Internally Displaced People, Ukraine 2014.
By Oleksandr
Talavera (University of Sheffield, UK)
How to help internally displaced people
(IDP) is one of the key problems faced by Ukrainian government after Crimea
annexation by Russia and fighting with separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk
regions in Eastern Ukraine. This is a new problem for Ukraine as it never faced
any war conflict in its modern history. At the same time a number of former
Soviet Union republics faced this issue. For example, at least 34,900 IDPs,
mainly from Chechnya and North Ossetia, are reported
in Russia. 172,000 people were displaced in Southern Kyrgyzstan after the
conflict between the Kyrgyz majority and the Uzbek minority in June 2010. The
scale of the problem was particularly large in Georgia and Azerbaijan. After
Karabakh war about 600,000 people were displaced in Azerbaijan which
constitutes 6.2% of population. Moreover, about 5% of Georgians were displaced
after conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Compared to conflicts in Caucasus, the
situation in Ukraine is different in a number of aspects. First of all, the
scale of problem substantially smaller, at least for now. Left panel of Figure
1 reports number of IDPs registered in all Ukrainian regions except Donetsk,
Luhansk and Crimea. Total number of IDP from Crimea is about 10,000 and it is
stable over observed time span. Number of IDPs from East (Donetsk and Luhansk)
has tremendously increased in June-July and it is equal to about 60,000 people.
Right panel reports number of new IDPs of the last period. The spike of East IDPs
on June 26 could be due to longer length of periods (12 days while other
periods include 4-5 days) and anti-terrorist actions in Eastern Ukraine. The
number of new Crimea IDPs is just zero.
Figure
1. Number of IDPs, countrywide.
Another peculiar feature of Ukrainian IDP
is their expected return to the original places of residence. Majority of IDPs
in former Soviet Union Republics are permanent, as they fear to come back to
their homes, located in different states. Similar situation is observed for Crimea
IDPs only.
It is likely that many IDPs from Donetsk
and Luhansk regions are likely return back to their homes when military actions
are over and infrastructure is restored. This hypothesis is supported by Figure
2. More than half of East IDPs go to the neighbour regions. The percentage is
much large (up to 75%) in July when military actions intensified. However, UNHCR (2014)
reports that out of about 24,000 East IDPs registered in Kharkiv region, about
15K have already returned to Slaviansk.
Notably, number of new Crimea IDPs about
zero.
Figure
2. Number of IDPs, Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia regions.
Figure 3 shows the number of IDPs in Kherson region, which borders Crimea but relatively remote from military actions in Eastern Ukraine. We observe no increase in number of new Crimean IDPs except July 8, when 400 people registered. The total number of East IDP increased during our time span and it is equal to about 700 which is substantially lower compared to regions bordering Donets and Luhansk.
Figure
3. Number of IDPs, Kherson region.
It is not surprising that majority of
permanent IDPs choose the capital as their place of residence. Quality of life
in Kyiv is higher than in any other Ukrainian region. However, the cost of
living and required social benefits is also higher, which leads to additional
burden on government budgets. Figure 4 shows that about 30% of Crimea IDPs
registered in Kyiv regions but the flow of new IDPs from Crimea is low. The
popularity of Kyiv as a destination is comparable to the popularity of capitals
in Georgia and Azerbaijan. For instance, Tbilisi became residence of about
95,000 (out of 250,000) IDPs and about 216,000 IDPs (out of 600,000) settled in
Baku,
that is, approximately a third of IDPs came to the capitals.
Figure
4. Number of IDPs, Kyiv and Kyiv region.
Finally, Figure 5 reports the number of IDPs in Volyn region, which is the most remote from both conflict zones and does not have large cities (above 500,000). Similar to Kherson region, we do not observe substantial increase in Crimea IDPs. The numbers of Crimea IDPs are comparable as well (about 200). This might be explained by family reason. This argument is also supported by low number of East IDPs coming to Volyn region.
Figure
5. Number of IDPs, Volyn region.
Unfortunately, the lack of data does not
allow us to explore in detail socioeconomic characteristics of IDPs. Table 1
reports number of IDPs from East and Crimea categorized by age and gender. There
are few differences between East and Crimea IDPs. First, share of women in
total employable people is higher in East IDP group (38%) compared to Crimea
IDP group (26%). This could be explained by the fact that men of employable age
from East could either take part in military actions on either side of conflict
or stay in conflict zone to look after property. Second, the percentage of
children among non-employable people is lower in Crimea group (56%) compared to
East group (63%). IDPs from East and Crimea have also some similarities. About
half of IDPs are of employable age in both groups. Obviously, all these numbers
have to be interpreted with precautions due to small sample size and lack of
detailed information.
Table 1. IDP Profile, Dnipropetrovsk
Region. 14 July 2014. Source.
|
East
|
Crimea
|
Women of employable age (18-55)
|
1582
|
211
|
Men of employable age (18-60)
|
576
|
132
|
Older than employable age (55+/60+)
|
858
|
143
|
Children (0-18)
|
1486
|
185
|
These statistics are consistent with
temporary status and safety reason of East IDP as well as the stable number and
permanent status of Crimea IDPs. Despite these differences both groups require
support in the short run. The UNHCR suggests
that priorities are food and close, access to social payments and pensions,
access to bank accounts, access to public health services, access to
educational institutions (kindergartens, schools, and universities).
Surprisingly, registration of residence appear to be a problem. In order to
register with local authority a deregistration from previous place is required.
Obviously, the latter is a problem in conflict zones.
Nevertheless, the Ukrainian state, with
support of international organizations and an army of volunteers, does its best
within severe budget constraints. For example, the Law “On the rights and
freedoms of citizens and the legal regime on the temporarily occupied territory
of Ukraine” has been adopted. It focuses on IDPs from Crimea and regulates
access to social payments, education, health services. This law is in line in
structure to the best practices. Similarly, Georgia’s Law On IDP
also defines status of IDP, states IDPs rights and obligations and protects IDP
property.
There are a number of further initiatives
which could improve efficiency. First, it is developing of transparent IDP
registration/reporting system. Current numbers of IDPs are likely to be lower than
real ones. Easier registration might allow IDP to get faster access to the
required resources. Furthermore, it would help international community to
coordinate efforts with Ukrainian government. Second, we suggest to involve IDPs
themselves in the planning of the return and reintegration process. This
initiative might create some employment opportunities for IDPs. In addition,
governmental employee with IDP experience might be better aware of needs and
requirements of other IDPs.
Beside governmental support, IDPs might
also need additional media support. As for now,
Ukrainian and Russian media frequently
report controversial stories. These reports and interactions in social media might
result in a number of stereotypes. As a result, we would expect a number of the
following views to emerge and should be addressed.
Host perceptions of IDP:
- IDP from East
are Pro-Russian and are brainwashed by Russian media.
- Local crime
rates increase because of IDPs
- IDPs are lazy
and rely on handouts
- IDPs are not
grateful for the help they receive
- IDPs get aid
from government and other sources, while local people do not get
- IDPs get free
housing but local people do not get
- IDPs increase
demand/cost for accommodation
- IDPs increase
unemployment
IDP views on local community:
- local people
considered IDP at the bottom of social ladder
- false
accusation of being thieves or alcoholics
- local
officials are corrupted but if IDPs report they might be forced to leave
- local
officials steal part of IDP aid/resources
To overcome these perceptions a powerful social
advertisement campaign and social support of IDPs might be required.
No comments:
Post a Comment