From Responsibility to Response: Assessing National - Brookings

not necessarily influence such changes; Georgia and
Uganda have had the same national institutional focal
point for IDPs since 1996 and 1998 respectively.
Modality of the decision
In most of the case studies, the institutional focal point
for IDPs is designated as such by law. That may be done
as part of a specific national law on IDPs (for example, as
in Colombia and Georgia) or a national policy or strategy
on IDPs (as in Iraq, Nepal, Sudan and Uganda as well
Kenya, which has a draft policy, and Yemen, which has a
draft national IDP strategy). In fact, the appointment of
a national focal point often seems to be propelled by an
initiative to draft a law or policy on IDPs. In the absence
of a specific national IDP law or policy, there may be a
separate administrative directive designating a national
body with lead responsibility for IDP issues (as in the
Central African Republic). When a national institutional
focal point for IDPs predates the adoption of a national
law, policy or strategy on IDPs (in which case the focal
point usually plays a central role in the drafting process),
the law, policy or strategy on IDPs usually simply reaffirms
its role or may provide an opportunity to revise its
designation (as in Colombia and Yemen). In some cases,
namely in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Pakistan and Turkey, it is not clear from the information
available how and when the state institution
playing the leading role in responding to internal displacement
was formally designated as such.
Institutional profile
In the majority of cases, the institutional entity assigned
responsibility for IDP issues is a state ministry or at
least a government department headed by an official
with ministerial rank. Usually, the designated entity is
an existing ministry or government office rather than
one created for this purpose. More specifically, lead
responsibility for IDPs often is assigned to the ministry
responsible for refugees and migration issues (as in
Afghanistan, Georgia, Iraq and South Sudan) or to the
ministry responsible for humanitarian and/or social affairs
(as in the Central African Republic until June 2009,
Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
Benchmark 7 Designate an Institutional Focal Point on IDPs
89
Sudan). In some cases, the government entity responsible
for disaster management leads the national response
to internal displacement, with responsibility for
responding not only to displacement caused by disaster
but also, notably, to conflict-induced displacement
(as in Pakistan and Uganda). In other cases, it is the
Ministry of Interior (in Turkey and Colombia from 1994
to 1997). In a few countries, an entirely new state office
has been established to lead the national response on
internal displacement, as in Yemen, where the Executive
Office for IDPs replaced the Ministry of Health as the
focal point institution (very little information on the
new office is available, however). Responsibility for addressing
the situation of IDPs sometimes becomes clear
only after a conflict is officially over. In Nepal, responsibility
is assigned to the Ministry for Peace and Post-
Conflict Reconstruction; in Kenya, responsibility falls
to the seemingly catch-all Ministry of State for Special
Programs.
It is noteworthy that in some cases the designated focal
point institution is linked formally to the executive
office, most notably in Colombia, with the Presidential
Adviser on IDPs; in Uganda, with the focal point institution
being part of the Office of the Prime Minster; and
in Yemen, with the Executive Office for IDPs. Such a
link could be interpreted as a reflection of the national
priority given to the IDP issue by the government (see
Benchmark 2). At least, it presumably should translate
into the focal point enjoying significant political leverage,
though it is not clear from the evidence available
whether that is in fact the case.
Changes in the designation of institutional focal point
are perhaps inevitable over time. The case studies suggest
that change can occur because of various factors,
including the duration of displacement, changes in
the magnitude of displacement, differences in the institutional
competences required at different phases of
displacement (for example, emergency assistance at the
beginning and assistance with return or resettlement
and reintegration later), capacity issues, funding, the
degree of prominence given to the issue of displacement
by the government, and broader initiatives of