Responding to the Needs of Internally Displaced Persons: A Social Work Perspective

ABSTRACT

Internal displacement caused by armed conflict has a lasting impact on the lives of those affected. Re-establishing stability after the cessation of conflict is a difficult and complex task. To date, the contribution of social work values and knowledge to this task has received limited attention. This study uses the principles and values of social work as a framework for analysing an intervention that was undertaken to address the impact of displacement following armed conflict on an Indigenous community in Zamboanga, Philippines. A community development intervention model was developed by the Philippines-based Community and Family Services International (CFSI), an international not-for-profit organisation. Through analysis of the Zamboanga intervention, this study demonstrates the positive impact of applying social work values and principles to guiding postconflict recovery, encouraging empowerment and building more sustainable futures. The findings demonstrate the significance and value of CFSI’s approach in supporting postconflict recovery.

IMPLICATIONS

• Displacement following armed conflict impacts negatively on all aspects of the lives of those displaced, and Indigenous people are at particularly high risk.

• The social work approach provides a framework to inform the development of humanitarian programs.

• Analysis of the implementation of the Community and Family Services International (CFSI) intervention indicates that addressing the impacts of internal displacement on Indigenous communities requires humanitarian programs to engage with culture and support self-determination.

KEYWORDS:

• Internal Displacement
• Indigenous
• Sama-Bajau
• Social Work Principles
• Community Development
• Empowerment

For the millions of children and adults displaced from their communities by armed conflict, discrimination, or natural disasters, the experience is traumatic and impacts on all aspects of their lives (Holmes, 2008). Internally displaced persons (IDPs) are those who, within their own country, have been displaced from their own homes and communities (United Nations, 2004). As displaced people, they may experience loss of property and livelihood, separation from family, discrimination, human rights abuses, loss of dignity and hope, and a range of social and emotional consequences (Frederico et al., 2007; Alston et al., 2019).

Approaches to Responding to Internal Displacement

International humanitarian projects to support the recovery of IDPs and refugees have historically employed an aid-development approach (Crisp, 2011). This approach, which came to the fore in the 1970s and 1980s, reflects assumptions that relief should not be open-ended, but rather development oriented and sustainable, and enable beneficiaries to become self-sufficient (Crisp, 2011). However, while this approach works in theory, Crisp (2011) argued that it rarely fulfils expectations. Although there have been some changes to this aid-development approach, it still influences relief projects. As Bennett et al. (2016) pointed out, humanitarian assistance is often subject to the accountability requirements of donor organisations, and this results in the aid delivered being largely determined by the material goods and services that can be supplied and quantified, rather than by the needs of the affected populations. Bennett et al. (2016) argued that this humanitarian exceptionalism also plays a role in the form of expectations that humanitarian action must remain distinguishable from political and security objectives for the sake of neutrality.

Conflicts are caused by persistent economic, social, and political inequalities. Humanitarian intervention can do little to solve underlying problems in the absence of frameworks for reducing previously existing inequalities (Alston et al., 2019). The intersectorial nature of the phenomena and its effects consequently need to be addressed to achieve peace (Vincent & Sorensen, 2001), and this is especially the case where the breakdown of social cohesion disproportionately affects the most vulnerable people in a society. It is critical to utilise local knowledge and proactively engage IDPs, so that those most affected can provide insight into the appropriateness of programs (Svobodova, 2019). Borton et al. (2005) found that decisions to end humanitarian assistance were often based on inadequate assessments and a lack of recognition that returned or resettled IDPs require ongoing assistance after displacement to re-establish their livelihoods. This oversight resulted in IDPs remaining vulnerable.

In 2016, the World Humanitarian Summit acknowledged this challenge by leading the development of the “Grand Bargain”, an agreement between large donors and humanitarian organisations aimed at improving the outcomes of humanitarian action (United Nations Inter-Agency Standing Committee, 2016, p. 17). The Grand Bargain resulted in a commitment to improve support for local communities in ways that avoid perpetuating disadvantage, along with a commitment to reinforcing, rather than supplanting, local and national systems that are already working well (World Humanitarian Summit, 2016).

Abubakar (2019) argued that no strategy for human development could be complete without a call for peace. Frederico et al. (2007) asserted that peace is more than just the absence of fighting. While addressing military and political issues is beyond the capability and mandate of aid agencies, strengthening communities is an important pathway to lasting peace, and aid agencies can play a key role in promoting action that achieves this peace.

Despite the similar impact of displacement on IDPs and those displaced across international borders, IDPs face unique vulnerabilities. The absence of legally-binding protections for IDPs and a lack of compliance with existing frameworks by state authorities often results in ongoing disregard for human rights (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2015b). While the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (2004) have helped shift international discourse and provide “soft law” guidance to states to protect IDPs, the absence of systematic monitoring has resulted in a lack of action and indifference by some authorities, leaving IDPs without the support they need either from the state or from aid agencies (Musgrave, 2020).

The current study introduces a model for rebuilding following conflict, one that takes a holistic approach and is informed by principles of human rights and social justice. Our analysis of the Zamboanga Recovery Project (ZRP), an initiative delivered in Mindanao, Philippines, by Community and Family Services International (CFSI), to support recovery from internal displacements, demonstrated the value of a social work approach for individual healing and social and community rebuilding and development. Displacement particularly affected Indigenous people. Following discussion of internal displacement and its impact on Indigenous communities, approaches to addressing the consequences of displacement are discussed, and the application of the CFSI model in Zamboanga analysed. Our aim was to identify the significance of social work values and principles for postconflict interventions.

Method

To explore the impact of a holistic social work model of community building for IDPs affected by conflict in Mindanao, Philippines, our research used a case study methodology. This methodology was selected as it facilitates “the grounding of observations and concepts about social action and social structures in natural settings” and permits “a more holistic study of complex social action and social meanings” (Feagin et al., 1991, p. 6). Community and Family Services International’s Zamboanga Recovery Project intervention was the case studied, and since case studies relating to Indigenous displacement due to armed conflict are rare (Hagen & Minter, 2020), it has special value. Case studies related to postconflict humanitarian intervention can contribute evidence of what works in these situations. Data were collected through a review and analysis of detailed program documentation, which included feedback from stakeholders, a review of the local context, identification of the characteristics and demographics of the affected population, and a review of the intervention processes.

Conflict and Displacement in Mindanao—the Case of the Zamboanga City Crisis

There is a long history of conflict in Mindanao (Bernardo & Baranovich, 2014) dating back to the Spanish colonisation of the Island. The struggle between Christian Philippines and Islamic religion and culture has led to many instances of violence. The Indigenous peoples, engaged in their own struggle for land and rights, have frequently been the group most affected by armed conflict, as was the case in Zamboanga City.

In 2013, clashes between a faction of the Moro National Liberation Front and the Armed Forces of the Philippines left approximately 120,000 men, women, and children displaced (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2015a). Following the 2013 conflict, many IDPs were moved to evacuation centres in other host communities, where inadequate sanitation and nutrition, in addition to cases of abuse and exploitation, placed individuals at risk and compounded experiences of trauma. Between September 2013 and March 2014, the deaths of 104 IDPs were reported (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs [UN OCHA], 2014). In January 2014, the Philippine National Government, in collaboration with local government, initiated the Zamboanga City Roadmap for Recovery and Reconstruction (Z3R) with the aim of finding stable, permanent accommodation for the IDPs and developing the necessary infrastructure for their support (UN OCHA, 2014). In 2015, an estimated 23,938 people were still in need of permanent settlement.

Although many IDPs had returned home by July 2018, others remained without stable accommodation. The Z3R prioritised preconflict landowners for resettlement housing, which had the effect of perpetuating existing social inequities since renters and others without land prior to the conflict were particularly vulnerable and at risk of remaining stuck in temporary accommodation. Other IDPs who escaped from the conflict and found accommodation with families and friends were “untagged”. These individuals and families were not registered with the government, and therefore received little or no humanitarian assistance and were rarely included in the planning and execution of resettlement initiatives (UN OCHA, 2016). The lack of official recognition for this group of IDPs not only led to a denial of essential resources, but also meant that government planning for IDPs in the area was based on inaccurate figures.

As a consequence of these issues, returning home had been difficult for many IDPs, resulting in years of displacement due to ongoing conflict and ineffective resettlement policies. Many sought to settle in the host communities to which they had fled. Decisions as to whether to work towards IDPs’ integration into host communities or to support their return to their home communities have been complicated (McDermott & Gibbons, 2017). Often host communities had high levels of poverty and limited resources to share with IDPs. Thus, the relationships between host communities and IDPs, the availability of land and employment opportunities, and the (in)accessibility of government resources were all factors affecting successful resettlement. Although the United Nations’ (2004) Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement implicitly acknowledged that return or resettlement should be a “voluntary and informed choice” (Brookings Institution, 2008, p. 3), in reality, the lack of appropriate supports left many IDPs with few choices. The intervention by Community and Family Services International aimed to foster an environment for IDPs to make a voluntary and informed decision about their options.

Indigenous Peoples and Internal Displacement

One of the most vulnerable Indigenous groups displaced by the Zamboanga City crisis were members of the Sama-Bajau community (hereafter referred to as the Bajau). Indigenous peoples across the world are disproportionately affected by displacement due to conflict or natural disasters including displacement from their ancestral lands (Birkeland, 2009). Indigenous peoples experiencing internal displacement are frequently subject to a “double-bind of vulnerability”: they experience both human rights abuses as a consequence of displacement, and discrimination and exclusion when seeking assistance (Birkeland, 2009; Musgrave, 2020, p. 1). In addition, the health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples is closely bound to the spiritual, social, cultural, economic, and political significance of land and resources (Burgess et al., 2009). Recognising the importance of Indigenous peoples’ connection to land for their way of life, the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement advised that “States are under a particular obligation to protect against the displacement of Indigenous peoples … with a special dependency on and attachment to their lands” (United Nations, 2004, p. 5). However, Musgrave (2020) argued that states are rarely willing to recognise Indigenous rights or promote connection to land. For example, in the Philippines, the Philippines Indigenous Rights Act was passed in 1997, but its principles have been subverted by powerful interests (Bello, 2020; Hagen & Minter, 2020).

Experiences of the Bajau

The Bajau are a nomadic Indigenous people who live in coastal areas—often in houses on stilts in the water—and subsist on what they can harvest from the sea (CFSI, 2016; Olasiman & Bascar, 2017). The Bajau also have been vulnerable to economic, social, and cultural exclusion (Stacey et al., 2018) because their nomadic lifestyle places them at risk of statelessness: as many as 85% of the Bajau living in Zamboanga do not have birth certificates (Gluck, 2019). They are routinely denied access to basic rights such as housing, medical care, livelihood support, education, and freedom of movement, which is exacerbated during times of conflict and displacement (Conde, 2016). As nomadic seafarers, they were also at risk of extortion, kidnapping, violence, and being forced to rely on begging and peddling when displaced to urban centres (Conde, 2016). They were left especially vulnerable when displaced by the Zamboanga City crisis.

Therefore, existing structural and societal inequalities were in danger of being reproduced for the Bajau by official state resettlement and rebuilding process. The Bajau faced significant barriers in accessing aid, and they were considered by the government to be the lowest priority for resettlement due to entrenched discrimination, and their preconflict status as land “sharers” rather than landowners. In particular, culture and wellbeing of the Bajau community was at risk from resettlement processes that were “arbitrarily” relocating IDPs inland, without proper consideration of the interdependent relationship between the Bajau community and the sea.

The CFSI Intervention Model

The CFSI model was developed to guide postconflict transition to lasting peace and sustainable development (Frederico et al., 2007; Community and Family Services International [CFSI], 2018). The model recognised that armed conflict causes physical, psychological, and social damage to individuals, families, and communities (Wessells, 2017). In particular, the CFSI model sought to offer an alternative to the “relief aid development” approach that has long characterised international humanitarian projects. It provided a holistic approach by addressing not only people’s immediate physical and material needs, but by also drawing on social work values and knowledge to promote the long-term safety, and the social and emotional wellbeing of internally displaced communities following armed conflict (CFSI, 2018).

Components of the model included shelter, livelihood support, psychosocial and protection services, support for host communities, and health and disease surveillance, as well as addressing pre-existing inequalities. In doing so, the model aspired to be consistent with the goals for resettlement proposed by the World Bank (2015), which recognised that successful resettlement programs provide shelter, as well as livelihood opportunities and access to resources, while emphasising the restoration of socioeconomic and cultural conditions.

The Zamboanga Recovery Project

The ZRP was a three-year intervention based on the CFSI model, implemented and delivered between January 2015 and December 2017. It was designed to respond to the needs of “untagged” IDPs in Zamboanga City, and its three overarching goals were to:

1. Promote the security of “untagged” IDPs (families and individuals) through provision of shelter and livelihood assistance, protection, and psychosocial support services;

2. Enhance community cohesion and integration through assistance to host communities affected by influx of resettled IDPs;

3. Reduce incidents of death or spread of disease, or both, through health and disease surveillance and disease outbreak mitigation (CFSI, 2016).

The intervention recognised that it was essential to address the profound physical, psychological, and social damage to individuals, families, and communities that armed conflict causes (Wessells, 2017). A key component of the model’s theory of change is that a simultaneous response to people’s material and psychosocial needs is a core element of effectiveness for healing. This approach is supported by research, which has found that solely psychosocial interventions can be less effective because health and wellbeing issues are often inextricably linked to physical and material concerns (Williamson & Robinson, 2006). People’s needs extend far beyond immediate relief in the form of food and medications, and successful interventions are those that offer a combined response to psychosocial, material and structural issues (O’Leary et al., 2015).

Impact of the Zamboanga Recovery Project, 2015–2017

Between 2015 and 2017, the ZRP achieved its objective of promoting human security for at least 1,000 families (5,500 persons) from the “untagged” category of IDPs. Four hundred families or 1,886 individuals (932 women and girls and 954 men and boys) were provided with permanent shelters. In addition, 5,324 individuals (2,623 women and girls and 2,701 men and boys), benefitted from two rounds of livelihood assistance. This livelihood assistance, which is funding and training to support new IDP business initiatives, was dependent on the expressed needs and preferences of the IDPs, combined with a basic analysis of the probable viability of the business venture. This assistance included support to set up small businesses and establish ongoing income streams through the purchase of items such as boats, fishing supplies, food, and beverages, and was also used to access financial literacy training.

The psychosocial support and protection components included funding to support each IDP through the civil registration process. Birth certificates were secured for 2,072 individuals (1,087 women and girls and 985 men and boys) and 583 couples received marriage certificates. Furthermore, 106 especially vulnerable individuals participated in literacy training, and assistance was given to 1,017 people with specific psychosocial and protection needs.

To assist the community as it began to rebuild, CFSI also presented workshops on the rights and responsibilities of IDPs. The aim of these workshops was to provide IDPs with awareness of their rights and to encourage them to identify their responsibilities for the community. This aspect of the intervention was a response to the risk of social problems like family violence and child abuse that affect traumatised communities when individuals themselves are traumatised and normal social structures have been disrupted or destroyed.

A further component of the ZRP was support for host communities to enable them to adapt. Resettlement places significant strain on host communities, particularly those that already have inadequate infrastructure and a lack of public services, which can lead to conflict between IDPs and host communities and place both groups at risk (Baez, 2011). The CFSI model used principles of participation and consensus-building in the work with host communities, emphasising interfaith and interethnic cooperation, and social cohesion.

Discussion and Conclusion

Contribution of Social Work Knowledge to the Model

The CFSI model was developed to address the complex interactions between IDPs and the systems and social structures in their lives, recognising that systems and the environment can perpetuate and exacerbate disadvantage (Langer & Lietz, 2015). To ensure a holistic, durable solution to postconflict recovery, the model used an ecological approach that identified interventions at micro, meso, and macrosystem levels (Närhi & Matthies, 2016). At the microsystem level, the model supplied shelter, livelihood support, psychosocial support, and support for host communities; at the mesosystem level it assisted with protection and civil documentation; and at the macrosystem level, the project co-ordinated with government and nongovernment organisations and provided advocacy for the IDPs.

The “person-in-environment” rhetoric has received criticism because, in practice, the environment can be treated as a “benign” or “static” space that individuals need to adapt to (Besthorn, 2015). To address this, the model also drew on principles of green social work and relational health (Dominelli, 2015) in acknowledgement that people and their environments are living systems that interact with each other (Besthorn, 2015). Ku et al. (2018), while grounding their research in disaster recovery rather than postconflict recovery, identified a number of characteristics of green social work that were observed in the CFSI model, including the coproduction of solutions with affected communities; the continuous co-evaluating of interventions with practitioners and local residents; contextualising strategies to the local social, cultural, and political context; affirming the human, social, and environmental rights of affected communities, including their attachment to particular places; empowering marginalised groups, and mobilising local residents; engaging relevant government and nongovernment stakeholders; and adopting an integrated approach to bring people together to protect physical, social, political, economic, and cultural environments in a healthy and sustainable way (Dominelli, 2015).

Contribution of Social Work Values and Knowledge to Practice in Postconflict Scenarios

Social work, as a profession and discipline, has a dual focus on both supporting individuals, families, and communities to overcome personal difficulties, and addressing structural and systemic inequities (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2020). While the definition and values of social work are often contested, the International Federation of Social Workers’ (IFSW) Global Definition of Social Work (2014) outlined values and principles that are common across the profession and inform the discipline’s practices and purpose. Green and McDermott (2010) noted that social workers have a key part to play in influencing the “the borders of evolving systems” and “affecting the ‘climates’” that shape and sustain “those conditions (social, ecological, biological, economic, political) essential to maintaining human life and wellbeing” (p. 2424). CFSI practitioners applied social work values and knowledge to address needs and strengthen community bonds ensuring IDPs were agents in the decision-making process to promote sustainable development.

Human Rights and Social Justice

Human rights and social justice are salient to the values that guide the profession and discipline of social work, including the discipline’s ways of relating to clients and societies, and its preferred methods of intervention. Social work practice recognises, respects, and defends the inalienable rights of all human beings (IFSW, 2018), and, importantly, this extends beyond traditional understandings of civil and political rights to also include economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights (Ife, 2001).

Human rights are integral to the CFSI model, which placed a strong emphasis on needs such as shelter, livelihood assistance, health and disease surveillance, access to birth certificates and documentation, and education, while also upholding and advocating for the civil and political rights of the Bajau people to ensure better outcomes. The approach recognised that human rights coexist alongside collective responsibility, since individual human rights can only be upheld if people take responsibility for each other and their environment (International Association of Schools of Social Work, 2014). The model’s emphasis on rebuilding community structures and social cohesion following the Zamboanga City Conflict reflected these principles. Practitioners working with Bajau communities also advocated for their interdependent relationship with the sea to be taken into consideration by official rebuilding processes.

Social development, the process of improving human welfare and wellbeing by addressing existing conditions, is a practical realisation of social justice (Veal et al., 2018). Social development interventions address the collective impact of conflict by working to rebuild trust, re-establish people’s sense of security, strengthen civil society, and achieve reconciliation (Stow, 2004). In tandem with these processes, social development promotes engagement in participatory processes, builds the capacity of local communities to advocate for themselves, and aims to promote the implementation of sustainable and rights-based strategies and policies across multiple community levels, from grassroots to government. Social development principles were reflected in the model’s holistic approach, which sought to facilitate the collective and inclusive development of communities and encouraged strategies aimed at building individual and institutional capacity to respond to community needs (Desai & Solas, 2012; Veal et al., 2018). Significantly, by focusing on both human rights and social development goals, the intervention was able to offer the Bajau community the tangible, material support its members needed in order to obtain improved opportunities for full and equal participation in society.

Respect for Persons and Self-Determination

The International Federation of Social Workers’ (IFSW) (2018) Statement of Ethical Principles mandated that social workers “should respect and promote people’s right to make their own choices and values … and promote the full involvement and participation of people using their services”. Self-determination and respect for persons were at the core of the CFSI model, informing efforts to involve the IDPs in the decisions affecting their lives, and community participation and leadership were central to the model.

Promoting Social Justice Through Advocacy

Providing advocacy on behalf of the IDPs and supporting them to advocate for their rights and access to resources was a critical part of the success of the ZRP. Following the Zamboanga City Conflict, human rights organisations raised concerns that the national government was arbitrarily relocating IDPs without proper consultation. Human Rights Watch (2013) had noted that the relocation plan amounted to a forced eviction that would disproportionately affect the Bajau since their traditional lands, located in coastal regions, had been declared no-build zones. As a consequence, CFSI worked collaboratively with the Government on a resettlement plan that supported the Bajau to sustain their connection to the sea, and practitioners were sometimes in a position to negotiate on behalf of the Bajau community. This raised important ethical questions in relation to accountability, representation, and the responsibility for CFSI, which needed to avoid inadvertently undermining the self-determination of the Bajau IDP community. Implementation of policies designed to protect and support people and communities can have an unanticipated impact. If communities are to be empowered, they need to be able to share their lived experience and views to shape effective policy.

The result of these advocacy efforts was an agreement to move transitory sites to a location near the beach that would allow the Bajau to continue their livelihood activities. Monitoring and evaluation, and the creation of strategies to reduce inequality through the development processes were achieved by regularly checking with the community to assess needs, and by working collaboratively to generate plans of action, all with the overarching goal of achieving durable and sustainable solutions. Furthermore, the advocacy undertaken by practitioners was complemented by the emphasis on empowering the members of the Bajau through the capability building activities offered by the program, including the workshops on rights and understanding government processes (CFSI, 2018).

The CFSI model offered an intervention that promoted social change and the development of social cohesion alongside the empowerment and liberation of people (Macrae, 1999). The model recognised that successful resettlement involves interventions for individuals or IDP communities and also the implementation of strategies to address the wider contexts in which people and communities are situated (Green & McDermott, 2010). Its application of a social work approach in order to achieve the program’s aims highlighted the benefit of the values and knowledge of social work as a paradigm for international humanitarian action.

The experience of the Bajau people prior to their displacement had been one of alienation from government processes and neglect by political systems. Thus, staging an intervention to support a return to the status quo, even if possible, would not have improved the lives of the Bajau IDPs. Therefore, addressing issues of power and inequality was critical if resettlement was to be successful. For the practitioners involved, this meant negotiating with a wide range of stakeholders, from the Bajau families to representatives of the various levels of government, as well as other service providers and international humanitarian aid agencies, to ensure that the needs of the Bajau were addressed by the official rebuilding plan. It also meant supplementing material support with strategies to promote longer-term social change, and recognising the importance of the relationship between the Bajau and their environment through the application of green social work practice principles.

The result of these combined efforts was that specific plots of land were designated for Bajau resettlement, and self-determination was returned to the Bajau peoples. The project’s ecosystemic perspective also brought about positive change by directing attention to host communities and the support they needed in order to integrate resettled IDP's. By supporting the development of relationships between IDPs and the host communities, and developing interventions specifically for host communities, the ZRP recognised that the IDPs fitted within a larger community that required support to adjust to the changes triggered by people’s displacement.

Internal displacement is a complex issue with wide-ranging psychological, social, and economic implications for individuals, families, and host communities, all of whom, in this instance, were coping with pre-existing challenges. The analysis of the CFSI model highlighted how applying social work knowledge and principles was able to enhance relief aid development and promote better, more sustainable outcomes for the individuals and communities concerned. Unlike the relief aid-development approach, the model directly addressed the power and power relations that can impact on the success of interventions following conflict and community displacement. At the same time, the model recognised the danger for the intervention itself to take over decision making in a manner that could perpetuate the Bajau IDPs’ vulnerability. Consequently, the model avoided the risk of a top-down approach by facilitating opportunities for people’s self-determination and agency. Empowering individuals and communities required the practitioners to be led by their knowledge of those affected even while advocating on their behalf. The adherence of the CFSI model to the social work principles of collaboration, capacity-building, and self-determination in program planning and the outcomes achieved by intervention demonstrate the significant difference that such an approach can make to ensuring effective, inclusive, sustainable, and ongoing change through postconflict development.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the assistance of Jane Andrews and Genevieve Walker, Research Assistants, at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia in the preparation of the paper. We also acknowledge the senior management and project staff of Community and Family Services International for providing access to project data.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The Zamboanga Recovery Project was funded by the Australian Government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). The preparation of this article was undertaken with no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.