32 URBAN DISPLACEMENT FMR 34 The largest wave of displacement in Uganda occurred in ŗşşś-şŜ, when the government forced civilians in northern Uganda into so-called ȁprotected villagesȂ using mortars and helicopter gunships in the process. The ȁprotected villagesȂ were later turned into IDP camps ŗ which received litle assistance from the government. The humanitarian community in Uganda limited its food distribution to IDPs registered and residing within the camps. People scatered and led from the war in northern Uganda to many locations and it is estimated that between řŖŖ,ŖŖŖ and ŜŖŖ,ŖŖŖ people went to urban areas. Ř IDPs in urban areas are most oten perceived as either economic migrants, or IDPs who have reached a durable solution. Consequently the urban IDPs in Uganda are not given much atention, and assistance is seldom provided for this group. The gap in policy and practice between encamped and non- encamped populations stems partly from the governmentȂs focus on control rather than rights in the course of the conlict in northern Uganda. It also stems from humanitarian actors being guided by convenience rather than the rights of the population they are mandated to assist. Protecting and assisting urban IDPs involves challenges on three levels. On the practical level is the diiculty of identifying IDPs in an urban seting, which is exacerbated by a lack of registration and information. On a more conceptual level, the neglect of urban IDPs can be explained through two on-going debates within the ield of migration: voluntary versus forced migration, and when displacement ends. On a connected, more ethical level, there are also concerns linked to singling out IDPs from other people experiencing similar hardships. ř IDPs among other urban poor IDPs that live outside camps are not registered, and there is not much information available about them. Such challenges in identifying urban IDPs make it diicult for the government and the humanitarian actors to address their needs. Whereas IDPs in camps in Uganda have at times had ration cards indicating their entitlement to assistance, urban IDPs have no corresponding form of documentation with which to ȁproveȂ their displacement and therefore they oten disappear into the larger population of economic migrants. In addition to problems with identifying IDPs in an urban context, it can also be complicated to assist them. Favouring IDPs over the local host population can lead to friction between the two groups. Consequently, a more integrated approach of development that “What About Us?” http://www.refugeelawproject. org/video_advocacy.php What About Us? is a 32-minute video about displaced Acholi people in Kampala and other urban centres. These displaced Acholi share their stories, their feelings on being treated as foreigners in their own country, and their hopes of returning home to northern Uganda despite the return to armed conlict. The video also addresses the inability of government and humanitarian agencies to design appropriate interventions for those displaced to urban areas. (A seven-minute version of the video is also available.) includes both the IDPs and the host population is oten promoted. However, it should also be recognised that many urban IDPs will have the displacement-speciic need for assistance with return as well as compensation for loss of property and assets that do not apply to their non-IDP neighbours. A third challenge in identifying and assisting urban IDPs is related to peopleȂs mixed motivation for moving to urban areas. The formal IDP deinition distinguishes clearly between forced and voluntary migrants. In reality, however, the distinction is quite blurred. IDPs, like everyone else, search for both protection and livelihood opportunities. Many countries, including Uganda, face a failing rural economy and rapid population growth. In such a context, people may have mixed reasons for migrating to urban areas. A durable solution? Actors who recognise that people oten lee from conlict to urban areas frequently consider such individuals to have reached a durable solution and therefore to no longer be displaced. According to the Framework for Durable Solutions, Ś IDPs are considered to have reached a durable solution when they have either returned to their places of origin, have locally integrated in the areas in which they initially took refuge, or have setled and integrated in another part of the country and no longer have displacement-speciic needs. The few studies conducted on whether urban IDPs can be considered to have reached a durable solution point to relative material and psychosocial vulnerabilities of urban IDPs. A recent study from the Refugee Law Project suggests that while urban poor and IDPs face similar challenges, they are exacerbated in the IDPsȂ case by psychosocial vulnerabilities stemming from their conlict-related The reluctance of some humanitarian actors to address the needs of IDPs inconveniently located in urban areas – in contrast to those in camps – belies their commitment to a rights-based approach to assistance and protection. Urban IDPs in Uganda: victims of institutional convenience Hilde Refstie, Chris Dolan and Moses Chrispus Okello