Jaffna District has been the principle destination for returning IDPs. By the end of 2003, 176,426 people had returned to places within Jaffna, representing just over half (51 per cent) of all returns.

But as returns have reduced in recent months, so too has Jaffna’s dominance as the principal destination. The 7,209 people who returned to Jaffna in the last six months of 2003 represented 34 per cent of all returns in that period. As the chart below illustrates, returns are now more evenly spread among the districts, particularly in Kilinochchi, Vavuniya, Mannar and Mullaitivu.

Compared to returns, remaining IDPs are relatively evenly distributed among Districts. Jaffna and Mullaitivu have the highest number, each with around 60,000 IDPs. Puttalam District is notable for the high proportion of IDPs living in welfare centres – almost three-quarters of Puttalam’s 47,049 IDPs live in welfare centres.

Nevertheless, it is clear that many remaining IDPs would like to return to their homes. In recent months, UNHCR has been conducting surveys of the residents of welfare centres to ascertain, among other things, what factors are discouraging them from returning home. According to the surveys, the main factors preventing IDPs from returning to their homes are:

- Concerns about security in return areas, including the threat of landmines, fear for children’s safety
  and ongoing human rights violations
- The lack of education facilities in return areas
- The lack of economic opportunities in return areas
- Landlessness, including those who did not own land prior to their displacement and those whose   homes are located within High Security Zones.


TRANSITION FROM RELIEF TO DEVELOPMENT

More than 386,000 people require durable solutions to their ongoing displacement. If return is not possible, then other solutions need to be identified - whether those involve relocating and reintegrating into another community, or remaining in their place of displacement and integrating into the local community.

With so many still displaced – and almost as many recently returned – it is clear that there remain large numbers of vulnerable people in Sri Lanka’s conflict-affected areas. In this regard, the growing focus on development activities should not distract attention from the ongoing need for humanitarian assistance, particularly to IDPs still residing in welfare centres and to returnees who remain in a vulnerable situation. Many families require shelter and security, as well as the opportunity to earn a living, access health care and educate their children.

RETURNS FROM INDIA

There are an estimated 79,000 Sri Lankan refugees residing in India. Since the commencement of the ceasefire, 5,954 of these refugees have repatriated to Sri Lanka, usually by paying Indian fishermen to take them by boat across the Palk Strait. The remaining 20 per cent return with the support of UNHCR, taking a commercial flight from Chennai to Colombo.

Returns from India increased markedly in the second half of 2003. Growing optimism about conditions in return areas is probably the main cause, although UNHCR-facilitated returns were also boosted by administrative changes that accelerated the return process at the Indian end. The drop in returns in December can in part be attributed to end-of-year administrative issues in India.

PEACE DIVIDENDS – RESULTS OF ORG-MARG SMART SURVEY

ORG-MART SMART, a unit of AC Nielsen, conducted an island-wide opinion poll during January. Comparing responses from the North and East with those from the rest of the country, the poll sought opinions on “general mood”, the peace process and the political turmoil in Colombo.

Among other findings, the survey found that people in the North and East have felt benefits of the ceasefire – in terms of economic situation and quality of life – more than those living in the rest of the country.

In January, UNICEF released a progress report on the Action Plan for Children Affected by War. The Action Plan is an outcome of the fifth round of peace talks in Berlin, at which UNICEF was asked to take a leading role in establishing shared programs to address the needs of up to 50,000 children affected by war.

In its report, UNICEF estimated that 50,000 children in the North and East remain out of school, around 140,000 have been displaced, and that in 2003 alone 20 were killed and 17 maimed by landmines. The North and East also faces a serious deficit of education and health staff, with a need for more than 5,800 additional Tamil medium and 200 Sinhala medium teachers.

Recruitment of children into the LTTE remains a major concern. According to UNICEF records, 709 children were recruited by the LTTE in 2003. Recruitment increased noticeably during August, September and October, with reports of 304 children taken into the organisation, before dropping off during November and December, when 31 cases were reported. The LTTE released 202 children during 2003. A quarter of these releases were made through a transit centre opened in Kilinochchi in October; the remainder were released straight to their families. From reports submitted by families, UNICEF said it knew of at least 1,301 children who remain in the LTTE.

But the report also outlined the improvements in children’s lives that have been achieved during 2003. “Catch up” education programmes reached 23,500 children, 244 school buildings were refurbished and the recruitment of teachers to address the deficit has begun. Meanwhile, ILO has established vocational training capacity, UNDP has systems in place for micro-credit schemes, the Ministry of Social Welfare has expanded its capacity on probation and child care, Save the Children is providing social work support and follow-up reporting on former child soldiers, and TRO is working on specific categories of vulnerable children such as street children.

Looking into 2004, UNICEF said the following key developments must take place if the Action Plan is to be a success and is to address the rights of children affected by war:

* The LTTE must cease all recruitment of children.
* The LTTE must release all child soldiers.
* The GOSL must continue its efforts to ensure that the significant shortages in education, health and social welfare staff are urgently addressed and that the basic infrastructure is rehabilitated.
* The UN agencies and NGOs must accelerate implementation of their programmes to support all components of the Action Plan and reach all children affected by war and increase advocacy on child rights.
* Donors support needs to continue and expand, both in terms of advocacy with the GOSL and LTTE and with financial contributions to the implementing partners.

MINE ACTION

Mine Action agencies recommenced full activities in January, following a lay-off during the holiday season and the monsoon in the North and East. Many agencies are expecting to increase both their personnel and geographic coverage to reach areas in urgent need of mine clearance.

As part of its ongoing advocacy for a ban on anti-personnel mines, UNDP assisted the Army to organise a seminar on the Anti-Personnel (AP) Mine Ban Treaty for Army, Navy, Air Force and Special Task Force personnel. The seminar focused on the negative consequences of AP mines in Sri Lanka, alternatives to their use, and implications of the AP Mine Ban Treaty for Sri Lanka.

Other advocacy activities include a mine action media campaign. Launched by UNDP, UNICEF and the National Steering Committee for Mine Action in December 2003, this campaign includes television snippets, complemented with reports in the newspapers and other media. Meanwhile, UNDP is assisting in the establishment of a National Mine Action Office - Sri Lanka, which is expected to cover the mine action programme and report to the National Steering Committee on Mine Action.

Mine Risk Education (MRE) activities will increase in 2004 for those still living in dangerous areas or waiting to return home. The focus of MRE activities will be on the training of staff to ensure the expansion and sustainability of the programme. Public awareness campaigns will also continue.

DOCUMENTATION

Because of the tumultuous ordeal of displacement, IDPs regularly find basic documents such as birth, death and marriage certificates, land title deeds and identity cards have been left behind, destroyed or lost. These documents provide a legal basis for people to enforce a whole range of rights and entitlements. Without a birth certificate, for instance, children are unable to enrol for school. Without an identity card, it is not possible to vote. Without title deeds, it can be extremely difficult to prove ownership of land or property.

UNHCR therefore supports mobile registration clinics, where IDPs and returnees can seek assistance from a range of government and non-government organisations to obtain basic documentation. In November 2003, for example, over 2,000 people sought assistance at a clinic in Vavuniya for refugees who had returned from India.

UNDP

UNDP’s work with IDPs focuses on the sustainability of the returnee process, primarily through sustainable livelihood development. In doing this, UNDP adopts a multi-sectoral approach, focusing on the following fields: micro-credit; employment generation; agriculture and livestock; fisheries; and small-scale infrastructure development.

An example of UNDP’s interventions in the micro-credit field is the establishment of Revolving Loan Funds, coupled with the provision of boats, for recent returnees who have lost their fishing equipment during displacement. Through donor funds, UNDP pays for a certain percentage of a new boat or motor and the beneficiary pays the remainder. As the beneficiary re-pays the balance, they do so to a local co-operative or professional society, and that money goes towards providing the same service to more fishermen. Similar initiatives involving micro-credit are also extended to those involved in the agriculture and livestock sectors.

Another example is UNDP’s collaboration with UNHCR to target resettlement areas that face badly damaged or dilapidated infrastructure. Through a series of programmes - the Employment Recovery Programme, the Community Rehabilitation Programme and the Integrated Recovery and Reintegration Programme - the Transition Programme will conduct activities such as repairing roads so IDPs can return home, building wells so they have drinking water, and repairing schools and hospitals. By employing local workers as labourers, these initiatives also increase income levels and develop skilled labour that can be marketed in the future. UNDP’s focus is on the sustainable integration of IDPs, which requires flexibility to encompass the various needs of marginalized, vulnerable, and conflict affected groups. The Transitional Recovery Programme, for example, will focus on the reintegration of former child soldiers and their host communities.