This is an edited transcript of an interview with U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres

How many people are displaced in the world?

We had 42 million at the end of 2008 and very probably we will be getting closer to 45 million at the present moment. The Pakistan displacement crisis is probably the biggest since events in Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo in the 90s. What we're witnessing now is indeed, if not an unprecedented crisis, one of the most dramatic in recent times.

But more important in my opinion than the total number ... is the recognition that in many situations displacement is becoming protracted ... and at the same time the fact that 80 percent of the world's refugees and the overwhelming majority of those internally displaced are in the developing world.

When one sees sometimes the nature of the debate in several developed countries about asylum, and how some politicians and some media become very outspoken when they face a few thousands people coming, it's important to say that countries like Pakistan now have 1.8 million Afghan refugees. A country like Iran has almost 1 million Afghan refugees. Syria and Jordan together might have almost 1.5 million Iraqis and Tanzania might have more than 500,000 people. All these countries are in the developing world.

Those that debate asylum, migration and people on the move in the developed world should meditate a little bit before launching into xenophobic reaction trying to limit the right to seek asylum.

Why has the number of internally displaced people (IDPs) been increasing faster than the number of refugees?

Many of the crises that are taking place and many of the conflicts that have emerged are no longer conflicts between countries. They are more and more conflicts within the borders of one country ... and this tends, as an impact, to generate internal displacement more than (refugee movements).

From the legal point of view (IDPs) are not considered refugees because they have not crossed a border and because of that they are not entitled to receive the levels of international protection guaranteed by the '51 (Refugee) Convention and international laws in general. They live within the borders of their own country under the authority of their own government.

It's a very difficult situation in some countries where the government has a very harsh attitude in relation to any attempt ... to deliver protection and assistance to these people. In many other countries of course there's excellent cooperation between national authorities and the international community.

There is a positive sign that comes from the African Union. The African Union has scheduled a summit in Kampala in October and we believe that an African convention on internal displacement will be approved. This will be the first international legally binding instrument in relation to internal displacement and we hope that this can become an example to be followed in other parts of the world.

We are talking about ... a full range or rights that up to a certain extent are similar to those granted by the 51 Convention to refugees when they live in a foreign country.

What are the difficulties in looking after IDPs compared to refugees?

First the fact that there's not a legally binding international framework and the fact that there's not one agency that's responsible for the full support to IDPs.

Another difficulty that's very important is that if you are a refugee you are in another country so in principle you are not in the country where the conflict or persecution is taking place ... But if you are still within your own country you might face threats to your personal security and rights that come from conflict taking place nearby.

We have also witnessed a shrinking of humanitarian space. Because of the evolving nature of conflict we have more and more situations in the same area - you have army, rebel groups, different militia, different extremist groups, you might even also have international forces - and this of course creates a complex security environment.

At the same time we are (seeing) in some parts of the world limitations forced by governments on the international community in relation to humanitarian space. And finally, we're witnessing more and more situations where we have peace keeping operations where there is no peace to keep, so the separation of the security aspects of a U.N. action and the humanitarian aspects of a U.N. action are more difficult.

Things tend to be more blurred. It's essential to preserve the humanitarian principles of independence, neutrality and impartiality, but that of course becomes more and more challenging in situations like the ones we're witnessing in Darfur, North Kivu (DRC) and Afghanistan.

Turning to Pakistan, how does the displacement crisis there compare to others?

I don't think it's the biggest ever but if you combine volume and speed it's probably the most challenging one. I don't recall any internal displacement crisis in which so many people moved in such a short amount of time.

We have issued appeals in the context of the U.N. system. There's also an appeal issued by the Pakistani government. But we are still dramatically underfunded.

Why aren't donors coughing up?

There are many reasons. First of all, because people are probably not entirely aware of the dimension of the problem and of its global implications. It's not only a humanitarian problem ... there's an importance to the world that goes far beyond the national dimension and I think this has not yet been perceived by many people.

And secondly, we live in a complex economic and financial crisis. Most countries are facing budgetary difficulties.

We are very worried that the international community will not be able to respond to the dramatic dimension of this problem. And not doing so (will) risk increased factors of instability in an area where more than 2.5 million people are being received by a host community that is not rich.

You should not forget that less than 20 percent of the displaced are in camps. More than 80 percent are living with families and this represents a huge problem to an area that also sustains 1.8 million Afghan refugees and an area in which the economic situation is extremely, extremely dire.

How long will the current funding last?

We at UNHCR are very limited in relation to the two areas where we have been strongly involved - (shelter/protection and distribution of non-food items).

We don't have the funding necessary to provide these things to the whole of the population affected - not even half of it at the present moment.

And let's not forget that displacements are still taking place and we expect numbers to increase in the near future ... The planning figure that has been used in relation to the crisis in its entirety is around 3 million people...

What would you say to donors?

This is an emergency in which the dimension of the humanitarian crisis and the potential impact in international relations as a whole is such that to support the people is not only a matter of solidarity it's a matter of enlightened self interest. ...

We have at least to have the same enthusiasm in rescuing people as in rescuing banks.

Does Pakistan show the need for a new funding system?

If you look at humanitarian funding it is really a drop in the ocean and I believe it would be useful to review the whole system and the way it works. (I'd like to see) more predictable funding. In the U.N. you have many areas where funding is guaranteed, for instance peacekeeping operations ... Humanitarian action has only voluntary contributions.

Pakistan's military is doing humanitarian work in the camps. Is this blurring lines? Does it make the camps a soft target for the Taliban?

We have not witnessed any incident of that nature and that is an important thing to underline.

The camps are not run by us. The camps are run by the local government with our support. The responsibility in relation to internal displacement lies with the country itself. But even in these circumstances we always insist for the preservation of the civilian and humanitarian nature of these camps because we believe that is the best way for the people to feel comfortable and for rights to be guaranteed, allowing of course that there are security concerns...

We are fighting dramatic security problems. We had one colleague killed in Peshawar in a bomb blast in a hotel together with another colleague in UNICEF. If you ask are we worried, yes we are worried, but we are worried about lots of things.

Will you be cutting back on your work following the bomb attack?

We don't want to scale back. We don't want to be failing the people. Of course this is forcing us to readjust the way we conduct the operation. There is always in situations like (this) a terrible dilemma. On the one side we feel we need to deliver support to the people we care for, and on the other side we also have to care for our own staff. But the solution isn't to leave. The solution is to find the best way to stay. When I was in Peshawar (recently) there were two bomb blasts in the market. Risks are something we cannot avoid.

There are reports of intelligence agents removing people from camps - it sounds a bit like Sri Lanka where the authorities are screening people in camps to try to find rebels.

I have no information about this. But I think it's important to distinguish between the two situations. Registration in Sri Lanka was conducted by the military. Registration in Pakistan was conducted by the ministry of social welfare of North West Frontier Province with our support. There's freedom of movement inside Pakistan in these areas. Most of the people are staying with host families, not in camps - so it's a totally different situation. I don't think it's fair to compare the two.

Has the humanitarian community treated Sri Lanka differently to Pakistan because the conflict in Pakistan has U.S. support and it's against the Taliban? Why are there no appeals for a humanitarian pause?

As a matter of fact we have done exactly the same thing, and we have witnessed in Pakistan curfews being lifted and appeals for the population to leave areas ... I don't see any difference in the way the humanitarian community has handled the two situations. I myself have asked the Pakistan authorities several times for different aspects to minimise the risks for the population.

There are around 280,000 people in closed camps in Sri Lanka. Should the government speed up screening? How long will it be until they let people leave?

I believe it will be very important to do it as quickly as possible because I don't think it's good to have so many people in such a situation. And we have been strongly advocating for more freedom of movement and for a process of voluntary repatriation to be developed as quickly as possible.

If I make any forecast I'm only helping those who want to stall the problem. I'm saying it should be done as soon as possible, and if possible, then sooner than the end of the year.

Is funding a problem?

We've been reasonably well funded in our Sri Lanka operation. And of course the needs of funding will depend on the capacity to deliver. We have much more capacity to deliver in Pakistan than in Sri Lanka so I think the funding gap (between what we need and what we've got) is much bigger in Pakistan than in Sri Lanka.

Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.