LONDON (AlertNet) - When it comes to depicting people uprooted within their own borders what could be more stereotypical than an image of a camp?
Yet most internally displaced people (IDPs) are not living in camps where food distributions, health services, water supplies and schools are pretty much guaranteed.
Most IDPs stay with their extended families and host communities that, hardly any better off, strain to feed more mouths, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said.
By the end of last year, there were an estimated 26 million internally displaced people around the world, more than double the number of refugees -- those who have fled to another country and are protected by international treaties.
The ICRC, in a report released this week, laid out the difficulties of tackling internal displacement, which ICRC
President Jakob Kellenberger says is one of the most daunting humanitarian challenges of the day.
The report considers whether camps are a solution or part of the problem, highlights the plight of those unable to flee, lists the myriad ways IDPs can fall through the gaps and asks whether IDPs are in fact those in greatest need.
"Camps deflect the world's attention from the harsh truth of internal displacement. They may be the last resort but more often than not they are in accessible places, away from frontlines, near towns, perhaps, or at least a short drive from an airstrip," the report said.
"Donors and media are flown in and out and what they find becomes high-profile. The consequence is that for far too long the debate on IDPs has focused on those who are in camps to the detriment of those who are not."
MORE HELP NEED OUTSIDE CAMPS
ICRC said the greatest humanitarian needs were frequently outside the camps with some of the most vulnerable staying put -- choosing to guard the few resources they have, or because they are to old or infirm to flee. But it suggested that many donors were sceptical of needs which were not immediately visible.
ICRC said it was "greatly concerned" about the increasing tendency within the humanitarian and donor communities to consider the needs of IDPs as separate and distinct from those of resident populations.
"From the operational management perspective it is very frustrating. It is potentially very misleading," the report quoted a senior manager with field experience in Asia and Africa as saying. "An IDP can be better off than a non-IDP who suffers in the same situation. The label doesn't tell us anything."
Perhaps the toughest question ICRC poses is whether camps, which it and U.N. agencies consider a last resort, do more harm than good.
Not only are they often a source of tension between IDP populations and local communities, but are frequently wide open to armed groups looking to extort food and taxes, recruit fighters and hide weapons.
"Do camps and the 'pull' of their services in fact increase displacement, prolong it, and undermine traditional methods of coping? The argument for that is strong," the report says.
"Fear and insecurity drive people from their homes but, the argument goes, the lure of social services way beyond anything they have ever experienced may encourage the flight, or even advance it. Sometimes the 'pull' might be the decisive factor."
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
