Behind the Scenes, Kenya IDP Report - Danish Refugee Council

Behind the ScenesJanuary2013Lessons Learnt from Developinga National Policy Framework onInternal Displacement in KenyaA study carried out by the Refugee Consortium of Kenya in partnership withthe Danish Refugee Council - Great Lakes Programme

Behind the ScenesLessons Learnt from Developinga National Policy Framework onInternal Displacement in KenyaJanuary 2013Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in KenyaI

AcknowledgementsThis documentation study was commissioned by the Refugee Consortium of Kenya (RCK) and theDanish Refugee Council’s Great Lakes Civil Society Project. The study was undertaken and compiled intwo phases. The first phase of collecting primary and secondary data, compiling the findings and writingthe report was done by Davis M. Malombe. The second phase of writing and finalising the report was doneby Joseph Omolo in consultation with the Study Advisory Group (SAG).The process of conducting the study and the compilation of this final report immensely benefited fromthe guidance, review, support and supervision of the SAG. The SAG was made up of staff from the RefugeeConsortium of Kenya (Lucy Kiama – Executive Director, Leila Muriithia – Senior Programme Officer,Rufus Karanja – Programme Officer, Ad-vocacy and Riva Jalipa - Associate Programme Officer, Advocacy)and the Danish Refugee Council (Alexandra Bilak – Programme Manager, Great Lakes CivilSociety Project and Pauline Wesolek – Programme Officer, Great Lakes Civil Society Project). The StudyAdvisory Group also played a key role in providing technical, logistical and administrative support for thestudy.RCK and DRC extend their gratitude to all the partners and members of the Protection Working Group onInternal Displacement, including those at the field level who were interviewed for the study. RCK thanksall the internally displaced persons who were interviewed for this study in Nakuru, Eldoret and Kitale.Their practical experience and knowledge significantly supported the findings of this study.Finally, RCK and DRC thank the Kenya Government officials, in particular Michael Nyamai (MoSSP),Joseph Gitonga (MoJNCCA), Members of Parliament including Hon. Ekwe Ethuro as the Chair of thePSC, Hon. Sophia Abdi as the Chair of the LSWC and other international partners who agreed to be interviewedfor this study and who have been closely involved in the policy development process.IIBehind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in KenyaIII

List of AbbreviationsAcquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeAdvocacy Sub-Working GroupAfrican UnionChildren’s Legal Action NetworkCivil Society OrganisationsGreat Lakes Civil Society ProjectHuman Immunodeficiency VirusInternational Conference on the Great Lakes RegionInternational Displacement Monitoring CentreInternal Displacement Policy and Advocacy CentreInternally Displaced PersonsInternational Refugee Rights InitiativeKenya Human Rights CommissionKenya National Commission for Human RightsKenyans for Truth with Peace and JusticeLamu Port-Southern Sudan-Ethiopia TransportLegal and Advocacy Sub-working GroupLand Sector Non-State ActorsLabour and Social Welfare CommitteeMinistry of Justice National Cohesion and Constitutional AffairsMinistry of State for Special ProgrammesNorth Frontier DistrictsNon-Governmental OrganisationsNorwegian Refugee CouncilOffice of the Higher Commissioner for Human RightsProtection ClusterPost-Election ViolenceParliamentary Select Committee on the Resettlement of IDPs in KenyaProtection Working Group on Internal DisplacementRefugee Consortium of KenyaThe Office of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the Human Rights of IDPsSpecial Rapporteur on the Human Rights of IDPsTruth, Justice and Reconciliation CommissionUnited NationsUnited Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesUnited Nations Children’s FundUnited Nations Office Coordinating Humanitarian AffairsAIDSASWGAUCLANCSOsGCPHIVICGLRIDMCIDPACIDPIRRIKHRCKNCHRKTPJLAPSSETLASWGLSNALSWCMoJNCCAMoSSPNFDsNGOsNRCOHCHRPCPEVPSCPWGIDRCKRSGSR/IDPsTJRCUNUNHCRUNICEFUNOCHAIVBehind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in KenyaV

ForewordInternal displacement in Kenya has been described as a historical problem which has been exacerbatedby the lack of a comprehensive legal and policy framework to, at the least, recognise who an IDP is andwhere responsibilities lie. As a result, the Kenyan Government has in most instances responded to theproblem in an ad hoc and needs-based manner as opposed to a rights-based one that is premised on internationallyaccepted human rights standards.Following the devastating impact of the 2007/08 post-election violence in which over 1,300 personswere killed and over 600,000 others internally displaced, the Kenya Government, through the Ministryof State for Special Programmes (MoSSP) and in collaboration with humanitarian and non-state actors,embarked on the development of an IDP Policy. This policy was intended to help the Government betterprevent instances of internal displacement, to provide enhanced protection and assistance to internallydisplaced persons (IDPs) and to promote the achievement of durable solutions for IDPs. This initiativelater transformed into the development of legislation on internal displacement (IDP Bill, 2012).The development and lobbying process of these frameworks has been prolonged and demanding on resources.The experience, however, has been rewarding in terms of both the near realisation of progressiveframeworks but also as a learning process for actors who have been instrumental in these processes.The Kenyan experience is a commendable one, in that it has benefitted to a great extent from the immensesupport and collaboration from the Government. That is not to say that it has not had its fair share of challengesnor that it has not been without good fortunes. The documentation of this process is an importantone which could inform future advocacy strategies on policy development and is also a means of reflectionfor those who have been involved in the process.This study by the Refugee Consortium of Kenya and the Danish Refugee Council (Great Lakes Civil SocietyProject) could not be any more timely, as signatories to the African Union Convention on the Protectionand Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons (Kampala Convention) seek to domesticate thisConvention.Dr. Chaloka BeyaniUN Special Rapporteur onthe Human Rights of IDPsVIBehind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in KenyaVII

Table of ContentsAcknowledgementsList of AbbreviationsForewordTable of contentExecutive SummaryIIIVVIIIXXIChapter 1 Introduction 11.1. The Kenyan Context 11.2. The Political and Technical Processes Towards Drafting the IDP Policy 21.3. Purpose and Objectives of the Study 21.4. The Partnership between the Refugee Consortium of Kenyaand the Danish Refugee Council (Great Lakes Civil Society Project ) 21.5.1. Desk Review 31.5.2. Key Informant Interviews 31.5.3. Internal RCK Reflection 31.5.4. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 41.5.5. Shortcomings of the Methodology 4Chapter 2 Setting the Scene 62.1. Causes of Displacement in Kenya 62.1.1. Colonial and Post-Colonial Factors 62.1.2. Election-related Violence 62.1.3. Border and Resource Disputes Including Cattle Rustling and Banditry 72.1.4. Natural and Human Made Disasters 72.1.5. Development Projects and Displacement 72.2. Towards a Policy Framework 72.2.1. Development of an Overarching Policy Framework 82.2.2. Development of a Legislative Framework 82.2.3. Synchronising the Policy and Legislative Processes 82.2.4. Taking Stock of the Process 11Chapter 3 The Role of the PWGID: Added Valueof a National Coordination Mechanism 133.1. Institutional Responses to the Post-Election Violence in 2007/2008 133.2. Collective Responses within the PWGID 133.3. Key Achievements of the PWGID 143.4. Key Challenges 15Chapter 4 The Role of Civil Society 174.1. Identifying the Problem 174.2. Policy Choices 18VIIIBehind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in KenyaIX

Executive Summary4.3. Policy Formulation 184.4. Policy Adoption 194.5. Policy Implementation 204.6. Policy Evaluation 204.7. Participatory Nature of the Policy Development Process 20Chapter 5: Navigating through a Tough Political Environment 235.1. Sensitivity of the Topic of Internal Displacement in Kenya 235.1.1. Post-election violence 2007 235.1.2. Ethnic Dimension 235.1.3. State responsibility for IDPs 245.2. Institutional context 245.2.1. Different Visions: The Executive versus Parliament 245.2.2. Private Member’s Bill 245.2.3. Engaging with Actors and Managing Interests 255.3. Impact of Changes in the Political Scene since 2007 255.3.1. Implementation of the 2010 Constitution 255.3.2. Proceedings at the International Criminal Court 265.3.3. Upcoming Elections 26Chapter 6: Lessons Learned and Recommendations 286.1. Lessons Learned 286.1.1. A Critical Mass of Local Actors 286.1.2. Coordination of Advocacy Work 286.1.3. Resource Mobilisation 286.1.4. Involvement of the Government 286.1.5. Adapting International Standards to Local Conditions 296.1.6. Creation and Utilisation of Networks and Personal Contacts 296.1.7. Timing 306.1.8. Inclusion and Participation 306.1.9. Institutional Weaknesses and Capacity Building for Actors 306.1.10. Flexibility, Concessions and Compromises 306.1.11. Local and External expertise 306.2. Recommendations to Countries Wishing to Engagein the Process of Developing a Policy on Internal Displacement 31Kenya is in the final stages of developing a Policy on internal displacement. Its legislature has recentlypassed a law to provide for the protection and provision of assistance to IDPs based on the provisions ofthe Great Lakes Protocol on the Protection and Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons (Great LakesIDP Protocol) and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (Guiding Principles).Almost all countries within the Great Lakes Region 1 have a population of internally displaced personswhose displacement has been occasioned by a number of factors such as conflicts, natural and man-madedisasters and development projects. Despite this, most countries within the region lack a policy frameworkon internal displacement. At the moment, there is growing momentum to establish a model frameworkbased on the Guiding Principles, the Great Lakes Protocol and African Union Convention for theProtection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention).This report is the result of a project commissioned by the Refugee Consortium of Kenya and the DanishRefugee Council’s Great Lakes Civil Society Project, whose purpose was to capture and analyse theadvocacy and engagement process that went into the preparation of the IDP Policy and Bill in Kenya. Byhighlighting the challenges and lessons learnt from the process, the outcome of the project should make auseful guide for discussions on advocacy strategies for forced migration policies at the regional and continentallevel.This report highlights a number of best practices based on the Kenyan experience. These best practicesshould serve as a guide to persons involved in policy development on forced migration within the region.Some of the best practices may also be applicable to policy development work in other sectors locally andregionally. The best practices identified from the process revolved around issues like: creation of a criticalmass of actors; establishment of a national coordination mechanism; strategies for resource mobilisation;partnership with the government in the policy development process; adaptation of internationalprotection benchmarks to suit local conditions; creation and utilisation of networks; timing of policy developmentprocesses; participation in the process; identification of institutional weaknesses and buildingthe capacity of actors to boost their participation in the process; need for flexibility on policy developmentoptions; and use of local and external expertise. Based on these issues, the report offers a number of comprehensiverecommendations aimed at different actors.Appendices 33Bibliography 35Footnotes 37XBehind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in KenyaXI

Chapter 1:Introduction1.1. The Kenyan ContextKenya is in the final stages of developing a Policyon internal displacement. Its legislature has recentlypassed a law to provide for the protectionand provision of assistance to IDPs based on theprovisions of the Great Lakes IDP Protocol on theProtection and Assistance to Internally DisplacedPersons and the United Nations Guiding Principleson Internal Displacement. The President assentedto the Bill on 31 st December 2012. 2Advocacy work in Kenya for the establishment ofa national policy on the protection of IDPs startedin April 2007 when Kenyan civil society organisations(CSOs), United Nations (UN) agencies andgovernment ministries working on IDP issuesestablished a task force on the protection of IDPs.The mandate of the taskforce included organisinga national conference on the protection of IDPsin November 2007, with a view to strengtheningmechanisms for immediate responses and advocatefor durable solutions for all categories of IDPs.Following the violence that erupted in 2007/ 2008,the National Disaster Operations Centre 3 , on behalfof the Government of Kenya, called upon humanitarianagencies to work towards mitigatingthe humanitarian crisis caused by the post-electionviolence. As a result, eleven clusters were establishedunder the UN system to facilitate rapidmobilisation of donor funding, to provide a mechanismfor coordinating humanitarian assistanceand to support government structures and helprestore their capacities.A national IDP Protection Cluster formed by theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR) was part of this cluster systemwith representation from more than 30 agenciesincluding the Ministry of Justice, NationalCohesion and Constitutional Affairs (MoJNC-CA), the Kenya National Commission for HumanRights (KNCHR), UN agencies, national and internationalNGOs and community-based organisations.In early 2009, the Protection Cluster was transformedinto a national-level Protection WorkingGroup on Internal Displacement (PWGID)in order to expand its capacity for advocacy andto cover other interventions on a long term basis.The mandate of the PWGID included: advocacyand capacity-building of government institutionsthrough training sessions on the Guiding Principles;advocacy for the implementation of the GreatLakes IDP Protocol; participation in efforts towardsthe finalisation of the Kampala Convention,which existed then in a draft form; and elaborationof a national policy on internal displacement.1.2. The Political andTechnical ProcessesTowards Draftingthe IDP PolicyIn July 2009, the first stakeholders’ forum was heldat which the process of developing a policy on internaldisplacement for Kenya was initiated. Participantsat the forum included senior representativesfrom the Ministry of State for Special Programmes(MoSSP), from the National Steering Committeeon Peacebuilding and Conflict Management, theProvincial Administration and members of thePWGID. The outcome was a consensus on the needfor a national policy to address situations of internaldisplacement in Kenya. The PWGID was thengiven the mandate to devise a strategy for draftingthe policy in collaboration with MoJNCCA andMoSSP.The process of drafting the policy was taken upXIIBehind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 1

Chapter 1: Introductionby the MoSSP and the Legal and Advocacy Sub-Working Group (LASWG), a theme group underthe PWGID. Meetings were hosted at the ministryon a weekly basis with a technical advisor fromthe office of the Special Rapporteur on the HumanRights of IDPs (SR-IDPs) providing technicalsupport to the team. In March 2010, partnersreviewed a preliminary draft for the policy duringthe second stakeholders’ forum.From May to December 2010, the LASWG developedand disseminated a matrix auditing the legal,policy and institutional framework in relation tothe protection of IDPs. The matrix indicated theweaknesses in the existing framework and justifiedthe need for a concrete legal framework andfor implementing the draft Policy. In November2010, the team amended the draft policy to reflectthe provisions of the newly-promulgated KenyanConstitution so that it correlated with the frameworkfor devolution, human rights, values andprinciples of governance under the Constitution.Further revisions were made in July 2012 to makethe draft Policy compatible with the Land Act(2012), the Land Registration Act (2012) and theNational Land Commission Act (2012). On 16thMarch 2011, the group submitted a draft cabinetmemo to MoSSP to accompany the policy for itspresentation to cabinet.To further entrench its advocacy work, the PW-GID had engagements with other stakeholders likethe Parliamentary Select Committee on the Resettlementof IDPs (PSC) and the Labour and SocialWelfare Committee (LWSC), which resulted inthe development of the Bill on internal displacement.The Prevention, Protection and Assistanceto Internally Displaced Persons Bill has alreadyreceived Presidential assent while the broaderpolicy document has been approved by the Cabinetand is awaiting presentation to Parliament fordebate. 41.3. Purpose and Objectivesof the StudyThe purpose of this study is to capture and analysethe advocacy and engagement process that wentinto the preparation of the IDP Policy and Bill inKenya. By highlighting the challenges and lessonslearnt from the process, the outcome of this studyshould make a useful guide for discussions on advocacystrategies on forced migration policy at thenational, regional and continental level.According to the Brookings Institution’s databaseon national laws and policies on internal displacement,only four countries in the Great Lakes regionhave developed an IDP-specific policy to deal withparticular protection needs. 5 The Kenyan experiencecould therefore inspire other countries withinthe region and beyond, especially as momentumbuilds up for the implementation of the GuidingPrinciples, the Kampala Convention and the GreatLakes IDP Protocol. Beyond its particular contexton internal displacement, lessons learnt from theKenyan process could also be useful for reflectingon policy development work in other sectors.1.4. The Partnership betweenthe Refugee Consortium ofKenya and the Danish RefugeeCouncil (Great LakesCivil Society Project)The Great Lakes Civil Society Project is a regionalprogramme implemented since January 2010 bythe Danish Refugee Council in partnership withcivil society organisations in six countries of theGreat Lakes region: Burundi, Central African Republic,Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya,South Sudan and Uganda. The vision of the programmeis to build the capacity of civil society tohold governments accountable to their commitmentsto protect displaced persons by proposingrealistic policy solutions to conflict and displacement.The programme supports national civil societyorganisations in documenting and analysingspecific displacement and conflict issues, andtranslating these analyses into practical advocacygoals at the local, national and regional levels. Theproject relies on existing legal and political frameworksfor the protection of refugees and IDPs and,where possible, encourages cross-border learningbetween civil society organisations and regionalinitiatives aimed at providing joint solutions to regionaldisplacement problems.The Refugee Consortium of Kenya (RCK) is anational Non-Governmental Organisation thatworks to promote and protect the rights and dignityof refugees and other forced migrants. RCK wasconstituted and registered in 1998 in response tothe increasingly complex refugee situation in Kenya.RCK is distinct in the role it plays in promotingthe welfare and rights of refugees and other forcedmigrants. It focuses on refugee and IDP issues usinga human rights and social justice approach asit advocates for their rights. In partnership withits networks locally, regionally and internationally,RCK has been able to deal with a wide rangeof issues in forced migration. These include legalreforms, policy development, civic education, researchand information dissemination, refugeeand IDP empowerment and capacity building.Since 2010, RCK in partnership with DRC GreatLakes has been engaged in IDP work under threestrategic objectives for the year 2012: i) Lobbyingfor the enactment of the IDP Policy with differentduty bearers; ii) Creating awareness on the rightsand protection needs of IDPs in Kenya; and iii)Documenting the advocacy and engagement processtowards an IDP policy framework in Kenya.1.5. Methodology of the Study1.5.1. Desk ReviewThis study was informed by a review of a numberof secondary sources of information in the formof publications, reports, minutes, concept papers,as well as relevant national, regional and internationalframeworks on IDPs. This information wasused to build the context on IDP protection, identifygaps in existing protection and advocacy initiatives,identify the key stakeholders in IDP work,and establish benchmarks for protection and advocacywork.1.5.2. Key Informant InterviewsThe study made use of purposive sampling, interviewingvarious respondents from organisationsor institutions that have taken an active part in thepolicy development process. These respondentsincluded state and non-state actors and representedinternational, national and field-based level actors.The interviews were mainly conducted usingsemi-structured questionnaires as well as informaldiscussions.In total, 22 stakeholders were interviewed. 13 wererepresentatives of state institutions comprisingof four international (mainly UN Agencies), sixnational (from relevant ministries, Kenya NationalCommission on Human Rights – KNCHR,and Parliament) and three field-based ProtectionWorking Group members (mainly from the ProvincialAdministration in Nakuru and Eldoret).Nine non-state actors were also interviewed: twointernational non-governmental organisations,four national actors and three members from theIDP Network. Informal reflections were also undertakenwith members of the Eldoret field-basedProtection Working Group on 26 st July 2012.1.5.3. Internal RCK ReflectionWhile the consultants who conducted this studycarried out interviews with the relevant stakeholdersin an attempt to re-enact and re-examinethe policy development process, they also reliedon information accumulated by RCK from its ownadvocacy work. RCK has played a significant rolein the development of the policy framework oninternal displacement in Kenya. Initial efforts inthis respect have included preliminary discussionswith actors around the prospect of developing anIDP Policy. After the post-election violence, therole of RCK became more concrete with the inceptionof the Protection Working Group on InternalDisplacement and of the legal and advocacy subgroupfor longer-term interventions such as policydevelopment, promotion of access to durable solutionsand ensuring a holistic approach to internaldisplacement in Kenya. The specific role of RCK2Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 3

Chapter 1: Introductioncannot be distinguished from the objectives andactivities of the advocacy sub-group of the PWGID.The strength of RCK as a partner in this sub-groupcould be ascribed to several factors, such as itsextensive experience in advocacy and policy development,most notably with the developmentof the Refugees Act in 2006. Its programming forthat period had the technical and financial supportof the Danish Refugee Council Great Lakes CivilSociety Project and its approach and long standingrelationship with relevant stakeholders includingGovernment Ministries, civil society, UN bodiesand the IDP communities was close and constantenough to influence and garner support for certaininitiatives and thus lend legitimacy to its actionsand the process at large. For instance, RCK soughtto address issues emerging at the local level suchas the flawed profiling exercise by the Government.RCK worked with partners to develop an abridgedversion of, and other IEC materials, on the draftpolicy. The IEC materials were disseminatedthrough its training sessions on peacebuilding andreconciliation with peace committee members inUasin Gishu County and other training sessions forstate and non-state actors on the rights of refugeesand other forced migrants. RCK also engaged withformal and informal channels to maintain knowledgeon the process and intervene where possiblewith this advocacy expertise. For instance, RCKbenefited from the Executive Director’s previousengagements with the Minister of State for SpecialProgrammes (MoSSP) in the development of theSexual Offences Act. 6 These established relationshipsand facilitated the organisation of high levelmeetings at short notice, helped the sub-group accesstimely information such as the status of thedraft policy within the MoSSP and made it easierfor RCK to mobilise the relevant ministry staff toparticipate in the key workshops and meetings relatedto advocacy around the draft IDP Policy.In the same spirit, the MoSSP recognised the roleof RCK in the process of developing the policyframework and subsequently invited RCK to contributeto critical technical meetings that pushedthe policy forward at different stages. Key meetingsincluded the first committee meeting of theParliamentary Select Committee on the Resettlementof IDPs in Naivasha in February 2011, and theworkshop between the MoSSP and the Ministry ofLand to build consensus around the provisions ofthe draft IDP Policy for both ministries in order toresubmit it to Cabinet in August 2012. RCK staffalso followed parliamentary proceedings duringtwo of the three readings of the IDP Bill in parliament.They regularly prepared briefing notes andshared with the advocacy sub-group to keep theminformed of progress of both the Policy and theBill.1.5.4. Theoretical and ConceptualFrameworkIn this study and report, “policy” will be understoodin a very broad sense to include generalpolicy, specific policy, laws, institutions and governmentpractice. Unless otherwise specified,therefore, reference to a policy framework includesreference to the Constitution, legislation,institutional set up and practices, whether in writtenform or not, existing in a single document orscattered across numerous sources, and whetherimplemented in an ad hoc manner or sustainedand guided by some objective work-plans. It alsoincludes failure by the Government to take particularaction or courses of action (omission).In analysing the role of CSOs, this study greatlyrelied on a five-stage policy development cyclewhich covers setting the agenda for policy development;formulating the policy; adopting the policy;implementing the policy; and evaluating thepolicy. 7 By using the cycle, this report systemicallyassesses and re-examines the policy developmentprocess for ease of reference and adaptability forapplication in other contexts.The analysis in this report greatly benefited fromthe approach outlined in the Brookings Institution’smanual for law and policymakers especiallyin assessing the standard of protection offeredthrough policy interventions. 8 While seeking to establishbest practices that could be utilised beyondthe national level, this study remained consciousof the primary obligation on the State to provideprotection and humanitarian assistance to internallydisplaced persons within their jurisdiction. 9At the heart of policymaking lies consensus-building,which is achieved through a consultative andparticipatory approach. This study views participationin policymaking as a continuum, with actorstaking part in the process to different extentsdepending on the surrounding circumstances andtheir inherent capabilities or disadvantages. As acontinuum, participation in policy encompassesa wide range of scenarios which may include: exchangeof information; public consultation andengagement; shared decisions and shared jurisdiction.Based on this, different actors would necessarilyengage with the policy development processto varying extents. This continuum was used to assessthe extent to which stakeholders participatedin the process of developing the policy framework.1.5.5. Shortcomings of theMethodologyThe study encountered some methodological challenges.First, there were several advancementsmade on the part of the Government towards thepolicy which were not properly documented. Thestudy would have benefited from engaging withmore Government stakeholders as key informantsthat could have shed light on the internal dynamicsthat affected the policy development process.This was not done on two accounts: first, becauseGovernment actors were scattered across numerousministries, sometimes with uncoordinated approaches,and second because of time constraints.For instance, while the PSC and its membersplayed an important role in the policy developmentprocess, it was not clear what their exact motivationwas nor what criteria were used to identifythe original members of the committee.Secondly, though the interviews with the respondentstargeted persons and institutions that hadbeen significantly involved in the policy developmentprocess, at the time of the study some ofthese respondents had moved to work with otherorganisations or in other sectors. This affected tosome extent the respondents’ understanding ofthe two processes.Thirdly, as some persons interviewed had beeninvolved in the process of developing the policyframework, there was a great risk of bias in theirassessment of the process. The study, however,greatly benefited from these persons who had theinstitutional memory of the process and remainkey proponents of the process.4Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 5

Chapter 2:Setting the SceneThe Great Lakes region is said to be home to overeight million internally displaced persons. 10 IDPsare persons or groups of persons who have beenforced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes orplaces of habitual residence, in particular as a resultof or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict,situations of generalised violence, violationsof human rights, natural or human-made disasters,and development programmes and who have notcrossed an internationally-recognised state border.11 Internal displacement within the region hasbeen caused by conflict, disaster, violence, massivedevelopment projects and socio-economicinequalities leading to landlessness among otherthings. This population is distributed across all thenations that fall within the region and represents asignificant segment of global statistics on internaldisplacement. 12Kenya has a long history of displacement with aclimax in the aftermath of the 2007/ 2008 postelectionviolence. This section discusses some ofthe causes of violence in Kenya as a way of providinga context for understanding advocacy work fora policy on internal displacement.2.1. Causes of Displacement inKenya2.1.1. Colonial and Post-ColonialFactorsThe introduction of colonisation saw the forceddisplacement of African communities from theirancestral lands to make way for the white settlers.In Kenya, this was exemplified in evictions fromfertile lands in Rift-Valley and Central Kenya wherethe natives were reduced to squatter-labour forcefor colonial settlers. At the time of independence,it was expected that this adverse legacy of colonialland alienation processes would be corrected. 13However, the post-independence governmentwent ahead to preside over a land re-distributionprogramme that instead became a further sourceof discord. Initial land allocations in favour of personswho had been labourers on the settler farmsincensed the pastoralist communities of the RiftValley and fuelled the sentiment of “outsider communities”which continues to persist to this day.The situation was compounded by a programme toempower communities through formation of landbuyingcompanies which saw large-scale land acquisitionby communities perceived as close to thecentre of power. This historical context infuseditself with the political and ethnic relations ofKenyan society and has become a cause of periodicpopulation movements and displacement inKenya. 142.1.2. Election-related ViolenceMassive internal displacement in Kenya can betraced to the re-introduction of multi-party politicsin 1992 with political parties formed largelyalong ethnic lines becoming vehicles for championingredress for perceived communal injustices.This trend continued into the 1997 general elections,with violence registered in the Rift Valleyand Coast provinces leading to the displacementof 120,000 people. The victims were largely fromcommunities perceived as supporters of oppositionparties. In total, election-related violence priorto the 2007 general elections is said to have beenresponsible for the displacement of approximately350,000 persons. 15 Violence following the 2007general elections saw an escalated and unprecedentedlevel of displacement that affected 663,921people. 16 Areas affected by election-related dis-placement include mainly Molo, Njoro, Kuresoi,Eldoret, Burnt Forest, and Coastal region. 172.1.3. Border and ResourceDisputes Including CattleRustling and BanditryClosely associated with political conflict are borderdisputes arising from arbitrarily establishedadministrative boundaries and contested landrights. As administrative boundaries began to createethnic enclaves, minority communities withinthese boundaries soon became the target of forcefulevictions. Areas such as Chesikaki in Mt. Elgon,Ol Moran in Laikipia West, Thangatha in Tigania,the Pokot/Turkana border, Riosiri in Rongo,Tembu in Sotik, Masurura in Transmara, Marsabit-Isioloand Tana River 18 have been particularlyproblematic in this regard. 19 Related to generaldisputes about resources is the evolution of cattlerustlingfrom a traditional practice to one of belligerenceand criminality fuelled by politics and theproliferation of small arms and light weapons. Pastoralistcommunities such as the Pokot, Turkana,Marakwet, Samburu, Tugen and Keiyo continue toendure incidences of displacement, death and lossof livestock over time 20 , as detailed in a 2003 studyon conflict in Northern Kenya estimating the levelof displacement in the pastoralist areas of NorthFrontier Districts (NFDs) 21 in Kenya 22 at 164,457.2.1.4. Natural and Human MadeDisasters 23A historical profile from 1975-2004 indicatesthat Kenya has experienced multiple episodes ofdrought, landslides and floods in various parts ofthe country with far-reaching economic and socialconsequences. 24 Kenya experiences regular floodsin the areas of Kano, Nyakach, Rachuonyo, Migori,Budalangi, Kilifi, Kwale, the Tana River Basin, Garrissa,Wajir, Nairobi, Nakuru, Mombasa, Kisumu,Baringo, Elgeyo and Marakwet districts. 25 Landslidesand mudslides also occur mostly during therainy season and are accelerated by flooding.2.1.5. Development Projects andDisplacementKenyans have also been displaced from their landsand homes on account of development projectsand environmental conservation efforts carriedout arbitrarily. A recent decision from the AfricanCommission on Human and Peoples’ Rights restoredthe land rights of the Endorois communitywho had been displaced from their ancestral landsto make way for a game reserve. 26 More recently,a taskforce recommended the eviction of personsdeemed to have encroached on the Mau Forestscomplex in a bid to conserve the country’s essentialwater towers. 27 As of September 2011, some6,500 families had been evicted from the complexwith a further 23,500 projected for eviction oncethe next phase of restoration commences. 28 Otherprojects that may lead to displacement includethe Lamu Port-Southern Sudan-Ethiopia Transport(LAPSSET) project and the discovery of oil inTurkana. The LAPSSET project will comprise of aport, an international airport and an oil refinery inLamu along with a road and pipeline network cuttingacross Kenya, Ethiopia and Southern Sudanand according to initial assessment by the governmentmay affect 6,000 families. 292.2. Towards a PolicyFrameworkFrom the very outset, it must be acknowledgedthat although before 2008 Kenya did not have asingle repository encompassing all its policies inrelation to internal displacement, such polices didexist. The policies existed as part of other laws, forinstance those relating to human rights, developmentplans, disaster response, compulsory acquisitionof land, armed conflict and laws on generaladministration. Other policies existed not in writtenform but were employed through practice andmostly depended on the preferences and prioritiesof the government of the day. 30 What Kenya wasreally missing before the 2008 displacements wasa consistent and coordinated response to internaldisplacement. The Government did not expresslyrecognise the protection needs of IDPs, and inter-6Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 7

Chapter 2: Setting the Sceneventions were consequently majorly ad hoc andnot focused on IDPs as such.Even without a comprehensive law for the protectionof IDPs, the Government has on severaloccasions sought to investigate disruptive incidentsthat led to displacement. In this regard,the Government had previously established varioustemporary institutional mechanisms to conductenquiry into incidences of displacementand make recommendations. 31 Further, followingthe displacements triggered by the violence in2007/2008, it could be seen that the Governmenthad some basic mechanism for responding to internaldisplacement, or rather, to disasters. At theonset of the crisis, the Ministry of State for ProvincialAdministration and Internal Security coordinatedinterventions through the Disaster andEmergency Co-ordination Department. Later, theMoSSP established the Mitigations and ResettlementsDepartment to assist in resettling and restoringlivelihoods for IDPs after being made thefocal point for coordinating interventions. TheMoSSP also had the Humanitarian Fund for Mitigationof Effects and Resettlement of Victims ofthe 2007 post-election violence. 32The move towards a comprehensive and cohesiveframework on internal displacement was thereforea reactionary phenomenon brought about bythe level of prominence afforded to internal displacementfollowing the post-election violencein 2007/2008. The unsatisfactory nature of responsesby the Government (poor coordination,short-term planning, failure to allocate sufficientresources and poor profiling) and the uncoordinatedway in which various CSOs responded to internaldisplacement following the violence servedto highlight the need for a framework to act as aplatform for collaboration and coordination.While there had been earlier attempts at advocacyon internal displacement, efforts intensified in2007 33 when the United Nations Office CoordinatingHumanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) 34 and the InternalDisplacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC)co-hosted the first capacity-building workshop onthe Guiding Principles on IDPs for non-state actorsworking on IDP issues in Nairobi. The workshopled to the formation of a Task Force on IDPscomprised of all interested CSOs organised on arotational basis. It drew up a strategy to push forthe development of a legal and policy frameworkon internal displacement, highlighted the needfor durable solutions, including the developmentof pilot projects for the resettlement of IDPs, andsought to establish a mechanism for dialogue andadvocacy work in cooperation with other actors. 35From 23rd to 25th April 2007, the InternationalRefugee Rights Initiative (IRRI), IDMC and theNorwegian Refugee Council (NRC) co-organiseda regional workshop at the Silver Springs Hotelin Nairobi to encourage the adoption and implementationof protection mechanisms for IDPs.On the basis of this event, national stakeholderswere expected to host a follow-up conference witha view to strengthening intervention strategies asthe general elections approached. Additionally,the workshop was supposed to spearhead legaland policy actions while advocating for durablesolutions for IDPs in Kenya. Between August andOctober 2007, the Task Force undertook preparatorywork for the conference. Unfortunately, theconference had to be moved to February 2008 asthe election period appeared not to provide a conduciveenvironment to hold it in November 2007.The conference did not take place in February asplanned because of the violence that erupted afterthe 2007 elections. The agenda items of the proposedworkshop were finally realised during thestakeholders’ forum organised in July 2009 to discussdurable solutions and the establishment of apolicy framework for IDPs.2.2.1. Development of anOverarching PolicyFrameworkAlthough the need for a policy on internal displacementhad been mooted in 2007, it properly beganin 2009 with a stakeholders’ forum in Nairobi heldon 30 st and 31 st July 2009. 36 The specific objectivesof the forum included to reflect on the gains madeand challenges faced in the protection of and pro-vision of assistance to IDPs after the post-electionviolence; to analyse the situation of IDPs displacedby other factors other than the post-election violence;to review the existing and anticipated policy,legal and institutional frameworks at the nationaland international levels; to get the voices of IDPsand strengthen their involvement in all decisionmakingprocesses; to develop a framework forbuilding the capacity of stakeholders and to profileIDPs; and to develop strategies for advocacy andcommon interventions. 37This forum was followed by a National Stakeholders’Review Forum held in Nairobi on 14 th March2012 and during which a preliminary draft outliningthe key provisions of an IDP policy was developedby the LASWG and presented to partners forreview. Deliberations from this forum were usedto improve the draft, the content of which was finalisedin April 2010. 38 Following the agreementon the general outline and content of the policy,the LASWG developed in May 2010 an advocacystrategy for the draft policy to run from June toDecember 2010. From May to December 2010,the Sub-Working Group audited the existing legal,policy and institutional frameworks with a viewto informing the implementation of the proposedpolicy. A detailed matrix was developed and disseminatedindicating the weaknesses in the existinglegal architecture and justifying the need for aconcrete legal framework to foster the implementationof the draft policy. 39In November 2010, the LASWG revised the draftpolicy to bring it in line with the newly-promulgatedConstitution of Kenya. 40 Following theserevisions, a draft cabinet memo was prepared andpresented to the MoSSP on 16th March 2011. Thiswas later presented to the relevant Cabinet subcommittee.41 Later, on 18th July 2012, the policywas revised to align it with developments in theland sector, in particular with the provisions of theLand Act, the Land Registration Act and the NationalLand Commission Act with respect to theprotection of IDPs in the context of landlessness.2.2.2. Development of aLegislative FrameworkA legislative instrument forms part of a broaderpolicy context and seeks to give effect to variousaspects of the policy by giving them the force ofthe law. Similar to the need for broader policy oninternal displacement, the need for legislation oninternal displacement was identified during theworkshops held in March and April 2007. However,the real momentum came when Parliament establishedthe Parliamentary Select Committee onthe Resettlement of IDPs (PSC) on 17 th November2010 in response to what it considered an inadequategovernment response to internal displacement.The mandate of the PSC included examiningthe policies and laws governing all forms of forceddisplacement and coming up with a draft Bill onforced displacement. 42 Having conducted numerouspublic hearings with multiple stakeholders,the PSC recommended the need for a legislationto ensure that government action on internal displacementwould be well coordinated, adequatelyresourced and in line with its constitutional andinternational obligations. 43This recommendation provided an avenue for thePSC and the PWGID to work together given theprogress made so far by the PWGID in relation tothe draft IDP policy.2.2.3. Synchronising the Policyand Legislative ProcessesWhile the entry of the PSC into the discourse onestablishing a framework for the protection ofIDPs was timely, it brought with it some structuralchallenges. Whereas the PWGID had concentratedits efforts on developing the broader policy andhad worked closely with the executive arm of thegovernment (MoSSP and MoJNCCA), the PSC’smandate on the other hand was parliamentary.In addition, its initiation was not related to thebroader policy development process. The processof cooperation with the PSC therefore startedwith attempts to reconcile and merge the progressmade so far by the PWGID on the policy with themandate, interests and strategies of the PSC.8Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 9

Chapter 2: Setting the SceneThis process started with a strategic planningworkshop organised by the PSC in which membersof the PWGID advocacy sub-group outlinedkey issues regarding internal displacement andintroduced the draft IDP policy to the PSC. TheBill prepared by the PSC was presented during thisworkshop and it was agreed that it should be revisedin accordance with the contributions made atthe workshop, the principles related to protectionduring internal displacement and other legislativedrafting requirements.This initial engagement was followed by a workshoporganised by RCK between the PWGID andthe PSC, which further discussed the internationalstandards on IDP protection, the extent to whichthey were incorporated into the draft IDP policyand the probable role for an IDP Bill. This secondworkshop took place on 30 st September and 1 st October2011. RCK, together with the PWGID, convenedthis forum to review the initial draft of theIDP Bill and to work towards conclusion of the process.The forum appointed the PWGID advocacysub-group to review the draft Bill and submit it fora final review and validation in December 2011,just before the expiry of the term of the PSC. 44 Thecomposition of the PWGID, and the advocacy subgroupin particular, benefited from having a longstandingstructure, as the PSC were persuaded bythis arrangement when it came to committing thereview of the draft with a reliable and proven arrangement.The second forum was attended by the Minister ofState for Special Programmes, who expressed hersupport for the draft Bill. The Minister’s participationwas also important as it provided an opportunityto lobby her to hasten the finalisation of thepolicy that had stalled for some time. The PWGIDused this forum strategically to lobby for the Ministry’ssupport of the draft Bill, especially becausethe Bill would be tabled in Parliament as a “privatemembers’ bill”. The Minister’s commitment to supportingthe Bill was instrumental at the later stagesof debate on the Bill, as the Ministry moved a crucialamendment that provided for the proposedIDP humanitarian fund in the Bill to receive fundingfrom the Government’s consolidated fund.These forums marked important stages in thepolicy development process, especially where therealisation of the Bill was concerned and in thesensitisation process of the PSC to understand,and consequently support, the proposed policyframework for internal displacement. The PW-GID submitted the final version of the Bill to thePSC during the December workshop and committedto work with the MoSSP and other Governmentstakeholders to move the process forward. 45The final report of the PSC was unanimouslyadopted in Parliament on 2 nd August 2012. 46 Thereport had a number of recommendations includingone that called for:The Government [to] establish a legal frameworkon internal displacement through formulation of[a] policy and enactment of the draft bill on prevention,protection and assistance of IDPs. This legalframework should take into account the UN GuidingPrinciples, the AU Convention (Kampala Protocol)and Great Lakes Protocol on Protection andAssistance of IDPs. 47With the adoption of the Committee’s report, thechair of the PSC, Hon. Ekwe Ethuro, seized theopportunity to build momentum for the enactmentof the IDP Bill. The Bill was published on 24 thApril 2012, and was presented to Parliament for itsfirst reading on 13 th June 2012. After its first readingin Parliament, the Bill was committed to theParliamentary Labour and Social Welfare Committee(LWSC) for review. The PWGID advocacysub-group organised a forum in Mombasa in July2012 to sensitise members of this committee onthe protection needs of IDPs and took the opportunityto lobby for its adoption in Parliament. TheBill underwent three readings in Parliament beforebeing passed. It is useful to note the key deliberationsthat occurred during the readings as theseinformed the state of the Bill as it was passed andthe concessions and challenges for stakeholders inpolicy making.The second reading took place on 19 th September2012 and showed broad based support for the Bill,albeit with significant misconception and misun-derstandings of IDP issues, and despite the factthat a lot of the sensitisation had been conductedby the PWGID, specifically targeting the LSWC.Examples include the introduction of integratedIDPs as a separate category of IDPs requiring definitionand references to IDP protection as refugeeprotection. It was promising to note, however, thatMPs recognised the Bill as addressing all forms ofdisplacement including historical evictions andpraised it for acknowledging the forthcoming devolvedsystem of government.The third reading took place on 4 th October 2012and brought about the most amendments bothfrom Parliament and indirectly from stakeholdersthrough submission of proposed amendmentsto Hon. Ekwe Ethuro. Most notably, Hon. EstherMurugi proposed that the IDP Fund be fundedfrom the Exchequer (Government budgetary allocation).Hon. Millie Odhiambo also lobbied hard toensure that IDPs and UN agencies remain withinthe National Consultative Coordination Committee.The clause on armed groups being required toadhere to the provisions of the Act was deleted forfear that such observance would afford legal statusor recognition of armed groups despite the provisionexpressly providing otherwise.2.2.4. Taking Stock of the ProcessAlthough the process of establishing a policyframework for the protection of IDPs in Kenya isyet to be fully completed, the advocacy efforts thatwent into its development have recorded some remarkableachievements. The process of passingthe legislation has moved fast despite a crowdedlegislative calendar that was preoccupied withthe implementation of the Constitution throughscheduled legislations. 48 The initiative managed tohighlight the protection needs of IDPs and helpedconstruct it as a national problem that transcendedethnic and political affiliations. By successfullydeveloping this narrative, the advocacy work hasset the pace for objective discussions.Support for the Bill on internal displacement hasbrought about a renewed push for the adoptionof the draft IDP Policy within the MoSSP. In thecourse of developing the IDP Bill, the PSC made effortsto hold the MoSSP accountable for the statusof the draft IDP Policy and the Ministry of Landsto be involved in the process by summoning theMinisters during its public hearings.Both the draft Bill and draft Policy on internaldisplacement have incorporated internationalstandards on the protection of IDPs. 49 The policiesadopt a human-rights based approach, establish acoordination framework and emphasise the primaryresponsibility of the government to protectIDPs while spelling out the role of non-state actors.In addition, both the broader Policy and theBill deal with displacement through all its phasesfrom prevention to the achievement of durable solutionsand respond to all forms of displacementsirrespective of their cause.The collaboration and networking amongst themembers of the PWGID has enriched the processand provided a blend of expertise. Of significancehas been the involvement of the legal expert fromthe Office of the UN Special Rapporteur on IDPs,who helped in drafting both the Policy and the Bill.The legal expert critically analysed the internationalframeworks on internal displacement sothat the proposed drafts were attuned to any discrepancieswith the UN Guiding Principles or theGreat Lakes Protocol, as well as existing provisionswithin national legislation, the most notable onebeing the Constitution of 2010. The members ofthe PWGID advocacy sub-group remained steadfastin their advocacy work and kept the agendawithin the mandate of their protection work.The participation of the Government in draftingthe policy helped elevate the status of the advocacywork by promising official support. Representativesfrom the Ministry of State for SpecialProgrammes and the Ministry of Justice attendedmost of the meetings where the policy was beingdeveloped.The stakeholders carried out activities aimed atdisseminating the content of the policy and legislationthrough various forums. This was donethrough the production and dissemination ofbrochures, documentaries, policy briefs and posi-10Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 11

Chapter 2: Setting the Scenetion papers, periodical reports and Information,Educational and Communication (IEC) materials.Othersstrategies entailed updates and sharing of informationthrough monthly PWGID meetings. Pressstatements, TV and radio talk show programmeswere also used to create public awareness on theengagements. 50Chapter 3:The Role of the PWGID:Added Value of a NationalCoordination MechanismFinally, although the policy on internal displacementis based on international standards, it alsoenhances and elevates the instruments in Kenya.For instance, the enactment of the Bill on internaldisplacement gives the standards full force of law.The policy itself is specific on the obligation imposedon the State as the primary protector withother actors playing only a supporting role. Moreover,the policies anchor protection of IDPs on aright-based platform thereby confirming that theprotection of IDPs is not a mere political venturebut a human rights issue.PWGID workshop with PSC on resettlement of IDPs, at Pangoni Beach Resort from 4th - 6th Dec. 2011In Kenya, the PWGID provided a vehicle for thecoordination of advocacy efforts and collectiveapproaches on internal displacement. It acted asa focal point for discussions, information sharing,planning and review of strategies by various stakeholders51 involved in advocacy and other interventionson internal displacement.3.1. Institutional Responses tothe Post-Election Violencein 2007/2008The aftermath of the 2007/2008 post-election violenceand the humanitarian crisis that followed,exposed the ineffectiveness of existing governmentstructures to respond to internal displacement.It triggered action towards establishing alegal and institutional framework focused exclusivelyon internal displacement.Organisations interviewed for this study indicatedthat they have responded in various ways to issuessurrounding internal displacement within theirinstitutional mandates, interests and strategies.Their key strategies include advocacy for durablesolutions, work on the development of a policyframework on the protection of and provision ofassistance to IDPs, coordination of humanitarianresponses, research and documentation of IDP issues,and provision of technical and financial supportfor activities related to the protection of IDPs.The coordination of most of these interventionswas done through the “Early Recovery CoordinationMechanism” which provided a forum for partnershipand collaboration in a multifaceted yet interconnectedapproach in various areas.3.2. Collective Responseswithin the PWGIDThe PWGID was established on 3 rd February 2009to replace the national IDP Protection Cluster(PC). 52 The PC was spearheaded by the UNHCRin January 2008 and brought together more than30 agencies from the UN, KNCHR, national andinternational NGOs and the IDP Network. 53The mandate of the PWGID 54 was to enhancethe capacity of actors to address the protectionneeds of IDPs throughout Kenya through trainingon the Guiding Principles, advocating for theimplementation of the Great Lakes IDP Protocol,finalising the ratification process of the KampalaConvention, developing a national legal and policyframework for the protection of IDPs in Kenya,establishing a monitoring mechanism to ensurecompliance with regional and international commitments,and identifying the protection needsof IDPs by highlighting the human rights context,gaps and specific government obligations. 55On 3 rd February 2009, the Legal Aid Sub-WorkingGroup was formed to provide technical support toand advise the PWGID around a number of issues,which included the development of policies andlegislation on internal displacement, the provisionof legal aid to IDPs during their engagementswith judicial and quasi-judicial processes such asTribunals, the Truth, Justice and ReconciliationCommission (TJRC), the design of schemes forreparation, pursuit for durable solutions, and enforcementof the obligation of Government to protectIDPs. Following the finalisation of the draftingprocess for the policy in April 2010, the LASWG12Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 13

Chapter 3: The Role of the PWGID: Added Value of a National Coordination MechanismFifth, the absence of accurate and up-to-date dataon the number and status of IDPs caused majorprotection gaps in the group’s work. The processand outcome of the government profiling exercisewas rejected by IDPs as flawed and not credibleas a significant number of affected personsclaimed they were left out arbitrarily. There werealso allegations of corruption against the provinwasconverted to the Advocacy Sub-WorkingGroup (ASWG) and mandated to publicise andlobby for the adoption and implementation of thepolicy and other legal frameworks on the protectionof IDPs. 563.3. Key Achievements of thePWGIDSome remarkable achievements by the PWGIDwere identified by the respondents in this study.First, the PWGID as a coordination forum broughttogether a strong, vibrant and resilient coalitionof state and non-state actors giving prominenceto the issue of IDPs. This sense of shared purposewas created through regular meetings, sharing ofinformation and development of joint strategies.These actors played varying roles in the processlargely depending on their institutional mandates,the technical expertise and personal commitmentof individual PWGID members and the financialresources available from their respective organisations.Indeed, the PWGID managed to enlist the participationof the State in the working group throughthe KNCHR, MoSSP and MoJNCCA. At the fieldlevel, personnel from the Provincial Administrationchaired the field-based PWGID meetings.This elevated the status of its work and gave it theassurance of government support, and to a greatextent allowed the government to recognise its coordinationand intervention mechanisms.The involvement of UN agencies in the workinggroup also enhanced its political standing. ByJanuary 2008, the Government had sanctionedthe establishment of 11 UN clusters, which playeda critical role in the management of the post-electionviolence crisis. This cooperation has sinceevolved from the emergency response phase tomore long-term goals, like formulating a policyand legal framework on internal displacement.The UN agencies involved in the working groupwere UNHCR, UNICEF and UNOCHA.Another remarkable achievement is the fact thatthe PWGID has advocated for the achievement ofdurable solutions for IDPs by monitoring and supportingthe provision of assistance to the affectedcommunities and lobbying for the recognitionof other categories of IDPs (in addition to thosedisplaced by 2007/2008 post-election violence).Stakeholders have also managed to identify theircommon interests through the PWGID, therebybringing consensus and commitment and helpingbuild a common front in intervention. The grouphas thrived despite the diversity of competenciesand expertise dictated by their mandates.The PWGID has also facilitated timely gatheringand dissemination of information on the protectionof IDPs. 57 A case in point was the collectionof data on the number and condition of IDPs afterthe 2007 post-election violence. This process wasundertaken by the MoSSP, in collaboration withthe Kenya National Bureau of Statistics and theUNHCR.In addition, the state and non-state actors broughttogether under the PWGID have enhanced awarenessand carried out capacity-building for variousstakeholders on the protection, provision of assistanceand other mechanisms for durable solutions.Since 2007, the Government has acknowledgedthe need for training of its officers on the rights ofIDPs in order to effectively provide assistance andprotection to IDPs. It has availed officers at differentlevels to attend training sessions, mostly conductedby members of the PWGID. 58Furthermore, the working group promoted the establishmentof child-focused initiatives in its advocacyand dissemination of information on internaldisplacement. In Molo, such initiatives weresuccessful in raising awareness on and advocatingfor child rights and the need for child protectionmechanisms in the area. This resulted in thedeployment of a district children’s officer to assistwith case management of the violations of childrights. In other parts of the country, child-focusedDisaster Risk Reduction was piloted throughschools where children were responsible for cultivatingcrops to mitigate climate change disasters.The group also managed to highlight the protectionneeds of other categories of IDPs beyondthose resulting from the 2007/2008 post-electionviolence. For instance, it undertook a fact-findingmission to Turkana County with respect todrought-induced displacement. The main motivationbehind this mission was to find ways ofextending the mandate of the PWGID beyond theprotection of IDPs displaced by the post-electionviolence to include IDPs resulting from naturaldisasters. 59Finally, the group supported the development ofthe draft Policy and Bill on the protection of andprovision of assistance to IDPs in Kenya. This wasdone as envisaged within the terms of referencegiven to the Working Group in 2009 which was reaffirmedannually and helped the group to engagein long-term interventions beyond responding tothe short and medium-term needs arising from the2007/ 2008 post-election violence.3.4. Key ChallengesThe PWGID did meet some challenges. First wasthe lack of effective local level participation inagenda-setting of the work of the PWGID. Onerespondent lamented that the group’s agenda waswritten in Nairobi without any consultation withthe field-based groups. This affected the linkagebetween the work of the national and field-basedgroups and undermined feedback channels onprotection work as well as advocacy on the policyframework. 60 Even though the advocacy sub-groupof the PWGID remained the most active unit inpolicy work, it lacked representation at the fieldlevel and had to rely on reports from field officersto inform its advocacy interventions 61 . Consequently,field-based stakeholders were concernedabout the poor participation of IDPs at the meetingsdue to inadequate facilitation. They were alsoconcerned about the failure by key state actors toattend their meetings so as to respond to emergingissues.Secondly, limited financial resources coupled withbureaucratic processes, both at the national andfield levels, affected the extent of participation anddecision-making within the group. The burden offacilitating meetings and related activities wasoften left to a few organisations, thereby limitingcollective ownership of projects within the group.This often affected working relationships betweenparticipating organisations and prevented somefrom taking positions on vital issues. Tied to thiswas the “politics of visibility” which sometimesencouraged unhealthy competition amongst themembers.Thirdly, the group suffered from a problem of coordinationat the national and local levels, whichcould be attributed to the lack of a full-time secretariatto run the working group. Additionally, thelack of a definite policy on internal displacementto inform such coordination led to occasional conflictsbetween the MoSSP and other governmentministries. This was particularly apparent in theemergency phase of the post-election violenceas the Ministry of Provincial Administration andInternal Security and the MoSSP jostled for controlof the resources directed to humanitarianresponse and in the resettlement phase betweenthe MoSSP and the Ministry of Lands in regard tofunds for the purchase of land to resettle IDPs.Fourth, the high turnover of persons seconded fromparticipating organisations to participate in themeetings of the working group affected the leadershipand continuity of operations. Some memberstook time to familiarise themselves with thegroup’s agenda, and as such could not participateoptimally in the work of the working group, whileothers did not stay long enough to have impact ondecision-making within the group. This affectedthe output of the group especially on matters thatrequired prompt and effective decision making. 6214Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 15

Chapter 3: The Role of the PWGID: Added Value of a National Coordination Mechanismcial administration officials who were steering theprofiling process around the country. 63 Moreover,the database developed by MoSSP did not disaggregatedata on account of vulnerabilities and specialneeds and was limited to victims of displacementrelated to the post-election violence in 2007/2008, and mainly to those based in camps. TheMoSSP rejected an offer to review its database ina joint initiative with the PWGID. 64 After consultationsbetween the ministry and working groupcollapsed in June 2011, the MoSSP proceeded tounilaterally carry out the verification exercise.However their objective was for the exclusion ofbeneficiaries who had illegitimately profited fromGovernment assistance and not to include potentialbeneficiaries who should have been profiled inthe first place.Sixth, efforts towards peacebuilding and psychosocialcounselling were yet to fully gain tractionwith a section of IDPs refusing to return to theirfarms while others faced hostility in proposed areasof resettlement. Other categories of displacedpersons 65 protested the Government’s resettlementinitiatives on account of perceived exclusion.The support and protection given to PEV IDPs bythe Government were criticised for being arbitraryin forcing and threatening IDPs to return toPWGID Workshop with Members of the LSWC on 31 st July, 2012their original homes and for lacking mechanismsto ensure accountability in the allocation and utilisationof funds earmarked for the exercise. 66Finally, referring to the original terms of referenceand principles of engagement prepared for theWorking Group, it failed to provide effective legalaid to support IDPs in their engagements with theInternational Criminal Court and the Truth, Justiceand Reconciliation Commission; the purchaseand registration of land and other immovableproperty; the facilitation of pro-bono representationof IDPs in matters requiring legal and/or judicialintervention; the institution of class actionor test cases on behalf of IDPs, among others. Mostof these were done by other networks such as theKenya Transitional Justice Network, Kenyans forTruth with Peace and Justice (KTPJ) and the LandSector Non-State Actors (LSNSA). This could beattributed to the failure by the working group tomonitor and evaluate its plans of action and partnerwith like-minded organisations and networksto extend its reach. Moreover, attempts to incorporateorganisations working with special needsgroups within the displaced population such aswomen, children, persons living with disabilities,the elderly, and persons living with HIV/AIDswere limited. 67Chapter 4:The Role of Civil SocietyCivil society organisations, mostly from the PW-GID, have participated to various extents in the responseto the problem of internal displacement inKenya. Some of these responses and interventionsrevolve around working with the survivors andfamilies of victims of displacement to seek justice,undertaking research to highlight the needs andconcerns of IDPs, undertaking peacebuilding initiativesand contributing resources to assist withresettlement.Beyond provision of direct humanitarian assistanceto IDPs and other affected communities,CSOs have also supported the development ofthe policy framework for the protection of IDPsin Kenya. In fact while the Government bearsthe primary responsibility to protect its subjectsfrom the effects of displacement, CSOs played adisproportionately prominent role in the processof developing a policy framework on internal displacementin Kenya. This chapter analyses the involvementof CSOs based on a five-stage model ofpolicy development process. Although this modelof analysing policy development process is a convenientway to review the participation of CSOs,it must also be understood as a mere theoreticalframework, because in practice policymaking doesnot follow such an organised, predictable and linearmodel.4.1. Identifying the ProblemSince policies seek to respond to particular issuesor problems, the identification of the issueto deal with is a natural starting point. The mannerin which the issue or problem is identified dependson a number of factors, such as whether theidentification takes place in the context of regularmonitoring and review process or is brought aboutby a crisis, and whether identification of the issueoriginates from the government or from non-stateactors and the institutional context in whichit does. All these factors converge to determine theframing of issues and the subsequent discourses inthe development process.Related to the identification of the issue is the identificationof objectives, which set out a clear pathto be taken to respond to the identified issue(s). Atthe beginning, the objective could be tentative andgeneral in nature and is refined as the process progresses.The objectives also play an important rolein guiding the implementation of the policy as wellas in reviewing the policy once adopted. Whenproperly thought out, the statement of objectiveshould encourage collaboration among all actorsand minimise any risk of disagreement or conflict.As Kenya already implemented some programmesgeared towards responding to internal displacement,the first issue was to determine whetherto have a stand-alone and self-contained policyon internal displacement or to incorporate specificprovisions into already existing frameworks.According to the analysis and legal audit by thePWGID between 2009 and 2010, a clear need fora specific policy on the protection of IDPs wasidentified. Additionally, the stakeholders’ forumat Jacaranda Hotel on 30 th and 31 st July 2009 hadanswered this question by recommending the developmentof an IDP-specific policy capable ofaddressing the complexity of the IDP problem,but also to increase accountability, improve thecoordination of stakeholder interventions, pavethe way for proper planning and budgeting, andmonitor compliance of requirements under theUN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.The CSOs present identified the lack of a comprehensivepolicy as the main issue undermining theprotection of IDPs in Kenya.16Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 17

Chapter 4: The Role of Civil SocietyIndeed, the electoral violence that took place inKenya in 2007/ 2008 highlighted the Government’sfailure to respond to the protection needs of IDPswithin a clear and specific implementation framework.Developing such a framework rather than introducingamendments to other sectors appearedto be an efficient way of addressing displacementand developing a specific policy to deal with it. Thesense of urgency also came from the perceptionthat Kenya needed a policy to prevent the recurrenceof violence in following presidential elections,expected at the time to take place betweenAugust and December 2012. The advocacy initiativeswere actively led by CSOs (through the PW-GID) with some participation from Government.Consequently, while the proposal to radically alterthe legal architecture for dealing with internaldisplacement did not receive opposition from theGovernment, the latter remained rather indifferentand uncommitted to the process.The Commission of Inquiry into the Post-ElectionViolence had made the following diagnosis:From the evidence we have gathered so far, thereexists sufficient basis for enacting a clear policy andlegal framework for dealing with IDPs. […] Whilethere are coordinating organs for dealing with emergencysituations, it is now imperative to put theproblem of IDPs on a sound statutory footing wherelines of authority and responsibilities are assigned.There is no reason why such an enactment can notbe put in place within the next four months. 68From the assessment carried out by civil societyactors at the time, a specific policy and legislationon internal displacement could greatly improvethe protection of IDPs in Kenya. This view wasconfirmed by all respondents interviewed for thisstudy.4.2. Policy ChoicesHaving identified the issue, civil society actorshad to make choices among various policy options.First they had to choose between developing anIDP-specific framework and incorporating protectionmechanisms into already existing frameworks.They then had to agree on the standards ofprotection which would have to be incorporatedinto the policy. These standards represented variouspolicy options and CSOs even convened forumsto build consensus among stakeholders onpossible frameworks based on internationally recognisedprotection standards. 69During discussions on whether or not there existedsufficient provisions in existing legislation todeal with displacement, some expressed concernthat having a specific law and policy on the protectionof IDPs could institutionalise the status ofIDPs, thereby making it a permanent problem inKenya, or marginalise the issue, thereby reducingthe likelihood of reaching adequate governmentresponse to the problem. CSOs managed to deconstructthis misconception by showing that internaldisplacement went beyond the 2007/2008post-election violence, and as such there was needto have a sustainable framework to prevent futuredisplacements while making provisions for assistanceand protection. This was accomplishedmainly through sensitisation forums targeting keystakeholders in the policymaking process.4.3. Policy FormulationThe Kenya scenario became quite interestingwhen it came to policy formulation. While theExecutive was working on the broader policy, theLegislature came into the picture focusing on legislationthrough an act of Parliament. CSOs immediatelysaw a risk for two parallel processes todevelop and sought to reconcile them by playing abridging role between the executive and the legislature.They managed, to a great extent, to ensurethat the content of the resulting legislation remainedcompatible with the content of the broaderpolicy.From 2007, the PWGID had been actively involvedin the process of drafting the broader policy inpartnership with MoSSP and other actors. Later,it also partnered with the PSC to draft and reviewthe content of the IDP Bill, thereby ensuring thatboth the Policy and the Bill incorporated internationalstandards on IDP protection. The process ofdrafting the IDP Bill brought about many technicalquestions. Key contentions included the extent towhich substantive provisions should be written, asopposed to scheduling the relevant instruments.This caused tensions within the drafting team. Inthe end, a mixture of both drafting methodologieswas achieved as stakeholders lobbied for specificprovisions that did not appear in any of the internationalinstruments to be substantively drafted.In terms of content, concessions also had to bemade at every stage. The broader terminology of“arbitrary displacement”, for example, was amendedto cover development projects and projects toprotect the environment. While such a provisionwould have provided an additional protection forIDPs, some of its aspects are covered under thebody of law on international humanitarian lawand other penal laws, so that to some extent such amechanism could be termed unnecessary. Providingfor criminal responsibility was another provisionthat was initially contemplated but is coveredby the Rome Statute, to which Kenya is a signatory,and by the International Crimes Act 2008.4.4. Policy AdoptionSince it is the prerogative of the Government toimplement policies, any advocacy for their reviewor improvement must ultimately be adopted bythe Government before being operationalised.The draft IDP Policy was approved by the Cabinet70and the MoSSP is currently working on a sessionalpaper which may be subjected to debate inParliament depending on the advice of the Attorney-General.In contrast, the IDP Bill was passedby Parliament and received presidential assent on31 st December 2012.Efforts by the Executive to adopt the policy havebeen slow. Through the PWGID, CSOs have continuedto lobby the relevant actors to speed upthis process, including by proposing questions toMoSSP through Parliament in an effort to hold itaccountable to the process. The PWGID has alsoplayed a key role in furthering the adoption of thedraft Bill. The group provided consistent supportto the Parliamentary team that was championingthe legislation through preparation of questionsfor presentation to Parliament, conductingresearch and preparing amendments for theimprovement of the Bill. This included frequentmeetings with the MPs to develop strategies onhow to counter any opposition to the Bill and incorporationof further amendments to the Bill forthose that were proposed on the floor of the House.Generally, as the policy development processmoves towards higher levels, non-state actorshave decreasing control over it as legislative development(including eventual approval or rejection)remains within the sanctum of Parliament. Therestill remains room, however, to lobby and providelogistical and technical support. For instance, inDecember 2011, participants from a workshop organisedat Pangoni Beach Resort sought to pushthe MoSSP to fast-track the process of adoptingthe policy document by cabinet by formulating thefollowing question to be presented to Parliamentby an MP (Hon. Ekwe Ethuro, Chair of the PSC):(a) Can the Minister confirm that Kenya lacks anational policy on the prevention of internaldisplacement and the protection and assistanceto Internally Displaced Persons, despitethe presence of thousands of IDPs and the fastapproachingGeneral Elections?(b) Could the Minister appraise the House on thestatus of approval of the said policy as well asthe status of IDPs resettlement?(c) What steps is the Minister taking to fast-trackthe formulation, approval and implementationof the policy?To these questions, the Minister responded:“I wish to confirm that Kenya lacks a national policyon the prevention of Internally Displaced Persons(IDPs). In recognition of this gap, we prepareda Cabinet Memorandum in May, which we circulatedto various stakeholders. Last month, we got aresponse. We hope that in the next one or two weeks,it will be able to reach the Cabinet level.”18Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 19

Chapter 4: The Role of Civil SocietyFurther, during a workshop in July 2012 in Mombasawith the Parliamentary Labour and SocialWelfare Departmental Committee, to which theIDP Bill had been committed after its first readingin Parliament, the PWGID developed a press statementwhich was issued jointly with the ParliamentaryCommittee and called upon actors to makecommitments to the process of developing an effectivepolicy and legal framework for the protectionof IDPs. This statement was followed by a letterto the President, the Prime Minister, the VicePresident, the Speaker of the National Assembly,the Attorney General, the Chairman of the Commissionfor the Implementation of the Constitution,the Minister for Special Programmes andthe Minister for Justice to urgently make commitmentstowards establishing a policy frameworkfor the protection of IDPs. This memorandum waslater developed into a press statement whose issuancewas timed to coincide with the Parliamentarydebate on the IDP Bill. Following the workshopin July 2012 in Mombasa with the LWSC, severalMPs who had been part of the workshop supportedthe speedy adoption of the final report developedby the PSC and ultimately the IDP Bill.CSOs involved in the process also called for internationalactors to push forward the adoption of thepolicy. For instance, the PWGID held a meetingwith Prof. Chaloka Beyani, the Special Representativeof the UN Secretary General on InternallyDisplaced Persons, at the KNCHR offices in Nairobion 21 st September 2011 71 and his final reportmade the Government of Kenya (through its PermanentMission in Geneva) issue a statement duringthe Nineteenth Session of the Human RightsCouncil. The statement read, in part:Kenya welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteuron the rights of internally displaced persons.[…] The Government has developed a national policyon internally displaced persons. […] The policyprovides for the protection and assistance of IDPsand also aims to prevent future displacements.Most important, the policy allows for the review ofexisting laws to deal with impunity. The laws willensure that those who contribute to the displacementof others are made to account.724.5. Policy ImplementationAlthough the broader policy framework for theprotection of IDPs is still pending adoption beforethe cabinet, CSOs are already strategising on waysin which to support the implementation of thisnew legislation. The PWGID is developing strategiesto work with the MoSSP to create awarenessamong stakeholders on the policy, and discussionshave started on how to support MoSSP in developingregulations for the proposed IDP Act and tolobby for the establishment of the various institutionscreated by the law, including an early-warningsystem as well as financial arrangements.4.6. Policy EvaluationThe protection of IDPs imposes obligations onthe state and other actors. An effective policy implementationevaluation set-up is therefore necessaryto ensure that the relevant obligations aremet, that the necessary resources are allocatedand that the standards of protection, including directassistance, are adhered to. CSOs will play animportant oversight role and will need to identifystrategies to hold the Government to account onthe implementation of the policy but also to supportit in attempting to do so.In evaluating whether or not the policy itself hassucceeded in addressing the concerns of IDPs, assessmentsand comparisons (of policy provisionsvis-a-vis actual needs) may be made through thelens of transitional justice. 73 A recent study proposesthat victims of the post-election violenceoverwhelmingly request for access to livelihoodsas their reparative demand, signifying the impactof violence and displacement on the economic circumstancesof its victims.4.7. Participatory Nature ofthe Policy DevelopmentProcessPolicy development is the work of State (executive,judiciary and legislature) yet other actorsoutside the Government have a significant role toplay in the process. The extent to which CSOs participatein the process depends on the existenceand strength of civil society. Kenya has a long historyof civil society action which has over the yearsbenefited from strong outside support and gainedin experience. In the policy development processin Kenya, CSOs enjoyed a good relationship withvarious arms of the government and this greatlyadvanced their participation in the process. Theyplayed a key role in gathering and analysing informationand through consultations managed to castdebate on the policy in an objective way. In fact,substantial credit for any success from the processis owed to CSOs for their aggressive approach includinginitiating contact with government actors.Conversely, CSOs’ participation in the processcould bring with it a number of downsides. Notall civil society actors take part in such processesand so the agenda might be solely driven by a fewvocal CSOs, in the present case the PWGID, andmostly in Nairobi. This could create perceptionsof the process lacking full ownership and mightpose challenges at the adoption and implementationstages. For instance, some respondents interviewedfor the study regretted the lack of meaningfulparticipation in the process by the AG’s Office,members of the Cabinet Committee on Resettlement,Ministry of Lands, Ministry of ForeignAffairs, Ministry of Local Government, NationalCohesion and Integration Commission, host communities,Kenya Red Cross, Office of the HigherCommissioner for Human Rights, UN Women, theprovincial administration and field-based stakeholdersin the process. Indeed, in the Kenyan case,the realisation of the need for policy on internaldisplacement was first conceived by internationalactors, 74 thereby raising concerns about “foreign”or “outside” influence.It appears that the dominant role played by theCSOs in the policy development process in Kenyahas also overshadowed the need for participationby the intended beneficiaries of the policy.Granted, levels of participation may vary basedon knowledge and expertise, but the need for beneficiariesto optimally participate in the processcannot be overemphasised. A bottom-up approachwould have ensured a higher degree of local ownership.Concerns about the lack of meaningful participationby IDPs in the process continue to lingeras the only involvement was by the victims of the2007/2008 violence and, even then, most of thevictims were from Eldoret and Nakuru. Additionally,where there was participation by IDPs, mostspecial groups like women, the elderly and personswith disability were not represented.A few factors might have contributed to the beneficiaries’limited participation. First, the formulationprocess for the broader policy and thelegislation were owned by the executive and thelegislature respectively and the PWGID only camein to support them. Second, and specifically relatedto the development of the legislation, the PSChad a very short timeline within which to do itswork and as such it was not possible to have extensiveconsultations including public hearings forthe bill. Third, the PSC and other actors involvedin the process faced resource constraints in relationto wider participation and extensive consultations.Those who were closely involved in the policy developmentprocess argue that despite the failure toactively involve all stakeholders, including IDPs, inthe process, various actors were given opportunitiesat different times to make their contribution.For instance, the PWGID engaged in an extensiveconsultative process that yielded the draft IDPpolicy whose provisions informed the content ofthe Bill. Furthermore, the PSC conducted over thecourse of 2011 public hearings around the countryregarding the concerns of IDPs. In addition, therewas up-to-date sharing of information at differentstages of the process, including reporting mechanismsbetween national and field-based actors andthrough other communication channels like thePWGID mailing list. Despite attempts to encouragethe participation of stakeholders, the processbecame increasingly confined to the AdvocacySub-group of the PWGID during the review of thepolicy documents.20Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 21

Chapter 4: The Role of Civil SocietyMilestones in Developingthe IDP Policy:Chapter 5:Navigating through a ToughPolitical Environment• The need for a policy was identified during aworkshop held for national and internationalstakeholders in March and April 2007.• The need to develop a policy was agreedupon during the National Stakeholders Forumheld in Nairobi on 30 th and 31 st July2009. MoJNCCA and ASWG were tasked toprovide leadership.• In October 2009, MoJNCCA agreed to spearheadthe process following a meeting betweenASWG and Prof. Walter Kälin, UN-SRon IDPs.• Preparatory work on policy drafting was initiatedbetween August and December 2009.The actual drafting took place between Januaryand February 2010.• Prof. Kälin seconded his legal adviser on IDPprotection to advise and support the draftingin January 2010.• MoSSP took over the policy drafting processfrom MoJNCCA following a meeting withtheir PS, Prof. Kälin’s advisor and the AWSGon 13th January 2010.• The draft policy was submitted to stakeholdersfor validation at a forum hosted by thePWGID in Nairobi on 14 th March 2010.• The policy was revised and adopted byMoSSP in April 2010. It was amended in Octoberand December 2010 in line with thenew Constitution.• PWGID prepared a Cabinet Memo betweenDecember 2010 and February 2011. TheMemo was submitted to the Minister ofMoSSP on 16 th March 2011.• Further discussions with respect to the policywere held with PSC, MoSSP and PWGIDat Pangoni Hotel in Mombasa on 30th September-1 st October 2011; 4-6 December 2011and 29-30 July 2012.• On 18 th July 2012, ASWG, MoSSP and LandsMinistry revised the draft policy to complywith the Land Act 2011, Land RegistrationAct, 2012 and National Land CommissionAct, 2012.• On 14 th September 2012, MoSSP Ministerconfirmed that the Minister of Lands hadsigned the IDP Policy with a few recommendations.• The Cabinet approved the IDP Policy on 25 thOctober 2012 and MoSSP is preparing a Sessionalpaper on the Policy which will be debatedin Parliament for it to be approved as aNational Policy.Allowing IDPs to vote in areas where they have beenresettled will encourage the use of options for a durablesolution as a political tool to influence local politicsthrough strategic relocations. If that is the position inthe IDP Bill, then I will make sure that the bill neversees the light of day in the house. 75Policymaking closely relates to the politics of thejurisdiction in which it takes place. This is becausepolicymaking involves building consensus or establishingcooperation among various actors within thepolitical field. The interaction between advocacywork and politics contributes to the quality of the resultingpolicies and determines to a great extent theirdurability by either hindering or facilitating their implementation.The Kenyan experience in developingthe IDP policy framework provides a rich case studyof how political factors affect policymaking.5.1. Sensitivity of the Topic ofInternal Displacement inKenyaThe recognition of the existence of IDPs in Kenyahas generally faced resistance from Government,mainly because of its political and financial implications.IDPs are perceived to be a national shameand a reminder of the events of the 2007/2008post-election violence. Granting official recognitionof an IDP status implies providing resettlement,which in turns compounds already existingland problems. Consequently, when engagingwith politicians on the subject of internal displacement,undue focus is often placed on whatthis might demand of Government resources andhow it might affect voting patterns if resettlementwere the prime solution for resolving the situationof IDPs.5.1.1. Post-election violence 2007Arguably, the violence that erupted after the electionsin 2007 marked the turning point in effortsto deal with internal displacement. The violencecame to a close after a National Dialogue and ReconciliationProcess that resulted in the formationof a coalition government and a comprehensivereform agenda designed to resolve the politicalcrisis and its root causes. 76 The comprehensivereform agenda provided a context for calls to theGovernment to respond to internal displacementand provided a basis upon which discussions ona policy framework for IDPs began. The PWGIDused this context to call upon the President andthe Prime Minister to establish a comprehensiveframework for the protection of IDPs, since thefour agendas developed through the reconciliationprocess were to be implemented within a periodof one year from 28 th February 2008. 77 While thepost-election violence acted as catalyst for advocacywork on the protection of IDPs, in some instancesit acted as a distorting factor by introducingsubjective standards and concentrating moreon displacement caused by the violence in 2007 tothe exclusion of other categories of IDPs.5.1.2. Ethnic DimensionAlthough the Constitution of Kenya characterisesthe country as a multi-party democratic state, ethnicaffiliation plays a prominent role in national debates,where actors analyse situations through partisanlenses. Discourses on internal displacement wereassessed through this same lens, with the Parliamentaccusing the Executive of favouring particularinterest and ethnic groups in its interventions. Thisperception was compounded by the failure of the22Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 23

Chapter 5: Navigating through a Tough Political EnvironmentGovernment to establish a transparent mechanismfor screening and profiling victims of displacement.In advocating for a policy framework on internal displacement,therefore, the actors, mainly CSOs, knewthat they had to construct a narrative that portrayedinternal displacement as a national problem thatwent beyond the violence in 2007.5.1.3. State responsibility forIDPsWhile from a classical point of view, the Statebears the primary responsibility for the well-beingof its citizens, whether displaced or not, in Kenyathe State generally viewed its responsibility toprotect IDPs as a humanitarian one. Interventionsby the Government, including its resettlement efforts(e.g. Operation “Rudi Nyumbani”), were notopen to scrutiny and criticised for being arbitrary.This erroneous approach by the Government mayexplain the haphazard and uncommitted way inwhich the Government continued to deal with theprotection needs of displaced persons.5.2. Institutional context5.2.1. Different Visions:The Executive versusParliamentAdvocacy towards the adoption of the draft policyon internal displacement remained in limbofor over a year after its submission to Cabinet inMarch 2011, without explanation or recourse inthe matter. One explanation could be the bureaucraticprocesses of several Ministries consideringthe policy before collectively endorsing it. The PSCpresented the PWGID advocacy sub-group withan alternative avenue for developing legislationon internal displacement. Although efforts by thePWGID ensured that the content of the resultantlegislation remained in line with the terms of thebroader policy, it was not able to fully merge the twoprocesses run by the executive and the legislature,and the Bill was enacted on 3rd October 2012. It remainsto be seen when the policy will be adopted.It had been hoped that the involvement of theMoSSP in the development of the IDP Bill wouldhasten the adoption of the policy by the Cabinetso that both the broader policy and the legislationcould be presented to Parliament together. In fact,preliminary discussions during the validation forumin December 2011 suggested that the MoSSPconsider taking up the IDP Bill as a governmentsponsoredbill, giving effect to the draft Policy. Thissuggestion was however declined by the MoSSPwho proposed instead to support any MP thatmoved the bill forward. Other executive brancheswere also uncommitted to the policy developmentprocess, failing to fully cooperate with the PSC bydefying summons to appear before it during itshearings.All along, the PSC remained sceptical of the Government’scommitment to adopt the policy. In itsdeliberations with the PWGID and bilateral discussionswith the MoSSP, the PSC noted that sincethe draft policy was yet to receive cabinet approval,it would not base its recommendations to Parliamenton a policy whose adoption was uncertain.This position was made clear to the PWGID ina meeting with the PSC and SR-IDPs during theSR-IDPs’ visit to Kenya in September 2011. At thispoint, on the basis of its stakeholder consultationsand public hearings, the PSC had started draftingan IDP Bill that would be submitted with its finalreport upon the expiry of its mandate in December2011.Within the executive itself, there appeared to bea silent tussle among various Ministries on theprovisions of the broader policy, particularly theMinistries of Lands and Finance. Sometimes, officersat different levels within particular Ministriesappeared to operate at cross purposes and inconflict with each other, making engagement withthe MoSSP difficult. A large number of interlocutorsalso remained largely invisible, yet had controlover the policy development and slowed down theprocess at different stages. Their invisibility or thelack of clear guidelines on what their role was madedirect engagement with them difficult.5.2.2. Private Member’s BillThe legislation on internal displacement in Kenyawent to Parliament as a private member’s bill, i.e.a bill not sponsored by the Executive. While thisprovided an expedient way to introduce a Bill oninternal displacement to Parliament, it had to contendwith one major shortcoming, which was thatits financing arrangements would be able to drawcontributions from the Government’s consolidatedfund. In fact, this shortcoming dogged theBill until the later stages of the legislative process,when the MoSSP introduced an amendment inParliament to include funds from the consolidatedfund as one of the funding sources for activitiesunder the Bill.Beyond the expedience of finding a faster avenueto introduce a legislation on internal displacementto Parliament, moving it through a parliamentarianwho is neither at the forefront of either theGovernment or the opposition served to insulateit from perceptions of bias as alleged against interventionsby the Government. This providedan opportunity to look at the problem of internaldisplacement as a national catastrophe whose impactswent beyond the 2007/2008 displacementsand not as a political campaign tool.5.2.3. Engaging with Actors andManaging InterestsThe multiplicity of actors in the policymaking processimplied the existence of multiple and variedinterests. While Kenya has fairly well-developedgovernance institutions, the existence of numerouspersonal or even institutional interests meantthat success in engagement could only be obtainedthrough informal and sometimes personal interactions.This was a challenge that required actorsto rely on personal contacts from previous interactionwith parliamentarians and governmentofficials. The government officers (including Parliament)tasked with the protection for IDPs alsoappeared to lack a good understanding of the protectioncontext for IDPs. Most of the time, theirlevel of involvement was therefore determined byextraneous factors. This could be an explanationfor minimal participation by government institutionsin the policymaking process.5.3. Impact of Changes in thePolitical Scene since 20075.3.1. Implementation of the 2010ConstitutionThe promulgation of a new Constitution in Kenyathrust the country into a reform course with manylaws being enacted or revised to comply with theConstitution. The Constitution has an elaborateBill of Rights and provides a broader context for argumentsfor the responsibility of the governmentto protect IDPs. The need to adopt a rights-basedapproach to the protection of IDPs in the Bill didraise too much controversy as the Constitution alreadyprovided for this broader framework. In fact,one question that repeatedly came up for considerationwas whether the Constitution in itself didnot suffice for the protection of IDPs without havingto draft a specific legislation for them.It was expected that the implementation of theConstitution would delay the enactment of theIDP Bill, as the Constitution requires Parliamentto prioritise particular legislations. However, thesensitivity of the IDP question in Kenya, the imminenceof the next general elections and the peaceand reform agenda under the Kenya National Dialogueand Reconciliation Accord following thepost-election violence, together with concertedadvocacy by actors, appear to have made the enactmentof the legislation a success despite a busylegislative calendar.24Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 25

Chapter 5: Navigating through a Tough Political Environment5.3.2. Proceedings at theInternational CriminalCourtFour prominent Kenyans, 78 half of whom are presidentialaspirants, face an assortment of chargesbefore the International Criminal Court arisingfrom the 2007/2008 violence. These prosecutionshave been viewed as an additional avenue for securingjustice for various persons affected by theviolence, including IDPs. The prosecutions appearto have contributed to an understanding ofdisplacement as a criminal human rights violationwarranting response through a policy. Theestablishment of a policy framework on internaldisplacement could also be seen as an indicationof commitment by the Government to justice. Althoughthe executive continues to waver in its effortsto adopt the broader policy, it would howeverbe quick to point out the enactment of the Bill aspart of its record of reforms. This aspect could providean explanation for the enthusiasm of the Executivethrough MoSSP in supporting the IDP Billduring its later stages in Parliament.5.3.3. Upcoming ElectionsWhile the policy on internal displacement ismeant to deal with all kinds of displacement, the2007/2008 violence remains a crucial referencepoint for discussions on internal displacement.The establishment of a framework for the protectionof IDPs is perceived as a clear manifestationof recovery from violence and would act to minimisethe possibility of violence while laying out aprotection mechanism should violence occur. Theupcoming presidential elections might thereforehave acted as a catalyst for a speedy enactment ofthe legislation on IDPs to deal with internal displacement,which is seen as a national shame andfailure. Success of the executive in responding tointernal displacement would also appear to takecognisance of this.Milestones in Developingthe IDP Bill:• Parliament constituted the PSC on 17 th November2010 with the mandate to examinegovernment action on displacement and therelevant laws governing the same.• The PSC convened a Strategic PlanningWorkshop in February 2011 where governmentministries and the PWGID offered perspectiveson the key concerns regarding internaldisplacement.• PWGID convened a workshop to discuss thestate of internal displacement in May 2011,which was attended by the PSC and by governmentministries, the SR-IDPs, the Chairmanof the ECOSOCC political affairs clusterand civil society organisations. The meetingagreed on the following: to advocate for theadoption of the draft IDP Policy and ratificationof the Kampala Convention; that a lawon prevention, protection and assistance ofIDPs was required; and that monitoring andmulti-stakeholder information-sharing onIDP concerns be maintained.• The PSC conducted bilateral meetings withthe Minister of State for Special Programmesand the Minister of State for Provincial Administrationand Internal Security. The PSCalso consulted the Truth, Justice and ReconciliationCommission (TJRC).• The PSC conducted 26 public hearings andfield visits around the country betweenMarch and October 2011 to gain further insightson the plight of IDPs in Kenya.• The SR-IDPs conducted a country visit toKenya in September 2011 and had a meetingwith the PSC and PWGID. The PSC sharedits preliminary findings and indicated thatit had prepared an initial draft legislation oninternal displacement.• PWGID and PSC convened a workshop inOctober 2011 to review the initial draft legislation.The meeting resolved to establish ajoint taskforce that would review the draftlegislation and ensure consistency with thedraft IDP policy, Guiding Principles andKampala Convention.• The PWGID and PSC convened a validationworkshop in December 2011 to consider andapprove the reviewed draft legislation fromthe PWGID-PSC taskforce. The PSC andMoSSP approved the draft and resolved tosupport its enactment in Parliament.• The PSC tabled its final report before Parliamentin February 2012 and Hon. EkweEthuro tabled the IDP Bill before Parliamentin April 2012.• The Bill underwent its first reading on 13 thJune, 2012; its second reading on 19 th June,20122 and its third reading in which it waspassed by Parliament on 4 th October 2012.• The President assented to the IDP Bill on 31 stDecember 2012.26Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 27

Chapter 6:Lessons Learned andRecommendationsAlthough the policy development in Kenya hasnot reached the penultimate stage in its policy developmentprocess, its experience provides a richcase study with lessons that could inspire otheradvocacy work. This chapter discusses a numberof factors that contributed to the success of theseefforts.6.1. Lessons Learned6.1.1. A Critical Mass ofLocal ActorsIt cannot be taken for granted that all countrieshave a critical mass of local and national civil societyactors with the capacity to engage in advocacywork. The Kenyan situation illustrates the amountof dedication that policy development work requires.Although the advocacy work was carriedout under the umbrella of the PWGID, in realityits success derives from the commitment of particularnon-state actors in the process. Without acritical mass of organisations with the mandate toengage in a long term perspective, these advocacyefforts may not have reached the same results.6.1.2. Coordination ofAdvocacy WorkThe cluster system provided an effective mechanismfor coordinating interventions towardsIDP protection. This coordination mechanismensured that advocacy work on the policywas informed by accurate information on thestatus of IDPs in Kenya. Key partners among thePWGID regularly published and undertook studieson the status of IDPs. 79 Given that UNOCHAsupport through its Early Recovery CoordinationMechanism activities in the 11 countries thatmake up the Great Lakes Region, it is conceivablethat other countries in the region could borrowthe structure of the PWGID, adjust it to their localneeds and use it to coordinate activities on the protectionof IDPs including development of policy.6.1.3. Resource MobilisationPolicy development work requires financial resourcesin order to succeed. These could go towardsvarious activities that include meetings,forums for lobbying and general logistical support.While the PWGID provided a mechanism for coordinatingadvocacy work, many challenges arosewhen it came to resource mobilisation for joint activities.All the activities were financed by CSOs,with Government departments providing minimalfinancial support to the process. Furthermore, notall organisations contributed equally to the process,and it was often difficult for them to mobiliseresources on an ad-hoc basis for activities that hadnot been planned in their respective annual plans.6.1.4. Involvement ofthe GovernmentPolicymaking is a government function and assuch non-state actors may only take part in it insofaras the Government organs permit them.Even where policy reforms are being championedby CSOs, it is imperative to seek official endorsement.This endorsement would be crucial at laterstages of adopting and implementing the policyand would give the resulting policy a measure oflegitimacy. In Kenya, the policy development pro-cess was initiated by CSOs, who managed to bringdifferent branches of the government on board.The government institutions that were part of theadvocacy work included the KNCHR, MoSSP, Mo-JNCCA, Provincial Administration and the legislature.MoSSP and MoJNCCA participated in the processof developing the broader policy on internaldisplacement. Provincial Administrators participatedin the field-based working groups asthe chair, while KNCHR was part of the nationalPWGID which it also chaired. Parliament played amajor role in calling upon the executive arm of theGovernment to give account of its efforts to protectIDPs and ultimately passed the legislation oninternal displacement. All these institutions willremain relevant as the policies move to the implementationstage.While the Government would be expected to initiatecontact with CSOs in policy development, insome instances CSOs must be proactive especiallywhere the Government remains hesitant to act.Different government offices take part in the policydevelopment process for different reasons andit may well be possible to take advantage of rivalrybetween the different arms and strategically use itto bolster advocacy. By partnering with the PSC,the PWGID was able to secure a draft Bill whenthe executive arm continued to remain equivocalon its commitment to protecting IDPs throughthe adoption of the draft Policy. In addition, actorsused the Legislature to hold the Executive accountablefor failure to fully protect IDPs.Depending on the extent and nature of governmentinvolvement in the process, other non-stateactors should clearly conceptualise their role in away that facilitates the process. Sometimes thiscould even involve initiation and leadership of theprocess as it happened in Kenya.6.1.5. Adapting InternationalStandards to LocalConditionsIn drafting the IDP Policy and Bill, actors in Kenyagreatly borrowed from protection standards containedin international instruments for the protectionof IDPs. The policies relied on the GuidingPrinciples, the Great Lakes IDP Protocol, theKampala Convention and other human rightsinstruments. These international and regionalnorms and standards provided a useful guide fordealing with the protection of IDPs. However, inadopting the universal standards, care must betaken to confirm their suitability to local circumstances.For instance, the definition of an IDP ascontained in the Kenyan policy makes reference topolitically-instigated violence or inter-communalhostilities, natural disasters and development projects,which are recognised as some of the causesof displacement in Kenya.Policy development work does not occur in an abstractor hypothetical setting. It will relate to realcontexts which influence its course. It would beimportant for any person engaged in policymakingto fully appreciate environmental factors anddevelop strategies on how to deal with or takeadvantage of them. In the Kenyan case, actors remainedattuned to the sensitivity of internal displacementand set out to develop a narrative ofinternal displacement as a human rights violationwarranting a national response. Further, the localcontext would also determine the way in whichcountries adopt international standards and ifneed be, countries should feel free to apply standardshigher than those stipulated in internationalframeworks.6.1.6. Creation and Utilisationof Networks and PersonalContactsThe extent to which CSOs take part in the policymakingprocess depends on their ability to engagewith different actors within the Government. Tothis end, CSOs need to have useful contacts within28Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 29

Chapter 6: Lessons Learned and Recommendationsofficial circles to be able to effectively influencepolicy work. In the Kenyan case, partnership withthe Government under the PWGID facilitated accessto information, for example on Governmentplans. Additionally, the various organisations underthe PWGID brought together a comprehensivenetwork of contacts. Through RCK, for instance,the PWGID had access to a number of actors whosignificantly supported the policy developmentprocess ranging from parliamentarians to ministersand government officials.6.1.7. TimingThe policy development process should be strategicallytimed. Proper timing allows the process totake advantage of environmental and political factorsto aid its progress. Poor timing of the processwould either make it move slowly or even underminerelevant identification of issues, policy optionsand formulation. Most of these events maynot directly relate to the policymaking process andmay in fact be driven by other independent factors.In the Kenyan case, the 2007/2008 violenceenhanced perceptions that time was ripe for apolicy and this enriched the process with a senseof urgency together with the upcoming elections.Promulgation of the Constitution in 2010 also seta higher standard of state responsibility.6.1.8. Inclusion andParticipationBroad-based participation in policymaking ensurespopular acceptance of the resulting productand promotes its ownership, which in turn makesits implementation easier. In addition, dependingon the nature and profile of the persons or actorsinvolved in the process, participation ensures thatthe resulting policy takes a practical approach tothe issues under consideration. In Kenya, the processbenefited from participation from the field aswell as national and international level involvement.However, all these actors did not take partin the process to the same extent and the participationof IDPs was marginal. This was clearly aweakness in the Kenyan case. Other actors contemplatingengagement in policy developmentshould understand the role of each stakeholderand ensure that they are given adequate facilitiesto meaningfully participate in the process.6.1.9. Institutional Weaknessesand Capacity Buildingfor ActorsOne often presumes the existence of capacity ingovernmental departments, allowing officers toinitiate and formulate policies to respond to variousissues that fall within these departments. TheKenyan experience shows that various actorsincluding government departments and officersmay sometimes lack the technical capacity to diagnoseproblems and design policies to respond tothem. Recognising this, the PWGID embarked oncapacity-building initiatives targeting key actorsto enhance their participation in the policymakingprocess. A number of workshops were organisedwith Parliament, CSOs and Ministries. As such,any strategy for policymaking should contemplateweaknesses and gaps within official policymakingsystems and work towards their reinforcement.6.1.10. Flexibility, Concessionsand CompromisesPolicymaking entails a great deal of choice andconcessions. These concessions vary in benefits,costs and risks yet it may sometimes be difficultor even impossible to develop a consensus on particularpolicy options. In such instances and witha comprehensive understanding of the availablepolicy options, a compromise would be advisableand a thorough knowledge of the implications ofany concessions is necessary.6.1.11. Local and ExternalexpertiseInvolvement of external expertise plays a crucialrole in the policymaking process. While it engen-ders a sense of detachment from the issues and encouragesobjectivity, it also gives the process additionalpolitical weight depending on the profile ofthe external persons involved. Their participationenriches the process with a comparative angle. Externalexpertise would however be in vain unlessthere exist local capacities to match and temper itsapplication to local issues and problems. The PW-GID provides a rich blend of local expertise thatincludes lawyers, social scientists, drafters andcommunication specialists among others.6.2. Recommendations toCountries Wishing toEngage in the Process ofDeveloping a Policy onInternal DisplacementRecommendation 1:Map out and identify key organisations with strategicinterests in displacement issues. Categorise themby the nature of their mandates to develop a strategythat will ensure long-term planning and engagement.Recommendation 2:Establish a coordination mechanism with a clearstructure and secretariat to manage its affairs.Recommendation 3:The relevant Ministry should house the coordinationmechanism as it serves as an easy entry pointfor most actors. However, this would depend on thelevel of involvement and support for the process bythe Government.Recommendation 4:Clearly categorise objectives in the short, mediumand long-term and develop implementation strategiesfor their achievement including timelines.Recommendation 5:The coordination mechanism should have mechanismsfor ensuring commitment, regular and consistentparticipation and accountability by its members,or a monitoring and evaluation component to itsterms of reference which would be used to evaluatethe performance of the group.Recommendation 6:The coordination mechanism must ensure theparticipation of all relevant stakeholders to the extentnecessary and feasible.Recommendation 7:Develop a budget for the whole policy developmentprocess and establish a mechanism for mobilisingresources that would ensure equitable sharing ofburdens among the actors involved in the process.The Government, as the primary duty-bearer,should take part in these efforts.Recommendation 8:Policies are governance guidelines and as such allrelevant Ministries and other government departmentsshould play an active part in their implementation.Their participation would enrich theprocess with practical perspectives about possibilitiesand constraints within the executive.Recommendation 9:Considering the extent of resources invested indeveloping policies, once adopted, the governmentsmust support their implementation.Recommendation 10:Where Government is involved in the process, itshould make it clear which departments hold whatmandate in the protection of IDPs. Where the Governmentis not involved in the process to a meaningfulextent, the involved actors should try andunderstand how the bureaucracy works.Recommendation 11:The AU and the ICGLR should provide technicalsupport to countries seeking to establish mechanismsfor the protection of IDPs that respond tocountry-specific issues and contexts, rather thanpush for a universal process and instrument fordomesticating international standards.Recommendation 12:There is a need to adopt and implement complementarypolicy and legal frameworks which havea bearing on the protection and provision of assistanceto IDPs.30Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 31

Chapter 6: Lessons Learned and RecommendationsRecommendation 13:Actors in the policymaking process, state and nonstateactors, must ensure to map out all key actors,mark their role in the process and establish a usefulnetwork to facilitate their work. Sometimeslobbying will require informal contacts with influentialactors.Recommendation 14:Capacity building initiatives should target bothstate and non-state actorsRecommendation 15:To enhance long-term learning, the policy developmentprocess should be documented. Documentationwould also help during implementationand review of the policy.Recommendation 16:Policymaking involves choices and as such actorsshould contemplate all the policy choices: costs,risks and benefits. This analysis is important duringnegotiations on particular policy options to beincluded in the policy.AppendicesA: Questionnaire1: Policy Development Process1. What do you see as the major issues on IDP protectionin Kenya?2. Is your organization part of the PWGID andwhat role does it play in the protection of IDPs?3. (For respondents whose organizations are notpart of the PWGID). Has your organizationbeen involved in responding to the situation ofIDPs in Kenya?Yes [ ] No [ ]If yes, what has been the nature of this involvement?4. What are the major achievements, lessons andchallenges realized in working within thesegroups? What are your recommendations towardsaddressing these challenges?5. What is the justification for a policy on protectionof IDPs in Kenya?6. How has your organization been involved in thepolicy development process?7. Do you think the policy development processwas informed by the national, regional and internationalframeworks and contexts on protectionof IDPs?Yes [ ] No [ ](Please cite any such relevant frameworks orelaborate)8. Please rate the IDP policy development processin line with the following (Select one):a) Non-participatoryb) Fairly participatoryc) Fully participatory9. Were IDPs active participants in this process?Yes [ ] No [ ](Please elaborate the extent of theirparticipation/ non-participation)10. What are the major achievements, lessons andchallenges realized in the IDPs policy developmentprocess so far? What are your recommendationstowards addressing these challenges?Section 2: Drafting of the Bill11. Was/ Is there need for legislation on IDPs inKenya?Yes [ ] No [ ](Please elaborate)12. How has your organization involved in its developmentprocess?13. Has there been a harmonized approach to processesof developing the draft IDP Policy andIDP Bill?Yes [ ] No [ ]What has been the impact of thisharmonisation/ lack of harmonisation?14. Do you think the development of the Bill wasinformed by the national, regional and internationalframeworks and contexts on protectionof IDPs?Yes [ ] No [ ](Please cite any such relevant frameworksor elaborate)15. Please rate the IDP Bill drafting process in linewith the following (Select one):a) Non-participatoryb) Fairly participatoryc) Fully participatory16. Were IDPs active participants in this process?Yes [ ] No [ ](Please elaborate the extent of theirparticipation or non-participation)17. What are the major achievements, lessons andchallenges realized in the development of theBill so far? What are your recommendationstowards addressing these challenges?32 Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 33

General Issues18. Did the participation of external actors likethe UN Special Representative on the HumanRights of IDPs, and other consultants in thedevelopment of the policy and Bill on IDPs influencethe processes in any way?Yes [ ] No [ ](Please elaborate)19. What do you see as the next phases of engagementin the development of the Policy andBill? Can you propose a framework or processof adoption/ enactment, implementation/ enforcementand M/E/ feedback?20. Any other comments or observation in regardto above issues?B. Supplementary Questionnaire1. To what extent and in what ways do you see theresult of this study informing and influencingregional initiatives to develop frameworks forthe protection of IDPs? What particular issuesdo you think deserve special mention i.e.would be importance for regional advocacy?2. What is the mandate of your organisation andhow does it relate to IDP work in Kenya? Whendid RCK start taking part in advocacy work fora policy framework on internal displacement?3. In what way have you been involved in the advocacyinitiatives to develop a policy (and legislative)framework for the protection of IDPsin Kenya? What kind of partnerships? Extentof involvement? What’s your assessment ofthe Kenyan processes so far? Challenges, opportunities,milestones, setbacks, criticism?4. Beyond the Kenyan context, have you participatedin any kind of international (and regional)advocacy on internal displacement? Whereand in what way?5. How does the context of the other countriesrelate to the Kenyan scenario? Any opportunitiesfor comparison/ challenges/ unique issues?Is the Kenyan scenario a classical oneand can it be replicated in the region to influencedevelopment of a legal framework on internaldisplacement?6. What is RCK’s strength in advocacy? How didit manage to successfully lead these advocacyinitiatives?7. What political obstacles did you come acrossin your advocacy work on a policy frameworkon IDPs? How did you overcome them?8. What strategies do you intend to employ insupporting or ensuring that:a. The policy on IDPs is adoptedb. The implementation of the IDP Bill onceassented toc. There is constructive monitoring and evaluationof the implementation process of thepolicy and the BillBibliography1. British Council, MoJNCCA and PeaceNet Kenya(2011) Conflict Mapping: An Insider’s Perspective.A Report on National Conflict Mappingfor the Active Citizens Programme, accessed onhttp://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/9916B6A8B2BA70558525784E00744C6C-Full_Report.pdf on April 30, 2012.2. Brookings Institution, ‘Addressing Internal Displacement:A Framework for National Responsibility’,April 2005.3. Brookings Institution, ‘Protecting InternallyDisplaced Persons: A Manual for Law and Policymakers’,October, 2008.4. Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacementavailable at http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/idp/laws-and-policies/africapolicies5. Brookings-LSE, Project Overview (Projecton Internal Displacement) available at http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/idp6. Cabinet Media brief, 25th October, 2012, www.statehousekenya.go.ke7. Calvin Onsarigo and AlphonceGari,´“Attackersferried to Tana Delta, says NSIS” in The Star,Monday, August 27, 2012.8. Communication 276/2003- Centre for MinorityRights Development (Kenya) and MinorityRights Group International on behalf of theEndorois Welfare Council v. Kenya, accessed atonApril 30, 2012.9. Constitution of Kenya, 2010.10. “Forest Evictees Still Waiting Three YearsOn”, accessed at on May 10, 2012.11. Global IDP Database (as of 30 November, 2004)Profile of Internal Displacement: Kenya, accessedat on April30, 2012.12. Government of Kenya (2009) Report of thePrime Minister’s Task Force on the Conservationof the Mau Forests Complex.13. “Internal Displacement in Kenya: Report on theWorkshop for Civil Society Organisations organisedjointly by the UN Office for the Coordinationof Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA-Kenya) andthe Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre(IDMC); Nairobi, Kenya, 30 March 2007”.14. Intermediate Technology Development Group(2003), “Conflict in Northern Kenya: A Focuson the Internally Displaced Conflict Victims inNorthern Kenya”, accessed at on May 11, 2012.15. Joan Corkery, Anthony Land, and Jean Bossuyt,‘The Process of Policy Formulation: InstitutionalPath or Institutional Maze?’ a study based onthe introduction of cost-sharing for educationin three African countries available at < http://www.ecdpm.org/Web_ECDPM/Web/Content/Download.nsf/0/ED2FA8DD08900C60C12571180055BE12/$FILE/PMR3E.pdf.16. Kenya: Human Rights Council; Nineteenth Session,Agenda Item 3: “Statement by Kenya on theReport of the Special Rapporteur on the HumanRights of Internally Displaced Persons, ChalokaBeyani”.17. Kenya National Assembly (April 2012) Reportof the Parliamentary Select Committee on theResettlement of the Internally Displaced personsin Kenya.18. Kenya National Assembly, Official Report,Thursday, 2nd August, 2012.19. Kenya National Assembly, Official Report,Wednesday, 17th November, 2010.20. KHRC, 2008, “A Tale of Force, Threats and Lies:‘Operation Rudi Nyumbani’ in Perspective”.34Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 35

21. KHRC (2011), “Gains and Gaps: A Status Reporton IDPs in Kenya 2008-2010”.22. KHRC, 2009, Kenya IDPs Protection Cluster,“Concept Paper: Legal Aid Working Group on InternalDisplacement”.23. KNCHR, KHRC and RCK, Draft National Policyon Internal Displacement: Simplified Version,2011, Nairobi.24. LASWG, “Concept Paper on IDPs StakeholdersForum, April 2009”.25. Ministry of State for Special Programmes: Progresson Resettlement of Internally DisplacedPersons as at 6th January, 2012.26. Mohamed Ali Baadi and Others v. The AttorneyGeneral of Kenya and 9 Others, High Court ofKenya at Nairobi, Petition No. 22 of 2012.27. MoSSP and PWGID, “Concept Note of the Verificationof IDPs Database, May 2012.28. Pablo T. Spiller, Ernesto Stein and MarianoTommasi, ‘Political Institutions, PolicymakingProcesses, and Policy Outcomes: An IntertemporalTransactions Framework’ April 2003.29. PC meeting minutes of February 3, 2009. Theinitial meetings were held at UNCHR’s Rhapta50 offices.30. Prevention Web, Kenya- Disaster Statistics,Natural Disasters from 1980-2010 accessed athttp://www.preventionweb.net/english/countries/statistics/?cid=90.31. Prisca Kamungi and Jacqueline Klopp, ‘TheChallenges of Protecting the Internally Displacedthrough IC/GLR’ paper presented at the conferenceon ‘International Conference on The GreatLakes Region: Progress, Challenges and Opportunities’in Kigali Rwanda, 18-19th March 2008.32. Report of the Commission of Inquiry appointedto inquire into Tribal Clashes, 199933. Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Illegaland Irregular Allocation of Public Land, 200334. Report of the Parliamentary Select Committeeto Investigate the Ethnic Clashes in WesternKenya and Other Parts of Kenya, 199235. Report of the Task Force and Advisory Committeeon IDPs, 200436. Sam Kanyamibwa, Great Lakes Region Impactof Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons onEcosystem Integrity, Report for the United NationsEnvironment Programme, October 2007.37. Saverio Krätli and Jermy Swift Institute of DevelopmentStudies University of Sussex, UK(1999) Understanding and Managing PastoralConflict in Kenya for a comprehensive profileon pastoral conflict, accessed at http://www.eldis.org/fulltext/pastconf.pdf on April 30,2012.38. The Annotated Agenda and Timetable for theKenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation,available on the Kenya National Dialogue andReconciliation website at http://www.dialoguekenya.org/.39. The Commission of Inquiry on the Post ElectionsViolence [CIPEV (2008)], Final Report ofthe CIPEV, Kenya: Government Printers.40. “Towards Durable Solutions to Internal Displacement:Report of the Workshop with the ParliamentarySelect Committee on the Resettlementof Internally Displaced Persons, PangoniBeach Resort, Mombasa, 4th- 6th December2011”.41. UNHRC, “Kenya IDPs Protection ClusterWorking Group on Internal Displacement:Transitional Concept Note-February 6, 2009”.42. UNCHR, RCK, IOM,UNICEF, OHCHR, IN-COUNTRY NETWORK OF PSEA, KNCHR,GENDER COMMISSION, UNFPA, UNO-CHA, “Protection Working Group in InternalDisplacement (PWGID) report on protectionissues related to displacement as a resultof drought in Turkana. A fact-finding missionreport on the protection issues arising fromdrought-induced displacement in Kakuma, Lokichoggio,Lodwar and Kitale” November 2011.43. United Nations Development Program- EnhancedSecurity Unit, Kenya Natural DisasterProfile, accessed at http://mirror.undp.org/kenya/KenyaDisasterProfile.pdfon April 30, 2012.44. UNOCHA KENYA: Frequently Asked Questionson IDPs”- Fact Sheet on Kenya’s IDPs preparedby the United Nations for the Coordinationof Humanitarian Affairs on July 16, 2009.45. Working matrix developed by the PWGID thatanalysed various frameworks relating to IDPprotection in Kenya.Footnotes1. In this report, Great Lakes Region refers to the 11 countriesthat participated in the International Conference onthe Great Lakes Region and ratified the Great Lakes Pact:Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Republic ofCongo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Uganda,Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania and Zambia.2. President Assents Eight Bills, accessed at 3. Housed within the Ministry of State for Provincial Administrationand Internal Security and was formed in1998 to manage and coordinate disaster responses at thenational level in Kenya. Information available at www.nationaldisaster.go.ke4. As a sessional paper to be prepared by the MoSSP.5. These countries are Angola, Burundi, Sudan and Uganda,see Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacementavailable at .6. Hon Esther Murugi, was at that time with the Ministry ofGender, Children and Social Development.7. Pablo T. Spiller, Ernesto Stein and Mariano Tommasi,‘Political Institutions, Policymaking Processes, and PolicyOutcomes: An Intertemporal Transactions Framework’April 2003. Some scholars expand the cycle by breakingdown agenda setting into specific stages like definitionof problems, clarification of values and goals, identificationof objectives and development of possible options;see Joan Corkery, Anthony Land, and Jean Bossuyt, ‘TheProcess of Policy Formulation: Institutional Path or InstitutionalMaze?’, a study based on the introduction of costsharingfor education in three African countries availableat www.ecdpm.org/Web_ECDPM/Web/Content/...nsf/.../PMR3E.pdf .8. Brookings Institution, ‘Protecting Internally DisplacedPersons: A Manual for Law and Policymakers, October2008.9. Brookings Institution, ‘Addressing Internal Displacement:A Framework for National Responsibility’, April 2005.10. See Sam Kanyamibwa, Great Lakes Region Impact ofRefugees and Internally Displaced Persons on EcosystemIntegrity, Report for the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, October 2007; See Prisca Kamungi andJacqueline Klopp, ‘The Challenges of Protecting theInternally Displaced through IC/GLR’ paper presentedat the conference on ‘International Conference on TheGreat Lakes Region: Progress, Challenges and Opportunities’in Kigali Rwanda, 18-19th March 2008.11. Deng, Francis. ‘The guiding principles on internal displacement’.E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.l, February 11. NewYork, NY: United Nations. New York: United Nations.12. Brookings-LSE, Project Overview (Project on InternalDisplacement) available at .13. Global IDP Database (as of 30th November 2004) Profileof Internal Displacement: Kenya pp 6-7. Accessible on asaccessed on 30th April 2012.14. Ibid.15. “‘OCHA KENYA: Frequently Asked Questions on IDPs’-Fact Sheet on Kenya’s IDPs prepared by the United Nationsfor the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs onJuly 16, 2009. Data on displacement prior to 2007 is derivedfrom this source.16. Of this total, 350,000 sought refuge in 118 camps while313,921 were integrated in communities countrywide and640 households took refuge in Uganda. 1,300 fatalities andthe destruction of 78,254 houses were further outcomesof this conflict (Ministry of State for Special Programmes:Progress on Resettlement of Internally Displaced Personsas at 6th January, 2012).17. Commission on the Inquiry into Post-election ViolenceReport, (CIPEV) 2008.18. In August 2012, Kenya experienced a bloody conflict betweenthe Pokomo (agricultural by nature) and Orma(pastoral by nature) communities in Tana River district.Some analysts saw competing political interests (Countygovernance) towards the 2013 General Elections as a keyelement. According to the Kenya Red Cross, more than6,000 people were displaced. (Calvin Onsarigo and Al-36Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 37

phonce Gari, “Attackers ferried to Tana Delta, says NSIS”28. “Forest Evictees Still Waiting Three Years On” Avail-placement Monitoring Centre (IDMC); Nairobi, Kenya,49. The legislation borrows from the UN Guiding Principles,in The Star, Monday, 27th August 2012, p. 6).able on as accessed on36. The draft concept paper which was discussed by membersamong other human rights instruments. Kenya is not yet aConflict Mapping: An Insider’s Perspective. A Report10th May 2012on 31st March 2009 at KHRC indicates that the forum wasparty to the Kampala Convention and as such, the legisla-on National Conflict Mapping for the Active Citizens29. Local communities in the area have commenced legal pro-initially scheduled for 4-5th May 2009 to coincide withtion does not make specific reference to it.Programme. Accessible on as accessed on 30th Aprilin the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Petition No. 22 oftional and administrative reasons, this was moved to Julyduring the sensitization workshop with the LSWC and2012.2012 (Mohamed Ali Baadi and Others v. The Attorney Gen-2009.the other calling on the two principals to commit to the20. See Saverio Krätli and Jermy Swift Institute of Develop-eral of Kenya and 9 Others)37. LASWG, “Concept Paper on IDPs Stakeholders Forum,establishment of the legislative framework on protectionment Studies University of Sussex, UK (1999) Under-30. See the working matrix developed by the PWGID thatApril 2009”.of IDPs.standing and Managing Pastoral Conflict in Kenya for aanalysed various frameworks relating to IDP protection38. KNCHR, KHRC and RCK, Draft National Policy on Inter-51. Apart from the interviewees from parliament, all othercomprehensive profile on pastoral conflict. Accessiblein Kenya.nal Displacement: Simplified Version, 2011, Nairobi.respondents interviewed for this study were part of theon as accessed on31. Some notable initiatives in this regard included the Par-39. The Ministry of Justice provided a great deal of legal sup-protection working group either at the national (Nairobi)30th April 2012.liamentary Select Committee to Investigate the Ethnicport to the ASWG during the review of the legal, policyor field level (Eldoret and Nakuru).21. The term “Northern Frontier District” was mostly usedClashes in Western Kenya and Other Parts of Kenya (Ki-and institutional frameworks upon the conclusion of the52. Ideally the newly formed PWGID was to be chaired by aduring the colonial times in reference to the Northernliku Commission 1992); the Commission of Inquiry ap-policy formulation process.government ministry or national human rights/ protec-Eastern province and the adjacent districts-Lamu, Isiolo,pointed to inquire into Tribal Clashes (Akiwumi 1999);40. Most of the amendments touched on the need to have thetion organisation with the new Chair commencing on 1stMarsabit and Tana River districts.the Commission of Inquiry into Illegal and Irregular Al-framework for devolution, human rights, values and prin-March 2009.22. Intermediate Technology Development Group (2003),location of Public Land (Ndung’u Commission in 2003);ciples of governance in the Constitution reflected in the53. See PC meeting minutes of 3rd February 2009. The initial“Conflict in Northern Kenya: A Focus on the Internallyformation of a Task Force and Advisory Committee ondraft policy.meetings were held at UNCHR’s Rhapta 50 offices.Displaced Conflict Victims in Northern Kenya”. AvailableIDPs (Ngali Committee 2004); the Commission of In-41. The Sub-committee comprises of senior officials from the54. The proposed principles of engagement for the PWGIDon as accessed on 11th May2008); and the Parliamentary Select Committee on IDPstration, Justice, Lands and Financetion of key protection themes and issues; establishment2012.(PSC) among others.42. Kenya National Assembly, Official Report, Wednesday,and maintenance of humanitarian coordination mecha-23. According to Prevention Web, there have been 79 inci-32. The Commission of Inquiry on the Post Elections Vio-17th November, 2010, p. 4nisms; coordination with national and local authorities,dences of natural disasters which led to 6,066; affectedlence [CIPEV (2008)], Final Report of the CIPEV, Kenya:43. Kenya National Assembly (April 2012) Report of the Par-state institutions, local civil society organisations and48,004,436 persons and led to economic losses amountingGovernment Printers.liamentary Select Committee on the Resettlement of theother relevant actors; identification of priority cross-to USD112,338,000. See Prevention Web, Kenya- Disas-33. In April 2004, the Kenya Human Rights Commission or-Internally Displaced persons in Kenya, p. 70.cutting issues; planning and strategy development; appli-ter Statistics, Natural Disasters from 1980-2010 avail-ganised a stakeholders’ forum to encourage collaboration44. For a more detailed account of the deliberations, refer tocation of standards; monitoring, reporting and response;able at .faith-based organisations (especially the Catholic JusticeReport of the Workshop with the Parliamentary Selectity building; and confidentiality.24. 70% of the country’s land mass is either Arid or Semi-Aridand Peace Commission (CJPC) and the National CouncilCommittee on the Resettlement of Internally Displaced55. See UNHRC: “Kenya IDPs Protection Cluster Workingand as such significant sections of communities will con-of the Churches in Kenya) and the National IDPs Net-Persons, Pangoni Beach Resort, Mombasa, 4th-6th De-Group on Internal Displacement: Transitional Concepttinue to suffer displacement (United Nations Developmentwork. Moreover, the annual commemorations of the deathcember 2011”.Note-6th February 2009”.Program- Enhanced Security Unit, Kenya Natural Disasterof Father John Kaiser, organised by CJPC, became one of45. For a more detailed account of the deliberations, refer to56. Kenya IDPs Protection Cluster, “Concept Paper: Legal AidProfile. Accessible on as accessed on April 30, 2012).of IDPs though most of the initiatives focused on the re-Report of the Workshop with the Parliamentary Selectcept was drafted by KHRC on 9th February 2009.25. Ibid.settlement and access to justice.Committee on the Resettlement of Internally Displaced57. As evidenced in the monthly protection and updates meet-26. Communication 276/2003- Centre for Minority Rights34. Between 2006-2007, UNOCHA was the UN focal pointPersons, Pangoni Beach Resort, Mombasa, 4th-6th De-ings at national and field-based levels; quarterly progressDevelopment (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group Inter-on IDPs matters under the initial leadership of Andrewcember 2011”updates on resettlement from MoSSP; periodical reports,national on behalf of the Endorois Welfare Council v Ken-Timpson and later Jeanine Cooper. This mandate was46. Kenya National Assembly, Official Report, Thursday, 2ndpolicy briefs and papers, publications and documentariesya. Available on as accessedRefugees (UNCHR).47. Kenya National Assembly, Report of the Parliamentarydissemination of the abridged version of the draft IDPson April 30, 2012.35. For details see: “Internal Displacement in Kenya: ReportSelect Committee on the Resettlement of the internallypolicy by the KNCHR, RCK, KHRC and DRC was a criti-27. Government of Kenya (2009) Report of the Prime Minis-on the Workshop for Civil Society Organisations organ-displaced persons in Kenya, April, 2012 p. 70.cal milestone.ter’s Task Force on the Conservation of the Mau Forestsised jointly by the UN Office for the Coordination of Hu-48. In accordance with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution58. The participating officers include: policy-makers at theComplex.manitarian Affairs (OCHA-Kenya) and the Internal Dis-2010.national level; the provincial administration responsible38Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 39

for the implementation of government programmes at thelocal level and the police who play a key role in ensuringthe security of IDPs.59. UNCHR, RCK, IOM,UNICEF, OHCHR, INCOUNTRYNETWORK OF PSEA, KNCHR, GENDER COMMIS-SION, UNFPA, OCHA, “Protection Working Group inInternal Displacement (PWGID) report on protectionissues related to displacement as a result of drought inTurkana. A fact-finding mission report on the protectionissues arising from drought-induced displacement in Kakuma,Lokichoggio, Lodwar and Kitale” November 2011.60. It is important to note that there were, however, structuresto ensure sharing of information with field-basedactors which included reporting and monitoring mechanisms.In fact, KNCHR and the representative of the Officeof the UN Special Rapporteur on IDPs participate inboth the national and field based PWGID meetings.61. However, it must be noted that the PWGID has mechanismsto facilitate reporting, information sharing andcoordination with field actors which included representationof the field working group at the national level andsimilarly representation of the national working group atthe field level.62. A good number of the organisations or individuals whofounded the PWGID in January and February 2008 havenow moved on. This is either due to staff transition or lackof interest (related to mandate or capacity) with the currentphases of engagement with IDP issues.63. KHRC (2011) “Gains and Gaps: A Status Report on IDPs inKenya 2008-2010” p. 13.64. A series of consultative meetings took place betweenMarch and June 2011. A concept note to inform the processwas developed with a view to: developing an authenticand comprehensive database reflecting the differentcategories of PEV IDPs, ascertaining the beneficiaries ofsupport programmes being offered and the programmesin particular they have benefited from; and developingguidelines for the sustainable management and updatingof an IDP database (MoSSP and PWGID, “Concept Noteof the Verification of IDPs Database, May 2012).65. These included forest evictees, squatters and persons displacedby other factors before 2007.66. “A Tale of Force, Threats and Lies: ‘Operation Rudi Nyumbani’in Perspective”- Kenya Human Rights Commission(KHRC), 28th October 2008.67. FIDA-Kenya, CLAN Kenya and Help Age Internationalwere founding members of the PWGID. If they were active,they could have helped in increasing the voices ofwomen, children and older members in the society.68. Government of Kenya (2008) The Commission of Inquiryinto Post-Election Violence Report, p. 293-29469. Examples include the three workshops in Mombasa withmembers of the PSC, PWGID and LSWC; stakeholdermeetings with other thematic groups such as the childprotection actors.70. Cabinet media brief, 25th October 2012, www.statehousekenya.go.ke.71. UNHCR played a key role in coordinating this visit byProf. Beyani and other key state and non-state actors inthe protection of IDPs in Kenya.72. Kenya: Human Rights Council; Nineteenth Session,Agenda Item 3: “Statement by Kenya on the Report of theSpecial Rapporteur on the Human Rights of InternallyDisplaced Persons, Chaloka Beyani”, pp 1-3.73. “To Live as Other Kenyans Do”: A Study of the ReparativeDemands of the Kenyan Victims of Human Rights Abuses,International Centre for Transitional Justice (July 2011).74. It was the stakeholder forum organised by UNOCHA andIDMC in March 2007 that set the stage for discussions onthe need for a policy.75. Sentiments of an MP during a workshop with the Labourand Social Welfare Committee in Mombasa in July 2012to lobby for the adoption of the IDP Bill in Parliament.This comment was made in relation to the rights of IDPsto register and vote in places where they live during displacementor after resettlement.76. The process was brokered by a Panel of Eminent AfricanPersonalities under the chairmanship of Mr. Koffi Annanwith four agenda: 1) Immediate Action to Stop Violenceand Restore Fundamental Rights and Liabilities; 2) ImmediateMeasures to Address the Humanitarian Crisis,Promote Reconciliation, Healing and Restoration; 3) Howto Overcome the Current Political Crisis; and 4) LongtermIssues and Solutions See the Annotated Agenda andTimetable for the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation,available on the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliationwebsite at http://www.dialoguekenya.com/.77. Agenda 1,2 and 3 were supposed to be achieved between 7and 15 days from the commencement of dialogue; agenda4 was to be achieved within one year from 28th February2012, See the Annotated Agenda and Timetable for theKenya National78. Former Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, formerHead of Public Service Francis Muthaura, Eldoret NorthMP William Ruto and radio journalist Joshua Sang.40 Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 41

RCKHaki House, Ndemi Roadoff Muringa Road, KilimaniP. O. Box 2534000603 Lavington, Nairobi,KenyaTel: +254 20 208 8060 / 208 8067Fax: +254 20 2088054Office Cell : +254 733 860 669 /720 943 164Email : info@rckkenya.orgDRCLower Kabete Road,Ngecha Road JunctionP. O. Box 1476200800 Westlands, Nairobi,KenyaTel: +254 20 418 04 03/4/5Email: info@drchoa.orgwww.drc.dkwww.rckkenya.org