The overview of scholarly insights into return practices (cf. 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the identified gap of knowledge on the displacement–peace nexus illus- trates the need for further research.27 The desk study
points to the necessity to explore the viability of al- ternative long-term solutions, such as local integra- tion in the host country. Yet the major challenge is to decipher the interplay and the complex effects of the various intervening factors in peace and return processes.
Against this background, this final section sketches interconnected focal areas for research and further inquiries that might help to answer the main research questions set out for this project in the in- troduction: 1) What chances and risks can be ob- served during the reintegration of refugees and IDPs? 2) What makes reintegration sustainable and suc- cessful? 3) Under which conditions does the partici- pation of refugees and IDPs in peace processes play a key role in the sustainability of their return and peace? It should be recalled that peace processes, in our understanding, have to be analytically embedded into the social, political and economic context, and that it we assume that there are no clear-cut linear causalities but rather relationships between DPs/PFD and return/peace.
27 \ The desk review suggests in particular that research on repatriation practices in PFD settings where different donors are in the lead, e.g. Uganda, Kenia, Sierra Leone, Liberia versus e.g. South Sudan, or Myan- mar could substantiate the need for increased attention to how diffe- rent government agencies coordinate or not. A comparative documen- tation of the coordination processes and the interaction of all stakeholders thus would make sense. Lastly, longitudinal research that raises awareness about the non-linear development of settings that are labelled “post-conflict” and the often cyclical nature of peace-con- flict-return-exile etc. should be prioritised.
DPs.29 The qualifications that DPs have acquired in
exile can again help to develop the country of origin once they have returned (even if this return is only temporary as e.g. in Afghanistan: cf. Kuschminder, 2014). Moreover, attitudes DPs have acquired in exile, e.g. empowerment of women, expectations towards the government and understanding of the signifi- cance of the rule of law, are important assets that could potentially be tapped in a more targeted way during peace processes. Against this background, the agency of DPs in respect to the rebuilding of liveli- hoods and to peacebuilding deserves further research. A related field for further inquiry would be how to
protect DPs’ and returnees’ access to rights, justice and land in the short and long term.
Analysing livelihood-making
It has been pointed out that the prospects of suc- cessfully establishing livelihoods in the return pro- cess are crucial for DPs’ return decision. Although it is not easy to analyse how various factors that con- tribute to conflict overlap, condition, or influence each other, a complete analysis of the DP’s prospec- tive ability to benefit from livelihood resources such as land, water, and shelter, (that is access, ownership and user rights of resource and land) would be benefi- cial for each situation of PFD and subsequent return programming. Mapping resource disputes is ex- tremely useful in determining the operational scope and availability of dispute resolution mechanisms. In doing so, it seems promising to conduct the analysis by linking different levels, that is by including donors and implementing stakeholders. The refugee protec- tion regime has commonly practiced repatriation with the aim that returnees rebuild livelihoods ex- actly at their place of origin. In doing so, they neglect- ed social dynamics during displacement such as the increasing family size, land capture by those who had stayed behind in the place of origin, land scarcity,
29 \ „Preliminary research … suggests that the prolonged presence of refu- gees and refugee assistance programmes can result in multiple bene- fits for refugee-populated areas through increased employment oppor- tunities for the local population, investment in local infrastructure, local market opportunities, provision of services for the local populati- on, and availability of labour where refugees are allowed to work outsi- de the camp“ (Milner and Loescher, 2011, p. 19).
preferences and aspirations of DPs on the one hand (e.g., local integration versus return) and the options they actually have in the PFD setting on the other. Comparative empirical research is needed to learn about the relationship between DPs and other stake- holders in peace processes. While in-depth case stud- ies will build the base to understand the micro-mech- anisms, comparative research will help to make inferences on a larger scale. General open questions can be related to representation, i.e. who speaks for DPs, keeping in mind that they are not a homogene- ous group but socially differentiated (with regard to age, gender, education, connectedness and alliances, wealth, access, etc.). It is hardly necessary to mention that the case specific social, political, and economic factors influencing preconditions for return (cf. 5.1) have to be studied as pointed out in the previous sec- tion. This includes the above-mentioned focus on cy- clical movements. The current situation has to be ex- amined through a diachronic analysis that
differentiates consequences of first, second, or multi- ple displacements. Another set of questions relates to the actual negotiation process for peace in so-called post-conflict settings. Are DPs and their inclusion constrained by their assumed disadvantaged position as DPs versus a majority society in the host or home- land or is it worth exploring negotiation theories to improve the prospects of success and sustainability of peace processes?
Investigating potentials of DPs
All too often, DPs are perceived as problematic, negative and a burden both for host communities/ countries and the international donor community (cf. Chapter 4), and their displacement experience is de- picted as a hurdle for successful repatriation and re- integration. Analysts have pointed out that little at- tention has been paid to the positive impact of DPs in the destination sites (cf. Jacobsen, 2006; Kok, 1989; Zetter, 2012). It has been observed that the influx of DPs is an incentive for development, because the la- bour market profits from qualified staff, the economy profits from innovations, diversification, and expan- sion of trade that comes along with the influx of
transregional aspects. It has to include the host coun- try and the country of origin as well as geopolitical dimensions. Sustainable projects have to consider positive impacts of hosting DP communities, such as economic growth, diversification of livelihoods, dy- namical adaptation processes, and social develop- ment, instead of managing and prolonging miserable conditions, crime, sexual and gender based violence, forced recruitment and general violence. The neces- sary steps towards such an approach have to start low-key and are likely to rest on methodological con- siderations in the first place in order to bear robust results. For example, research needs to highlight the necessity of sound analyses of risks and potentials for any measure, programme, or policy; thus, to conduct a comprehensive do-no-harm analysis to avoid cer- tain, otherwise inevitable, shortfalls, such as neglect- ing property restitution or amnesties for returnees, that have exacerbated grievances and tensions and have led to new violence (Bradley, 2013, p. 49). Analy- ses that prioritise risks studies over speed of response might help identify and eventually prevent such un- intended consequences. One has to bear in mind, however, that difficulties are always specific to the lo- cal context and cannot be inferred at a general level. losses through natural disasters, changed gender
roles and changed lifestyles of DPs during the dis- placement. As a result of such dynamics, many re- turnees did not see any future in living in the place of origin/return. Research of how returnees find ways to generate income in the so-called post-conflict econo- my can yield valuable insights and can contribute to a wider acknowledgement of particular needs and re- spective programming/policies.
Need to hear the voices of DPs
Given the difficult situation in terms of categori- sations, definitions, and an enumeration of different elements in the displacement–peace nexus (cf. 6.1), it is justified to scrutinise several aspects of the con- temporary refugee regime and the return–peace nex- us. The most obvious is the dominant assumption that repatriation or return is the best long-term solu- tion for PFD. The lack of evidence pointed out so far and the finding that local voices have been severely disregarded in policymaking for DPs call for an inves- tigation of the local integration option besides the fo- cus on repatriation and return. In sum, we recom- mend to develop a comprehensive displacement approach that addresses PFD situations encompass IDPs, refugees, persons in refugee or refugee-like situ- ations, and hosts. We also believe that it is crucial to acknowledge that displacement, peacebuilding and violence in protracted conflict are re-occurring stag- es of a vicious circle that will not be broken unless peace processes address root causes. A first step to un- derstand how return and peace could be interlinked might be to include the voices of the displaced in fu- ture analysis and to take a regional approach.