Internal Displacement: Global Overview of Trends and Developments in 2009 - Peru
|Publisher||Norwegian Refugee Council/Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (NRC/IDMC)|
|Publication Date||17 May 2010|
|Cite as||Norwegian Refugee Council/Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (NRC/IDMC), Internal Displacement: Global Overview of Trends and Developments in 2009 - Peru, 17 May 2010, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4bf25269d.html [accessed 2 May 2016]|
|Disclaimer||This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.|
|Number of IDPs||150,000|
|Percentage of total population||0.5%|
|Start of current displacement situation||1980|
|Peak number of IDPs (Year)||Undetermined|
|Causes of displacement||Internal armed conflict, human rights violations|
|Human development index||78|
Armed conflict between government forces and the revolutionary Shining Path and the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement from 1980 to 2000 caused the displacement of up to one million people at the height of the conflict in the 1990s. In 2007, the Ministry of Women and Social Development (MI-MDES) estimated that 150,000 IDPs had not yet returned or resettled, and were still in urban centres including Ayacucho, Lima, Junín, Ica and Huánuco.
A law on internal displacement passed in 2004 represented a positive step towards the protection of IDPs' rights. It incorporated the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement into local legislation, and created an focal point within MIMDES to coordinate the response to internal displacement. The IDP division of MIMDES has since improved the lot of some displaced people by starting to register them for eventual reparations, and implementing some livelihoods programmes.
During 2009, however, there was no progress in registering and accrediting IDPs according to the 2004 statute; the number of people registered remained at only 5,000, none of whom had received reparation by the end of the year. Lack of coordination between the IDP-specific registry and the general registry of conflict victims, and the focus on reparations for collective groups, have effectively excluded individual IDPs. Finally, reparations both for IDPs and victims of other human rights abuses have generally been framed as development or anti-poverty measures rather than fundamental rights supported by international law.
Nine years after the end of the conflict, there is no data evaluating the situation of IDPs group either independently or in comparison with non-IDPs. However, there are indications that they continue to struggle to access livelihood opportunities, education and health care.
Continuing support is needed for reparations and also for wider livelihoods interventions and development of basic services in the places to which people were displaced. Further returns and resettlements are not expected.