention was created. Uganda's policy was designed to implement the Guiding Principles, and is broad in scope. It includes the establishment of a national coordination body, detailed arrangements for intergovernmental coordination at the national and the local levels, specific provisions for aspects of protection and assistance, and arrangements for public education.Footnote ³³ The Policy's implementation was the subject of a multi-stakeholder review in 2006. The report on this review provides a helpful snapshot, detailing the challenges of implementation, and remains valuable a decade later.Footnote ³⁴

In Somalia and Mali, the authorities have worked closely with international partners to develop national laws and policies.Footnote ³⁵ This widened the scope of consultation amongst these key groups and is expected to bear fruit as those States move forward with finalizing and bringing into force their policies and programmes.

In Kenya, a comprehensive framework to address displacement issues has been developed and adopted.Footnote ³⁶ Kenya is a party to the Great Lakes Pact, but not yet a party to the Kampala Convention. It is worth noting that Kenya's framework addresses a number of Convention obligations and can serve as an example for other States, party and non-party alike.Footnote ³⁷

In Burundi, a comprehensive peace agreement (the Arusha Peace and Reconciliation Agreement for Burundi, 2000) includes multiple provisions relating to internal displacement (e.g. on access to people in need and the security of international personnel and provision of humanitarian aid) that are consistent with the Kampala Convention.Footnote ³⁸ Burundi is not yet a party to the Kampala Convention, but here again these measures are, in many cases, consistent with Convention obligations.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Child Protection Code (2009) includes a provision on the rights of displaced children, which specifies their right to protection and humanitarian assistance.Footnote ³⁹ This is an interesting example of a legal basis for protecting and assisting IDP children, even in the absence of specific legislation implementing the Kampala Convention.

Also in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the authorities have initiated a working group to convene representatives of humanitarian and UN agencies and have been consulting national stakeholders on the terms of reference for this body (Groupe de travail technique sur le déplacement). Such a structure and process is likely to boost consultation and engagement by key stakeholders, who can be expected to contribute more to national action on internal displacement in the future.Footnote ⁴⁰

In many States, existing domestic laws provide for the criminalization of acts of arbitrary or forced displacement. In Rwanda, to give but one example, the Penal Code (2012) includes crimes and penalties relating to arbitrary displacement.Footnote ⁴¹ Of note, the criminal law provisions in Rwanda are complemented by separate measures that address other aspects related to the prevention of displacement.Footnote ⁴² Several African States have criminalized forced displacement in their implementing legislations of the Geneva Conventions or the Statute of the International Criminal Court (e.g. Botswana, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria and Senegal). It is worth mentioning that Burkina Faso, Mauritius and Senegal have criminalized forced displacement as a crime against humanity and a war crime for both international and non-international armed conflicts.Footnote ⁴³

In West Africa, States have taken action through the ECOWAS to promote awareness of and adhesion to the Convention, including through a tour of select capitals in 2016. In East Africa, States joined forces under the auspices of the IGAD in October 2016 at a seminar in Nairobi, jointly organized with the ICRC. The seminar reviewed national measures undertaken by IGAD Member States and considered how to promote the Convention.Footnote ⁴⁴

These represent only a sample of the kinds of actions undertaken by States. Considered together, they demonstrate that there are many examples of States having overcome a range of challenges regarding national implementation. Considered on their own, they demonstrate that there are many recent, practical precedents for States that are now – or soon will be – taking specific steps to make the Kampala Convention an integral part of their domestic law.

Key challenges

The momentum the Kampala Convention enjoyed between its adoption in 2009 and its entry into force in 2012 has stalled in recent years.

Few States have ratified or acceded to the Convention in the period from 2014 to the present. As of September 2016, there were 18 AU Member States that had signed up to the Kampala Convention, but had not taken the required action to ratify or accede to it, even after several years.Footnote ⁴⁵

Of equal concern is that many States are experiencing delays in the process of enacting the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to the Convention. In some cases, these delays exceed several years. Causes for this vary from State to State. They may include: a lack of awareness by some authorities on the issue of internal displacement, their obligations and/or on the importance of the Kampala Convention; lack of capacity; lack of budget allocations; internal displacement not being seen as a priority issue by the authorities; and the involvement of the State in an armed conflict. Similarly, a number of States have invested considerable time and effort into elaborating a national IDP policy or strategy, but have not managed to complete this process.

Numerous States in the monist legal tradition rely on their constitution, which automatically transposes international treaties into domestic law.Footnote ⁴⁶ However, this generally does not complete domestic implementation. For example, the provisions of the Kampala Convention concerning criminal responsibility will likely be unenforceable or contrary to the principle of legality, unless there are designated penalties in law.

In practice, there are few or no prosecutions relating to crimes under the Kampala Convention taking place in domestic courts today. The lack of specific criminal provisions in domestic legal orders is certainly one of the main factors that underlie the lack of operationalization of this part of the Convention.

When an armed conflict is ongoing, measures can and, in many cases, must be taken by States and other parties to the conflict to prevent displacement from occurring in the first place. This is especially true in ensuring respect for IHL and increasing efforts to protect civilians and limit the harm to which they can be exposed. In practice, violations of IHL continue to be a major cause of internal displacement in armed conflicts in Africa. The challenge here is to strengthen States’ commitment (and capacity) to respect and ensure respect for IHL. Another challenge, particularly in protracted armed conflicts, is to avoid displacement that can be seen by parties as a natural incidence of military operations, and whose rationale in this regard is not being questioned.

State authorities may find it difficult to prevent displacement in areas where NSAGs are present. There is no simple solution to this obstacle, which can have serious and protracted humanitarian consequences. That said, it must be recalled that the Kampala Convention creates obligations for NSAGs (referred to as “Armed Groups” and “Non-state actors” in the Convention)Footnote ⁴⁷ and includes numerous references to them.Footnote ⁴⁸ More generally, IHL establishes obligations on NSAGs that are party to an armed conflict.Footnote ⁴⁹

For States

• – The Kampala Convention offers a comprehensive and detailed framework of reference that can guide States in discharging their sovereign obligations in preventing and responding to internal displacement. Thus, ratification of the Convention provides a State with a clear legal basis for the adoption of domestic normative and policy measures related to the protection and assistance of IDPs.

• – There are a number of States that have not ratified the Kampala Convention but have been putting in place concrete measures that correspond to obligations under the Convention. For such States, ratification is a logical step that would bring coherence to domestic law, policy and practice, and is a further exercise of their sovereignty.

• – Numerous obligations contained in the Kampala Convention are already included in the existing obligations of States under IHL and IHRL. Ratification of the Kampala Convention complements and builds upon those existing legal obligations, providing more clarity on how they should be interpreted and implemented. This can help States reinforce the protection of and assistance to IDPs.

• – Ratification of the Kampala Convention demonstrates a State's commitment to preventing and addressing internal displacement. This can help attract donor support and technical advice/assistance for the full range of Kampala Convention elements. This can include technical advice/assistance on adopting domestic legislation and coordination structures and financial support to assist IDPs and host communities in the emergency phase and in the longer term.

• – Additional ratifications reinforce the Kampala Convention's legitimacy and relevance by highlighting the AU's leading role in responding to the challenge of internal displacement. They also lead to more experiences and good practices that can be shared with other States in Africa and beyond.

• – Ratification is an important step. However, it needs to be followed by the adoption of normative, policy and concrete measures at the national level in order to ensure that the protections afforded by the Kampala Convention become a reality for IDPs.

• – Domestic implementation through measures appropriate for a State Party's legal system and governance structures will help ensure that the State is able to respond effectively to the needs of IDPs.

• – To be effective, laws and policies developed to implement the Kampala Convention need to include the provisions for adequate means (institutional/mandate, human resources, budget) for their practical implementation.

• – States can request advice and technical assistance on domestic implementation from the AUC (which has developed a draft Model Law), other States party to the Kampala Convention and from various international and humanitarian organizations (such as the ICRC and the UNHCR). They can also benefit from the growing set of good practices and lessons learned on the implementation of the Kampala Convention. In so doing, domestic implementation helps expand the expertise of public authorities on matters related to internal displacement. In addition, by taking inspiration from the experience of other States and adapting solutions to their specific contexts, States can in turn contribute to establishing good practices.

• – Criminalizing arbitrary displacement that amounts to a war crime or a crime against humanity is a legal obligation for all States party to the Convention. Strengthening the domestic legal framework on this aspect will allow States Parties to ensure individual criminal responsibility for perpetrators in domestic courts.

• – Domestic implementation measures demonstrate a State's readiness to effectively discharge its primary responsibility for IDPs on its territory. This can help attract donor support and technical advice and assistance. States can maintain this support by demonstrating the effectiveness of their domestic strategies and mechanisms.

• – This is an essential element to ensure an inclusive national process from ratification through domestication and practical implementation of the Convention. Public awareness contributes to ownership and sustainability of such a process by strengthening the commitment of all the actors involved to fully implementing the Convention.

• – International and humanitarian partners will often be ready and willing to cooperate with States on awareness-raising activities, as well as to carry out more specialized capacity-building activities for public authorities and other actors, in particular public officials.

• – In the same vein, local civil society actors are often well placed to promote knowledge of the Convention. In many cases, their capacities can be used to complement efforts by public authorities and their partners. Notably, the efforts of civil society actors can help public authorities to better understand and build upon public interest on IDP-related matters and the Kampala Convention in particular. They can also help ensure sustained interest in domesticating the Convention.

• – Of great importance are activities to raise awareness of the Kampala Convention among IDP communities themselves. These activities can empower IDPs by making them more aware of their rights and responsibilities.

• – Violations of IHL are a major cause of displacement during armed conflict.

• – Improving respect for IHL in armed conflicts will, in many cases, prevent displacement from occurring in the first place, by strengthening the protection of civilians and limiting the effects of hostilities on civilian lives and property.

• – Of particular importance is respect for the fundamental principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution, as well as the prohibition on the forced displacement of the civilian population, in whole or in part, for reasons related to the armed conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.Footnote ⁵⁰

• – When displacement does occur, respect for IHL can help ensure that it is, as much as possible, kept to a minimum and is temporary. Furthermore, IHL provides important protections to civilians during displacement, so its full implementation contributes to ensuring the safety and well-being of IDPs.Footnote ⁵¹

• – Failure to respect IHL can result in civilian and military superiors being found guilty of war crimes, whether directly or under the doctrine of command or superior responsibility.Footnote ⁵²

• – National criminal law prohibitions relating to displacement can be included in military manuals, training curricula and briefing modules.

For other actors

• – Many States have already benefited from this advice and support and/or continue to express an interest in receiving it.

• – When offering their advice and support, organizations can usefully share good practices initiated by other States and/or facilitate peer-to-peer exchanges and the sharing of experiences between States directly. This has proven to be very effective in encouraging States to take the necessary measures to implement the Kampala Convention. It can also help streamline domestic implementation processes.

• – When building the authorities’ capacities, international actors can reinforce best practices in consultation with IDPs.

• – Increased public knowledge of the Kampala Convention can help expedite States’ processes of ratification, domestication and operationalization of the Convention.

• – RECs and RMs are often well placed to foster greater awareness of internal displacement issues, including of the potential of the Kampala Convention to prevent and address internal displacement.

• – The AUC, RECs, RMs and other organizations concerned should consider approaching States to champion the Kampala Convention and share their experiences with other States.

• – Local civil society actors are typically cost-effective partners with solid knowledge of the context. As such, they can contribute positively to the implementation of public awareness-raising and capacity-building activities by international actors.

• – The ACHPR and its special rapporteur on refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced persons are both expressly mentioned in the Kampala Convention. They are assigned specific roles in supporting and monitoring States Parties’ implementation of the Convention.Footnote ⁵³ Thus, the ACHPR and the special rapporteur are both well placed to usefully contribute to the promotion and national implementation of the Kampala Convention, in cooperation with the AUC and others.

• – Awareness-raising and capacity-building activities should be carried out with internally displaced communities as part of a meaningful and regular dialogue with those communities.

• – Article 14(1)–(3) of the Kampala Convention provides for the establishment of a Conference of States Parties as the Convention's main monitoring body to convene regularly under the auspices of the AU. The first meeting of the Conference of States Parties will be a historic demonstration of the political will within Africa to address the issue of internal displacement proactively and collectively. It will confirm the AU's strong leadership in this regard.

• – The Conference will have numerous practical benefits. It will offer States Parties the opportunity to exchange experiences of ratification and implementation of the Kampala Convention. It will also allow States Parties and invited international and humanitarian organizations to consider together how to best address the challenges of prevention and response to internal displacement in Africa.

• – Furthermore, the Conference can be an important source of information for States considering ratification, and particularly for those that have already signed the Convention but have not yet joined it.

• – The first meeting of the Conference of States Parties could help establish shared reporting and monitoring mechanisms and supervisory functions for the Convention, as foreseen in Article 14. A permanent Kampala Convention Secretariat could be established to these ends.

• – The first meeting of the Conference could conclude with the adoption of a comprehensive road map (or plan of action) for the full implementation of the Kampala Convention, with benchmarks and timeframes.Footnote ⁵⁴ This could include, for example, detailed plans on the various vulnerable sub-groups within the internally displaced population that require protection and for the collection and analysis of data by sex, age and other relevant factors. This road map could then be regularly reviewed at, and between, subsequent meetings of the Conference of States Parties in the future.

• – AU Member States should ensure that the work of the Conference of States Parties and the road map fall within the AU's Humanitarian Agenda 2063 and the Common African Position on Humanitarian Effectiveness and its Ten-Year Action Plan. These should take into account the various African Human Rights Mechanisms and the roles they play in ensuring conditions necessary for the protection of IDPs as a specifically vulnerable group.

For States

• – It is essential that a State's normative and policy frameworks on IDPs are accompanied by the right government structure to operationalize these frameworks.

• – The precise arrangements will vary from State to State, but in every case the designated authority must have the mandate and legitimacy needed in a given State to be effective.

• – Of particular importance are the arrangements for cooperation and coordination between ministries and agencies at the national level, as well as between the national and local levels.

• – Without sustained political will, even the best-designed coordination body for IDP responses is unlikely to ever be – or remain – effective in assisting and protecting IDPs.

• – The designated authority must also consistently – or in times of a crisis – have adequate financial and human resources, so as to be in a position to translate the laws and policies into concrete action.

• – It is in the interest of every State to have the best available information about the needs of people under its jurisdiction, especially those who are vulnerable because of internal displacement.

• – The availability of solid data leads to more effective and targeted responses, translating into better assistance and protection for the displaced. When all the actors concerned support the data analysis, this can provide a valuable common baseline for coordinated programming.Footnote ⁶²

  Recommendation 8: States should take steps to ensure that the designated coordinating authority or body has the necessary mandate and legitimacy to mobilize all ministries and agencies concerned, and is granted adequate resources (human and financial) to function effectively.

• – States that engage in collaborative data collection and analysis with international actors will strengthen their own capacities in this domain. In addition, they will be able to help ensure that data is collected, analysed and understood with the benefit of accurate knowledge of the context and the displacement-affected communities concerned.

• – Data on durable solutions (e.g. which solutions IDPs would prefer in a given context, numbers of people who have integrated locally, pursued return, etc.) is also very important. This not only helps ensure a better response in a given context, but also provides greater insights that can be useful to improving responses elsewhere.

• – This is the single most important element in ensuring that the needs of IDPs are effectively met in each phase of their displacement. This in turn helps ensure accountability towards the people on behalf of whom activities are carried out. Accountability requires that activities respond to people's real needs and priority concerns, and make the most effective use of available resources.

• – The necessary engagement starts with needs assessments, continues throughout the design and implementation of programme responses, and concludes with the monitoring and evaluation of the responses.

• – Consultation of and engagement with IDPs are consistent with full consideration of their human dignity and rights. Both help reinforce the agency and autonomy of IDPs themselves, individually and in communities. As a result, IDPs are able to contribute to their own protection and assistance.

• – Particular attention should be paid to ensuring that women, elderly people, the disabled and minority groups are able to make their voice heard and can participate in the decision-making process.

• – It is important that IDPs are actively involved, through their community leaders and chairpersons, in the management of their camps.

• – Public authorities should ensure continual dialogue with IDP communities, as their needs are likely to change as the situation evolves. Consideration of the wishes and concerns of IDPs is especially important in order to provide durable solutions, which should be the result of a free and informed choice.

• – The main advantage of establishing an effective monitoring mechanism is an improved capacity on the part of the authorities to ensure that assistance reaches those for whom it is intended, and that resources are used in the most efficient way.

• – Monitoring and evaluation allows for programmes to be adjusted and adapted, as needed, so that the assistance provided responds best to the needs of IDPs.

• – Effective monitoring and evaluation can involve a two-way feedback loop that allows IDP communities to provide continuous input on programming responses intended to benefit them.

• – When each of the public authorities has mechanisms in place to effectively monitor the impact of assistance and ensure accountability, this can have a positive effect across government bodies, strengthening the State's capacities in overall programme delivery and accountability.

• – An effective monitoring mechanism will add to donor confidence about the impact of protection and assistance activities for IDPs.

• – Effective monitoring mechanisms can be used to encourage other stakeholders to establish their own mechanisms for monitoring short and longer-term outcomes of assistance.

For other actors

• – International actors must allow States to nourish a sense of ownership in the development of laws and policies, including of national strategies, to address IDP-related situations. This can help ensure that national authorities are committed and able to advance the strategies and policies in the implementation process.

• – To this effect, international actors should aim for genuine partnerships and incorporate national capacity-building into their programme objectives and schedules.

For States

• – Because host communities are so often both a key part of responses to situations of internal displacement and negatively affected by such situations, their own needs must also be addressed. The aim is to ensure their continued capacity to provide for themselves and to support those who are displaced.

• – Failure to pay attention to the needs of host community can lead to heightened tensions and competition between them and IDPs. This can result in greater vulnerability for IDPs and reduced options for durable solutions.

• – Assessment and monitoring of local authorities and services can allow for programming which reinforces them, rather than seeking to create parallel services which can be duplicative and more costly.

• – States have the primary responsibility to respond to internal displacement in an effective manner. This includes assessing the needs of IDPs under their jurisdiction and providing them with adequate humanitarian assistance, including food, water, shelter, medical care, education and access to livelihoods.

• – States should seek international support where national resources are not adequate to meet the needs of IDPs. International organizations can complement and support the efforts of the authorities, especially in case of sudden and/or massive displacement. However, they cannot replace them, nor does the involvement or support of international organizations diminish a State's sovereign responsibilities towards its population.

• – States should seek opportunities to develop national capacities for assessment of needs, whether within government or with trusted local partners, such as the NS.

• – Discharging their obligation to assist IDPs and, where appropriate, host communities, whether independently or with the support of international actors, is an exercise of State sovereignty.

• – States with limited resources will often be able to meet the needs of IDPs on their territory only with international support, particularly in case of a sudden crisis. Where international organizations’ access to IDP communities, and vice versa, is hindered, the risks of serious harm to the IDPs in need become much greater.

• – Besides the unacceptable humanitarian consequences, interference with humanitarian access can increase tensions between IDPs and host communities, in addition to exacerbating possible grievances and mistrust of State authorities on the part of IDP communities.

• – Failure to ensure rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access may, in certain circumstances, constitute a serious violation of IHL (i.e. a war crime).

• – Public authorities – including armed and security forces – should understand and respect the working arrangements of humanitarian actors, for instance, that some organizations may not be able to accept armed escorts to facilitate access to less secure areas.

For other actors

• – Respect for humanitarian principles will best serve to guarantee effective and repeated access to IDPs and host communities for humanitarian organizations. As such, it will be of the greatest benefit to IDPs in need.

• – At times, States may be cautious about the presence and activities of international organizations on their territory. Consistent respect for humanitarian principles by humanitarian actors can help mitigate this.

For States

• – Freedom of movement involves both the ability to reach a safe place and then, once there, the ability to move freely in and out of the displacement location to access essential services, goods, employment and to restore or maintain family links.

• – While there is a recognized need to strike a balance between humanitarian considerations and security concerns, the right to freedom of movement and residence needs to be considered fundamental for IDPs, just as it would be for other citizens or residents of any State.

• – Greater freedom of movement increases the capacities of IDPs to move according to their own priorities and to become self-reliant.Footnote ⁷⁴ This potentially reduces the burdens on host communities, camp facilities and, ultimately, State authorities.

• – Conversely, undue restrictions on freedom of movement of IDPs can increase the humanitarian needs of IDPs and host communities alike.

• – For protection purposes, reliable data on vulnerable individuals and families in the form of a register is vital. Footnote ⁷⁵

• – Personal information collected in relation to the register must be compiled and handled in accordance with all relevant protection of personal data laws and standards, as well as due regard for the security and dignity of the IDPs and, where relevant, their hosts.

• – This can help reinforce the agency and self-reliance of IDPs. It can make it possible for them to move more freely (e.g. in order to seek assistance and to get access to employment opportunities), and also to demonstrate eligibility for assistance and protection programmes.

• – It helps a State fulfil its obligations to maintain a register of IDPs and to facilitate family reunification. It also contributes to accurate data collection, by allowing a State to have and analyse up-to-date information on the extent of an IDP crisis. This in turn helps a State ensure more effectively targeted assistance and protection activities.

• – This is a critical action to help ensure the protection of highly vulnerable people in IDP camps and other settings.

• – International and humanitarian actors can assist States in this regard. For example, responsibilities may be shared between national armed forces and any UN forces operating in the country.

For other actors

• – Displacement often causes separation between family members.

• – Many States recognize the importance of family tracing and family reunification activities, but a number of them lack specific mechanisms to carry out these activities.

• – Many States are willing to receiving support and advice from international and humanitarian actors to ensure that contact can be restored between family members separated because of displacement.

• – NSs are usually well placed to assist with this, often in cooperation with the ICRC. Their involvement helps to build a system to ensure that people separated from their families receive sufficient attention.

• – Under humanitarian law, everyone has the right to know what has happened to his or her missing relatives and to communicate with members of their family from whom they have been separated. States bear the main responsibility for ensuring that the rights of families who have become separated are respected.

• – Certain groups of people are particularly vulnerable and have specific needs to be addressed. These include children who may find themselves separated from their parents, and elderly and disabled people who may have lost contact with their care-givers and not be able to fend for themselves.

For States

• – In crises generating internal displacement, there is most often a great deal of confusion and misinformation about the root causes and/or the way internal displacement is dealt with. There can be mistrust on the part of displaced communities as to the State's motives and priorities in responding. Regular consultation and meaningful dialogue with IDPs will enable them to better assess their options and exercise their right to make an informed choice on durable solutions, in addition to generating trust in authorities. It will also help State authorities to better understand the concerns and wishes of IDPs and communities and to address those issues of mistrust or misinformation.

• – When consulted, internally displaced communities may be able to propose viable solutions that are both cost-effective for the State and sustainable.

• – Where the preferred durable solution is not feasible at a given time, the authorities should seek to facilitate transitional solutions to improve the circumstances of IDPs, in dialogue with them. In such cases, the authorities should remain mindful that IDPs do not lose their right to achieve their preferred durable solution when this becomes accessible.

• – It is incumbent on the State in question to ensure the voluntary, safe and dignified character of all possible durable solutions. At the same time, it is recognized that international assistance may be required to realize appropriate responses.

• – A proactive approach increases States’ possibilities of benefiting from the experience and resources of international partners and donors and from best practices.

• – In particular, this can help a State experiencing challenges with internal displacement to connect the urgent humanitarian response to a longer-term development agenda. This can often help address some of the causes and outcomes of displacement.

• – The financial resources required for effective solutions can be considerable, and this needs to be openly acknowledged by all stakeholders.

• – This would be important to help resolve internal displacement-related problems arising from an armed conflict.

• – A key aspect to be dealt with in the peace agreement and any post-conflict transitional justice processes would relate to durable solutions, such as voluntary return for IDPs.Footnote ⁸²

• – Other issues may be land reform, reparations, etc., depending on the conflict.

For other actors

• – Public authorities may experience difficulties in establishing a meaningful dialogue with the displaced communities. In these cases, the UN and other international actors can play a useful role in engaging with IDPs to understand their perspectives and concerns.

• – By doing so, important issues can be brought to the attention of the authorities. This includes the possible lack of sufficient and clear information on durable solution options that are provided to IDPs. Additionally, situations where IDPs may feel that a durable solution is being promoted prematurely by authorities, or without adequate consideration for their wishes, can also be addressed.

• – Donors can often exert a positive influence by assisting States to develop realistic, mid- to long-term strategies to phase out IDP sites and facilitate return or other durable solutions.