Returning refugees and migrants tomorrow’s IDPs? “If their livelihoods are not met, IDPs will move and become refugees … Equally, those who may be returned and don’t go back to their place of origin – if they are not integrated, they will become IDPs.”219 – Former Special Rapporteur on the human rights of IDPs, 2016 Along with local integration and resettlement, return or voluntary repatriation is considered a durable solution to the refugee cycle. Evidence from across the world, however, points to many returnees becoming internally displaced once they return to their countries of origin. According to the World Bank, large-scale returns were mirrored by a considerable increase in the number of IDPs in 46 per cent of cases between 2000 and 2016. Of the 15 largest return events since the 1990s, around a third were followed by renewed fighting within a few years, either because the conflicts concerned had not been properly resolved before people returned or their arrival derailed a fragile recovery.220 Young boys use canoes to take IDPs and locals to Turiel Island from Thonyor, in South Sudan’s Unity State. People move back and forth in search of food and livelihoods. Photo @UNHCR/Rocco Nuri, February 2016 60 GRID 2017 The two highest profile cases of large-scale returns in 2016 presented considerable risks and indeed evidence of internal displacement. Around 600,000 Afghans returned from Pakistan to a country that was already experiencing high levels of internal displacement.221 UNHCR estimates that around half of them were unable to return to their place of origin (see spotlight, p.61). Evidence from Somalia also suggests that people returning from Kenya face a real risk of a continued cycle of displacement, whether within or again beyond the country’s borders (see spotlight, p.64). These two cases highlight how shortsighted return programmes can be. Rather than bringing displacement and vulnerability to an end, they simply shift it from one place to another. Research indicates that security and access to services, housing and livelihood opportunities are returnees’ primary considerations. Without them in place, returns are unlikely to be sustainable.222 Each of the conditions is, however, highly subjective. Reductions in threats or a peace agreement are unlikely to be sufficient indicators of security for all, and minorities and direct victims of violence are less likely to feel safe to return.223 Even if the conditions were in place, studies show that return is not always the favoured solution, and that preferences vary depending on people’s age, gender, education, economic status, occupation and political affiliation, the duration of their exile and the remoteness of their place of origin.224 Only 32 per cent of Somali refugees living in Ethiopian and Kenyan camps in 2013 expressed willingness to return. For Afghan refugees in Pakistan in 2011 the figure was 16 per cent, and for Iraqi refugees in 2008 a mere 10 per cent.225 Young Afghan refugees were found to be far less interested in returning than the older generation, and were mainly concerned about access to education and employment.226