Respect for international law, human rights and international institutions is at a historical low. A global inward-looking trend has elevated narrow national self-interest above solidarity with those furthest left behind and above international cooperation. Rather than understanding, acknowledging and acting on the root causes of human mobility, massive political and financial capital is spent on heightening impediments to movement, without empirical evidence that such measures reduce people’s motivation to move or significantly reduce arrivals. People on the move are increasingly considered a threat to the interests of populations in countries of destination, irrespective of whether migrants, refugees or climate-displaced people are seeking safety, dignity or a place to further their self-reliance. In this respect, it seems increasingly unfashionable to present and consider them as contributors to the collective wealth and advancement of host societies.
In a world where domestic and international politics are increasingly driven by populist short-term fixes, sustainable and development-based solutions may not be a popular message. Yet if it can be demonstrated that it is in the self-interest of States to manage, rather than deter, human mobility, there may still be an opportunity to change the conversation.
A narrowly focused approach to specific groups affected by displacement needs to take into consideration the communities where those groups settle, either temporarily or more permanently. Organisations with well-defined humanitarian mandates have increasingly recognised that host communities and solution contexts must be considered when seeking what are still termed “durable solutions”.
However, humanitarian organisations are not necessarily well equipped for this task. Their modus operandi, as well as the resources made available to them, are based on rapid, shorter-term and life-saving interventions largely implemented through humanitarian funding. Externally driven supply chains and basic services that depend heavily on external inputs and expertise have continued to be the order of the day.
At the same time, most displacement situations have become protracted. Concepts such as “aid dependency” have entered the policy lexicon, while states facing structural emergencies and critical donors have expressed concern that humanitarian actors have too often treated solutions as an exit strategy directed by themselves, rather than as an entry strategy for national ownership and development actors. In doing so, they risk perpetuating parallel systems and protecting institutional “market share”. States have too often been inadequately included as part of the solution — and, for that matter, prevention and response — and instead regarded merely as part of the problem.
In the case of internally displaced persons, responsibility and accountability continue to rest squarely with the State itself. This was already incorporated in the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (1998), and the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel Report therefore correctly places national ownership at the centre of its conclusions. The emerging approach defines solutions as a development priority, shifting away from traditional humanitarian leadership and the humanitarian imperative, while placing greater emphasis on long-term development outcomes. It also recognises that solutions must include a peace dimension, promoting coexistence and conflict prevention, management and mitigation.
The shift from short-term relief and assistance toward a development approach appears logical and acceptable across the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus. A matching shift from externally driven protection toward a rights-based approach to displacement is more challenging. Particularly in situations of internal displacement, where governments may themselves be central to the displacement dynamic, entrusting them with responsibility for upholding rights can appear counterintuitive. Yet if solutions are to be nationally owned and led, such a transition must eventually occur.
Stronger empowerment of local actors, ideally through the engagement of sub-national authorities and increased channelling of resources through national counterparts, could incentivise a rights-based approach. Too often, responsibility for protection and assistance is transferred to governments only when funding declines, rather than through genuine efforts to engage and incentivise national actors from the outset. National ownership should not be equated solely with government ownership. Civil society, private sector initiatives and local charities also have important roles to play.
Sustainable protection in displacement contexts must be anchored in national systems and the rule of law. Before establishing displacement-specific programmes, international actors should optimise the use of existing national mechanisms, including local development and governance initiatives. There are risks in promoting local empowerment and enhanced national ownership. However, a better understanding of national and local contexts, supported by political economy analysis, can help mitigate those risks and incentivise nationally owned approaches not only for solutions, but equally for the prevention of and response to displacement.
Sustainable protection in displacement contexts must be anchored in national systems and the rule of law.