National Consultation on the Status of Internally Displaced Persons (due to conflict)
towards Development of a National Policy and Action Plan within the Framework of
Durable Solutions for IDPs in Sri Lanka
(23-25 September 2008)
Background Paper
Findings of the District IDP Consultations1
Introduction
In order to ensure that long-term displaced persons’ views are reflected in the discussions during
the National Consultations, an extensive consultation process was carried out in six districts
between July and August 2008. The District IDP Consultations were facilitated by the National
Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka’s IDP project and UNHCR. In some districts
Government Officials and NGOs participated. Focus group discussions were held with women
and men of all ages separately. In addition, depending on the profile of the long-term displaced in
the particular district, separate discussions were held with IDPs of different ethnic groups,
different religions, those living in Welfare Centres and with host families, and any other relevant
distinct group. This method is useful for gathering numerous views and specifically it allows
different age, gender and diversity perspectives to be captured.
Prior to the discussions the rationale behind the National Consultations was presented and any
questions were answered. During the focus group discussions, IDPs were asked about their
preferences regarding durable solutions, the perceived obstacles in achieving these durable
solutions, as well as their recommendations to remove these obstacles. The list of guiding
questions used during the consultations is attached (annex 1).
It is important to note that the format used was not a survey2 and it is therefore impossible to
draw statistical conclusions about people’s views and preferences from the analysis. The results
of the consultations should be read in conjunction with other existing information, including
surveys and profiles of the IDP population. The purpose of the consultations was to allow IDPs to
present their problems and make suggestions about the way forward, thereby allowing for a more
holistic, comprehensive understanding of underlying issues.
A. Jaffna
1. Preferred durable solution
The IDP Consultations were mainly carried out in Chankanai, Tellipalai, Sandilipay, Nallur and
Point Pedro DS Divisions for those in the welfare centres and with host communities. A total of
178 persons of different age and gender groups participated in the exercise. All the participants
stated that return to their place of origin was their preferred durable solutions.
2. Obstacles to achieve preferred solutions
Several obstacles were mentioned for their return to place of origin. All IDPs could not return,
because their homes were in High Security Zones (HSZ). They were concerned about their
This paper was prepared by the National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka’s IDP project and UNHCR at the request of the
Steering Committee of the National Consultation on the Status of IDPs within the Framework for Durable Solutions.
2
Although sampling methods were used in identifying the focus groups, the number of IDPs consulted was very small compared to
the total IDP population
1
physical security in places of origin due to protracted hostilities, the presence of military bases
and military staff and the presence of landmines. In particular, women with adolescent sons were
afraid of potential harassment of their sons by military forces. All IDPs were worried that their
freedom movement and their livelihood activities such as fishing and farming would be restricted
in places of origin. They lacked information about the situation in places of origin, in particular
regarding the status of their properties and houses and the basic infrastructure. They expressed
their concern that they might not be able to exercise their property rights due to lack of property
deeds and land documentation. All IDPs mentioned lack of livelihood opportunities, lack of food,
lack of available land and high cost of land and housing as obstacles for their relocation to other
places as well as to their local integration.
3. Current plans pending durable solutions
Whilst return was pending, IDPs preferred either relocation or integration as interim solutions.
4. Recommendations to remove and minimize obstacles
To facilitate return, IDPs recommended that the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) releases more
land from HSZ. Their physical security has to be guaranteed, which includes timely mine
clearance of return areas. IDPs asked for the restoration of basic infrastructure in return areas,
housing assistance, compensation for damaged properties and documentation assistance by the
GoSL or I/NGOs. To address livelihood obstacles, they recommended the relaxation of livelihood
restrictions, in particular fishing restrictions, and if not possible, the assistance and training for
alternative livelihood options by the GoSL. All IDPs emphasized that they want to be informed
about the return process and the situation in places of origin, including the status of their
properties and land.
To address obstacles for their local integration or relocation, IDPs suggested that the GoSL
increases food rations, abolishes fishing restrictions, provides them with livelihood assistance,
vocational training and assistance for land purchase and constructs houses in form of a housing
scheme.
5. Locations of the preferred solutions
IDPs listed Chankanai, Tellipalai and Maruthkerny as places for return. They preferred
Chankanai and Point Pedro for their relocation and Sandilipay and Point Pedro for their local
integration.
6. Additional remarks
The majority of IDPs had been displaced several times since 1990. Most IDPs living with host
families had been forced to vacate their shelters every few years. Therefore, all IDPs expressed
strong desire for stability in their lives, particularly through ownership of land and property, as
well as enhanced livelihood opportunities. All IDPs want to return, including adolescent IDPs,
who never lived in their places of origin. A few IDPs went on “go and see” visits to their places
of origin, but were not provided with any information about the possibility or plan to return. They
all raised concerns over their current living conditions. Food assistance by the GoSL is
inadequate and insufficient. The need to purchase additional items, combined with increasing
food prices and lack of livelihood, was affecting decision regarding durable solution, particularly
in respect of their ability to purchase land and housing. Thus, they would only consider 'medium
term' alternatives to return, if these alternatives would give them improved housing and
livelihood opportunities. In addition, some IDPs staying in welfare centres, complained about
being discriminated by the local community. For example, IDP women explained that men form
the host community do not like to marry women living in welfare centres. However, in general
the relations with the host community were perceived as being good.
2
B. Mannar
1. Preferred durable solution
The IDP Consultations were mainly carried out in Pesalai. A total of 66 persons of different age
and gender groups participated in the exercise. Many of them belong to a group of landless
people who had been originally displaced from hill-country areas 1983. Subsequently, following
their seven-year stay in Kilinochchi on government land with permits, in 1990 they were again
displaced to Pesalai Mannar. They want to be relocated to either Siruthoppu or Olaithoduva since
return is not possible now due to the armed conflict. However, women of all age groups explained
that they would rather like to remain in the welfare centres than to relocate to Olaithoduva. IDPs
originating from Jaffna were afraid to return now, due to the heavy military presence. However, a
few families would consider return to Jaffna when the situation improves.
2. Obstacles to achieve preferred solutions
IDPs explained as obstacle for their relocation to Siruthoppu, that land prices are high and they do
not have the financial means to purchase land. In addition, they lack information on their land
entitlements. IDPs expressed concern about their physical security in Siruthoppu due the heavy
presence of the Navy. They also doubted the commitment of GoSL and I/NGOs to relocate them
to Siruthoppu. Regarding Olaithoduva, male IDPs feared tensions with the host community
because they would compete with them for resources. Moreover, they were worried that the
Catholic host community would not allow them to practice their Hindu religion. They further
expressed concern about long distances to schools and health facilities and lack of transport.
Female IDPs feared Sexual and Gender Based Violence in Olaithoduva, because of its isolated
location and of rumours that many men in Olaithoduva abuse alcohol. They felt particularly
vulnerable, because they lack the support of their extended family.
3. Current plans pending durable solutions
Whilst relocation was pending, IDPs are waiting for UNHCR and partners to upgrade their
shelters. A number of women are attending vocational training.
4. Recommendations to remove and minimize obstacles
To remove the obstacles for relocation, IDPs emphasized that they need to be informed
throughout the whole relocation process. They need particular information about the availability
of land in relocation areas and of financial assistance for the purchase of land. Electricity in
Siruthoppu should be ensured. Male IDPs asked for the improvement of transport links and the
availability of health facilities in Olaithoduva before the relocation takes place. IDPs further
recommended that relocation groups with IDPs, members of the host community, government
authorities, UN agencies and I/NGOs should be set up and maintained before, during and after the
relocation to Siruthoppu and Olaithoduva.
5. Locations of the preferred solutions
Female IDPs were clearly in favour of relocating to Siruthoppu or Mannar town, and if not
possible, to remain in the welfare centres. Male IDPs listed Siruthoppu, Olaithoduva and Mannar
town as places, preferred for relocation.
6. Additional remarks
Given that all IDPs are landless, relocation is their preferred durable solution. Some IDPs were
separated from their extended family when the GoSL relocated them to Siruthoppu last year.
Therefore, female IDPs expressed their wish to be reunified with their relatives in Siruthoppu.
They stated that they felt safer living with them. Male IDPs of middle age emphasized that they
would need livelihood assistance in Olaithoduva. They were further concerned about registration.
3
Many IDPs and refugee returnees living in the welfare centres were not registered. In addition,
inter marriages between IDPs and members of the host community were not recognised by the
authorities and thus included in the family registration.
134 IDP families are currently staying in welfare centres in Pesalai, Mannar. They were displaced
in 1983 from the hill country to Kilinochchi, and in 1990 from Kilinochchi to Pesalai, Mannar.
They lost their right to receive deeds for their lands in the hill country. The GoSL will not issue
any crown land for them in Mannar, partly due to objections of the host communities and some
religious groups. Sewa Lanka Foundation issued this year private land in Siruthoppu for these
IDPs under a micro financing scheme. Each family will receive 25 perches of land. The IDPs
have to reimburse Sewa Lanka with Rs 400.00 per perch within one year. UNHCR and UNDP
will build shelter, WatSan facilities and the basic infrastructure as well as assist these IDPs with
the legal documentation.
C. Vavuniya
1. Preferred durable solution
A total of 178 persons of different age and gender groups participated in the consultations at
Manikfaram, Sithamparapuram, Poonthoddam, Thonikkal and Asikulam. Most participants
prefer local integration as durable solution, closely followed by return and relocation.
2. Obstacles to achieve preferred solutions
IDPs generally believe that the GoSL will not allow them to stay in the welfare centres
permanently. Lack of ownership of land, houses and electricity and poor basic facilities are
further obstacles for their local integration. Some male IDPs also mentioned lack of physical
security and livelihood opportunities as obstacles for their local integration. IDPs explained that
they cannot return due to the present armed conflict, High Security Zones and damaged properties
in their places of origin. In addition, they are hesitant to return, because they fear being redisplaced. Male adolescent IDPs emphasized that they would only return, if they can continue
their studies in the villages of origin. Main obstacle for relocation was the lack of land, according
to IDPs. Some female IDPs expressed concern about lack of physical security, educational
facilities and livelihood opportunities in the relocation sites. Some IDPs complained that the land
identified for relocation was often not suitable for cultivation. All IDPs emphasized that they
would not like to be relocated to other DS Divisions.
3. Current plans pending durable solutions
IDPs remain where they are and only consider return, if the security situation in their places of
origin improves. Those IDPs open to relocation, would only move to places which are not more
than 10 km away from Vavuniya town. IDPs from Vannikkottam have already found some land
close to the welfare centres and constructed houses there.
4. Recommendations to remove and minimize obstacles
IDPs ask the GoSL to guarantee their physical protection in places where they live to support
their local integration. In addition, IDPs recommended the provision of land permits and
construction of permanent houses by the GoSL for them. However, all IDPs would like to live
close to the welfare centres. As for return, IDPs emphasized that the armed conflict must end
before they would be willing to return. Houses, basic facilities, educational facilities and
livelihood assistance should be provided by the GoSL. IDPs emphasized that they would only
return to GN divisions within the same DS Division.
4
5. Locations of the preferred solutions
IDPs listed Cheddikkulam and Vavuniya as DS Division as preferred location for their local
integration; Omanthai, Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Mullaithivu, Vavuniya and Mannar as places of
return; and Vavuniya Tharanikkulam, Nalnattinakulam and Katkulam DS Division as places
preferred for relocation.
6. Additional remarks
Male IDPs of older age in Sithamparapuram welfare centre stated that if their married children
would be relocated, they would return to their villages of origin. Most IDPs in Poonthoddam
welfare centre are landless in their places of origin. Male IDPs in Manikfaram relocation site
complained that they do not have identity cards issued by the security forces, required to move
around. Therefore, they cannot seek employment outside their relocation site.
D. Puttalam
1. Preferred durable solution
IDPs were consulted in Mundel, Kalpitiya, Puttalam and Wanathavilluwa DS Divisions. A total
of 91 persons of different age and gender groups participated in the consultations at Udappuwa,
Alankuda, Pasbarabath, Salamabath, Salton II Welfare Centre, Sinhapura, Srimapuram Welfare
Centre and Thayubnagar Welfare Centre. The majority of the participants who participated in the
focus groups prefer local integration as durable solution. However, a small number of IDPs
considers return and relocation. In particular, male IDPs of older age originating from Mannar
were eager to return.
2. Obstacles to achieve preferred solutions
IDPs listed lack of land ownership, inadequate living conditions, in particular inadequate houses,
water and sanitation facilities, and tensions with the host community as obstacles for their local
integration. Female adolescent IDPs in Mundel feared harassment by security forces. IDPs found
it difficult to take the decision to return, because their houses and the infrastructure in their areas
of origin were damaged or destroyed. IDPs from Mannar and Mullaitivu explained that they
cannot return, because of the ongoing armed conflict and related security situation in these
districts. IDPs originating from Jaffna were afraid that they could not return, because Tamil
communities occupied their land and properties. As for relocation, IDPs were concerned about
inadequate living conditions, lack of land ownership, tensions with the host community in
relocation areas. Some IDPs also explained that they could not afford to construct houses.
3. Recommendations to remove and minimize obstacles
To support their local integration, IDPs suggested that the GoSL provides them with livelihood
assistance and vocational training, grants them land permits and deeds and improves their living
conditions. Female adolescent IDPs emphasized that the GoSL should ensure their physical
security in Mundel. IDPs emphasized that hostilities in or near their places of origin must end and
that their physical security has to be ensured, before they can return. They asked for the provision
of permanent houses and the reconstruction of the infrastructure in places of origin. Male IDPs
from Jaffna suggested that the GoSL ensures that they regain effective ownership of their land.
Concerning relocation, IDPs asked for GoSL assistance for permanent housing.
4. Locations of the preferred solutions
IDPs listed Puttalam, Mundel, Kalpitya and Wanathavilluwa DS Divisions as places for local
integration, relocation and return. A very few IDPs mentioned Mannar and Jaffna districts as
places for return.
5
5. Additional remarks
I/NGOs are currently constructing permanent houses to facilitate the local integration of IDPs in
Kalpitya. Only a few IDPs made recommendations on how to address the obstacles for the
implementation of durable solutions. Some female IDPs complained about the fact that various
organizations collected information about them in several surveys without addressing their
problems in consequence. Some IDPs expressed doubts regarding the commitment of the GoSL
to relocate IDPs, because they have not so far taken any measures to do so.
E. Trincomalee
1. Preferred durable solution
A total of 101 persons of different age and gender groups participated in the consultations at
Faizal Nagar, Jeganathanthoddam Welfare Centre and Ales garden Welfare Centre. Most of the
participants prefer return to their areas of origin as durable solution. A very few IDPs in Ales
Garden welfare centre prefer to be locally integrated.
2. Obstacles to achieve preferred solutions
IDPs explained that security forces would not allow them to return. They were concerned about
their physical security since they heard that people had been shot, injured or abducted in their
places of origin. Most of their houses, land and other properties were occupied by security forces,
damaged or destroyed. IDPs listed limited freedom of movement, lack of transport means, water,
educational and health facilities as further obstacles for return. IDPs explained that many IDPs
were doing some form of labour, while there were no livelihood opportunities in places of return,
in particular due to the fishing restrictions. As for local integration, IDPs expressed the opinion
that the GoSL would not allow them to stay in the welfare centres permanently. Some IDPs
explained that the GoSL was already constructing houses for them in their villages of origin in
Kuchchaveli. In Town & Gravets, IDPs felt that the land of the welfare centres was not suitable
for local integration, because part of it was used as cemetery by the host community. IDPs stated
that lack of land ownership, proper houses and a proper drainage system were further obstacles
for their local integration. In addition, they complained about the fishing restrictions at night.
3. Current plans pending durable solutions
Some IDPs, in particular persons belonging to the second generation of IDPs and persons, who
were also affected by tsunami natural disaster, received 10 perches of land in places of origin and
cash grants from the GoSL. They are currently constructing houses on their land. However, some
of them have not received any land documents and others complained that the cash grant was not
enough for the construction of houses.
4. Recommendations to remove and minimize obstacles
To facilitate return, IDPs recommended that GoSL reconstructs basic infrastructure, including
roads, electricity, water, health and educational facilities and provides transport means in their
places of origin. They recommended that security forces vacate their properties and land. If not
possible, they asked assistance for land allocation and permanent housing. They further asked for
livelihood assistance and for the relaxation of fishing restrictions. IDPs emphasized that they
would only return, if the GoSL ensures their physical security. Therefore, some male IDPs
suggested the establishment of police posts in return areas. As for local integration, IDPs
requested that the GoSL should allow them to stay in their present places, grant them land permits,
provide them with basic facilities, including a proper drainage system, and permanent houses.
6
They further asked for the relaxation of security restrictions, including fishing restrictions. IDPs
in Town & Gravets suggested the relocation of the cemetery close to their welfare centres.
5. Locations of the preferred solutions
IDPs listed Kinniya and Kuchchaveli DS Divisions as areas of return and Town & Gravets DS
Division as places preferred for their local integration.
6. Additional remarks
IDPs in Ales Garden welfare centre, originating from Kallamapaththai, returned to their village of
origin in 2006 and received assistance for housing and livelihood. However, after several
incidents of abductions in their area, they all displaced to the welfare centre in December 2006.
F. Batticoloa
1. Preferred durable solution
The IDP consultation meetings were carried out with a total of 314 persons of different age and
gender groups in Koralai Pattu South, Eravur Pattu, Kattankudy and Kaluwanchikudy DS
Divisions. Most of the participants prefer return as durable solution. However some IDPs from
Muslim and Tamil communities consider relocation, if return is not possible. Also, some longterm IDPs prefer to be locally integrated.
2. Obstacles to achieve preferred solutions
The main obstacle for return is lack of physical security, occupation/damage/destruction of
properties, including houses and paddy land, and lack of compensation for their lost properties.
Tamil IDPs are concerned about the strong presence of security forces and the fact that they
occupy some of their properties. Female Tamil IDPs have stated that they would not feel safe at
night, if their houses were close to army camps. Muslim IDPs have expressed fear of the presence
of the army and armed groups such as the LTTE, as well as tensions with Tamil communities.
They are particularly concerned about the occupation of their land by Tamil communities. Female
Muslim IDPs are afraid of being harassed by Tamils during daytime, when they would be alone
in the villages. IDPs also were afraid of landmines in return areas. Other obstacles are lack of
livelihood opportunities and infrastructure, in particular electricity, water, educational and health
facilities as obstacles for return.
As for local integration, some IDPs have explained that they had purchased land, but could not
afford to construct permanent houses or that they do not have any property. Security concerns due
to the army presence, de-registration and lack of livelihood opportunities and of livelihood
support in particular for female headed households are also obstacles for local integration. Lack
of land allocation and ownership, poor infrastructure, lack of houses and livelihood opportunities
and security concerns due to tensions between Muslim and Tamil communities are identified as
obstacles for relocation of IDPs to other areas.
3. Current plans pending durable solutions
Whilst pending durable solutions, all IDPs remain with host families or rent accommodation. A
few IDPs receive tsunami housing assistance. Some IDPs return to their properties during
daytime and conduct livelihood activities such as cultivating their paddy fields. Other IDPs are
doing casual labour in place of displacement. Some Muslim IDPs already prepare their returns for
example by reconstructing mosques in return areas. Muslim IDPs are continuously advocating for
durable solutions through their politicians.
7
4. Recommendations to remove and minimize obstacles
Concerning return, IDPs recommend that the GoSL ensures their physical security and safety in
areas of return. They ask for return of their properties by the STF and SLA and relocation of SLA
camps, adequate compensation for occupied or damaged property, housing assistance,
reconstruction of mosques and infrastructure, livelihood assistance, increase of food rations and
maintenance of transport means for travel between villages of origin and urban areas. In addition,
IDPs suggest the establishment of peace committees and implementation of confidence building
measures to rebuild relationships between Muslim and Tamil communities.
IDPs ask for land allocation, housing and livelihood assistance to facilitate their local integration.
For relocation IDPs recommended land allocation, provision of assistance for housing, basic
needs, infrastructure and livelihood as well as confidence building between Muslim and Tamil
communities.
5. Locations of the preferred solutions
IDPs list Eravur Pattu, Koralai Pattu South, Chenkalady, Cheddipalai North, Kaluwanchikuddy,
Arayampatti, Vavunateevu and Manmunai North/Muslim Colony DS Divisions in Batticoloa and
Nilavely in Trincomalee as areas of origin. IDPs want be locally integrated in Kattankudy and
Eravur Pattu DS Divisions in Batticoloa. IDPs want to be relocated to Koralai Pattu North (north
of the A11 road) and to Eravur Pattu DS Divisions in Batticoloa.
6. Additional remarks
Tamil families in Manmunai North and Kaluwanchikudy have been continuously displaced since
the 1990s due to the military occupation of their properties. In Eravur Pattu and Arayampattei,
IDPs originate from ethnic border areas between Singhalese, Tamil and Muslim communities and
have fled ethnic violence. All IDPs are waiting for the GoSL to inform them about compensation
entitlements. However, a few Tamil families receive compensation for the occupation of their
houses in the form of a small amount of rent. IDPs from Cheddipalai North return to their houses
during the day because security forces told them that they would demolish empty houses. These
IDPs complained that security forces ask them to provide them with sandbags and cement, and to
keep lights on the whole night long, leaving them with high utility bills.
8
Annex 1
The District IDP Consultation
List of Guiding Questions
The starting question
What do you think the purpose and the scope of the IDP Consultations?
Do you understand and agree to the objectives of the IDP Consultations?
Do you have any questions before we begin the Consultations?
A. About the Future
Preferred Solutions
1. If you are allowed to choose, what is your preferred durable solution?
2. Why do you prefer that option to other options?
3. Apart from you, who and what will influence your decision/preference?
Prevailing Obstacles
1. What are the obstacles to achieve your preferred options?
(some possible responses could be: no viable economic opportunities upon return, hostile
feeling among the local host community against IDPs integration, fear of isolation in the
new relocation site, fear to lose continuous assistance for IDPs upon relocation, no
guarantee to get back to the original occupation, no guarantee to secure own property
rights in the place of origin upon local integration/relocation, etc.)
2. Are the obstacles due to your particular/individual circumstances or preference or due to
conditions/situations beyond your control?
Recommendations to Remove/Minimize Obstacles
1. What are your own plans to remove/minimize these obstacles?
2. If the obstacles are beyond your control, what are your recommendations and suggestions
to the authorities/decisions makers to remove/minimize these obstacles?
3. What kind of information do you need to make better plans and recommendations?
B. Background and the Past
1. Where are you originally from and why were you displaced initially?
2. How many years have you been displaced since the last displacement?
3. How many times have you been displaced?
4. Do you have land / property in your place of origin?
5. What was your occupation prior to the first displacement?
C. Current Situation
1. Where are you staying now?
2. Why are you staying there (why not at welfare centre/why not outside welfare centre?)
3. How do you feel about your current situation and what you might want to change?
9