    Foreign Affairs: Internally Displaced Persons Lack Effective
    Protection (17-AUG-01, GAO-01-803).

    Internally displaced persons--those forced to flee their homes
    because of armed conflict and persecution but who remain within
    their own country--are among the most at-risk, vulnerable
    populations in the world. Although some protection has been
    provided to internally displaced persons, international
    organizations have been unable to meet the protection needs of
    internally displaced persons in most locations, partly because of
    the danger in operating in conflict zones, the presence of
    personal security risks to aid workers, and the decline in
    budgetary resources, but also because international organizations
    have not taken a proactive approach toward protection. Also,
    international relief workers have not received training on how to
    incorporate protection considerations and interventions into
    their assistance activities, and in the three countries GAO
    visited, international organizations do not coordinate their
    protection actions within the countries in which they operate.
    Without such coordination, international organizations are unable
    to share basic information about the location of their protection
    officers and effective approaches to protection interventions.
    The U.N. Security Council is one forum where these matters can be
    addressed in the context of underlying political and security
    factors. The U.S. government has no overall policy or lead office
    to coordinate its efforts for dealing with internally displaced
    persons. Instead, government activities aimed at this effort are
    dispersed among different agencies and offices. Some Department
    of State and U.S. Agency for International Development officials
    believe that providing assistance to the internally displaced in
    this way is labor and time intensive, lacks a locus of
    accountability, and leads to duplication of activities. Although
    State is required to provide Congress with an annual report on
    human rights violations, these reports include only limited
    information about the treatment of internally displaced persons.
    Moreover, the country reports do not have a standardized format
    for providing information about the internally displaced and
    their human right condition that would allow concerned parties to
    access the information readily. Increased and more systematic
    reporting that provided some focus on internally displaced
    persons would identify a significant problem and would provide
    U.S. government and international and nongovernmental
    organizations' officials with country-level data to craft a
    cohesive program and policy response.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-803
        ACCNO:   A01604
      TITLE:     Foreign Affairs: Internally Displaced Persons Lack
                 Effective Protection
         DATE:   08/17/2001
      SUBJECT:   Civil rights
    	     Federal aid to foreign countries
    	     Foreign governments
    	     Foreign policies
    	     International cooperation
    	     International organizations
    	     Refugees
    	     Reporting requirements
    	     Burundi
    	     Colombia
    	     Sudan
    	     UN World Food Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Testimony.                                               **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-01-803

    A

    Report to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Foreign
    Relations, U. S. Senate

    August 2001 FOREIGN AFFAIRS Internally Displaced Persons Lack Effective
    Protection

    GAO- 01- 803

    Letter 1 Results in Brief 3 Background 5 Many Internally Displaced Persons
    Lack Protection 10 Immediate Assistance Needs Reported Being Met, But
    Longer- Term Needs Remain a Challenge 24

    U. S. Government Lacks an Overall Policy and a Lead Office for Internally
    Displaced Persons 29 Conclusions 33 Recommendations for Executive Action 34
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35

    Appendixes

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 38

    Appendix II: Country Profiles: Burundi, Colombia, and Sudan 41 Burundi 41
    Colombia 43 Sudan 46

    Appendix III: Comments From the U. S. Department of State 48

    Appendix IV: Comments From the U. S. Agency for International Development 54

    Appendix V: Comments From the United Nations 56

    Appendix VI: Comments From the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
    Movement 58

    Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 61 GAO Contacts 61
    Acknowledgments 61

    Tables Table 1: Organizations? Budget Requests, Actual Funds Received,
    Percentage of Shortfall, and U. S. Contribution, 2000 15

    Table 2: Countries With Internally Displaced Persons Protection Activities,
    2001 17 Table 3: Number of Protection Staff Present in Burundi, Colombia,

    and Southern Sudan, 2000- 2001 20 Figures Figure 1: Map of Countries With
    Internally Displaced Persons,

    2001 6

    Figure 2: Community of Internally Displaced Persons in Central Burundi, 2000
    9 Figure 3: Threats to Internally Displaced Persons, 2001 11 Figure 4:
    Extent of Protection Interventions for Internally Displaced Persons in 48
    Countries, 2001 13

    Figure 5: Rwandan Civilians Fleeing Ethnic Fighting, 1994 19 Figure 6: A
    World Food Program Food Delivery Airdrop in Southern Sudan 23

    Figure 7: GAO Survey of Assistance Interventions Taking Place for Internally
    Displaced Persons in 48 Countries, 2001 25 Figure 8: Reasons Why Internally
    Displaced Persons Were Not

    Receiving Assistance 26 Figure 9: Perceived Sources of Threat to Internally
    Displaced

    Persons 27 Figure 10: Members of a Teenage- headed Household That Receives

    Food Security and Shelter Assistance from USAID, 2000 43 Figure 11: An
    Internally Displaced Persons Community Outside of

    Bogota, Colombia, 2001 45

    Lett er

    August 17, 2001 The Honorable Joseph Biden Chairman The Honorable Jesse
    Helms Ranking Minority Member Committee on Foreign Relations United States
    Senate

    Internally displaced persons-- those forced to flee their homes because of
    armed conflict and persecution but who remain within their own country- are
    among the most at- risk, vulnerable populations in the world. They typically
    differ from refugees only by the fact that they have not crossed an
    international border as refugees have. Governments are responsible for
    protecting and aiding their own citizens; however, some cannot do so or

    actively persecute groups of their citizens, thus creating a displacement
    crisis. When this happens, international organizations, such as the U. N.
    High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee for the Red
    Cross, acting in response to international humanitarian and human rights law
    help protect and assist the estimated 20 million internally displaced
    persons in over 50 countries. The charters of these

    organizations, and their governing bodies, 1 acknowledge the sovereignty of
    each state to deal with internally displaced persons as an internal matter
    but also recognize the obligation of international organizations to help

    address humanitarian and human rights crises. 2 1 The governing bodies of
    these organizations, comprised of representatives of member states of the
    organizations, set overall policy and direction. The governing body of the
    U. N. High Commissioner for Refugees is its Executive Committee. The
    Commissioner also reports to the General Assembly annually through the
    Economic and Social Commission, a U. N. body of member states that promotes
    humanitarian and social issues and recommends actions. The governing body of
    the International Committee for the Red Cross is the Assembly of the
    International Committee of the Red Cross, whose president is also the
    president of the organization.

    2 For example, the Charter of the United Nations states that one of its
    purposes is to achieve international cooperation in solving problems of a
    humanitarian character and to promote and encourage respect for human rights
    and fundamental freedoms. The U. N. Charter, article 2( 7), also states that
    nothing contained in the charter shall authorize the United Nations to
    intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction
    of any state. The International Committee of the Red Cross is formally
    recognized in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which give it the right to take
    actions on behalf of civilian populations.

    The U. S. government, which spends about $2. 5 billion annually in
    humanitarian aid, provides assistance to the internally displaced,
    principally through the Department of State (State) and the U. S. Agency for
    International Development. State?s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and
    Migration provides grants to international organizations that work with the
    internally displaced, while the Agency for International Development?s
    Bureau for Humanitarian Response provides similar grants and also direct
    assistance. These bureaus, as well as the U. S. Missions to the United

    Nations in New York, Geneva, and Rome, are responsible for working with the
    international organizations to ensure U. S. interests are met. Because of
    your concerns about human rights violations and other issues related to
    displaced persons, you asked us to assess (1) whether international
    organizations? efforts have adequately protected internally displaced
    persons and what impediments these agencies face, (2) whether

    international organizations have met the food and other assistance needs of
    displaced populations, and (3) whether the U. S. government has a
    coordinated and effectively managed program to help protect and assist
    internally displaced persons.

    To assess the level of protection and assistance international organizations
    provided to the internally displaced, we surveyed field- level officials
    from the United Nations, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
    Movement, and nongovernmental organizations that conduct activities in 48 of
    the more than 50 countries with internally displaced populations. Our survey
    provided field level views on what international organizations and

    the U. S. government are doing to provide physical security for the
    internally displaced and supply them with basic necessities-- food, water,
    and shelter. The criteria we applied in our assessment of these activities

    was based on standards set forth in the 1998 publication, Guiding Principles
    on Internal Displacement. 3 We supplemented the survey information with (1)
    meetings with U. S. government, United Nations, Red

    Cross Movement, and nongovernmental organization officials at the
    headquarters, regional, and country levels and (2) case study fieldwork in 3
    The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, based on international
    human rights and humanitarian law, have gained international standing and
    acceptance. They have been referred to by courts in several countries and
    have been recognized and accepted by various

    intergovernmental bodies, including the U. N. General Assembly, the U. N.
    Commission on Human Rights, and the U. N. Economic and Social Council. We
    also consulted the Handbook for Applying the Guiding Principles on Internal
    Displacement (Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution Project on
    Internal Displacement, 1999).

    Burundi, Colombia, and southern Sudan. Collectively, these countries have
    1.5 million to 2.5 million internally displaced persons. (See app. I for a
    complete description of our scope and methodology.)

    Results in Brief International organizations have been unable to secure
    effective protection for internally displaced persons as set forth in the
    Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, although they have made some
    effort to do so. Field- level officials of such organizations in 48
    countries who responded to

    our survey indicated that internally displaced persons are subject to direct
    physical attack or threat in 90 percent of the countries, forced migration
    in 58 percent of the countries, and the sexual assault of women in 46
    percent of the countries. A primary reason for this situation was that
    ongoing armed conflicts, or governments themselves, citing sovereign rights
    of states, prevented the organizations from taking more effective action.
    However, even within these circumstances, the organizations had undertaken
    only limited protection measures. For example, although a simple visible
    presence of international monitors is one of the most effective means to
    prevent harm to internally displaced persons,

    international organizations did not provide monitors or assign staff to help
    provide protection for the internally displaced or the number of staff
    assigned for this purpose was small. Insufficient resources provided by the
    international donor community was cited as a factor for these shortfalls.
    Also, international organizations have been reluctant to challenge
    governments about their human rights responsibilities, as called for by the

    Guiding Principles, for fear of offending these governments and being asked
    to depart. International organizations also have not established country-
    level working groups to coordinate protection activities for the internally
    displaced among the organizations, nor have they developed practical
    training about protection issues for officials providing relief assistance.

    When international organizations could obtain access to internally displaced
    populations, they generally met their food and shelter needs during the
    emergency or flight stage of the displacement. For example, in Burundi,
    Colombia, and southern Sudan, we observed that international organizations
    usually delivered sufficient food, health care, shelter, and

    water to displaced persons to sustain life during the initial stages of
    displacement. However, as the emergency phase transitioned into longerterm
    displacement situations, international organizations were less effective in
    meeting the continuing needs of displaced populations. For

    example, in Colombia, farmers internally displaced by fighting in the drug-

    producing areas were initially provided adequate food and shelter during the
    first 90 days of their displacement, but when they moved to secondary cities
    or urban areas, such as Bogota, they received little or no assistance.
    Furthermore, nonlife- sustaining help such as supplying clothing, education,
    psychosocial activities for traumatized persons, and employment

    opportunities generally were not provided or were provided only to a limited
    extent.

    The Department of State does not have an overall policy for addressing the
    issue of internal displacement, as it has for refugees, nor has a lead
    office been designated to direct and coordinate overall U. S. action in this
    area. Some State and U. S. Agency for International Development officials
    said that this has hampered effective management of programs for the
    internally displaced because of overlapping mandates and duplication in
    areas such

    as analysis, planning, and program delivery. Despite this, we found that
    officials of each agency were generally aware of each other?s activities. We
    also noted that the State Department?s annual Country Reports on Human
    Rights Practices contains limited discussion of internal displacement issues
    and the human rights abuses that displaced persons suffer. Moreover, the
    report does not focus on the problem nor does it have a standard definition
    or format for reporting on the internally displaced that would allow for
    systematic data gathering and analysis regarding the issues.

    This report recommends that the Secretary of State direct the Permanent
    Representative of the United States to the United Nations to (1) work to
    advance more proactive policies and programs to protect and assist
    internally displaced persons and (2) seek the implementation of in- country

    protection training programs and the formation of country- level protection
    working groups. We also recommend that the Secretary of State include a
    focus on internal displacement issues in State?s annual Country Reports on
    Human Rights Practices.

    The Department of State, the U. S. Agency for International Development, the
    United Nations, and the Red Cross Movement commented on a draft of this
    report. Each organization generally agreed with our analysis and our
    recommendations- and State noted they are actively working to address them.
    State and the United Nations both cited a lack of resources as a reason for
    some concerns raised in our report, and State also pointed to limited access
    to displaced populations and physical danger to relief workers as obstacles
    to greater activism on the part of international organizations. We agree
    that limited resources and access are significant

    impediments to effective protection and assistance programs for internally
    displaced persons. These are core issues that international organizations
    cannot resolve without member states? support. Nevertheless, we believe that
    the steps we suggest in this report to improve the situation for the
    internally displaced can be taken by international organizations with
    existing resources. The United Nations and the Red Cross Movement also noted
    that although the report focuses on those who are displaced due to armed
    conflict and persecution, others displaced by natural disasters and

    economic hardship have similar needs. Background The U. N. Secretary-
    General?s Representative on Internally Displaced

    Persons estimates that there are 20 million internally displaced persons in
    the world, scattered across more than 50 countries. (Fig. 1 depicts the
    countries with internally displaced persons from which we received surveys.)
    However, lack of access to some of these populations due to insecure
    environments and governments? assertions of sovereignty prevents
    international organizations from obtaining accurate accounts of the numbers,
    locations, or physical conditions of a large percentage of displaced
    persons. Further complicating the issue of internal displacement is the lack
    of a universally accepted definition for ?internally displaced

    persons,? including criteria for determining when a person no longer should
    be considered displaced. 4 4 The most widely used definition for internally
    displaced persons is contained in the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal
    Displacement, which defines them as ?persons or groups of persons who have
    been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual
    residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of
    armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human
    rights or natural or humanmade disasters, and who have not crossed an
    internationally recognized state border.?

    Figure 1: Map of Countries With Internally Displaced Persons, 2001

    Note: Map shows 48 countries with internally displaced persons from which we
    received surveys.

    Source: Compiled by GAO from survey responses.

    Since the end of the Cold War, the number of internally displaced persons
    has grown steadily (and now surpasses the number of refugees), as has the
    international community?s awareness of their plight. By all accounts,

    internally displaced persons suffer extreme deprivation; are subject to
    threats to their physical security during flight and while displaced; and
    are unlikely to have adequate shelter, health care, and the ability to earn
    a livelihood. Mortality rates among internally displaced populations are
    much higher than among stable populations, especially among the more
    vulnerable segments of the populations- children, the elderly, and

    pregnant women. Women and girls are especially vulnerable to sexual assault,
    rape, and discrimination in receiving assistance. Psychological and social
    distress due to violence and the breakdown of family and community
    structures is endemic in internally displaced populations. (Fig. 2 depicts a
    community of internally displaced persons in Burundi who are receiving
    assistance from the U. S. Agency for International Development.)

    Figure 2: Community of Internally Displaced Persons in Central Burundi, 2000

    Source: GAO.

    The plight of the internally displaced generally did not begin to draw the
    attention of the international community until 1992, when the U. N.
    Commission for Human Rights requested that the Secretary- General

    appoint a special representative to study the problems of the internally
    displaced and devise solutions to improve their situation. Despite a
    subsequent series of reports, books, briefings, and U. N. resolutions
    identifying shortcomings in and recommending solutions for the international
    community?s response, little progress was made in addressing the needs of
    internally displaced persons throughout most of the 1990s. Prompted into
    action after strong criticism from the U. S. Representative to

    the United Nations in early 2000, international organizations began a period
    of reassessing their policies, programs, and coordinating mechanisms. Many
    Internally

    Field- level officials of international organizations in 48 countries who
    Displaced Persons

    responded to our survey reported that some modest success had been achieved
    in extending protection interventions to internally displaced Lack
    Protection

    persons. Nonetheless, international organizations? officials also reported
    that they have not been able to secure adequate protection for internally
    displaced persons in most countries we surveyed. Several obstacles

    prevent international organizations from protecting displaced populations,
    including the limitations of working in active war zones, attacks on and
    death threats to aid workers, and government assertions of sovereignty that
    block the organizations? access to displaced persons. While these

    limitations hamper their work, international organizations often have not
    taken proactive measures they could have taken to protect internally
    displaced persons, such as being more assertive on protection matters,
    implementing training programs on protection issues for relief workers, and
    establishing country- level coordination mechanisms.

    International Organizations International organizations have generally not
    been able to secure for

    Are Unable to Secure internally displaced persons the fundamental rights set
    forth in the Effective Protection for

    Guiding Principles. The vulnerability of internally displaced persons is
    Internally Displaced reflected by our survey responses, which indicates they
    are at risk of direct physical attack in 90 percent of the countries and at
    risk of forced

    Persons migration, sexual assault, and conscription or forced labor in many
    countries. Figure 3 provides data on various types of protection threats

    faced by internally displaced persons.

    Figure 3: Threats to Internally Displaced Persons, 2001

    Source: GAO survey.

    According to human rights officials, based on existing international
    humanitarian and human rights law, international organizations act to help
    ensure the internally displaced have protection and are afforded the

    fundamental right to be free from the threats noted in Figure 3. In some
    instance (such as in Kosovo), organizations are explicitly mandated by the
    United Nations and their governing boards to provide protection and
    assistance to internally displaced persons. To accomplish this, the
    organizations undertake protection activities in almost all countries we
    surveyed. For example, as shown in figure 4, in 63 percent of the countries,
    the organizations reported that to a great or very great extent they are
    engaging and meeting with both government and opposition forces to try to
    get them to respect the rights of internally displaced persons. In 79
    percent

    of the countries, international organizations indicated they are to some
    extent providing the displaced with information about a voluntary return to
    their homes. In 90 percent of the countries, international organizations
    said they are, to a small extent or greater, establishing systems to
    document human rights violations of the displaced.

    Overall, however, the extent of protection activities is limited, and in
    many countries some protection activities are not being carried out at all.
    A senior official of the International Committee of the Red Cross told us
    that there is not a single country in the world that can serve as a
    successful model for the protection of internally displaced persons. From
    providing

    core protection actions, such as providing a visible in- country presence of
    international staff to help protect the displaced, to replacing lost
    personal documentation and preserving the right to asylum, to alerting the
    displaced about threats, international organizations have taken limited
    action. Figure 4 shows the extent to which protection interventions
    identified in the Guiding Principles had taken place in the 48 countries
    from which we received survey responses. 5 Only 1 of the 14 protection
    interventions-

    engaging both government and opposition forces- was being undertaken to a
    great or very great extent in at least half the countries. Conversely, 7 of
    the 14 interventions were not being undertaken in half the countries. 6 5
    The Guiding Principles provide a framework for the protection of internally
    displaced

    persons and affirm the right of individuals to be protected from arbitrary
    displacement and the responsibility of governments and other authorities to
    prevent such displacement. While the Guiding Principles are intended for
    governments and armed opposition groups, the principles also serve as a
    standard by which to deliver protection and assistance and to monitor and
    assess the extent to which international human rights and humanitarian law
    are being observed. 6 In figures 3 and 8, ?not applicable? answers were
    treated as ?not at all? responses. In all but three instances, fewer than 10
    percent of survey responses were answered ?not applicable.? However, with
    few exceptions, such as for the interventions pertaining to managing camps
    and landmine awareness, respondents should not have answered ?not
    applicable.? An example of an inappropriate ?not applicable? answer was the
    category asking if the Guiding Principles were distributed in the local
    language.

    Figure 4: Extent of Protection Interventions for Internally Displaced
    Persons in 48 Countries, 2001

    Source: GAO survey.

    External Factors Obstruct Several factors inhibit the international
    community?s response on Protection Efforts

    protection matters. The danger of operating in conflict zones and the
    personal security risks to aid workers are major limitations to involvement
    in protection matters. (In 75 percent of countries in our survey,
    humanitarian organizations indicated that personal security fears impact
    their ability to provide protection or assistance to internally displaced

    persons.) 7 State sovereignty is also a significant factor, as many
    countries, such as Algeria, Burma, and Turkey, bar international involvement
    with their internally displaced populations. In August 2000, the Group of
    77, a

    group of more than 130 developing countries, blocked the U. N. ?s Economic
    and Social Council from endorsing a U. N. approach to dealing with
    internally displaced persons for fear that humanitarian intervention and

    protection of human rights would infringe upon their countries? sovereignty.
    Finally, scarce or declining budgetary resources provided by the
    international donor community inhibit agencies from expanding their
    protection (and assistance) activities. According to officials of these

    organizations, it is difficult to get the funding they request for refugees
    and other specifically mandated programs; and there is increasing donor
    fatigue because of humanitarian crises that have been ongoing for years

    without resolution. Given this environment, officials said it is even more
    difficult to get funding for internally displaced persons, who outnumber
    refugees by nearly 2 to 1 and where no international organization has an
    absolute right to intervene to protect and assist them. Table 1 shows the
    amount of funds international organizations? requested from international
    donors in 2000 and the shortfall from their budget requests.

    7 For example, since 1996, in Burundi, five expatriate relief workers were
    murdered, and numerous officials have been attacked or forced to evacuate
    due to death threats. Since 1990, 23 World Food Program staff members have
    been killed in the line of duty in Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda.

    Table 1: Organizations? Budget Requests, Actual Funds Received, Percentage
    of Shortfall, and U. S. Contribution, 2000

    Dollars in millions

    Budget Actual

    Shortfall U. S. Agency request budget percentage contribution

    International $671 $540 19% $122 Committee of the Red Cross

    U. N. High 930 693 25 239 Commissioner for Refugees

    U. N. High 53 44 17 7 Commissioner for Human Rights

    U. N. Development 1, 100 645 41 80

    Program a World Food Program 2, 117 1,685 20 796 U. N. Children?s Fund b 254
    149 41 110 a Includes core or regular budget only. b Includes emergency
    budget only. U. S. contribution includes emergency and regular budget.

    Source: Specified agencies.

    International Organizations According to numerous relief and human rights
    officials we spoke with,

    Are Cautious in Challenging their organizations and their representatives at
    the country level are often

    Governments reluctant to speak out and challenge governments on protection
    matters

    for fear of jeopardizing relationships and continued access for ongoing
    relief or development programs. In Sudan, for example, U. N. officials told
    us some of its offices were often reticent about pressing the Khartoum
    government on its restrictive flight clearance process in the south
    (impeding emergency relief efforts) due to concern of putting at risk U. N.
    development activities in the north. Also, in Burundi, the U. N. ?s
    Humanitarian Coordinator (the lead U. N. official in country) was criticized

    by U. N. agency, nongovernmental organization, and U. S. government
    officials for weak leadership: the Coordinator was said to be more
    interested in maintaining good relations with the government than in serving
    as the main advocate for humanitarian and internally displaced

    persons? concerns. Furthermore, U. N. Resident Coordinators 8 from several
    countries were unwilling to respond to our survey on internally displaced
    persons despite assurances of confidentiality because of their concern about
    antagonizing the host government if their participation in the survey became
    known.

    According to Department of State officials, in some internal displacement
    circumstances, international organizations have little leverage to affect
    the conduct of governments toward their citizens. In those cases,
    international forums, such as the U. N. ?s Security Council or Economic and
    Social Council, offer the best opportunity to address issues of internal
    displacement within the context of underlying political and security

    factors. For example, the U. S. Permanent Representative to the United
    Nations advocated increased assistance and protection for the internally
    displaced in the U. N. Security Council and in other forums. As a result, U.
    N. officials said this raised the awareness of the plight of the internally
    displaced, prompted other governments to respond, and prompted an assessment
    of international organizations? policies, programs, and coordinating
    mechanisms on the internally displaced.

    8 Within the U. N. system, the Resident Coordinator is the highest- ranking
    official in country and is responsible for representing the United Nations
    before the host government and for coordinating the various U. N. agencies?
    relief and development programs.

    Gaps in Field Presence and Organizations with the mandate and staff
    expertise to provide protection- Protection Coverage

    the U. N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the U. N. High Commissioner for
    Human Rights, and the International Committee of the Red Cross- are often
    not present to take a proactive role in the protection of internally
    displaced populations, according to representatives from these international
    organizations and protection experts. Despite a March 2000 policy
    pronouncement by the U. N. High Commissioner for Refugees to become more
    engaged with the internally displaced, we found the number of internally
    displaced persons assisted and country programs in place

    declined in the last year (from 5 to 4 million and from 13 to 11,
    respectively), although the total number of worldwide displacements are
    reported to have remained relatively stable. According to State

    Department officials and other knowledgeable observers, the U. N. High
    Commissioner for Human Rights has few officials working directly in the
    field and currently lacks the capability to intervene in human rights
    situations. As for the International Committee of the Red Cross, it has a
    specific protection mandate during armed conflict, but it generally does not
    conduct protection activities for displaced populations caught up in
    nonconflict circumstances. Table 2 shows the number of countries where these
    organizations said they have a staff presence and engage in protection
    activities. 9

    Table 2: Countries With Internally Displaced Persons Protection Activities,
    2001 Number of countries with internally Organization displaced persons
    protection activities

    U. N. High Commissioner for Refugees 11 U. N. High Commissioner for Human

    7 Rights International Committee of the Red 48

    Cross Sources: Specified agencies. 9 The U. N. High Commissioner for
    Refugees and the Red Cross Movement in their comments on a draft of this
    report provided new statistical data on the number of countries where they
    had protection activities and the number of protection personnel posted in a
    country, which in some cases exceeded the data we report. We adjusted the
    numbers in some instances, but our analysis indicates that the data reported
    reflect a more accurate account of protection activities now being carried
    out by the organizations. This is because we include only protection-
    related persons and activities and excluded assistance activities and
    personnel.

    During our fieldwork, we observed in two of the three countries we visited,
    that despite the presence of hundreds of thousands of internally displaced
    persons, agencies did not have protection officers to monitor conditions or
    had assigned only two or three officers for this purpose. Protection experts
    acknowledge that a simple visible field presence is sometimes the most
    effective means to prevent harm to internally displaced persons. (Fig. 5
    shows International Committee of the Red Cross staff accompanying Rwandan
    civilians fleeing ethnic fighting in 1994.) In our three case study

    countries, only the International Committee of the Red Cross in Colombia
    provided a robust staffing presence of significant size (54) to help monitor
    conditions and provide protection activities. In Burundi and southern Sudan,
    the U. N. High Commissioner for Refugees did not have a protection presence
    even though there were refugees repatriating into internally displaced
    communities. In Burundi, none of the agencies were engaged in protection
    activities directed toward internally displaced persons, although
    geographically nearly half the country is experiencing internal
    displacement. According to officials from these organizations, the number of
    protection officers working in these countries is not sufficient given the
    level of threat against internally displaced persons. Table 3 shows the
    number of protection officials assigned in Burundi, Colombia, and southern
    Sudan in 2000 to 2001.

    Figure 5: Rwandan Civilians Fleeing Ethnic Fighting, 1994

    Source: International Committee of the Red Cross.

    Table 3: Number of Protection Staff Present in Burundi, Colombia, and
    Southern Sudan, 2000- 2001 Organization Burundi Colombia Southern Sudan

    International Committee of the Red 2 staff 54 staff 2 staff Cross U. N. High
    Commissioner for Refugees 2 11 0

    U. N. High Commissioner for Human 3 60 Rights Source: Specified agencies.

    No Coordination Activities International organizations do not have
    mechanisms at the country level to promote and coordinate actions that could
    help protect the internally displaced. Unlike international organizations?
    efforts to provide assistance (e. g., food aid and health care) to
    internally displaced persons where there are established working groups to
    share information and plan and coordinate action, there are no counterpart
    coordination mechanisms for protection concerns. For example, in our three
    case- study countries, we were told that there was little to no discussion
    among international organizations concerning protection issues. There were
    no focal points to raise the profile of protection or ensure its place on
    the agenda of those

    organizations working in the field. Officials engaged in protection
    activities in these countries told us that because there are no established
    mechanisms to share information, there is a lack of (1) basic information on
    where protection officers are posted, (2) common thinking and approaches to
    protection, and (3) knowledge about what protection

    interventions work or do not work. We noted that in countries where
    international organizations have not assigned staff to monitor for
    protection concerns, the organizations do provide relief assistance and are
    often in direct contact with displaced persons and are knowledgeable about
    their conditions. However, according to U. N. and other international
    organization officials, they have not established working groups or other
    mechanisms in these countries

    that could alert the international staff about potential dangers to the
    internally displaced or provide advice about how to record and report on
    abuses they witness in their routine of providing assistance.

    Protection Considerations Not Officials in the field who provide assistance
    to internally displaced persons Incorporated Into Assistance

    lack knowledge about how to incorporate protection considerations and
    Programs

    techniques into their assistance activities. As was shown earlier in figure
    3,

    79 percent of the countries in our survey indicated that no action is taken
    to set up and manage camps for internally displaced persons to prevent
    attacks, such as ensuring vulnerable female- headed households are not
    isolated to remote areas in the camp. Relief officials told us there is
    little consideration given to protection concerns when designing programs--
    their

    focus is on providing assistance as quickly as possible. Forty percent of
    the countries in our survey also indicated that no training had been
    received on how to undertake protection actions for internally displaced
    persons, although officials we spoke with stated they would strongly welcome
    such training. During our fieldwork, we found numerous examples of how
    relief agencies

    both incorporated and failed to incorporate protection measures into the
    design and implementation of their programs. These examples include:

     In southern Sudan, protection considerations were taken into account when
    water bore holes were drilled in locations that drew internally displaced
    populations away from conflict zones into more secure areas.

     In Burundi, when relief workers did not take into consideration the timing
    of bulk food deliveries during periods of intense fighting (as opposed to
    dispersed deliveries in locations outside the battle zone), the result was
    armed attacks and theft of supplies by combatants.  In both Colombia and
    southern Sudan, the provision of assistance to

    internally displaced persons, while equally vulnerable local populations
    were ignored (as opposed to provision of some aid to both communities), led
    to conflict between the two groups. Recognizing that the state of training
    for internally displaced persons issues has been deficient, in March 1998
    the U. N. ?s Inter- Agency Standing Committee ordered the development of a
    comprehensive training program

    focused on protection issues for the international organizations working
    with the displaced. The U. N. High Commissioner for Refugees was tasked with
    developing the training module for protection but did not do so until the
    end of 2000. To date, no training has occurred. Protection Interventions

    Despite the overall poor state of protection for internally displaced Can
    Have Positive Impact

    persons, we learned that practical actions, as advised by the Handbook for
    Applying the Guiding Principles were successful in the countries we visited.
    Even in highly insecure environments, reasonable advocacy on the part of
    senior officials and the presence of human rights observers and monitors can
    have positive effects. For example,

     In Colombia, International Committee for the Red Cross protection officers
    negotiated with rebel and paramilitary groups to relocate internally
    displaced individuals and families away from areas where death threats were
    being issued; they also successfully negotiated with these groups to resolve
    kidnappings and prevent executions by death

    squads.  In Burundi, the U. S. Ambassador sent demarches (diplomatic
    messages) to the highest level of the Burundi government in mid- 2000
    challenging

    government troops who were intimidating patients in rural health clinics
    near the capital Bujumbura. This helped end the troops? harassment and
    occupation of the rural health clinics, which were used heavily by displaced
    populations.  In southern Sudan, the government and factional commanders

    increased the risk to internally displaced persons by requiring that food
    drops and the provision of aid be provided in strategic locations at
    specific times to coincide with their strategies. The relief organizations
    tailored methods to circumvent these requirements and safely

    accomplish their relief goals. (Fig. 6 shows a food airdrop in southern
    Sudan.)

    Figure 6: A World Food Program Food Delivery Airdrop in Southern Sudan

    Source: World Food Program.

    Immediate Assistance Overall, international organizations believe they have
    been generally

    Needs Reported Being successful in meeting the emergency food needs for
    those internally displaced persons to whom they have access. However, in
    numerous Met, But Longer- Term

    countries with active emergencies and hostile, insecure environments, Needs
    Remain a

    such as in Burundi, and southern Sudan, large numbers of internally
    Challenge displaced persons were outside the reach of international
    organizations? relief efforts, according to relief experts to whom we spoke
    and observed

    during our case study fieldwork. 10 Other emergency assistance provisions
    such as health care, water and sanitation, and shelter were also generally
    being provided to displaced populations, although to a lesser extent,
    according to relief officials with whom we spoke. According to our survey,

    54 percent of countries reported that basic needs, such as food, water, and
    health care, are being met to a great or very great extent. Figure 7
    provides the results of our survey on the extent to which assistance
    interventions

    identified in the Guiding Principles have taken place. In Colombia, for
    example, largely through the combined efforts of the International Committee
    of the Red Cross and the World Food Program, the emergency needs (food,
    shelter, and health care) of the internally displaced were reported being
    met during the first 90 days of displacement.

    10 Access to humanitarian assistance is one of the most pressing problems
    affecting internally displaced persons. According to the Guiding Principles,
    the primary duty and responsibility for providing humanitarian assistance to
    internally displaced persons lies with national authorities. However,
    international organizations have the right to offer their services in
    support of the internally displaced. Key organizations with the mandate to
    provide humanitarian assistance include the U. N. High Commissioner for
    Refugees, the Red Cross Movement (National Societies, the International
    Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Federation of Red Cross
    and Red Crescent Societies), the U. N. Development Program, the World Food
    Program, and the U. N. Children?s Fund.

    Figure 7: GAO Survey of Assistance Interventions Taking Place for Internally
    Displaced Persons in 48 Countries, 2001

    Source: GAO survey.

    Gaps in Assistance Although international organizations were generally able
    to meet the initial

    Programming emergency needs of the internally displaced, we found a number
    of

    programming gaps in the overall response scheme. First, international
    organizations were less effective in meeting the assistance needs of
    internally displaced persons after the initial displacement phase. In
    southern Sudan, for example, we were told that internally displaced

    persons who relocated to nonconflict areas were generally not receiving
    assistance from international organizations. Gaps in assistance areas we

    identified include providing clothing, education, and income- generation
    training and opportunities; psychological and social assistance for
    traumatized persons; and nonfood items, such as kitchen utensils, tools, and
    personal hygiene items. Figure 8 provides information from our survey of
    country- level officials on why internally displaced persons were not
    receiving assistance. Foremost among the obstacles were problems in
    assistance logistics and distribution.

    Figure 8: Reasons Why Internally Displaced Persons Were Not Receiving
    Assistance

    Source: GAO survey.

    Also, internally displaced persons who were congregated in camps or
    identifiable communities were more likely to have their assistance needs
    met. In contrast, those displaced persons who were dispersed throughout the
    countryside, such as in Burundi, or merged into urban communities, such as
    in Colombia, were generally not receiving assistance, according to U. N.
    officials with whom we spoke. International organizations have difficulty
    identifying and obtaining access to these populations, as some

    internally displaced persons purposely keep a low profile for fear of

    discrimination or retribution at the hands of the government or rebel
    groups. Figure 9 provides officials views on whether the source of
    protection threat to internally displaced persons comes from the government,
    nonstate actors (such as rebel groups), or both.

    Figure 9: Perceived Sources of Threat to Internally Displaced Persons

    Note 1: Nonstate actors include opposition and rebel groups. Note 2: Numbers
    do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: GAO survey.

    Internally displaced persons were thought to be generally less likely to
    receive assistance the more time had lapsed since their initial
    displacement. According to relief and development experts we spoke with,
    there is a tendency among donors and aid agencies to provide short- term
    relief assistance rather than longer- term development or life- sustaining
    assistance. This funding and program trend particularly affects internally
    displaced persons, since most internal displacement situations are
    longstanding in nature. Similarly, assistance to internally displaced
    persons is negatively affected by international organizations? difficulty in
    transitioning

    or redirecting their programs from the immediate relief phase to the
    longerterm rehabilitation/ development phase. Finally, the volatile nature
    of complex emergencies often results in sudden

    surges of mass displacement. In two of our case study countries- Burundi and
    Sudan-- fighting accompanied by drought had resulted in the sudden movement
    of thousands to tens of thousands of people within the last few years.
    According to relief officials, international organizations do not have
    adequate food reserves to respond immediately to these quick surges in
    displacement populations. For example, according to World Food Program
    officials, the organization only had a 1 month reserve of food for Sudan,
    and only 40 percent of its food appeal for Burundi had been met. During our
    fieldwork in central Burundi, we were told of rising levels of malnutrition
    caused by displacement and drought, and relief officials were fearful that a
    failure in the upcoming harvest could lead to significant food shortages.
    According to U. N. officials, it takes a lead time of 5 to 6 months before
    requested food aid is delivered in- country.

    U. S. Government Lacks The U. S. government addresses the needs of the
    internally displaced by

    an Overall Policy and a providing funds to international organizations and
    by directly implementing programs. However, the U. S. government does not
    have an Lead Office for

    overall policy or agency- specific guidelines for dealing with internally
    Internally Displaced displaced persons, nor has the Department of State
    designated a lead office Persons

    to help coordinate and direct the U. S. government?s response for internally
    displaced persons. According to State officials, the lack of a lead office
    has been identified as a problem and discussed within the department, but no
    policy decisions have been taken to address this issue. Some State and
    Agency for International Development (USAID) officials said that as a result
    of a lack of policy and a lead office, the U. S. government has difficulty
    coordinating and managing its programs to aid the internally displaced. A
    study by the State Department?s Office of Policy Planning and an assessment
    by the former director of the USAID?s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
    concluded that the absence of a U. S. policy for internally displaced
    persons has resulted in limited awareness, overlapping bureaucratic
    mandates, and fragmented and duplicative efforts. The

    reports noted the multifaceted nature of displacement crises and that U. S.
    efforts were undermined by the absence of a single, responsible office
    managing the interrelated assistance, protection, advocacy, peace processes,
    and international cooperation components. Both studies concluded that U. S.
    humanitarian interests would be better served with clear policy direction
    and senior leadership within the federal bureaucracy on internal
    displacement issues. 11 11 See Interagency Review of U. S. Government
    Civilian Humanitarian and Transition Programs (Washington, D. C.: Department
    of State, Jan. 2000), and The U. S. Government

    and Internally Displaced Persons: Present, But Not Accounted For
    (Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution Project on Internal
    Displacement and the U. S. Committee for Refugees, Nov. 1999).

    Difficulty Managing U. S. We identified six offices within State and USAID
    that directly assist Government Policy

    internally displaced persons, plus several other agencies and offices that
    Response are involved in such related functions as intelligence gathering
    and representing U. S. interests in international organizations. The
    Department of State?s Bureau of Population, Migration, and Refugees and
    USAID?s

    Bureau for Humanitarian Response are the two main sources of U. S.
    assistance to internally displaced persons. Based upon our discussions with
    officials from these agencies and a review of program documents, we found
    that there is duplication of effort and little coordination among the
    various agencies. For example, in Colombia, we learned that the World Food
    Program received funds from four different U. S. funding sources- State?s
    Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration; USAID?s Office of Transition
    Initiatives; the Department of Agriculture; and Plan Colombia-

    to support the same type of food assistance programs. However, the evidence
    shows that this funding was provided without coordination and knowledge
    about whether this would be complementary or duplicative. Furthermore, these
    offices were not able to determine how much of the $2. 5 billion the U. S.
    government spends annually on humanitarian assistance goes to internally
    displaced persons, because agencies do not track how much money they spend
    on internal displacement. 12

    According to State and USAID program officials with whom we spoke, there are
    numerous drawbacks to not having a lead office or interagency working group
    to direct policy and activities related to internally displaced

    persons activities. Some of these drawbacks are listed as follows:
    Responding to crises is inefficient. It takes longer and is labor intensive

    to launch a response to an internal displacement crisis, as planning
    meetings are ad hoc and usually staff generated.  There is no lead office
    or person to settle policy disputes among various

    agencies. For example, in Sudan, State and USAID had unresolved
    disagreements over aid policies and the content of assistance inputs to
    refugees and internally displaced persons, resulting in confusion among the
    nongovernmental organization implementing partners about which groups should
    be provided assistance.  It is unclear whom to consult within the U. S.
    government. It is difficult for regional bureaus and other programming
    offices to take a proactive

    12 USAID?s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance is the only U. S. agency to
    track funding to internally displaced persons. It estimates expenditures of
    $123 million in 20 countries in fiscal year 2000.

    role for their countries or areas of responsibility. In the critical area of
    providing protection for internally displaced persons, we were told that
    good intelligence information exists about protection threats against
    internally displaced persons, but without a lead office to receive the

    information and direct it, the information does not pass smoothly to the
    organization needing it, as was the case in Kosovo and Rwanda.  There is no
    senior- level representation or single voice to consider and

    address internally displaced persons? issues during political- military
    crises deliberations within the highest level of the U. S. government.
    There is no clear locus of accountability for internal displacement issues

    within the U. S. government, especially on policy issues. According to the
    acting Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration,
    there are pros and cons to designating a lead office, some of which were
    pointed out in the interagency review. Primarily, the issue of internally
    displaced persons involves human rights, diplomacy, political- military
    affairs, humanitarian concerns, and designating a lead office either within
    State or USAID could skew the U. S. approach toward one of these concerns.
    Without a thorough review of all concerns and the related organizational
    structure of several departments, it would be difficult to determine if a
    designated lead would improve the

    situation. He said that the current administration is addressing the issue
    through improved coordination and cooperation among the offices involved.
    Furthermore, there is a coordinating committee led by the National Security
    Council that could be used to address specific situations. However, he said
    that if problems arose in coordinating a U. S. government response to
    internally displaced persons, the administration might consider designating
    a lead office.

    Funding for Internally There is no overall policy on the funding priority
    for internally displaced

    Displaced Persons persons within the U. S. government. The Department of
    State?s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration and USAID?s Bureau for
    Humanitarian Affairs each has general legislative authority to address the
    assistance and protection needs of persons in need, such as provisions
    authorizing contributions to international organizations, assistance to
    victims of disasters and complex emergencies, help for victims of human
    rights abuses, and aid to those needing food assistance. 13 But the
    legislation does

    not specifically refer to internally displaced persons. Thus, according to
    Department of State officials, the Bureau for Population, Refugees, and
    Migration does not see itself as the initial source of the U. S. government
    response to the internally displaced and has not requested appropriations
    for these populations. Similarly, USAID officials told us that internally
    displaced persons are not a direct focus of development assistance monies

    provided under the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act. Officials from both agencies
    told us that they interpret their current statutory authorities as putting a
    priority on funding for refugees, development, or emergency programs.
    Therefore, they manage their funds to meet these legislative priorities with
    no overall direction to coordinate their efforts on internally displaced
    persons.

    Reporting on Internally The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended,
    requires the State Displaced Persons Is Department to report annually to the
    Congress on the status of Insufficient

    internationally recognized human rights. Although internally displaced
    persons are particularly vulnerable to human rights violations, the
    Department of State?s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices do
    not contain much information on the subject. These reports generally serve
    as an authoritative source and a basis for advocacy by U. S. diplomats

    both bilaterally and in international forums. 13 The Migration and Refugee
    Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U. S. C. 2601 et seq) and the Foreign Assistance
    Act of 1961, as amended, (22 U. S. C. 2151 et seq) provide the primary
    statutory framework for assisting internally displaced persons.

    Our examination of several country reports 14 in State?s Country Reports on
    Human Rights Practices for 2000 and a Brookings Institution analysis of 1996
    and 1997 reporting, 15 indicated that State generally provides only a
    cursory account of internally displaced persons. In eight country reports

    we examined for 2000, three country reports provided some information on
    specific incidents of displacement, three reports noted that internal
    displacement exists and made estimates of the populations affected; but two
    reports made no mention of internal displacement issues, although such
    issues existed. The country reports neglected or provided insufficient
    information on the protection and assistance problems that internally
    displaced persons face or the conduct of the government and opposition
    groups toward these populations. For example, the country report for
    Afghanistan noted only that drought and conflict were causing an increase

    in internal displacement. Furthermore, there is no standard format for
    reporting on internal displacement that would allow for systematic data
    gathering and analysis. Unlike a standard format for reporting on refugee
    issues, discussion of internal displacement issues are dispersed throughout
    various sections, for example, freedom of movement, respect for political
    rights, and torture, making identification of internally displaced persons
    reporting difficult in the lengthy country reports. In addition, the reports

    use various terms to refer to internally displaced persons-? IDPs,?
    ?forcibly displaced,? and ?village re- evacuation?- increasing the
    difficulty in identifying internal displacement issues and sometimes
    blurring the

    distinction between internally displaced persons and refugees. Conclusions
    Although some protection has been provided to internally displaced

    persons, international organizations have been unable to meet the protection
    needs of internally displaced persons in most locations, partly because of
    the danger of operating in conflict zones, the presence of

    personal security risks to aid workers, and the decline in budgetary
    resources, but also because international organizations have not taken a
    proactive approach toward protection. Also, international relief workers
    have not received training on how to incorporate protection considerations
    and interventions into their assistance activities, and in the three
    countries

    14 The countries reviewed included Afghanistan, Algeria, Burma, the
    Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Turkey.
    15 IDP Coverage in State Department Human Rights Reports Brookings
    Institution Memorandum (Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution, Aug.
    24, 1998).

    we visited, international organizations do not coordinate their protection
    actions within the countries in which they operate. Without such
    coordination, international organizations are unable to share basic
    information about the location of their protection officers and effective
    approaches to protection interventions. The U. N. Security Council is one
    forum where these matters can be addressed in the context of underlying
    political and security factors.

    The U. S. government has no overall policy or lead office to coordinate its
    efforts for dealing with internally displaced persons. Instead, government
    activities aimed at this effort are dispersed among different agencies and
    offices. Some State and USAID officials believe that providing assistance to
    the internally displaced in this way is labor and time intensive, lacks a

    locus of accountability, and leads to duplication of activities. Although
    the Department of State is required to provide the Congress with an annual
    report on human rights violations, these reports include only limited
    information about the treatment of internally displaced persons. Moreover,
    the country reports do not have a standardized format for providing
    information about the internally displaced and their human rights condition

    that would allow concerned parties to access the information readily.
    Increased and more systematic reporting that provided some focus on
    internally displaced persons would identify what we found to be a
    significant problem and would provide U. S. government and international and
    nongovernmental organizations? officials with country- level data to craft a
    cohesive program and policy response.

    Recommendations for To strengthen the international response to the plight
    of the internally Executive Action

    displaced, we recommend that the Secretary of State and the Permanent
    Representative of the United States to the United Nations (1) work to
    advance more proactive policies and programs to protect and assist
    internally displaced persons and (2) seek with other member states to

    strengthen international organizations? protection efforts by encouraging
    them to implement a training program for international organizations and to
    form country- level protection working groups. We also recommend that the
    Secretary of State include a focus on internal displacement issues in

    State?s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

    Agency Comments and State, USAID, the United Nations, and the Red Cross
    Movement provided Our Evaluation

    written comments on a draft of this report. (See app. III to VI) Both State
    and the United Nations emphasized that lack of resources seriously
    undermines international efforts to address the protection and assistance

    needs of the internally displaced. This report recognizes that shortfalls in
    funding for internally displaced persons programs have had a negative impact
    on the international response; nevertheless, we believe our recommendations
    can be implemented by international organizations within existing resources.
    State said this report is useful in drawing attention to the phenomenon of
    internal displacement and identifying areas of concern that the State

    Department and USAID are working to address. State agreed with our
    recommendations to work toward more proactive programs to protect internally
    displaced persons and in- country training programs and working

    groups for protection. Concerning our recommendation for improved reporting
    on internal displacement in its annual Country Reports on Human Rights
    Practices, State said that it recognizes the importance of reporting on
    issues related to internally displaced persons and stated that such
    information is found throughout the report. State said it strives to use

    systematic language when referring to internally displaced persons, and it
    will continue its efforts to report on internally displaced persons. USAID
    stated that the report identifies issues of concern that it is actively
    working to address. USAID agreed with our recommendation to work with other
    countries and international organizations to advance programs that protect
    and assist internally displaced persons. Regarding the report?s

    discussion about the lack of an overall policy and a lead office for
    addressing the issue of internal displacement, USAID noted that its efforts
    are directed by the Foreign Assistance Manual, which states that ?AID/ OFDA
    has responsibility for assisting people displaced within their own country
    as a result of natural or man- made disasters.? State said that there are
    pros and cons to designating a lead humanitarian office.

    The United Nations and the Red Cross Movement noted that steps are being
    taken to improve coordination among international agencies at the
    headquarter level and that initiatives such as the U. N. ?s Senior Inter-
    Agency Network on Internally Displaced Persons are examining the
    institutional

    arrangements within and between the United Nations, the Red Cross Movement,
    and nongovernmental organizations. We recognize that some coordinating
    activities have been recently initiated; however, as discussed

    in this report, we believe particular focus should be placed on improving
    country- level coordination mechanisms, especially in the area of
    protection.

    The World Food Program, the World Health Organization, the High Commissioner
    for Refugees, the Brookings Institution, and the Norwegian Refugee Council
    provided technical comments on this report, which we incorporated as
    appropriate.

    As we agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
    this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days
    from the date of this letter. We will then send copies of this report to the
    Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on International
    Relations, the Secretary of State, the Administrator of the U. S. Agency for
    International Development, the U. N. Secretary General, and the President of
    the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. We
    will also then send copies to others who are interested and make copies
    available to others on request.

    Please contact me at (202) 512- 4128 if you or your staff have any questions
    about this report. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed
    in appendix VII.

    Harold J. Johnson, Director International Affairs and Trade

    Appendi Appendi xes x I

    Objectives, Scope, and Methodology At the request of the Chairman and the
    Ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, we
    assessed (1) whether international organizations have adequately protected
    internally displaced persons, and if not, what impediments these agencies
    face; (2) whether international organizations have met the food and other
    assistance needs of displaced populations; and (3) whether the U. S.
    government has a

    coordinated and effectively managed program to help ensure the protection of
    and assistance to internally displaced persons. To assess whether
    international agencies have adequately provided protection and assistance to
    internally displaced persons, we interviewed officials and analyzed policy,
    program, and budgetary documents from the U. N. Office for the Coordination
    of Humanitarian Affairs, the U. N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the U. N.
    High Commissioner for Human Rights, the World Food Program, the U. N.
    Development Program, the U. N. Children?s Fund, the International Committee
    of the Red Cross, and the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red
    Crescent Societies. We met with officials and reviewed reports pertaining to
    humanitarian and

    internal displacement issues from numerous think tanks and nongovernmental
    organizations, including the Brookings Institution?s Project on Internal
    Displacement, the U. S. Committee for Refugees, InterAction, and the
    Norwegian Refugee Council.

    To assess the extent to which the U. S. government coordinates and manages
    its efforts to ensure protection and assistance to internally displaced
    persons, we interviewed officials and analyzed policy and program documents
    from the Department of State?s Office of Policy Planning; the Bureau of
    Population, Refugees, and Migration; the Ambassador at Large for War Crimes
    Issues; and the U. S. Missions to the

    United Nations in New York City and Geneva, Switzerland. We also analyzed a
    judgmental sample of country reports from the Department of State?s Country
    Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2000 to determine the extent to which
    the issue of internal displacement is addressed. We met with officials and
    analyzed program documents for the U. S.

    International Agency for Development?s (USAID) Bureau of Humanitarian
    Response, including the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, the Office of
    Transition Initiatives, and the Office of Food for Peace. We also developed
    a field- level survey that was completed by U. N. Resident and Humanitarian
    Coordinators and officials from the Red Cross Movement and nongovernmental
    organizations. The survey solicited

    information on demographics, the effectiveness of international programs,

    and program management of aid and protection efforts for internally
    displaced persons. The survey asked for information based upon criteria set
    forth in the normative framework of protection and assistance principles
    outlined in the 1998 U. N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and
    included modifications based upon recommendations

    from relief and protection experts from the United Nations, the Red Cross
    Movement, and think tanks. We sent an electronic copy of the survey
    directly, and through points of contact at the headquarters of the United
    Nations, the Red Cross Movement, and nongovernmental organizations, to
    field- level officials in more than 50 countries. A total of 120 usable
    surveys from 48 countries were returned from the various organizations; an
    additional 10 surveys were received but could not be used because key
    questions were not answered. The number of surveys returned from each
    country varied from one to eight. To provide equal weight to the opinions
    coming from each country, we computed a countrywide average response for
    each item. Thus, the unit of analysis was the 48 countries, rather than the
    120 surveys. For questions that asked for a ?yes? or ?no? answer, the
    countrywide

    answer was coded ?yes? if 50 percent or more of the respondents from the
    country responded ?yes.? Countrywide mean ratings were also computed for
    questions that asked for the extent to which aid/ protection concerns were
    being addressed (rating scale: 1 = Not applicable/ Not at all, 2 = Small
    extent, 3 = Moderate extent, 4 = Great extent, 5 = Very great extent). The

    countrywide means were rounded (and collapsed to three categories) so that
    the percentage of countries at each point on the extent scale could be
    ascertained. If the countrywide mean was 1.00 to 1. 49, the aid/ protection
    intervention was judged to be not occurring at all. If the mean was 1. 50 to
    3.49 or 3.50 to 5.00, the intervention was characterized as occurring to a
    small/ moderate extent or a great/ very great extent, respectively. Because
    we were unable to determine the total number of countries or officials that
    received the survey in each country, we were unable to project the findings

    with a specified degree of precision to the population of all countries with
    internally displaced persons.

    We also performed fieldwork in our case study countries of Burundi,
    Colombia, and southern Sudan to determine the effectiveness of international
    organizations? responses to the protection and assistance

    needs of internally displaced persons. These three countries are
    experiencing long- standing internal displacement crises, with large
    population movements and programs operated by the U. N. system, the Red

    Cross Movement, nongovernmental organizations, and the U. S. government.
    During our fieldwork, we met with officials from these organizations
    responsible for providing protection and assistance to the internally
    displaced. We also met with other donor governments and their aid agencies,
    with host government and opposition groups involved in the displacement
    crisis, and with internally displaced persons who were recipients of
    international assistance. We observed first- hand assistance

    programs designed to assist displaced populations and attended coordination
    meetings by country teams. Due to security concerns, we were unable to
    travel within southern Sudan; however, we met with agency and
    nongovernmental organization officials in Nairobi and Lokichoggio,

    Kenya, who conduct relief activities in southern Sudan both within and
    outside the U. N.- sponsored Operation Lifeline Sudan program. We performed
    our review from September 2000 through June 2001 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Country Profiles: Burundi, Colombia, and

    Appendi x II

    Sudan Burundi Burundi is a poor, densely populated country in East Africa.
    More than 90 percent of the country?s 6.6 million population is dependent on
    subsistence agriculture for survival. Over 3 million people- half the
    population- needed food assistance in 2000 because of drought or war.
    Burundi?s majority ethnic Hutu and minority ethnic Tutsi populations have
    struggled

    against each other for economic and political power for 30 years, with a
    small number of Tutsi elite having dominated the country?s politics and
    military since independence in 1962.

    Periodic military crackdowns slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people
    during the 1970s and 1980s. The victims were overwhelmingly Hutu. The first
    democratic election in 1993 elected a Hutu president. However, elements
    within the Tutsi- dominated military assassinated the President in 1993,
    triggering a wave of violence. A 1996 coup eliminated the rest of the

    democratically elected government, and the Tutsi elites shifted back into
    power. An insurgency by Hutu rebels and a counterinsurgency campaign by the
    government have claimed tens of thousands of lives and caused mass internal
    displacement in an ongoing civil war that continues today. The military has
    pursued a regroupment policy starting in 1996, requiring an estimated
    350,000 persons (mostly Hutus) to live in forced regroupment camps, to
    prevent those living in the countryside from supporting the

    rebels. The camps had inadequate sanitation and insufficient access to
    water, food, shelter, and medicine, according to the U. S. Committee for
    Refugees. International organizations could not reach many of the
    government?s forced regroupment camps due to inadequate infrastructure or
    because they were prevented from doing so by security forces.

    The government?s and the rebels? human rights record are poor, according to
    the Department of State?s human rights report. Combatants on both sides
    deliberately uprooted civilian populations and targeted displacement camps
    for attack. Government forces and rebels committed large- scale atrocities
    against civilians. According to Amnesty International, the armed

    forces and rebel groups have continued to show complete disregard for human
    life, acting with little or no accountability. Scores of civilians were
    killed in ambushes. Humanitarian workers were also killed and attacked. On
    numerous occasions, rebel groups killed unarmed civilians in reprisal for
    alleged collaboration with the government or for failing to support them.

    The U. S. government has made humanitarian relief its priority response in
    Burundi. Inadequate harvests during the last three seasons due to conflict
    and drought have caused severe malnutrition in several provinces.
    USAIDfunded programs implemented by nongovernmental organizations and U. N.
    agencies primarily focused on life- sustaining activities such as food
    security assistance (provision of livestock, seeds, and tools), health care,
    and supplementary nutrition programs. In fiscal year 2001, the U. S.
    government provided an estimated $5.8 million in food aid and another $3
    million to combat HIV/ AIDS and promote human rights and democracy. In
    addition, the U. S. government is a significant contributor to the programs

    of the World Food Program and the U. N. ?s Children Fund in Burundi. Figure
    10 shows a USAID- assisted family.

    Figure 10: Members of a Teenage- headed Household That Receives Food
    Security and Shelter Assistance from USAID, 2000

    Note: The smallest child is age 4 and suffers from stunting due to chronic
    malnutrition. Source: GAO.

    Colombia The roots of the conflict in Colombia go back to a power struggle
    between liberals and conservatives in the late 1940s. Between 1947 and 1957,
    the fighting claimed more than 300,000 lives and forced more than 1 million
    Colombians to abandon their homes, according to the International Committee
    of the Red Cross. In subsequent years, rural defense groups sprung up in
    various parts of the country. Some of them turned into guerilla groups with
    strong Marxist leanings. In later years, paramilitary

    groups appeared. The addition of a flourishing drug trade combined to create
    a complex and violent civil conflict that has resulted in the cumulative
    displacement of millions of people.

    Attempts to end the violence over the years have produced neither
    substantive agreements nor a decrease in the levels of violence. In 1999,
    the Colombian government launched Plan Colombia, a $7.5 billion, multiyear
    strategy designed to support the peace process, an antinarcotics

    strategy, democratization, and the provision of humanitarian assistance.
    However, the Colombian government faces serious challenges, as armed
    paramilitary groups, guerrillas, and narcotic traffickers exert influence
    over more than one- third of the country?s municipalities. Furthermore, the
    government?s human rights record is poor. According to the Department of
    State?s human rights reporting, government forces commit serious abuses,
    including extrajudicial killings. Members of security forces collaborate
    with paramilitary groups that committed abuses, in some instances

    allowing them to pass through roadblocks, sharing information, or providing
    ammunition and supplies.

    Paramilitary groups and guerillas were responsible for the vast majority of
    political and other killings, according to the Department of State?s human
    rights report. Throughout the country, paramilitary groups killed, tortured,
    and threatened civilians suspected of sympathizing with guerrillas in an
    orchestrated campaign to terrorize them into fleeing their homes, thereby

    depriving guerrillas of civilian support and allowing paramilitary forces to
    challenge the guerrilla groups for control of narcotic cultivations and
    strategically important territories. The two main guerrilla groups- the
    Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation
    Army (ELN)- are reported by the Department of State to regularly attack
    civilian populations and commit massacres and summary

    executions. They are also reported to have killed religious and medical
    personnel. Plan Colombia is being supported by the U. S. government with a
    $1.3 billion assistance package that was approved in June 2000. In addition
    to drug eradication and interdiction efforts, U. S funding is supporting (1)
    democracy programs and the peace process, (2) reduction of opium and cocoa
    cultivation through alternative development, and (3) assistance to
    internally displaced persons. USAID programs were focused on providing
    assistance to internally displaced persons in the reestablishment, or
    postflight, stage of displacement. This phase of displacement represents a

    major gap in the international community?s response in Colombia. USAIDfunded
    activities focused on secondary cities bearing the brunt of internally
    displaced populations and included food- for- work community projects,

    income generation and long- term economic opportunities, primary education,
    and shelter. State- funded activities of the World Food Program and the Pan
    American Health Organization focused on areas of capacitybuilding to improve
    health care delivery to displaced persons and supplementary feeding programs
    for women and children. Figure 11 shows

    Colombian women engaged in an income generation project.

    Figure 11: An Internally Displaced Persons Community Outside of Bogota,
    Colombia, 2001 Note: Women manufacturing low- cost clothing items sold in
    retail stores and local markets in

    Colombia. Source: GAO.

    Sudan Sudan, geographically the largest country in Africa, has been at war
    nearly its entire independent existence. The conflict started just before
    independence in 1955, when the ruling north refused to share power with the
    south. This phase of the conflict, which lasted 17 years and claimed several
    hundreds of thousands of lives, ended in 1972 with the signing of a peace
    agreement in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. However, fighting resumed in 1983 when
    southern black troops in the national army created the Sudanese People?s
    Liberation Army and demanded a change of government in the capital,
    Khartoum, and a fair share of the resources for all regions in the country.
    In addition to the conflict between the regular army and the

    Sudanese People?s Liberation Army, fighting has raged between various
    militias allied with these two parties. The civil war, which is estimated to
    have resulted in the death of 2 million

    persons, and the internal displacement of several million more has continued
    into its 18 th year. There has been no significant progress toward peace in
    years and Department of State officials believe the current situation is
    likely to go on indefinitely. Neither side appears to have the ability to
    win the war militarily, although oil revenues have allowed the government to
    invest increasingly in military hardware. Presently, the government controls
    virtually all of the northern two- thirds of the country but is limited to
    garrison towns in the south.

    The drive for oil and territorial control over newly operational oil fields
    is now central to the conflict that has long been rooted in racial,
    cultural, religious, and political differences. Government forces have
    pursued a scorched earth policy aimed at removing populations from around a
    newly built oil pipeline and other oil production facilities. These forces
    have killed and injured civilians, destroyed villages, and driven out
    inhabitants in

    order to create an unoccupied security zone, according to Department of
    State reporting. The government has also blocked or harassed humanitarian
    relief operations. The Sudanese People?s Liberation Army has been guilty of
    property theft from nongovernmental organizations and U. N. agencies
    operating in the south, according to the Department of State. Militia
    factions have manipulated humanitarian aid programs to gain food for their
    troops and have conscripted new soldiers from camps housing refugees and
    internally displaced persons. The militias are also guilty of committing
    serious human rights abuses. According to Amnesty International, militia
    forces frequently change sides depending on their perceived interests or the

    supply of arms. The government pursues a policy of providing support and
    weapons to the various militia commanders and encouraging interfactional
    fighting. It is estimated that more people have died as a result of
    interfactional fighting between militias than in armed encounters with
    government forces.

    Since 1991, the United States has provided $1.2 billion in humanitarian
    assistance to Sudan. Because the government of Sudan is involved in gross
    human rights violations and support of international terrorism, the United
    States provides only humanitarian assistance in government- controlled areas
    but both development and humanitarian assistance in oppositioncontrolled
    areas. USAID programs provide emergency food and nonfood aid (blankets,
    kitchen items, and plastic sheeting) in areas of displacement and
    resettlement. With increased emergency needs related to the many

    active conflict zones and large simultaneous displacements, USAID is
    providing life- sustaining assistance to extremely vulnerable populations.
    Most assistance is provided through Operation Lifeline Sudan, which is a
    consortium of U. N. agencies and more than 40 international nongovernmental
    organizations. In fiscal year 2001, the U. S. government provided an
    estimated $4 million in direct program assistance, in addition to U. S.
    contributions to the programs of international organizations, such as the
    International Committee of the Red Cross and the U. N. Children?s Fund.

    Appendi x II I Comments From the U. S. Department of State

    Comments From the U. S. Agency for

    Appendi x V I International Development

    Appendi x V Comments From the United Nations

    Comments From the International Red Cross

    Appendi x VI and Red Crescent Movement

    Appendi x VII

    GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Harold Johnson (202)
    512- 3540 Tetsuo Miyabara (202) 512- 8974 Acknowledgments In addition to
    those named above, Patrick Dickriede, Norman Thorpe, Jack

    Edwards, Ernie Jackson, Zina Merritt, and Rona Mendelsohn made key
    contributions to this report.

    (711562) Lett er

    Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional
    copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

    the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
    accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single
    address are discounted 25 percent.

    Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
    DC 20013

    Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
    U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

    Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
    receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
    days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone

    phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these
    lists.

    Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the
    Internet, send an e- mail message with ?info? in the body to:

    info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
    gao. gov

    To Report Fraud, Contact one:

    Waste, or Abuse in  Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet.
    htm

    Federal Programs

     e- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov  1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering
    system)

    GAO United States General Accounting Office

    Page i GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Contents

    Contents Page ii GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 1 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs United States General Accounting Office

    Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    A

    Page 2 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 3 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 4 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 5 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 6 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 7 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 8 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 9 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 10 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 11 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 12 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 13 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 14 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 15 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 16 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 17 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 18 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 19 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 20 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 21 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 22 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 23 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 24 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 25 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 26 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 27 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 28 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 29 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 30 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 31 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 32 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 33 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 34 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 35 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 36 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 37 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 38 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix I

    Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Page 39 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Page 40 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 41 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix II

    Appendix II Country Profiles: Burundi, Colombia, and Sudan

    Page 42 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix II Country Profiles: Burundi, Colombia, and Sudan

    Page 43 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix II Country Profiles: Burundi, Colombia, and Sudan

    Page 44 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix II Country Profiles: Burundi, Colombia, and Sudan

    Page 45 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix II Country Profiles: Burundi, Colombia, and Sudan

    Page 46 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix II Country Profiles: Burundi, Colombia, and Sudan

    Page 47 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 48 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix III

    Appendix III Comments From the U. S. Department of State

    Page 49 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix III Comments From the U. S. Department of State

    Page 50 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix III Comments From the U. S. Department of State

    Page 51 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix III Comments From the U. S. Department of State

    Page 52 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix III Comments From the U. S. Department of State

    Page 53 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 54 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix IV

    Page 55 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 56 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix V

    Appendix V Comments From the United Nations

    Page 57 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 58 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix VI

    Appendix VI Comments From the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
    Movement

    Page 59 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix VI Comments From the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
    Movement

    Page 60 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Page 61 GAO- 01- 803 Foreign Affairs

    Appendix VII

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

    Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

    Address Correction Requested Presorted Standard

    Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
    *** End of document. ***