Colombia: Internal Displacement – Policies and Problems
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
writenet is a network of researchers and writers on human rights, forced migration, ethnic and political conflict WRITENET writenet is the resource base of practical management (uk) e-mail: [email protected] independent analysis COLOMBIA: INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT – POLICIES AND PROBLEMS A Writenet Report by Natalia Springer commissioned by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Status Determination and Protection Information Section (DIPS) June 2006 Caveat: Writenet papers are prepared mainly on the basis of publicly available information, analysis and comment. All sources are cited. The papers are not, and do not purport to be, either exhaustive with regard to conditions in the country surveyed, or conclusive as to the merits of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. The views expressed in the paper are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Writenet or UNHCR. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms ................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ................................................................................. ii 1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 2 Recent Events and Developments in the Armed Conflict ............. 2 2.1 The Armed Conflict and Human Rights Violations................................. 2 2.2 Large-scale Humanitarian Crisis............................................................... 6 2.3 State Response Capacity ............................................................................. 7 2.4 The Plight of IDPs and Refugees.............................................................. 10 3 Displacement Trends....................................................................... 12 3.1 Observations on the Chronology of Displacement ................................. 12 3.2 Regional Variations: Expelling and Receiving Communities ............... 13 3.2.1 Expulsions........................................................................................... 14 3.2.2 Receiving Communities...................................................................... 15 3.3 Groups at Risk ........................................................................................... 17 3.3.1 Indigenous Populations...................................................................... 17 3.3.2 Afro-Colombians ................................................................................ 18 3.3.3 Women and Children.......................................................................... 20 3.4 Causes of Displacement............................................................................. 21 4 Property Rights of IDPs.................................................................. 22 4.1 Land Ownership in Rural Areas.............................................................. 22 4.2 IDP Property Rights and Property Loss ................................................. 24 4.3 Legal Uncertainty, Physical Insecurity.................................................... 26 4.4 Return Impossible ..................................................................................... 31 4.5 Mechanisms for Protecting Property Rights........................................... 32 4.6 The Problem of Collective Property ........................................................ 33 5 Possible Future Scenarios............................................................... 35 5.1 Likely Development of Displacement Patterns....................................... 35 5.2 Possible Impact of the “Justice and Peace” Law.................................... 37 5.3 Review of Opportunities for IDP Return ................................................ 40 5.4 Changing Roles for International Actors................................................ 42 6 Conclusion........................................................................................ 42 7 Bibliography .................................................................................... 45 Acronyms AUC Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia – United Self-Defense Units of Colombia CNR Comisión Nacional de Reparación y Reconciliación – National Reconciliation and Reparation Commission CODHES Consultoría para los Derechos Humanos y el Desplazamiento – Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement COHRE Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions CONPES Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social – National Council for Economic and Social Policy DAS Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad – Adminstrative Security Department ELN Ejército de Liberación Nacional – National Liberation Army EPL Ejército Popular de Liberación – Popular Liberation Army FARC Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia GDP Gross Domestic Product INCODER Instituto Colombiano de Desarrollo Rural – Colombian Institute for Rural Development INCORA Instituto Colombiano de Reforma Agraria – Colombian Institute for Agrarian Reform M-19 Movimiento 19 de Abril – 19th of April Movement OCHA (UN) Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs ONIC Organización Nacional Indígena de Colombia – National Indigenous Organization of Colombia RSS Red de Seguridad Social – Social Security Network RUP Registro Único de Predios – Unified Property Register SNAIPD Sistema Nacional de Atención Integral a la Población Desplazada – National System of Comprehensive Assistance to the Displaced Population SUR Sistema Única de Registro – Unified Registration System UAO Unidad de Atención y Orientación – Attention and Orientation Unit i Executive Summary The year 2006 is a decisive one for Colombia. The presidential and congressional elections provided opportunities for the people to assess the performance of the Uribe government and a large majority of voters have not only renewed the mandate of the President but also of the political forces supporting him in Congress. This double victory has given Uribe a broader manoeuvring space to address the manifold problems which persist in Colombia, in spite of some measurable improvements achieved during his first term. Paramount among these challenges is achieving a sustainable pacification by redefining the negotiations with the paramilitaries, reforming the current process of demobilization and reintegration of former combatants and starting a peace process with the guerrilla. In apparent recognition of this opportunity, the government has substantially modified its stance in recent months, showing itself more open to effective negotiations, including over a humanitarian exchange, with the insurgents. This will not be easy, as the narcotics industry and trade as well as other illicit businesses continue to provide major incentives to armed actors motivating them to struggle for control over territory and strategic routes. While the FARC guerrilla’s tactics appear to have changed insofar as they refrained from actively sabotaging the elections this year, they remain adamant that they will not negotiate with a government they consider illegitimate. The FARC are also intensifying their campaign against the smaller ELN, which has already entered into talks with the Uribe administration. The Armed Forces on their part are continuing their counter- insurgency operations which cost billions of dollars every year and have produced only limited results so far. The large-scale demobilization of paramilitary groups has had a positive impact on the development of political violence, including a decrease in internal displacement figures. However, there is a real danger that this effect might not be permanent, due to a lack of coherent government policies, as well as growing anarchization of the violence in several parts of the country. Demobilized paramilitaries can easily be reactivated to form criminal gangs, death squads, hit men or guerrillas, especially if they have no viable alternatives. In such a scenario, the conflict could rapidly return to its former brutality, including particularly violent means such as massacres targeting the long-suffering civilian population. More displacement and large humanitarian emergencies would be the inevitable consequence. The situation with regard to the properties of IDPs remains very worrying. It is estimated that about four million hectares of land have been abandoned by forcibly displaced people, amounting to three times the quantity of territory redistributed in all public agrarian reforms since 1961. More than 90% of IDP households have simply abandoned their homes, while the rest have sold under pressure or coercion from armed actors who invaded their properties and threatened them openly. The state has gradually made some mechanisms available for the temporary protection of abandoned IDP properties, but they are ineffective and overwhelmed by the magnitude of the crisis. A Unified Property Registry, indispensable for protecting displaced owners, was only set up in 2005. The government agency charged with attending to rural property issues, INCODER, is understaffed and clearly lacks funds; its whole budget for rural investment in 2004 covered only one percent of estimated IDP needs. The results with regard to the distribution of land have been minimal in coverage and impact and remain concentrated on small pilot projects. Too often, victims of forced displacement are left to themselves to see how they can salvage anything from their lost properties, which ii quite frequently become part of large agro-industrial development schemes backed by paramilitary