Specificities and challenges of responding to internal displacement in urban settings

Abstract

The world is rapidly urbanizing, and so is internal displacement. However, knowledge about the specific situation of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in urban settings and how it differs from, and impacts on, their host communities is still limited, and responses continue to be inadequate. This article analyzes the particular needs of urban IDPs by taking into account how the various contexts and patterns of urban internal displacement contribute to shaping people's experience. It discusses three key challenges that humanitarian actors are faced with in developing effective responses: identifying and reaching IDPs in urban settings, addressing their urgent protection concerns, and supporting their local integration. It concludes by pointing out the need for methodological and operational guidance on how to bring together area-based approaches that account for the impact of displacement on entire urban communities, and tailored approaches addressing IDPs’ specific needs in urban settings. The need for stocktaking exercises and more effective sharing of experiences among practitioners, municipal authorities and policy-makers is also underlined.

Urban internal displacement: A growing and multifaceted phenomenon

Internal displacement is increasingly urban. This is in line with a global trend of rapid urbanization and reflects the fact that armed conflict and other situations of violence,¹ as well as disasters, often play out in cities.² A significant and growing proportion of internally displaced persons (IDPs) flee to, between or within urban areas,³ where many of them live with host families or in other types of accommodation – such as private houses or damaged or unfinished buildings, sometimes in informal settlements – dispersed among the resident population, rather than in camps. They decide to settle in cities for various reasons, including the prospect of security, anonymity, better economic or educational opportunities and humanitarian assistance.⁴ Oftentimes, however, these are war-torn cities or fragile cities in developing and middle-income countries⁵ that fail to provide IDPs with safety and adequate access to livelihoods and reliable services. Instead, IDPs end up facing destitution, insecurity, chronic urban violence and the risk of secondary displacement.

Humanitarian responses to displacement situations have also needed to shift from rural and camp settings to urban areas. For humanitarian actors, this means working outside of their traditional comfort zone and having to adapt their mindset, toolbox and approaches to a different and more complex operating environment, where authorities tend to be more present and play a bigger role.⁶ There is growing awareness among practitioners as well as governments and academics that “urban problems require urban solutions”.⁷ However, there is a paucity of best practices in this domain and significant gaps exist in dealing with humanitarian crises in cities.⁸ This is particularly true when it comes to addressing urban internal displacement, as reliable data on the specific circumstances of IDPs in urban settings are lacking, and it remains difficult to properly define what constitutes an effective response.⁹

Urban internal displacement has a multifaceted nature. First, it occurs in different contexts, depending on whether cities are, alternatively or simultaneously, the scenes of armed conflict or other situations of violence or natural disaster, and/or sites where people seek refuge. For example, IDPs can be found in cities where hostilities are ongoing, in more stable cities in a country at war, or in cities affected by violence perpetrated by criminal groups (e.g. gangs, drug traffickers) in otherwise peaceful countries.¹⁰ Second, urban internal displacement follows different patterns, as people move from rural to urban areas, between cities (inter-urban displacement) or between neighbourhoods of the same city (intra-urban displacement). There is a need to unpack the phenomenon in order to better grasp the differences and commonalities in the situation of IDPs across the various contexts and patterns of urban internal displacement.¹¹

This article aims to contribute to ongoing reflections about the specificities of urban displacement and how best to respond to it, with a focus on internal displacement induced by armed conflict and other situations of violence. It argues that the context and the pattern in which urban internal displacement occurs shape the interaction between displacement, vulnerability and resilience,¹² translating into specific needs, concerns and capacities of IDPs in urban areas. The distinct features of cities compared to rural settings also play a role in this process. After analyzing the ramifications of displacement for urban IDPs and their host communities, the article discusses three key challenges faced by humanitarian actors in their efforts to develop adequate responses: identifying and reaching IDPs in urban settings, addressing their urgent protection concerns, and supporting their local integration. In doing so, it presents some possible approaches to deal with these challenges, drawing particularly from the experiences of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The article focuses mainly on the situation of urban IDPs living outside camps, as less attention has been devoted to them and their merging within dispersed host communities poses particular challenges to an effective response to their needs.¹³ Some of the concerns and challenges identified with regards to this group, however, may apply mutatis mutandis to urban IDPs in camps and camp-like settings.¹⁴

Some distinct features of urban settings

There is no single commonly agreed definition of “urban area”. Government definitions and academic classifications differ in terms of scale, population size, shape and other factors. Furthermore, distinguishing “urban” from “rural” areas is not always feasible: for instance, in many rapidly growing middle-sized to small cities, the borders between the two are often blurred.¹⁵ That said, a number of characteristics have been identified as being typical of cities as opposed to rural settings.¹⁶ This section focuses on three characteristics that play a part in shaping the specific experience of IDPs in cities and make cities a more challenging environment for humanitarian actors to work in.

The first characteristic is the density and diversity of the population. This offers better conditions for anonymity to those who seek to maintain a low profile because of security concerns, as opposed to rural areas where people usually know each other. However, it also increases the likelihood that the most vulnerable will fall under the radar screen of authorities and humanitarian organizations. Furthermore, integration into the city can be more difficult for newcomers, as social cohesion tends to be weaker than in rural areas.¹⁷ Density amplifies the impact of hostilities or disasters occurring in cities, as more people can be affected at once, thus requiring a larger-scale response.¹⁸ Diversity makes it harder for humanitarian actors to define the “community” to work with. In rural areas, a village can be approached as one community, given that the population tends to be more homogeneous. In cities, not only do people's situations differ widely from neighbourhood to neighbourhood, but urban dwellers often identify with various social, ethnic, religious, professional or other groups. This leads to multiple communities coexisting in the same area (or to put it differently, to a fragmented community consisting of different sub-groups). As a result, identifying commonalities of needs and vulnerability for the purpose of defining the beneficiaries of humanitarian interventions becomes an intricate task.¹⁹

The second characteristic common to urban areas is their reliance on cash-based economies and on complex and interconnected systems of public basic services (e.g. health care, water, sanitation and electricity).²⁰ This is different from rural areas, where there are more opportunities for production and self-consumption of food and other goods and people organize themselves around less sophisticated services. As a result, urban dwellers are highly vulnerable to the disruption of markets and services caused by armed conflict.²¹ Additionally, if prior to the conflict access to public services was not equitably distributed across the urban landscape and in an inclusive way, resulting in varying degrees of service provision quality, it is highly probable as the crisis unfolds that this situation will continue and become exacerbated with time. Furthermore, life in cities is more expensive – commodity prices are usually higher, and people who come from the countryside have to buy food that some of them may have previously produced themselves, and pay for services that are provided by public or private companies.²² At the same time, cities can offer more opportunities for income generation and employment, as well as education. However, people need to have adapted skills and valid documentation in order to take advantage of those opportunities – which is often not the case for IDPs.²³

The third characteristic of urban settings is the presence of a wide range of governmental and non-governmental actors operating at various levels (municipal, district and national) and with different roles and responsibilities that may not always be clearly defined.²⁴ For humanitarian organizations, this increases opportunities to build collaboration and partnerships, but poses challenges in terms of coordination and engagement with multiple urban stakeholders.²⁵ It also implies that humanitarian organizations working in cities tend to be subject to more control and regulation by authorities, and have less freedom to manoeuvre than in rural settings. They need to be conversant with existing institutional, normative and policy frameworks, including on complex issues of land tenure, tenancy, housing rights and property.²⁶ At the same time, those regulations can present a whole raft of bureaucratic obstacles for IDPs as they seek to access services and rebuild shattered lives.

The specific needs of IDPs in urban settings

IDPs tend to have particular needs stemming from their displacement, which often exacerbates the difficulties people already experience as a result of armed conflict or other situations of violence. Those needs are multifaceted and often interconnected, and tend to evolve over time. Newly displaced persons often face physical insecurity, lack basic necessities and need emergency assistance to survive. Those in protracted internal displacement need to access livelihoods, health, education and adequate housing in order to regain some normality in their lives, recover their independence and make progress towards a durable solution.²⁷ Furthermore, IDPs are not a homogeneous and faceless group: individual characteristics such as gender, age and disability influence the way people are affected by internal displacement and their capacity to cope with it.²⁸

Although the situation of IDPs in cities may look similar to that of their non-displaced neighbours, internal displacement remains a key factor of vulnerability for urban populations affected by armed conflict and violence.²⁹ This section explains why urban IDPs are often worse off than the resident population and examines their specific needs. Consideration is given to how different contexts and patterns of urban internal displacement shape people's experience.

Concerns related to safety and security

IDPs in urban settings, just like those in rural areas, may have serious concerns for their safety and physical security. These concerns can be linked to the circumstances in which people flee or to the conditions they face in the new location. During armed conflict, displacement is often a survival mechanism. People leave their homes as they lose access to basic necessities in their place of residence, because they fear the approaching of military operations or after experiencing their destructive impact, notably as a consequence of violations of international humanitarian law (IHL).³⁰ When cities become battlefields, the effects of the hostilities on the civilian population and urban infrastructure and services can be devastating.³¹ Yet, fleeing within or from a city at war is also dangerous. People risk being killed on the way by bombing and shelling, caught in crossfire or hit by sniper fire or landmines. They may face harassment by weapon-bearers or be arrested at checkpoints due to the perception that they support or are affiliated to an adverse party to the conflict. Additionally, because of rapidly changing conflict dynamics, those who managed to reach a more secure neighbourhood or another city relatively spared by the fighting may be confronted again with potential death and injury from military operations, and be uprooted for a second time.³²

In Latin American cities affected by criminal violence, some people make the pre-emptive decision to leave because of the general insecurity and the erosion of the quality of life and livelihood opportunities generated by the violence, afraid of becoming the next victims and in search of better access to education, health care and/or employment.³³ Others, however, leave because they or their family members are under direct threat or have been victims of forced recruitment, sexual violence, extortion, murder or disappearance, perpetrated by gang members as a means of control.³⁴ Their displacement takes place in extreme circumstances and is accompanied by high vulnerability. They have acute protection concerns that often persist post-flight, as armed group members may seek to pursue them across the city or even between cities.³⁵ Despite restricting their own movements and remaining hidden to avoid detection,³⁶ they may face renewed threats and be forced to flee again.

IDPs who have moved to cities outside the conflict zone, or in areas not controlled by gangs involved in organized crime, may also face specific challenges related to safety and security. These often emanate from the fact that authorities view them as having links with rebel, “terrorist” or otherwise criminal groups merely due to their ethnicity, religion, political beliefs or place of origin. Tensions with host communities for similar reasons, or because of competition over access to resources, jobs and services, are another possible source of violence against IDPs. For women displaced without their partners, being alone in unfamiliar urban surroundings can increase vulnerability to sexual violence, especially when combined with economic stress and overcrowded living spaces.³⁷ Additionally, the lack of access to adequate shelter – a recurrent problem for urban IDPs³⁸ – means that internally displaced individuals and families end up living in precarious conditions in the outskirts of the city, often in poorly serviced and hazard-prone areas.³⁹ They build makeshift houses on “invaded” public or private land,⁴⁰ occupy abandoned houses, unfinished buildings or public buildings such as schools without permission, or rent private accommodation informally, oftentimes at inflated prices and with no security of tenure. This expose them to the risk of forced eviction and a host of other abusive behaviours, and they may be compelled to return to unsafe conditions as a result.⁴¹

In view of the foregoing risks for their safety and security, IDPs living in cities may fall into a vicious spiral of multiple displacements and increasing vulnerability. For some, internal displacement becomes the first step on an arduous journey as they end up crossing borders to seek safety, protection and durable solutions abroad, after failing to find them in their own country.⁴²

A limited access to basic services

IDPs living in urban areas and host communities often encounter similar problems in accessing basic services such as clean water and sanitation, electricity, housing, primary health care and education. Armed conflict in cities can cause the complex fabric of interconnected urban services to collapse, particularly when hostilities are protracted and characterized by siege warfare and the use of explosive weapons, notably those with a wide impact area, in densely populated areas. This has serious humanitarian consequences for the entire city's population, displaced people and residents alike.⁴³ Similarly, when IDPs settle in cities outside warzones, they tend to live next to the urban poor, in overcrowded and low-income suburbs, informal settlements and shanty towns, where service provision is typically weak. Their arrival often adds pressure on already limited services.⁴⁴ In contexts of urban violence, gang activities contribute to disrupting people's access to the (few) services that may exist in the neighbourhood, by imposing restrictions of movement on the population based on “invisible borders” or by causing the displacement of service provider staff (e.g. teachers, medical doctors, engineers).⁴⁵

However, IDPs in cities often face specific obstacles preventing their access to public services that are available to their non-displaced neighbours. The most common are lack of information and lack of documentation. IDPs find themselves outside of their familiar environment and deprived of their community support networks. Newcomers with no relatives or friends in the city often know little of their new location and lack information regarding where to seek help or how to access housing or other social benefits for which they might qualify.⁴⁶ This is particularly true for people displaced from rural areas, who are not accustomed to life in cities and its bureaucratic hurdles and may have limited awareness of their rights. In some cases, they may be illiterate or may not speak the official language (for instance, if they belong to indigenous communities), so they may not understand the information available. Furthermore, IDPs tend to have difficulties obtaining official documents or replacing those lost during flight or those to which they no longer have access (e.g. passports, identity cards, birth and marriage certificates, school records), either because they are not aware of the procedure or because no such procedure exists.⁴⁷ Some of the procedures require IDPs to travel back to their places of origin to obtain new documentation. Such a requirement is oblivious to the fact that it is not safe for IDPs to go back to their places of origin and they may put themselves in danger by doing so.⁴⁸ Lack of documentation sometimes means that parents cannot enrol their children in school, and older and sick people cannot receive medical treatment.⁴⁹ Problems related to documentation can be more acute for IDPs originating from relatively remote rural areas. Some of them may simply not have had, or not have sought to obtain, any identification or other official documents previously, but find themselves in need of such documents in order to be able to settle in the city.

Discrimination and security concerns can also play a role in limiting access to services for IDPs in cities.⁵⁰ For instance, internally displaced children in contexts of armed conflict may be excluded from education not only because schools are already overcrowded and there are not enough classrooms or teachers, but also based on ethnic or other differences. If they belong to a different ethnic group than the host population, they may also find it hard to access education which is culturally appropriate and in their own language.⁵¹ Furthermore, in contexts of urban violence, internally displaced children and adolescents who are compelled to hide because of gang threats directed against them or their families are often unable to go to school and have to interrupt their education.⁵²

Lack of livelihood and employment opportunities

IDPs are often poorer than the rest of the urban population.⁵³ This is due partly to the fact that they arrive in their new location already with few or no possessions, and partly to their difficulty in accessing livelihoods and employment, which results in their becoming more destitute over time.⁵⁴ This is frequently the case for rural-to-urban IDPs, but those displaced from other urban areas can also be affected.

Internal displacement often entails the loss of productive assets and patrimony, resulting in a major economic shock from which people may not recover. Additionally, for people displaced from rural to urban areas, this can be compounded by the fact that the human capital acquired prior to displacement is not easily transferrable for productive use into urban contexts. Urban displacement particularly affects them: they lose access to their land and livestock, which would often be their main source of food and income back home, and their farming skills are not applicable to secure other livelihood options in cities.⁵⁵ Besides lacking adapted skills, they often have a lower level of formal education than the urban resident population, are less familiar with the recruitment and job search system, and have no social ties.⁵⁶ These factors, sometimes combined with discriminatory hiring practices,⁵⁷ make it hard for them to find employment.⁵⁸ Even when IDPs possess skills that are relevant to secure employment or start a small business in their new urban location (e.g. carpentry, tailoring, cooking, selling/trading), they often lack official documents or accreditation, do not have sufficient means to acquire the necessary equipment and have only limited access to formal or informal credit.⁵⁹

People who are displaced within the same city or between cities may be less affected insofar as they are more likely to keep their jobs or to access similar employment,⁶⁰ although this does not necessarily mean that they will not face economic problems.⁶¹ Some may find it impossible to continue the same or similar employment due to security concerns related, for instance, to the risks of travelling regularly through checkpoints and across parts of a city at war, or the need to live in hiding to escape from direct death threats.⁶² Furthermore, some people who are displaced between urban areas multiple times (for example, because of repeated threats from gangs) may find it increasingly difficult to restart their small business each time owing to the depletion of their resources.

As a result, unemployment can be significantly higher among economically active IDPs than urban residents.⁶³ Those who have a job tend to work in the informal sector, for example as daily workers, in less protected and more exploitative conditions.⁶⁴ They often perform casual activities with no guarantee of regular income. Because of the lack of adequate economic opportunities, in order to cover their most basic needs, IDPs have to rely on solidarity and the generous support of relatives and friends (if they are present and as long as they can help). They become dependent on humanitarian aid to the extent that this is provided. The inability to improve livelihoods over time may push some IDPs to adopt harmful coping strategies, such as child labour, prostitution, early marriage or criminality, in order to have sufficient income to cover the costs of food, accommodation and/or health care.⁶⁵ Particularly in contexts of urban violence, because of poverty, social exclusion and lack of opportunities, young IDPs become vulnerable to the influence of crime and are at risk of being lured into joining a gang, thereby contributing to a vicious cycle of violence and displacement.⁶⁶

Need for psychosocial support

Being forced to leave behind one's home, relationships, assets and work is a stressful experience. It is even more so when people have to flee unexpectedly, prompted by violent events, and the trauma of displacement compounds the suffering caused by the death or disappearance of a family member, or by other abuses that people endured or witnessed prior to flight.⁶⁷ If they continue to face insecurity and violence in their displacement location – for example, because they remain in the conflict zone, exposed to the effects of military operations, or due to direct threats against them – this can further undermine their mental well-being. The circumstances of those individuals and families forcibly displaced by gangs in contexts of urban violence, who remain concealed in constant fear for their personal safety, are of particular concern.

For those who are newly displaced, the fact of being in an unfamiliar environment, unable to satisfy their basic needs in a predictable way and facing an uncertain future, can be a source of constant worry. In protracted internal displacement situations, the lack of prospects for a durable solution perpetuates the uncertainty and can cause feelings of frustration.⁶⁸ Additionally, having to rely on external help to survive undermines people's self-esteem and sense of dignity, especially if they used to be economically independent before displacement. In turn, the psychological effects of displacement can hamper people's ability to adapt to the new situation and regain self-sufficiency.⁶⁹ This particularly affects IDPs with rural origins, for whom displacement to cities often implies abandoning their way of life, customs and culture – even more so if they are from indigenous communities.⁷⁰ The lack of strong social support networks is often part of the problem.⁷¹ Stigma and discrimination can make things worse, as IDPs may find themselves marginalized and neglected in their efforts to rebuild their lives. This often happens because they belong to an ethnic or religious minority,⁷² or because host communities and authorities view them as a burden or a potential security threat.⁷³ In contexts of urban violence, due to the generalized climate of fear, IDPs may face distrust from the host community, particularly when they are from other gang-controlled neighbourhoods.⁷⁴

The impact of urban internal displacement on host communities

The impact of internal displacement normally extends well beyond the people who are directly affected by it. Other parts of the population, notably the families hosting IDPs and the wider communities within which they live, are also affected. This speaks to the importance of adopting a holistic approach in responding to internal displacement, informed by a comprehensive analysis of the population needs that includes host populations, as opposed to considering the needs of IDPs in isolation.⁷⁵ It is also a matter of recognizing the important part that the solidarity of host communities often plays in providing a critical life-support system for IDPs, notably in situations of urban displacement, where the government's response may be delayed or insufficient and humanitarian actors may tend to focus on assisting those displaced in camps or collective shelters.

As they settle within the host community in disadvantaged suburbs and slum neighbourhoods,⁷⁶ spreading the city's poverty belt, IDPs end up competing with the urban local population for limited resources and often already weak and overburdened services. This generates tensions between IDPs and their hosts, which can be exacerbated if humanitarian assistance and social programmes only benefit IDPs or are perceived as prioritizing their needs over those of residents. Such tensions can translate into protection problems for IDPs and undermine their social integration.⁷⁷

Although competition for resources and services may also characterize the relationship between IDPs and host communities in rural areas, the strong reliance on public services that is typical of urban dwellers makes this feature more prevalent in situations of urban internal displacement. The arrival of large numbers of IDPs in “dysfunctional” cities that are already struggling to cope with the impacts of protracted armed conflict or rapid growth and are suffering from inadequate housing, insufficient and/or poorly maintained basic services, weak institutions and insecurity “adds an extra layer of stress to an already fragile system”, stretching it to breaking point.⁷⁸ The more urban services and infrastructure (e.g. water supply, electricity, waste management, hospitals and schools) have been deteriorated by the direct and/or indirect impacts of the ongoing violence, the higher the pressure exerted by the influx of IDPs is, and the more likely tensions are to arise.⁷⁹ The length of displacement also plays a part – the generosity of host families, who are often at the forefront of the response, can fade over time, as resources tend to get more strained and the burden of hosting IDPs becomes heavier.⁸⁰ Fatigue and resentment may develop among the local population upon the realization that IDPs are not temporary and will not return home in the near future, particularly if their presence is believed to be the cause of worsening living conditions and insecurity.⁸¹

Displacement into an urban area can create a strong pressure on the rental market, particularly where IDPs tend to become tenants as opposed to being hosted by others. This translates into higher rent for all households living in neighbourhoods where the influx of IDPs is larger.⁸² Furthermore, the arrival of IDPs from rural areas increases the offer of unqualified workforce in the urban labour market, particularly in the informal sector, which may cause an increase in unemployment in those specific labour niches and a stagnation or, in some cases, a drop in wages. This may affect the resident poor, who compete with IDPs for fewer and/or lower-paying manual jobs.⁸³ In addition to contributing to rapid urban expansion, displacement can also change existing demographic balances, notably when newcomers are of different ethnic origin than the majority of the host community.⁸⁴ This can cause further tensions, as residents may feel threatened by IDPs bringing a different language, religion or culture into their communities.⁸⁵ The perception that IDPs cause insecurity and a raise in criminality can aggravate hostility toward them.⁸⁶

Challenges in responding to urban internal displacement

This section examines three challenges faced by humanitarian actors as they strive to provide effective responses to IDPs in cities: identifying and engaging with IDPs dispersed in urban areas; addressing their protection needs during flight and in the early phase of displacement; and helping IDPs to establish a life in the new location through comprehensive strategies that factor in host communities, build upon local partnerships and maximize coordination and complementarity with development actors. These challenges emanate from the need to tailor humanitarian approaches and interventions to urban contexts as well as to the specific characteristics of the internally displaced populations.

Reaching out to the invisible

Urban internal displacement can be difficult to identify and monitor as it tends to be an “invisible” phenomenon. IDPs are, in many cases, widely scattered across urban areas, rather than clustered in camps. They are merged within host communities, as opposed to being physically separated from the resident population. As a result, they are often “lost in the urban multitude and dissolved into the surrounding poverty”.⁸⁷ This is compounded by the fact that some IDPs keep a low profile due to concerns for their personal safety. Either because they view the authorities (who may have contributed to their displacement) as a threat or because they are pursued by armed actors, they avoid registration, conceal their situation and sometimes are even obliged to hide in secrecy.⁸⁸ Furthermore, particularly in contexts of urban violence, internal displacement tends to occur in a gradual and less obvious fashion.⁸⁹ The lack of official recognition of the phenomenon may further contribute to its low visibility.⁹⁰ Intra-urban displacement can go even more unnoticed as it is frequently perceived as voluntary movement. The shorter the physical distance between people's place of habitual residence and their displacement location, the more it can be misreported as ordinary movement from one place to another within the same city, except when it occurs on a large scale.⁹¹

One of the main challenges for humanitarian actors, therefore, is to be able to identify and reach IDPs for the purpose of assessing their needs, in comparison to those of the host populations, and engaging with them to ensure their participation in the design and implementation of responses.⁹² Part of the challenge remains ensuring that the safety of the IDPs, as well as the security of the staff who work with them, is not undermined throughout the process. This is especially the case in urban contexts, where IDPs face individual threats to their security and count on dispersion into host communities and anonymity as a self-protection strategy. It requires mainstreaming protection considerations in any mechanism that is established to engage with IDPs and host communities and taking all possible precautions to avoid putting them in danger (“do no harm”).⁹³

Being able to count on reliable local partners as entry points to identifying and engaging with IDPs is often crucial.⁹⁴ The ICRC, for example, works in partnership with National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (National Societies), which have their roots and members in the affected communities and possess a keen understanding of local dynamics. This has allowed the ICRC, in places like Maiduguri, Nigeria, to monitor the arrival of newcomers into urban communities outside of camps, at the earlier stages of the displacement crisis, with a view to reaching them with emergency humanitarian assistance through the network of Red Cross volunteers. In contexts of urban violence in Latin America, the ICRC jointly with National Societies implements community-based projects aimed at mitigating some of the humanitarian consequences of the violence on the population in highly affected neighbourhoods.⁹⁵ The potential of these projects in terms of engaging with IDPs who are hosted in the community and who have specific protection concerns is being explored in some of those contexts. Referral of cases of vulnerable IDPs by civil society and community-based organizations provides another means for outreach.

Similarly, collaborative approaches for profiling IDP situations (such as the collaborative work of the inter-agency Joint Internal Displacement Profiling Service (JIPS)) in urban settings capitalize on collaboration with local partners (e.g. national institutes of statistics) to design and tailor methodologies to the local contexts in order to identify where IDPs are located and what their main characteristics and specificities are, compared to the host population, through qualitative and quantitative methods (including household surveys). The different tools for profiling, including qualitative and quantitative questionnaires used for the profiling exercise, are also elaborated jointly with those partners. This ensures that questions are formulated and data are collected in a protection-sensitive manner, taking into account the specificities of the context and the potential threats to which IDPs might be exposed. This approach has proven effective for enhancing the ability to identify IDPs in multiple settings, including urban violence settings, where the involvement of local actors who not only know the communities but are also known and trusted by them helps to mitigate protection risks and to encourage people to reveal their current situation. Data analysis is also done collaboratively with the purpose of validating the findings and ensuring the use of the information by all the partners involved.⁹⁶

People in urban areas normally have easy access to information and communication technologies. This creates opportunities to establish multiple channels for sharing and receiving information, with a view to reaching the maximum number of people.⁹⁷ Mobile phones and electronic media, as well as broadcast media, can be used to disseminate information on legal rights and humanitarian services available for IDPs or to convey life-saving messages (e.g. on safe behaviour to reduce risk exposure related to the presence of mines and unexploded ordnances in areas to which people may be moving or returning). Mobile phones can also help to collect real-time information on needs, monitor population movements (through geo-referenced phone call data) or receive feedback and complaints on programmes that have been carried out, when direct access to internally displaced communities is not, or is no longer, possible, or when physically locating them is problematic.⁹⁸ The ICRC uses telephone hotlines to help families re-establish contact with separated family members or as part of monitoring and evaluating the implementation of its economic security programmes on behalf of conflict-affected people, including IDPs. It has been testing the establishment of “multi-programme” hotlines to channel all types of requests from actual or potential beneficiaries and use them to establish a first contact with IDPs and other people in need of support, including on protection matters.⁹⁹

Churches, mosques and other public spaces, such as hospitals or schools, in neighbourhoods of a city where IDPs may be present can be used as points for information dissemination, e.g. through posters, leaflets, public announcements or information sessions. Establishing safe places where IDPs can meet with service providers in relative security and receive specialized support is also crucial.¹⁰⁰ In Colombia, for example, the ICRC helped the government set up units tasked with providing comprehensive support and orientation to the internally displaced population. These units, whose offices are present in various cities of the country, bring together in one place the full range of public services available for internally displaced individuals and families. They allow IDPs to engage with staff from various public entities in a protected environment, where they can find help to deal with their specific situation (e.g. possibility to apply for inclusion in the official register, information about social benefits, legal advice and psychological support).¹⁰¹ This limits the need for IDPs to move around the city in order to reach different offices for orientation and support, which involves transportation costs, can be time-consuming and is even considered dangerous by some people. In some situations, humanitarian actors will have to find suitable places where they can hold meetings with IDPs in a way that ensures safety and confidentiality, especially for discussions about protection issues.¹⁰²

Addressing urgent protection needs

The flight and the early phase of displacement upon people's arrival in a new locality can be life-threatening in cities devastated by warfare or grappling with criminal violence. Addressing people's urgent protection concerns in these situations is therefore particularly challenging. In a war-torn city, it requires engaging with all parties to the conflict to ensure that, while doing everything possible to protect and spare the civilian population and prevent forced displacement in violation of IHL,¹⁰³ they also allow civilians who run for their lives to leave the zone of active hostilities.¹⁰⁴ For instance, on the eve of the battle for Iraq's second-largest city Mosul, and when military operations were intensifying inside the city, the ICRC repeatedly called on all parties to the conflict to do their outmost to protect civilians and to allow them safe passage out of the area.¹⁰⁵ The ICRC also monitored the conditions of those fleeing Mosul who were screened, questioned or detained by the Iraqi authorities for possible links with the Islamic State, with the aim of preventing ill-treatment and disappearances and ensuring that family members stayed in contact.¹⁰⁶ Efforts by humanitarian organizations to ensure that people fleeing conflict can move safely and reach more stable locations may also include securing a humanitarian corridor to facilitate people's movement and carrying out their evacuation from a besieged city, with the agreement of all parties involved.¹⁰⁷ Such efforts can be hampered by access and security issues, the fragmented nature of armed groups, ongoing military operations and the presence of mines, improvised explosive devices and unexploded ordnance. Becoming involved in the evacuation of parts of the civilian population is, furthermore, a complex decision for humanitarian actors. It entails carefully evaluating the possible threats to the safety and well-being of both the evacuees and the people who may stay behind, as well as the risks of being instrumentalized to support the implementation of harmful policies (as would be the case, for instance, if the attacks from which civilians needed to be evacuated were intended to cleanse them out of an area, and evacuations might thus facilitate that objective).¹⁰⁸

The situation faced by individuals and families directly targeted by armed actors is sometimes so critical that they may require immediate help to leave and find refuge elsewhere. In Colombia, for example, the ICRC has assisted victims of repeated threats and abuses by armed group members with transportation costs and some emergency provisions, so that they could move to another part of the country where they could be safer. Some of them were already displaced, having been compelled to leave the countryside or another city because of the same or similar threats, and found themselves again at great risk.¹⁰⁹ Likewise, in Honduras, the ICRC, jointly with the Honduran Red Cross and in coordination with the authorities and other actors, helps highly vulnerable returnees from Mexico who cannot go back to their homes and become IDPs because of critical protection concerns related to the violence, to relocate elsewhere within the country. Besides transport, the ICRC provides them with emergency assistance to cover their basic necessities when no other actor is in a position to do so.¹¹⁰ The ICRC is currently strengthening its outreach in order to be able to offer similar support to people at high risk who flee from their places of residence and move within Honduras. At the same time, the ICRC works in close coordination with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) and local civil society organizations, within the framework of Honduras's Inter-Institutional Commission for the Protection of Persons Displaced by Violence, to support the authorities in adopting a legal framework and establishing a comprehensive protocol on victim support and assistance, including special protection measures for IDPs at risk.¹¹¹

As the example of Honduras suggests, ensuring an adequate State response to the acute protection needs of persons internally displaced by criminal violence requires multiple coordinated and complementary efforts. Obtaining recognition of arbitrary displacement as a crime and of the related responsibility of the authorities to protect and assist victims is just one step,¹¹² once the problem has been publicly acknowledged. Support from humanitarian actors is needed for the adoption of specialized legislation and specific protection programmes targeting IDPs, and for their implementation. Protective measures must be tailored to the needs of IDPs and must avoid exposing them to added risk. Witness protection programmes are usually not sufficient, notably as IDPs tend not to report crimes against them due to fear of retribution and lack of faith in the police and the justice system.¹¹³ In parallel to the legislative and institutional strengthening process, support to civil society organization networks can serve to provide IDPs with more immediate protection options (while building local capacity for a sustainable response).¹¹⁴ Particular efforts are required in this regard to identify relocation sites and develop safe shelter options. These can consist of suitable hotels, private apartments or safe houses established for the purpose of hosting IDPs facing a high level of risks – depending on available options and on considerations related to the particular situation of the persons concerned, including the likelihood (which may be higher in cases of intra-urban displacement) that their persecutors manage to find them and that they find themselves again in danger.¹¹⁵ Temporary safe shelters should be places where internally displaced individuals and families can find humanitarian assistance, psychosocial support and legal counselling as they take the time to reflect on their next steps, to help them make an informed decision concerning their future despite the dire circumstances.¹¹⁶ Options should be made available for members of the same family to be accommodated together in the same shelter.¹¹⁷

Supporting integration in urban areas

Although return tends to be the preferred durable solution for many in a large number of internal displacement situations, IDPs in relatively stable urban areas often prefer to stay and integrate locally.¹¹⁸ As a result of the complex interplay between urbanization and displacement, people displaced from rural to urban areas are more likely to choose not to go back home even when security seems to have improved, or may decide to relocate to another, larger city.¹¹⁹ Women often prefer to stay in cities as they feel that their family and community status and their income-generating ability are better there. Young people tend overwhelmingly to prefer urban life.¹²⁰ In general, the longer displacement lasts, the more return becomes a remote option.¹²¹ Even when return remains someone's desired objective, supporting their social and economic integration in the place of displacement is crucial to enabling them to establish as normal a life as possible, while waiting for conditions at the place of origin to become conducive to their safe and sustainable return. It avoids their prolonged dependence on humanitarian assistance and allows IDPs to progressively reduce their displacement-related needs and vulnerabilities.¹²²

Whether it amounts to a durable solution in itself or to a temporary solution until return or relocation elsewhere are possible, promoting IDPs’ self-reliance and their access to basic services is a key part of the pathway to local integration into cities. Enhancing income-generating opportunities for IDPs entails helping them to gain appropriate urban livelihood skills (if they originate from rural areas) in order to find a job, and/or helping them to start a business, while also ensuring their inclusion in public programmes and development plans aimed at boosting employment and reducing poverty.¹²³ Facilitating IDPs’ access to urban services such as housing, water, health care and education involves, at a minimum, providing them with information on how these services are delivered (this is particularly useful for people displaced from rural areas, who may not be familiar with the relevant procedures) and helping them obtain the necessary documents (for example, by removing existing legal or administrative obstacles). In cities affected by armed conflict or other situations of violence, where inadequate infrastructure and overstretched services are further strained by the presence of IDPs, it requires first of all improving infrastructure and services for the entire population in host areas, while ensuring that IDPs can benefit from those on par with their non-displaced neighbours, based on a comprehensive analysis of the impact of displacement on IDPs and urban service provision at the city and sub-city levels.¹²⁴ The inclusion of IDPs into city-wide urban and development planning is key in this regard.¹²⁵

This underscores the need for integrated approaches combining blanket, area-based interventions in order to respond to the structural challenges that internal displacement typically poses to cities, with tailored measures to address the specific needs of urban IDPs in terms of access to employment, documentation, housing, awareness of rights and legal counselling (e.g. for eviction cases), as well as their protection concerns.¹²⁶ Implementing such approaches demands complementary and coordinated efforts by humanitarian and development actors in support of the authorities at the central and local levels, the latter having the primary responsibility for protection of and assistance to IDPs.¹²⁷ There is also a need for strategies that leverage the opportunities offered by existing urban capacities and response networks through developing partnerships and making constructive linkages between the diversity of actors and the diversity of needs.¹²⁸

The ICRC's programme on facilitating access to official employment for IDPs in various cities of Colombia, through partnerships with private and semi-private companies, is an example of how humanitarian actors, by providing tailored support to IDPs in finding sustainable livelihood options in the city, are able to integrate longer-term considerations related to recovery, resilience and local integration into their response.¹²⁹ In doing so, humanitarian actors can complement the efforts of development actors, who are better placed to work with public authorities on broader and structural issues of unemployment and poverty reduction, but are usually not in a position to address specific vulnerabilities at the individual and household levels.¹³⁰ The programme also speaks to the value of working in partnership with the private sector, in an enabling policy environment and within an established formal labour market, to increase employment opportunities for urban IDPs, while also raising the awareness of industry in terms of social responsibility towards IDPs.¹³¹

In various countries, the ICRC has increasingly been involved in the rehabilitation, upgrading and/or construction of essential water or other public infrastructure (e.g. sanitation and electrical installations, primary health-care centres, hospitals and schools) in urban areas affected by protracted armed conflict and internal displacement. The urban services approach implemented by the ICRC consists of building sustainable strategies into emergency responses. It is based on a shift from a solely “reactive” mode to one that bridges short-term (emergency “quick-fix”) measures with more medium- to long-term structural responses. It is about incorporating existing city systems from the outset by working with local actors in order to support those systems, so that they can cope with increased demand now and in the future. In doing so, responses take into account the impact of internal displacement on the city as a whole and assist host communities and IDPs in tandem. This approach strives to prevent development reversals by keeping alive critical infrastructure, but also paves the ground for further development interventions.¹³² To give just one example, in the Central African Republic, after setting up an emergency response to supply water (by water-trucking) to the large IDP camp near Bangui airport, the ICRC undertook the rehabilitation of the city's water distribution network, in partnership with the local water provider. This allowed the ICRC and other actors to respond in a more sustainable manner to the needs of both internally displaced and resident populations.¹³³

In supporting local integration into cities, working closely and more effectively with municipal authorities and urban service providers is crucial to ensure local ownership and a more sustainable response, informed by the solid knowledge of the urban context that local actors can bring, as well as to promote the integration of IDPs into urban planning.¹³⁴ However, it becomes a delicate issue, in view of principled action, if the authorities are associated with a party to the conflict or local actors are involved in urban violence or are pursuing a political agenda. Another difficulty arises when municipal authorities do not see their hosting role as permanent and are reluctant to allow IDPs to integrate into the city, for example, because they fear this may attract new arrivals or because they perceive IDPs as a security threat. Other factors, such as concerns about possible changes in voting patterns if IDPs stay, can also influence how municipal authorities (as well as national authorities) see local integration.¹³⁵

Conclusion

There is a critical knowledge gap on the phenomenon of urban internal displacement. Not only are its real proportions globally unknown, but also documentation of the specific experience of IDPs in urban settings and how their situation differs from and impacts that of their non-displaced neighbours is still lacking. This article has therefore attempted to provide a more nuanced analysis of the particular needs, vulnerabilities and capacities of urban IDPs, one that takes into account how the context (city at war, city affected by urban violence or more stable city) and the pattern (rural-to-urban, inter-urban and intra-urban) in which urban internal displacement occurs contribute to shaping people's experience. It has highlighted that the context has an influence on the needs and protection profile of urban IDPs, while the pattern of displacement affects their resilience.

Urban IDPs tend to disappear into the larger population of the city, a phenomenon that increasingly represents the norm of urban displacement. Often physically accessible but difficult to identify and reach, they are at risk of falling through the protection and assistance nets.¹³⁶ It is more than just a case of being “out of sight, out of mind”, as urban IDPs who stay within the host community, with relatives or in rented accommodation, are often assumed to be less in need of support than people in camps, which is not necessarily the case. Their being melded together with host communities is frequently mistaken as them having already achieved local integration.¹³⁷ Furthermore, because IDPs in cities share similar problems with the resident poor, their specific concerns may become overlooked if responses are limited to development and poverty reduction interventions – or vice versa, responses may fail to consider the broader impact of internal displacement on host communities and the city as a whole if they are focused exclusively on internally displaced individuals and households.

People displaced to or within cities at war are often at risk of coming under attack, either directly or as a consequence of the use of indiscriminate means or methods of warfare, and remain vulnerable to the disruption of essential services caused by the armed conflict. In cities affected by urban violence, IDPs may be pursued by armed groups who directly threaten them, and may be obliged to live in hiding. IDPs who manage to reach more stable cities may be relatively safe, but often find themselves without adequate access to housing, water and sanitation, employment, health care or education, and are obliged to resort to harmful coping mechanisms to survive. Furthermore, being displaced from rural to urban settings compounds the difficulties that IDPs typically face as part of being uprooted from their homes and placed in unfamiliar environments, lacking social and protective networks. It makes it harder for people to cope with the situation, notably as they have difficulty adapting their livelihood strategies and recovering their independence. More research is needed to sharpen our understanding of the similarities and differences in the situation of IDPs in various possible scenarios, the specificities of rural-to-urban displacement compared to inter-urban and intra-urban displacement, and the range of experiences, needs and capacities of IDPs compared to their host families and host communities in urban settings. Profiling of urban displacement situations can be a useful tool for this, as it allows for area-based, comparative analyses between the different population groups living in one city.

When multifaceted displacement dynamics intersect with the complexity of the city, the result is a unique set of challenges confronting authorities, humanitarian actors and other actors seeking to provide protection, assistance and solutions to those affected. Today it is widely acknowledged that these unique challenges cannot be addressed by simply replicating what works in rural settings. Rather, specific multi-sector approaches are required that meet the needs of IDPs and their hosts by aligning humanitarian and development work, capitalizing on local partnerships and resources, and effectively engaging with communities. However, there is still a need to develop methodologies that bring together area-based approaches and diversity in urban settings, as well as operational guidance on how best to articulate the two levels of the response – i.e., blanket interventions addressing the developmental needs of entire urban communities and targeted measures addressing IDPs’ specific needs and vulnerabilities – in order to ensure the continuity and coherence of short- and long-term efforts, as well as a protection-oriented response to IDPs. There is also limited knowledge, both within and across the different organizations, of lessons learned and good operational practices as regards responding to IDPs and host communities in urban settings. This is a domain where stocktaking exercises and more effective sharing of experiences among practitioners, municipal authorities and policy-makers would be particularly beneficial.¹³⁸