OIM - Building solutions for the world’s 83 million internally displaced persons Recent lessons on how

Building solutions for the world’s 83 million internally displaced persons: Recent lessons on howThe opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the publication do not imply expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IOM concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries. IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an intergovernmental organization, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to: assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration; advance understanding of migration issues; encourage social and economic development through migration; and uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants. _____________________________ Publisher: International Organization for Migration 17 route des Morillons P.O. Box 17 1211 Geneva 19

Switzerland T el.: +41 22 717 9111

Fax: +41 22 798 6150

Email: hq@iom.int Website: www.iom.int Cover photo: Displaced people wait to receive aid from IOM in TVET site. © IOM 2018/Ollivia HEADON Required citation: Piper, R. (2025). Building solutions for the world’s 83 million internally displaced persons: Recent lessons on how. International Organization for Migration (IOM), Geneva. _____________________________

ISBN 978-92-9278-016-6 (PDF)

© IOM 2025 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 IGO). For further specifications please see the Copyright and T erms of Use. This publication should not be used, published or redistributed for purposes primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation, with the exception of educational purposes, e.g. to be included in textbooks.

Permissions: Requests for commercial use or further rights and licensing should be submitted to publications@iom.int.

This publication should not be used, published or redistributed for purposes primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation, with the exception of educational purposes, e.g. to be included in textbooks.

Permissions: Requests for commercial use or further rights and licensing should be submitted to publications@iom.int. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/igo/legalcode PUB2025/038/ELBuilding solutions for the world’s 83 million internally displaced persons: Recent lessons on howBuilding solutions for the world’s 83 million internally displaced persons: Recent lessons on how

Robert Piper1 Introduction As resources are slashed across the United Nations and wider aid system, there has perhaps never been as high a premium on finding lasting solutions for people caught in protracted crises. Emergency aid – humanitarian assistance – needs to be protected for short -term interventions that alleviate extreme suffering and vulnerability. Affected individuals and communities need to be supported to return quickly towards greater self -reliance, under the active engagement and leadership of their own governments. This implies the right kind of funding and policy support designed to reinforce government leadership and systems. The case for a quicker pivot towards such a “solutions approach” is especially compelling for the world’s internally displaced persons (IDPs), who are among the world’s most vulnerable people and need a more effective response from local and international actors alike. IDPs are persons forced from their homes by factors outside their control and seek safety still within their own country, unlike refugees who have crossed a border. This phenomenon has increased dramatically over recent years – from around 24 million in 1992, when the then United Nations Secretary-General appointed a first Representative on Internally Displaced Persons, 2 to over 83 million today.3 The causes of internal displacement are multiple. Conflict and sudden-onset disasters triggered by natural hazards are the primary drivers, but criminal violence and slow -onset disaster events like 1 Robert Piper is formerly the Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary -General on Solutions to Internal Displacement (2022–2024). The views

The causes of internal displacement are multiple. Conflict and sudden-onset disasters triggered by natural hazards are the primary drivers, but criminal violence and slow -onset disaster events like 1 Robert Piper is formerly the Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary -General on Solutions to Internal Displacement (2022–2024). The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations or any other organizations with which the author is affiliated. Comments and feedback provided by Prof. Walter Kälin, Mona Folkesson, William Chemaly and Marie McAuliffe are also gratefully acknowledged. Any errors or omissions remain the author’s nevertheless. 2 According to an independent review of the Inter -Agency Standing Committee (IASC) response to internal displacement (p. 9), there were 24 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in 1992. See Lewis Sida, Erin Mooney, Oliver Lough, Leen Fouad, Kevin Kennedy, Tina Nelis, Abeer Hashem Al-Absi, Janvier Koko Kirusha, Fekadu Adugna Tufa, Raul Chambote, Mustapha Alhassan and Neem Institute, and Francesca Randazzo Eisemann, Independent Review of the IASC Response to Internal Displacement (London, ODI, 2024). 3 Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), Global Report on Internal Displacement 2025 (Geneva, IDMC, 2025).6 Building solutions for the world’s 83 million internally displaced persons: Recent lessons on how natural resource depletion, sea -level rise and desertification can also play a part. Adding to this pattern of growth is the increasingly protracted nature of displacement; some of today’s IDPs in Colombia, for example, have been displaced for more than 20 years. Others in Nigeria, the Syrian Arab Republic or the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been displaced for more than 10 years. Hence, while the number of new displacements each year is increasing, the fact that more and more existing IDPs are also not finding solutions adds to this pattern of growth.

Arab Republic or the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been displaced for more than 10 years. Hence, while the number of new displacements each year is increasing, the fact that more and more existing IDPs are also not finding solutions adds to this pattern of growth. Conflictand disaster-driven displacements unfold differently. While these patterns may be changing as climate and conflict increasingly intersect, generally speaking most disaster displacement tends to be relatively short-term (i.e. measured in months), as compared to most conflict displacement, which is more likely to become protracted (i.e. measured in years). Estimated international humanitarian spending on internal displacement has been around USD 5 billion annually over recent years.4 This number is likely conservative and does not include assistance to host communities to mitigate the impact of IDP arrivals. It also does not include spending by governments of affected countries, which, in the case of Colombia and Iraq, for example, can be substantial (in excess of USD 1 billion annually in the case of Colombia over recent years).5 These escalating numbers – of affected persons, impact, costs and spending – moved 57 Member States to approach the United Nations Secretary-General in 2019 to encourage him to commission a special panel to look into the issue. Led by former Vice President of the European Commission Federica Mogherini and former President of the African Development Bank Donald Kaberuka, an eight-person High Level Panel on Internal Displacement looked at the issue afresh in 2020–2021 and made a set of recommendations on how the approach generally to internal displacement needed to change to keep up with what was clearly a growing and morphing challenge. 6 The United Nations itself integrated most of the independent Panel’s recommendations into its own Action Agenda on Internal Displacement, 7 which it launched in mid -2022. The Action Agenda contained 33 commitments by 20+ United Nations agencies across three axes of action – prevention of new displacement, responding to displacement when it occurs and solutions to protracted displacement. While the Action Agenda was a set of United Nations commitments, not an intergovernmentally endorsed programme of action, it also drew on the Panel’s findings to make

– prevention of new displacement, responding to displacement when it occurs and solutions to protracted displacement. While the Action Agenda was a set of United Nations commitments, not an intergovernmentally endorsed programme of action, it also drew on the Panel’s findings to make recommendations to Member States – affected countries and donors alike. 4 This rough estimate was calculated by my Office, the United Nations Office of the Special Adviser on Solutions to Internal Displacement (OSA), and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) based on extrapolations from humanitarian response plans’ spending and IDP targeting over the past five years. 5 A new IDP “tag” was introduced by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co -operation and Development in its financial tracking system in 2023, which will hopefully greatly help gather more robust data on internal displacement spending in the coming years, as it becomes more systematically applied by donors to their data sets. 6 United Nations Secretary -General’s High-Level Panel on Internal Displacement, Shining a Light on Internal Displacement: An Agenda for the Future (New York, United Nations, 2021). 7 OSA, The United Nations Secretary -General’s Action Agenda on Internal Displacement: Follow -Up to the Report of the UN Secretary -General’s High-Level Panel on Internal Displacement (New York, United Nations, June 2022).7 Building solutions for the world’s 83 million internally displaced persons: Recent lessons on how I was asked by the Secretary -General to lead a small, temporary, inter -agency team to catalyse action around these multiple commitments and engagements to ensure the momentum was not lost. As the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on Solutions to Internal Displacement, my primary responsibility was to operationalize the Panel’s recommendations linked to reversing protracted displacement. Working closely with a group of United Nations agencies and the World Bank in particular, the mandate was nevertheless also an opportunity to help ensure there was momentum around the broader prevention and response commitments of the Action Agenda as well.8 Our office, the Office of the Special Adviser on Solutions to Internal Displacement (OSA), closed

particular, the mandate was nevertheless also an opportunity to help ensure there was momentum around the broader prevention and response commitments of the Action Agenda as well.8 Our office, the Office of the Special Adviser on Solutions to Internal Displacement (OSA), closed at the end of 2024 as planned – it was intended to be a catalyst not a permanent new entity. This article contains some reflections at the end of the mandate about the nature of internal displacement and some of the key lessons we learned, good and bad, over those 30 months. Reflecting the mandate, the focus here is on the solutions dimension of the task – that is, how to break this worrying pattern of protracted displacement. And specifically, what we have learned about the challenges of operationalizing many important ideas which we may “know to be true” but have proven hard to implement in practice. This article is not intended to be a self-assessment of what the Office did or did not achieve during its brief existence.9 A historically overlooked group The issue of internal displacement has been, historically, chronically overlooked. The High -Level Panel’s final report title – “Shining the Light on Internal Displacement” – underlined this reality. Refugees are a substantially smaller number than IDPs among the world’s overall “forcibly displaced” persons (less than half of the number of IDPs today) yet are widely acknowledged internationally and much more visible politically and to the general public. Migrants are not technically “forcibly displaced”, but as another key category of people on the move, they also typically receive much more attention, internationally, than IDPs. The scale of displacement numbers during World War II placed refugees prominently on the international agenda and has surely and rightfully ingrained the refugee issue in our psyche ever since. But not internal displacement, as such. Why this relative obscurity? The sheer breadth of IDP situations may be part of the explanation. Short-term, long-term, conflict or disaster displacement can present very different scenarios, once we get beyond the initial physical event of the displacement itself. As a “body” of more than 83 million people overall, IDPs are not a

Why this relative obscurity? The sheer breadth of IDP situations may be part of the explanation. Short-term, long-term, conflict or disaster displacement can present very different scenarios, once we get beyond the initial physical event of the displacement itself. As a “body” of more than 83 million people overall, IDPs are not a homogeneous group, and the overall scale of the challenge may thus not be felt so acutely. 8 For an overview of implementation of the Action Agenda at two and a half years, see OSA, The UN Secretary -General’s Action Agenda on Internal Displacement: Progress during the mandate of the Special Adviser on Solutions to Internal Displacement 2022–2024 (n.p., OSA, 2024). 9 A number of observers have already published assessments of the work of the Office. See for example: Steven Goldfinch, “ The UN Office on Internal Displacement closed: Now what?” Center For Global Development (CGD) Note 386 (CGD, January 2025); Caitlin Sturridge, Kerrie Holloway and Sarah Miller, “What next for internal displacement? Four priority actions for 2025”, Expert comment (ODI, January 2025); Nadine Knapp and Anne Koch, “The Legacy of the UN Special Adviser on Solutions to Internal Displacement. How to Maintain Political Momentum after the Mandate Expires”, German Institute for International and Security Affairs (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, SWP), SWP Comment No. 51 (Berlin, SWP, November 2024).8 Building solutions for the world’s 83 million internally displaced persons: Recent lessons on how Data constraints also contribute to the visibility challenge to some extent. Overall, tracking of numbers and profiling of specific populations has gotten better and better over recent years, thanks to organizations like IOM, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, the Joint IDP Profiling Service and REACH. But important data gaps exist that are key to build a clear narrative around internal displacement and enable the necessary detailed analysis. For example, we have little granular data that distinguishes between protracted versus the recently displaced, or the different impact of slow - versus rapid -onset disasters. Better data

a clear narrative around internal displacement and enable the necessary detailed analysis. For example, we have little granular data that distinguishes between protracted versus the recently displaced, or the different impact of slow - versus rapid -onset disasters. Better data on “exits” from displacement and on financing overall would help bring greater clarity to the issue. Data sets that identify the different status of IDPs versus non -displaced populations are also critical to help identify whether and how IDPs need purpose -built policy responses – a key gap the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)–World Bank Joint Data Centre is starting to address. Beyond data gaps, the splicing of different pieces of data by different actors to reinforce their own particular mandates does not help reinforce a consistent narrative – a common complaint from donors at the country level was their confusion with similar but not identical numbers coming from different parts of the United Nations on internal displacement numbers. Government sensitivities around internal displacement surely also play a part in the relatively low visibility of this issue. Countries deliberately displacing people in their own countries (Myanmar for example) are, needless to say, not going to promote this issue internationally. Even where displacement might be arguably the unintended consequence of government counter -insurgency measures, here too governments are often reluctant to engage internationally. Some Member States argue more generically that this is ultimately an “internal” issue (i.e. IDPs by definition do not cross a border) and hence is somehow disqualified from being discussed at the intergovernmental level, yet it is hard to understand how IDPs are intrinsically different in this respect to say indigenous persons, or women, or disabled persons – all of whom are discussed in dedicated intergovernmental forums of some kind or another. “Sensitivities” cut in another direction as well – the fact that refugees and migrants do cross borders inevitably generates a domestic political and often financial imperative in receiving countries, which very deliberately seek international attention to assist them manage the situation. Government positions are not static on the internal displacement issue either – the current Government of Colombia, for example, is an outspoken champion on internal

refugees and migrants do cross borders inevitably generates a domestic political and often financial imperative in receiving countries, which very deliberately seek international attention to assist them manage the situation. Government positions are not static on the internal displacement issue either – the current Government of Colombia, for example, is an outspoken champion on internal displacement, while its immediate predecessor was more reticent on the subject. The absence of a dedicated intergovernmental institutional home and legal anchor for IDPs may be a symptom or a cause of the relative lack of attention to internal displacement. Refugees and migrants have their “own” dedicated agency as it were, focused on their plight. Both have international legal frameworks that dictate their rights and the obligations of signatories to them. Both have their own “Global Compact”, which provides not only a set of undertakings by signatories but also a regular intergovernmental space to discuss their situations and needs. IDPs have none of this – no agency, no global convention, no dedicated forum. The issue belongs to everyone and no one at the same time.9 Building solutions for the world’s 83 million internally displaced persons: Recent lessons on how On the other hand, a dedicated agency for internal displacement arguably makes little sense and is not an idea seriously promoted by anyone. The 1998 United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement10 recognized by the United Nations General Assembly as “an important international framework for the protection of internally displaced persons”11 and subsequently reflected in the regional 2009 Kampala Convention12 also go much of the way towards a convention equivalence.13 The absence of some kind of international forum to focus on this issue remains an obvious gap in our international architecture however. This was noted by the United Nations Secretary-General in the Action Agenda for Internal Displacement; hopefully, a 30 -strong Member State “group of friends” assembled to support displacement solutions and operating out of diplomatic missions in Geneva will move this idea forward over the coming years. A recent surge in attention brings renewed attention around protracted displacement in particular While the issue of internal displacement has been historically overlooked, action over recent years has arguably started to reverse this trend.

friends” assembled to support displacement solutions and operating out of diplomatic missions in Geneva will move this idea forward over the coming years. A recent surge in attention brings renewed attention around protracted displacement in particular While the issue of internal displacement has been historically overlooked, action over recent years has arguably started to reverse this trend. The High -Level Panel on Internal Displacement submitted its report in September 2021. The Panel focused especially on the increasingly protracted nature of displacement and postulated that people are much less likely to move “out” of feeling/being displaced while their situation is not comprehensively addressed. Internally displaced persons may seek to return to their place of origin, but they may also opt to integrate permanently in their place of displacement or another location in the country. Beyond physical location, “resolution” of displacement implies restoring safety and security, often as compensation for lost assets and some recourse to justice. In disaster contexts, the underlying causes of displacement may need to be addressed or they will find themselves displaced once again. In short, the process of reversing the impact of years of displacement is more often than not complex, both politically and structurally. These observations led the Panel to its core recommendation – that governments in affected countries, above all, needed to take greater responsibility to find solutions for their own internally displaced citizens.14 No one can substitute for that government leadership. No one else can make undertakings on behalf of a State. No one else can make the difficult political calls around issues like compensation. No one else can mobilize the longer -term policy and financing engagements necessary to address structural drivers of displacement. No one else can convene the multisectoral response required for such a complex undertaking. 10 United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Representative of the Secretary -General, Mr. Francis M. Deng, submitted pursuant to

Commission resolution 1997/39: Addendum – Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (E/C.N.4/1998/53/Add.2 of 11 February 1998). 11 United Nations General Assembly resolution 60/1 on the 2005 World Summit Outcome (24 October 2005), para. 132. 12 African Union, African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention) (23 October 2009). 13 See Walter Kälin, Internal Displacement and the Law (Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2023). 14 See UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Internal Displacement.10 Building solutions for the world’s 83 million internally displaced persons: Recent lessons on how At the same time, the High -Level Panel reserved some of its criticism for the international community, which seems reluctant to internalize this reality as well, returning as it does to internal displacement situations with a short -term humanitarian took -kit year after year, often working through third parties on stand -alone projects rather than hand -in-hand with governments and, more often than not, tackling symptoms rather than causes. The Panel called for a major overhaul of how the issue of internal displacement is understood and addressed therefore, with a stronger focus on government leadership and ownership, supported by a much broader coalition of actors – especially development investors like the World Bank and the African Development Bank – to assist them in their efforts. If we remain in a primarily short-term “response” mode and fail to pivot early towards a solutions approach, the Panel argued, the number of people caught in internal displacement will only keep increasing. In addition, the Panel warned that these numbers are likely to increase exponentially with conflicts and climate-induced disasters on the rise and an increasingly toxic dynamic between these two primary drivers of displacement that will surely make solutions yet more difficult to achieve. Government at the centre? “It’s complicated.” This notion of pivoting to a government -led, development-financed solutions approach poses a number of challenges. Below are just some of the most notable. First, as noted earlier, in some contexts, governments are deliberately displacing their own

Government at the centre? “It’s complicated.” This notion of pivoting to a government -led, development-financed solutions approach poses a number of challenges. Below are just some of the most notable. First, as noted earlier, in some contexts, governments are deliberately displacing their own citizens and often unwilling to even discuss the issue, let alone seeking to resolve the situation responsibly and with respect for the rights of the displaced themselves. In these contexts, the notion of government leadership is obviously very problematic. This reality represents a minority of situations perhaps, but they are very real and are the most problematic contexts for the IDPs themselves and the actors seeking to help them. The work of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of the Internally Displaced Persons should be especially focused on these acute situations where accountability is the missing first step. Where governments are the perpetrators, we cannot really talk about “solutions” as such – indeed, if we do, we risk becoming instrumentalized and part of the problem. Second, in many contexts of high displacement numbers, a government may be willing but not necessarily able to assert the necessary leadership. Pulling together a government solutions strategy for millions of IDPs requires clear policy positions and strong coordination across ministries and between capitals and regions. Implementation at scale – hundreds of thousands of houses across north-east Nigeria for example – requires robust government systems for procurement and delivery. It requires systems at the local level. Meanwhile, IDPs themselves are naturally in a hurry for solutions, and donors want quick results. This combination of factors can create a strong temptation to short -circuit government leadership – that is, drafting strategies “on behalf of”, using third-party implementers, sticking to a project approach. After years of mainly humanitarian response, these well-meaning substitution reflexes are difficult to reverse.11 Building solutions for the world’s 83 million internally displaced persons: Recent lessons on how Third, there is sometimes legitimate resistance to this pivot coming from the humanitarian community itself. Displacement settings are complex and varied. One part of the same country may be ready for government -led solutions, while another part of the country remains

Building solutions for the world’s 83 million internally displaced persons: Recent lessons on how Third, there is sometimes legitimate resistance to this pivot coming from the humanitarian community itself. Displacement settings are complex and varied. One part of the same country may be ready for government -led solutions, while another part of the country remains a humanitarian response setting with high protection needs. Furthermore, even in locations where government -led solutions are possible, this takes time; in the interim, communities may continue to face very real humanitarian needs. The humanitarian community questions whether our current systems and capacities are able to handle such nuance – humanitarian donors, for example, can be quick to declare an emergency “over” and close their emergency funding prematurely. United Nations teams may similarly not have the dexterity to operate with a different posture in different parts of the same country. Delays between development actors declaring their engagement and the organizations and development funding actually showing up can also put lives at risk, according to some observers. It needs to be said that the way in which the intergovernmental system is organized around internal displacement does not create a particularly enabling environment for government leadership of this kind either. Today, internal displacement is largely discussed in either the humanitarian segment of the General Assembly’s Third Committee or around the submission of reports by the Special Rapporteur to the Human Rights Council or the General Assembly. There is no obvious venue where governments come as a “client”, as it were, seeking support and being afforded an opportunity to articulate their institutional, policy, and financing needs and expectations, and where the development, peacebuilding and international financial institution (IFI) communities can be assembled to listen and respond collectively. This underlines the urgency of establishing some kind of forum to discuss internal displacement more comprehensively, as called for in the Action Agenda. How did the Office go about operationalizing the Panel recommendations?15 The 30-month mandate of the Office was an opportunity to test how to bridge the gap between good ideas and concrete action. The structural issues mitigating against a more joined up and effective United Nations response at least needed to be recognized upfront. For example, strategic leadership was required

recommendations?15 The 30-month mandate of the Office was an opportunity to test how to bridge the gap between good ideas and concrete action. The structural issues mitigating against a more joined up and effective United Nations response at least needed to b