For more than a decade, influential voices have been calling for the enlargement of UNHCR's mandate to encompass internally displaced persons. In 1993, the Government of the Netherlands proposed at a meeting of UNHCR's Executive Committee that the United Nations assign 'a general competence' for the internally displaced to UNHCR. In 1997, prior to the announcement of the Secretary-General's reform programme, his senior adviser Maurice Strong sounded out UNHCR about becoming the premier assistance agency of the United Nations and assuming responsibility for internally displaced persons. In 2000, after visiting Angola and finding UN agencies in disarray, the US Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Richard Holbrooke, made a public recommendation: 'The primary mandate for internal refugees should be given to a single agency, presumably the UNHCR.'

In 2004, following a visit to camps for internally displaced persons in Darfur, the UK's Secretary of State for International Development, Hilary Benn, posed the question: 'Is it really sensible that we have different systems for dealing with people fleeing their homes dependent on whether they happen to have crossed an international border? I have my doubts.' In 2005 in the United States, a Congressionally-mandated bipartisan task force on the United Nations recommended 'redefining' the mandate of UNHCR to ensure the delivery of aid to refugees, internally displaced persons and those affected by natural disasters. Similarly, a report of the US Institute of Peace called upon the United Nations to designate UNHCR the lead agency for internally displaced persons.

UNHCR's long experience with refugees and its comprehensive mandate, encompassing both protection and assistance, makes it an obvious candidate for dealing with the internally displaced. Advocates of a larger role for the organization point to its involvement with the internally displaced since the 1960s, and its more substantial engagement since the 1990s, when a surge in civil conflicts following the Cold War began to produce more internally displaced persons than refugees. Currently, UNHCR is engaged in helping some 5 million internally displaced persons, one-fifth of the world's total. This number includes 1 million people in Africa, the continent most ravaged by conflict and displacement. Those in favour of a 'UNHCR solution' also argue that current institutional arrangements – namely the collaborative approach under the Emergency Relief Coordinator – have failed the internally displaced, especially in protection. As no other agency has the background or experience when it comes to uprooted populations, they see UNHCR as the only realistic alternative for dealing with the problem.

Nonetheless, strong objections to UNHCR assuming the primary responsibility for the internally displaced have been expressed. Indeed, UNHCR itself has long been divided on the issue. Some fear that the agency would be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem of internal displacement, and in the process undercut refugee protection. Others point to a conflict of interest between protecting people in their own countries and defending the right of people to leave and seek asylum abroad. In the former Yugoslavia, for example, UNHCR was criticized for paying too little attention to gaining asylum and resettlement for victims of violations while at the same time failing to provide effective in-country protection. States have also used UNHCR's in-country protection activities as a pretext for refusing to grant asylum. Moreover, the prospect of UNHCR taking on responsibility for the internally displaced has triggered fears that other UN agencies would be sidelined and their roles diminished. Finally, many donor governments continue to favour the collaborative approach despite criticisms that it is ineffective when it comes to the internally displaced.

The debate need not be framed as a zero sum game, however. UNHCR could not possibly take on all internally displaced persons, millions of whom are displaced by natural disasters and millions more by development projects. Moreover, many of those displaced by conflict are integrated into cities, may be in protracted situations for decades and may not be able to avail themselves of the kind of support UNHCR can provide. The more pertinent question is whether UNHCR can enlarge its role. In 2005, OCHA's Internal Displacement Division proposed that UNHCR carve out areas of responsibility for which it could be relied upon in emergencies. For example, drawing upon its expertise, it could take the lead in designing protection strategies and managing camps. By assuming responsibility for specific functions, it could help make the overall UN response more predictable and the collaborative approach work better. UNHCR's greater involvement, moreover, would not diminish other agencies' roles since it and they would have to work together, just as they do now when protecting refugees.

In 2005, senior UNHCR officials articulated a more expansive outlook, speaking of the organization's 'predisposition' to help the internally displaced and 'a generous and more flexible application of UNHCR policy criteria' in deciding when to become involved with those uprooted in their own countries. In support of an enlarged role, the positive consequences of UNHCR's involvement have been pointed out. Countries of asylum might be more inclined to maintain their asylum policies if something is being done to alleviate the suffering of the internally displaced, reduce their need to seek asylum and create conditions conducive to their return. Moreover, UNHCR could expand its role gradually to enable it to monitor the impact of its actions on refugee protection and to assure other agencies of their continued roles.

UNHCR's 12 September 2005 agreement to assume lead responsibility for protection, camp management and emergency shelter for internally displaced persons, endorsed by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee, marks a milestone in the evolution of UN policy on this issue. Beginning in January 2006, UNHCR will take on this role in two or three countries. If it performs effectively, calls to expand its mandate will no doubt continue, and so will the debate on the best way to deal institutionally with the needs of internally displaced persons.

Box 7.2 Darfur: the challenge of protecting the internally displaced

Box 7.4 Internal displacement in Colombia