|
Internal Displacement in Europe
 Download full Europe regional overview (2.5 MB)
 Download full Global overview (6.5 MB)
Some 2.4 million people were still internally displaced in Europe in 2009, more than 40 per cent of whom were in Turkey. Most fled their homes more than 15 years ago as a result of violence, human rights violations and armed conflicts in Turkey, the Balkans and the Caucasus. The number of IDPs in the region fell slightly throughout the year as IDPs returned to their homes or integrated locally – mainly in Georgia, but also in Russia and the Balkans. No new information was available on the number of IDPs in Armenia, Cyprus or Turkey.
Governments still largely prioritised the return of IDPs to their places of origin. However, return remained impossible for most IDPs in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Cyprus in the absence of peace agreements. Obstacles to return in other countries included insecurity, ethnic discrimination, limited government support, infrastructure and social services in areas of origin, as well as problems in repossessing and repairing property, earning an income, cultivating land, receiving a full pension and obtaining documentation. Despite their focus on return, an increasing number of governments took measures in 2009 to improve the living conditions of IDPs at their current residence and elsewhere. In Turkey, action plans were being developed for IDPs in areas of displacement which had not received any support. Some IDPs in Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kosovo, Russia and Serbia were moved into better housing, mainly from collective centres. Other IDPs in Georgia, Russia and Cyprus became owners of temporary housing they had been living in, and in Georgia and Russia, collective centres housing IDPs were renovated and repaired.
The majority of IDPs in the region nevertheless still needed a durable and adequate home in 2009. Property restitution mechanisms such as those in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, and Russia, and compensation mechanisms such as those in Turkey and Russia had largely not solved the housing problems of IDPs; many continued to live with inadequate security of tenure in overcrowded and dilapidated collective centres, informal settlements or makeshift housing with limited access to electricity, heating, water and sanitation. The living conditions of IDPs in private accommodation in cities remained largely unknown.
IDPs also still struggled to earn a regular income. In rural areas, IDPs’ land plots mostly only supplied food for the family as a result of poor soil quality, outdated machinery and cultivation techniques, limited access to markets and continued presence of landmines. With the general lack of investment in rural areas, there were few jobs and IDPs remained unemployed and dependent on benefits and assistance. IDPs seemed to find jobs more easily in cities, except for displaced members of minorities, who encountered social and economic marginalisation and discrimination.
Several other challenges persisted for IDPs in the region. Some still faced difficulties in obtaining and renewing the documents they needed to access jobs, services, benefits and full pensions. This was particularly the case for internally displaced Roma people in the Balkans, who were confronted with widespread discrimination. Many IDPs faced administrative obstacles in accessing medical services or could not afford them, and were forced into debt or poor health as a result.
In many instances reconciliation between communities had still not happened and IDPs continued to await information on the fate and whereabouts of disappeared relatives.
In 2009 several governments were working on or implementing plans for IDPs. The government of Georgia adopted and began implementing a revised action plan to implement its State Strategy on IDPs; and the Bosnian Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees revised the Strategy for achieving durable solutions for refugees, displaced persons and returnees which will be presented to Parliament in 2010 for approval; in Armenia the government was seeking foreign funds for its latest programme to help conflict-induced IDPs return. By the end of the year, the Turkish government had still to formulate a national IDP plan of action.
International humanitarian organisations in the region played a gradually decreasing role due to diminished funding and the shift from humanitarian to development activities. The UN’s involvement centred on UNHCR and UNDP in most countries, as well as on the the Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the Human Rights of IDPs, who visited Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and South Ossetia, Georgia during the year.
UN treaty bodies and member states reviewed the compliance of several governments in the region with international human rights law during the year. The situation of IDPs was not raised as a concern during the reviews of Russia and Turkey, but several concerns about IDPs were raised during reviews of Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Cyprus. Between them, the committees urged governments to ensure equality and participation of IDPs, to improve IDPs’ access to social services, jobs and housing, to assist the most vulnerable of the remaining IDPs who would not be able or willing to return, and to provide adequate and durable alternative housing solutions.
The Council of Europe paid particular attention to IDPs in the region in 2009. The Committee for Migration, Refugees and Population adopted a report and resolution on protracted internal displacement in Europe which called for a renewed and improved response to internal displacement, and the Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern about continued displacement in Turkey and Russia, and urged those governments to comprehensively address the needs of IDPs and facilitate their voluntary return, local integration and resettlement.
Despite the efforts of governments and national, international and regional organisations, significant gaps persist in the protection of IDPs in Europe. As IDPs who have been able to find solutions to their displacement have already done so, those who remain displaced are in many cases among the most vulnerable who have been marginalised and still require specific assistance. They will not achieve durable solutions until their specific needs are identified and addressed, regular monitoring of their situation is carried out, peace agreements are realised, and reconciliation initiatives established.
|