likely to understate the true scale of internal displacement in some situations (e.g. Afghanistan, Sudan) (IDMC 2015). On the other hand, in contexts with multiple displacements, there may be people who are counted more than once, e.g. DRC. Additionally, crises that are smaller or less visible tend to be underreported, e.g. displacement due to criminal violence in Central America (IDMC 2015).

- (e) Difficulties obtaining figures on IDP flows, i.e. new displacement, returns, integration, settlement elsewhere, numbers who have fled across an international border (becoming refugees) and those who have been born or who have died in displacement (IDMC 2015). Data on flows may not be collected or sufficiently disaggregated. Often, less data on flows are available once the initial emergency phase of a displacement crisis is over, especially if there are no humanitarian agencies present (IDMC 2015). IDMC reports that of the 52 countries it monitored in 2015, it was only able to obtain data on new displacements in 20 countries,<sup>92</sup> on returns in 20 countries, on integration in one country, on resettlement in two countries, on children born in displacement in two countries and on deaths in one country; no data was obtained for any county on cross-border flight in 2015 (IDMC 2016). Moreover, existing systems for collecting data on refugees and asylum-seekers make it difficult to know how many were formerly IDPs, and it is possible for some people to be simultaneously counted in both categories, e.g. in the case of the Syrian displacement crisis (IDMC 2016). If no data on returns are available, IDMC risks overstating the number of IDPs (IDMC 2015). On the other hand, in many countries returns are subtracted from population estimates without knowing if sustainable solutions have been achieved.

- (f) The potential to manipulate data for political purposes, for example to show that a humanitarian situation has been resolved and direct attention elsewhere (e.g. in Armenia, the Russian Federation and Turkey) (Walicki 2009) or alternatively still requires attention and resources.

- (g) Aggregation of data from different locations/crises within a country makes it difficult to estimate how long groups have been in displacement.

# **Disaggregated data on location, accommodation and demographics**

Disaggregated data on location, accommodation and demographics are incomplete. UNHCR publishes disaggregated data for 60-80 percent of refugees and people in refugee-like situations, however the coverage is much lower for other populations of concern to UNHCR who are largely IDPs (see Table 5). Disaggregated data on IDPs who are not protected or assisted by UNHCR are collected by other agencies, including IOM, but data are not comprehensive and therefore not published in IDMC’s global reports.<sup>93</sup> The difficulties of collecting disaggregated data on locations of IDPs are compounded by the fluidity of IDP movements—IDPs might suffer multiple displacements or they might resort to changing locations as a coping strategy (e.g. moving between their homes and place of displacement or testing different locations before deciding where to stay) (Brookings 2011). In recent years, efforts have been made to improve data collection for IDPs living outside of camps by employing a range of techniques including: (a) profiling; (b) household surveys; (c) collecting information on IDPs who come to camps to visit family members or collect relief items; and (d) community outreach programs (Brookings 2013). However, there is no consensus or agreed best practices on the use of these methods in different contexts or stages of displacement (Brookings 2013).

> 92 The absence of data on new displacement may simply mean that no displacement has taken place (IDMC 2016).

> 93 IDMC reports that data, disaggregated by age and sex, were available for 15 of the 60 countries it monitored in 2014, however these data were not comprehensive and are not published. Additionally, in some countries there are data provided by IOM on IDP populations by location from which the urban or rural character of the population may be inferred (e.g. if the camp is located in the capital), but data are not comprehensive and not published. While the majority of humanitarian profile data does not typically cover IDPs living outside of camp or camp-like settings (the large majority of IDPs), IOM’s DTM in countries such as Nigeria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya do include information about those residing in host communities.