POST-WAR CHALLENGES: RESETTLEMENT

Numberofpersons returned or resettled

The district breakdown of the total number of persons resettled or returned as at 31.12.2010 (at the beginning of 2011) is provided in Column C. These figures include all persons returned or resettled to various districts in Sri Lanka, provided that they came from specific camps in Vavuniya, Mannar and Trincomalee. The total number of persons returned or resettled as at 19.08.2011 is depicted in Column D.

Moreover, the total number of persons returned or resettled as at 02.01.2012 is depicted in Column E. These dates correspond to the dates on which the Ministry of Resettlement released certain Situation Reports.

Based on these figures, it is possible to calculate the number of persons that would have been returned or resettled during a specific period. Column F depicts the number of persons returned or resettled since the release of our last Resettlement Report i.e. during the period September to December 2011. Column G depicts the total number of persons returned or resettled since 31.12.2010 i.e. the net difference between Column C and E. Hence Column G depicts the number of persons returned or resettled in 2011.

The total number of persons returned or released as at 31.12.2010 increased from 252,485 to 274,419 by 02.01.2012. Hence the total number of persons returned or released in 2011 may be calculated as 21,934.

Number of persons in camps

The table below provides details on the number of persons remaining in specific camps. Column B depicts the number of persons in camps as at 31.12.2010, Column C provides the figures as at 19.08.2011and Column D provides the figures as at 02.01.2012. Based on these figures, it is possible to calculate the total number of persons released from camps. For instance, Column E depicts the number of persons released during the period September to December 2011 i.e. the net difference between Columns C and D. Column F depicts the total number of persons released from camps in 2011 i.e. the net difference between Columns B and D.

By the end of 2011, the total number of persons in camps reduced from 16,747 (as at 12.31.2010) to 6,660. Hence the total number of persons released from camps during 2011 is 10,087.

Discrepancyinnumbers

The statistics released by the Ministry of Resettlement ought to accurately reflect the return and resettlement of persons held in camps. Hence the number of persons returned or resettled during a given period should match the total net decrease of persons in camps during that period. However, as highlighted in the previous Resettlement Report (August – September 2011), there appears to be a critical discrepancy in the official statistics.

According to the above figures, the total number of persons returned or resettled from 31.12.2010 to 02.01.2012 is 21,934. However, the total net decrease of persons in camps between 31.12.2010 and 02.01.2012 is 10,087. There appears to be a discrepancy of 11,847. A discrepancy is also reflected when the total number of persons returned or resettled during September to December 2011 (1,331) is compared with the total net decrease of persons in camps during the period September to December 2011 (780).

It may be argued that 11,847 persons returned or resettled during this period have not come from camps. This explanation was considered in our previous report, in which a discrepancy of 11,296 was examined in detail. It is reiterated that, according to consultations previously held with camp managers and Government Agents, the approximate duration of time between a release from a camp and return or resettlement to a district of origin is one to two days. Thus the discrepancy can only be a result of persons not previously held in the abovementioned camps being ‘returned’ or ‘resettled’ in particular areas. These persons could have been in the care of host families and thus not reflected in the net decrease of persons in camps.

It is noted that accurate data on the last location of displacement is extremely important in determining a number of crucial issues. For instance, such information would be important to determine entitlement to assistance and compensation i.e. whether those who are resettled have in fact been ‘displaced’ and are entitled to assistance and new lands. In the circumstances, the above discrepancy ought to be explained in the government’s situation reports.

Resettled persons inthevanni

A total of 66,405 persons have been returned to or resettled in the District of Kilinochchi since the end of the war. A further 45,550 persons have been returned to or resettled in the District of Mullaitivu. Owing to a dearth in precise data with respect to the current status of these persons, field research was conducted with respect to the following key areas of concern.

1. Basic needs

2. Healthcare

3. Livelihoods

4. Human security

5. Education

The village of Santhapuram in the Kilinochchi District was selected for the purpose of the present report. Most IDPS were returned or resettled in Santhapuram in August 2010. Santhapuram has a total population of 2,677 , divided among 517 families. The village has 25 children who had lost both their parents, while there are 67 children with one parent missing. Also, there are 42 disabled persons.

While looking at the basic care provided for its residents, there are 70 families who receive food rations while 101 families have permanent housing. However, the provision of basic needs, particularly in respect of housing is below satisfactory. Temporary shelters often result in poor sanitation, which could augment the risk of disease.

When looking at the human security, the daily wages of female heads of households were predominantly under the low-income line. In general, their daily occupations were ranging from fishing, home gardening, small enterprises, farming and daily labourers in road construction and other projects.

Only 349 persons out of a total population of 2,677 are employed. Assuming that there should be at least one breadwinner for each of the 517 families, it could be estimated that over 150 families are without any source of income. Yet only 70 families receive food rations. It is clear that the community is yet to optimize its livelihoods opportunities. However, significant challenges confront this community, as human security risks often hinder optimization of livelihood opportunities.

Health

The village has no access to health centres or maternity care centres. Access to Public healthcare in the village is below satisfactory. Poor sanitation poses significant risks in terms of the spread of diseases. It is estimated that poor sanitation and a general lack of education on sanitation will cause severe problems during the Monsoon period.

Education

Accurate data on education remains unavailable. However, as depicted in ‘Image B’ below, children are often compelled to learn outdoors, as school buildings are inadequate to house the entire student population. The government is yet to fully implement a proper plan in respect of enhancing the levels of education within the selected community.

Othersocialproblems

Illegal liquor and narcotics are being distributed amongst the community with the support of the military. This observation was also made in our previous report, which focused on the villages of Krishnapuram and Vinayakapuram. Moreover, several cases of child abuse were reported from the area.

Since the state of emergency has been officially lifted, the government should take immediate steps to develop local law enforcement capacity and reduce the number of military personnel in the Vanni.

Highsecurityzones(hsz)

The principal issue is whether there is an acceptable process in place to ensure long-term sustainability of returns to areas demarcated as HSZS in the North of Sri Lanka.

The extent of land covered by HSZS was increased and expanded by the government during the war, causing the protracted displacement of thousands of civilians. Many of the HSZS have not been officially gazetted as such. Hence it is difficult to accurately estimate the extent of land comprising HSZS. In the District of Jaffna, for instance, estimations of land covered by HSZS vary between 18% and 30%.

Consequently, the estimates of persons displaced as a result of these HSZS vary from 70,000 to 130,000. Following the cessation of hostilities in May 2009, the government announced its intention of ‘releasing’ areas demarcated as HSZS in the latter part of 2010. The present challenge is far greater than merely demining and releasing the land, and returning the displaced. The overarching consideration is whether returnees are able to permanently remain on the land to which they return, in a sustainable and durable manner.

The ‘release’ of militarized zones and buffer zones commenced in March 2010, when three buffer zones surrounding the Valikamam North HSZ were officially released for the return of IDPS. Moreover, the first three GN divisions to be released, in November 2010, were from Valikamam North.

In January 2011, prior to the Presidential elections, the government promised the release of a further nine GN divisions, which were subsequently released after an official ceremony in May 2011. According to the Tellipalai DS Secretariat, a total of 12,274 individuals and 3,511 families were to be resettled in their homes after 21 years.

Overall, there is a wide disparity amongst official numbers for those who have ‘settled’, ‘registered’ and actually ‘returned’ (permanently) to the Valikamam North HSZ.

Official numbers for the total number of families and individuals already ‘settled’ and ‘to be settled’ in the Valikamam North HSZ is 15,584 families, and 52,500 individuals. It is assumed that a total of 52,500 persons were displaced from the Valikamam North HSZ during the course of the conflict; that is, approximately 63.25% of the population of Tellipalai DS division. Of these individuals 30,764 are recorded as having ‘settled’ within the released GN divisions of the HSZ.

According to the Government Agent’s office in Jaffna, official numbers for returns to Jaffna HSZS, as at December 2011, are 16,492 families and 56,031 individuals. These families and individuals for official purposes are considered to have returned to their original locations within the zones and re-integrated into their lands and homes. The actual returns (those who have permanently returned to the zones), however, approximate to around 7,000 families. Hence, the number of actual returns is, in reality, less than 50% of the total number of persons who are officially counted as having returned.

The release of HSZS commenced in the latter part of 2010. Considering the enormity of the problems associated with HSZS, a full normalisation of the conditions of return is likely to be a long-term process.

However, the process needs to take a realistic count of those who are yet to permanently return to the HSZS. The official numbers stated above imply that all persons displaced from the areas of the Valikamam North HSZ that have been released for resettleent.

Recommendations

In view of the foregoing analysis, it is imperative that the government identifies in full the obstacles to durable and sustainable return to HSZS, provides a transparent account of the ‘actual’ returns to HSZS and establish short-term and long-term benchmarks for the rehabilitation of HSZS. Most importantly, it should outline a targeted developmental plan for the HSZS.

The government has not met the housing needs of a significant portion of returned or resettled persons in Santhapuram, the village selected for the qualitative analysis. At least 320 families continue to be in temporary shelters even two years after the cessation of hostilities. It is reiterated that most of the families were resettled in Santhapuram in August 2010. Even if these families were recently returned, the fact that they were returned without adequate housing provided in advance is a matter of serious concern.

In Santhapuram, conservative estimates reveal that at least 150 families are in need of assistance, as only 349 persons are currently employed amongst 517 families. However, as only 70 families receive food rations, at least 90 families are in dire need of assistance.

The government needs to provide access to adequate healthcare and education facilities to the selected village of Santhapuram. Where education is concerned, the lack of proper infrastructure is a cause for serious concern.