From Responsibility to Response: Assessing National - Brookings

Institutional mandate and responsibilities
When a national law, policy or strategy on IDPs has
been adopted or at least drafted (see Benchmarks 5 and
6), it typically reconfirms the focal point designation or,
when a focal point has not yet been designated, it clarifies
the assignment of institutional responsibility for
leading the national response to internal displacement
(as in Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nepal, Turkey and
Uganda). The Uganda National Policy for Internally
Displaced Persons (2004) spells out the responsibilities
of the national-level focal point institution as well as of
central and local coordination mechanisms in considerable
detail. Similarly, in Kenya the draft national IDP
policy and in Yemen the draft national IDP strategy
both devote considerable attention to defining the role
and responsibilities of the focal point institution.
When there is a national institutional focal point for addressing
internal displacement, in many cases the mandate
of the body is concerned mostly with and in some
cases explicitly restricted to IDPs due to conflict or
violence (as in the Central African Republic, Colombia,
Nepal, Sudan and Turkey). 4 Moreover, in some cases,
the mandate for conflict-induced IDPs is limited to
certain groups of such IDPs. For instance, in Kenya the
mandate of the focal point ministry (Ministry of State
for Special Programs) with respect to conflict-induced
IDPs is restricted to IDPs resulting from the post-election
violence of 2007, excluding IDPs resulting from
other forms of conflict or violence. 5 In some of the cases
studied, the lead government agency for IDPs has a
mandate that covers displacement due to conflict as well
as disasters (as in Georgia, Kenya and Uganda). In other
cases, separate government agencies cover IDPs due to
4 In Myanmar, the situation is the reverse: the only
government agency for responding to internal displacement
mentioned was the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief
and Resettlement (MoSWRR), which is responsible for
disaster risk-reduction activities; it coordinated the relief
efforts in response to Cyclone Nargis of 2008. Even so, it
appears that the MoSWRR activities were not specifically
focused on displaced persons but on relief and recovery of
the affected population in general.
5 See the Kenya case study in chapter 2 of this volume.
Benchmark 7 Designate an Institutional Focal Point on IDPs
91
conflict and IDPs due to disasters (as in Afghanistan) or
IDPs due to conflict and IDPs due to development (as in
Turkey). In one case, Yemen, the mandate of the previous
national focal point for IDPs officially was restricted
to camp-based conflict-induced IDPs, leaving aside
the many IDPs who found temporary refuge with host
families or in informal settlements. Reportedly that restriction
was not strictly observed in practice and it has
been lifted in the new draft national strategy on IDPs.
The tasks and functions assigned to the national institutional
focal point for addressing internal displacement
vary, both within each individual case as well as across
the case studies. In a number of the countries reviewed,
the mandate of the lead agency explicitly states that its
responsibilities include protection and assistance (for
example, the Central African Republic, Georgia, Iraq,
Nepal and Uganda) and in some cases refers to “protection
of rights” of IDPs (the Central African Republic
and Georgia). Key functions and activities may include
registration of IDPs ( as in Colombia, Georgia, Nepal
and Yemen); provision and coordination of humanitarian
assistance (as in Afghanistan, the Central African
Republic, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya and Sudan); the
management of IDP camps and/or collective settlements
(as in Georgia); coordination with other government institutions
and with the international community; and the
development of national legislation and policy on IDPs
(as in the Central African Republic, Georgia, Kenya and
Yemen). When a national policy on internal displacement
does exist (see Benchmark 6), the designated national institutional
focal point tends to be assigned responsibility
for coordinating and monitoring implementation of the
policy (as in Georgia, Nepal, Uganda and Yemen).
Beyond responsibilities relating to protection and assistance
during displacement, in many cases the formal
mandate of the institutional focal point refers explicitly
to supporting “durable solutions” for IDPs (as in Kenya).
This responsibility may refer to the broad range of possible
solutions—that is, to return, local integration or
resettlement elsewhere in the country—and to reintegration
assistance (as in Iraq, Sri Lanka and Yemen). Or