Global Overview 2011: People internally displaced by conflict and violence - Peru
|Publisher||Norwegian Refugee Council/Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (NRC/IDMC)|
|Publication Date||19 April 2012|
|Cite as||Norwegian Refugee Council/Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (NRC/IDMC), Global Overview 2011: People internally displaced by conflict and violence - Peru, 19 April 2012, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4f97fb5628.html [accessed 28 July 2014]|
|Number of IDPs||About 150,000|
|Percentage of total population||About 0.5%|
|Start of current displacement situation||1980|
|Peak number of IDPs (Year)||1,000,000 (1990)|
|Causes of displacement||Armed conflict, human rights violations|
|Human development index||80|
In 2011, ten years after the authoritarian government of Alberto Fujimori had defeated the revolutionary groups Shining Path and Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, most of the million people displaced during the 20-year conflict had returned to their places of origin or settled elsewhere in the country.
The government estimated in 2007 that 150,000 people remained internally displaced, mostly in urban centres including Ayacucho, Lima, Junín, Ica and Huánuco. However there was no data as of 2011 evaluating the situation of IDPs or comparing it to that of the non-displaced population.
A law on internal displacement passed in 2004 helped to protect IDPs' rights; it incorporated the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and assigned the responsibility to coordinate the response to the Ministry of Women and Social Development (now the Ministry for Women and Vulnerable Populations or MIMDES). The Ministry began to register IDPs so that they could qualify for eventual reparations alongside other victims of the conflicts.
Despite the advocacy of the IDP umbrella organisation CONDECOREP, the process to include IDPs in the registry hardly advanced in 2011.
In October, 500 people were included in the registry, but this had more symbolic value than actual impact on their access to benefits and reparations. No IDPs had received reparations by the end of 2011, despite a stated commitment from the government to support the indigenous IDPs among them.
Collective reparations, both for IDPs and other victims of human rights abuses by insurgent groups and government forces, have been framed as development or anti-poverty measures rather than the protection of fundamental rights. In this context, MIMDES has also implemented some livelihoods support programmes; however none were reported in 2011.
In 2011, violence associated with the cultivation and export of coca posed an ongoing threat, but there were no reports of resulting displacement.