The election campaign was conducted with far fewer cases of violence compared to recent campaigns, although a number of shootings did take place in both Batticaloa and Colombo. Of the 225 seats in Parliament, the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) won 105, the United National Front (UNF) 82, Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK) 22, Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) nine, the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) five and the Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) and the Up-Country People’s Front (UCPF) one each.

In early March, the LTTE’s eastern commander, Colonel Karuna, announced that he and his followers had split from the rest of the organisation. The LTTE in Kilinochchi responded by announcing that Karuna was no longer a member of the LTTE but, despite a build-up of cadres in the southern parts of Trincomalee District, waited until just after the election before taking decisive action. That occurred in the early hours of Friday 9 April, when LTTE cadres were deployed in various locations in the East. After a short period of fighting, the Prabakharan-led LTTE were able to claim victory over Karuna’s forces.

DISPLACEMENTS IN THE EAST

The fighting in early the East lead to the largest displacement witnessed in Sri Lanka since the February 2002 ceasefire began. When fighting broke out on 9 April, civilians in the Verugal and Vakarai areas of Batticaloa District were requested to leave the area. As a result, 2,603 persons walked to Makerni - a distance of 17 to 22 km – where they stayed in the local school. A further 700 stayed in Eachilampattai, in an LTTE-controlled part of Trincomalee District. Many more people were displaced to other areas or to stay with family and friends. In both locations, local authorities and national and international agencies initiated a coordinated and measured response, providing drinking water, food rations and emergency provisions.

Many IDPs began returning to their homes the following day. By 13 April, the Sinhala and Tamil New Year Day, all had returned home.


IDP ANALYSIS


The number of IDPs returning to their place of origin each month continues to decline. In February, 2,453 people returned home – the lowest figure since the ceasefire began two years earlier. Note that although the chart below shows a large increase in returns during January, this figure is an anomaly resulting from delayed reporting of returns in Kilinochchi District.

In all, 358,759 people – or 49 per cent of the 731,838 people estimated to have been displaced when the ceasefire began in February 2002 – had returned home by the end of February 2004. That leaves 373,079 people still displaced, of whom one-quarter reside in welfare centres.

How many of these remaining 373,079 IDPs want to return home? The best available guide comes from a survey of IDPs conducted in mid-2002 by UNHCR and the Ministry for Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Refugees. Of 613,220 IDPs surveyed, 155,372 – or a quarter of all those surveyed – said they did not intend to return home. A further 20,293 said they wanted to move elsewhere. Together, that makes 175,665 IDPs who indicated they did not wish to return to their place of origin.

A similar survey conducted last year in welfare centres in Vavuniya District identified “landlessness” as the main reason for people not to return home. The same conclusion was reached in Mannar, where 30 per cent of respondents cited landlessness in their place of origin as the key obstacle to return, followed by “House in High Security Zone or occupied by the Security Forces” (19 per cent) and “Joblessness in place of origin” (17 per cent).

However, only 36 per cent of those who cited landlessness and 18 per cent of those who cited joblessness said they would be willing to return home if that problem were resolved. These results suggest that people are far less willing to return home if they had little prior to their displacement.

The chart below breaks these results down according to the District of origin. The shaded sections indicate those people not willing to return even if their primary reason for not returning were resolved. If nothing else, these results demonstrate that obstacles to return and willingness to return differ greatly from one District to another. For IDPs from Mullaitivu and Kilinochchi, landlessness in place of origin is clearly the main obstacle to return – and most of those citing landlessness said that even if this problem were resolved, they would still not be willing to return home. One possible explanation is that many IDPs originating from the Vanni were already IDPs in that region, having been displaced to the Vanni from upcountry and Colombo following the communal riots of 1977 and 1983. As IDPs in the Vanni, they were often without land or stable jobs.

But of those IDPs originating from Vavuniya and Mannar who cited landlessess as their main obstacle to return, most said they would be willing to return if this problem were resolved. Indeed, in these Districts, the problem of land being occupied by High Security Zones or by the Security Forces was considered an obstacle of equal, if not greater, significance as landlessness, and one that if resolved should lead to people returning home. By contrast, of those IDPs who cited joblessness as their primary obstacle to return, almost none said they would be willing to return if this problem were resolved.

In a positive development in efforts to achieve durable solutions for Sri Lanka’s displaced, the Sri Lanka Armed Forces in early April released 51 houses in the High Security Zone near Chavakachcheri, Jaffna District. The original residents of the village have been displaced throughout the Jaffna Peninsula since 1999.

The village remains some 700 metres inside the HSZ. However, under the “restored village” pilot scheme, residents will receive a special pass from the Security Forces to enter the released area, which includes both residential land and paddy field.

Various agencies have been working with the Security Forces and the villagers to ensure the area is suitable for resettlement.

UNIFIED ASSISTANCE SCHEME

The Unified Assistance Scheme (UAS) component of the World Bank-financed North East Emergency Reconstruction Program (NEERP) has to date provided some 68,172 IDP families who had returned to their homes after the cease-fire with livelihood assistance of Rs. 25,000 per family. Out of $15 million contributed by the Bank for the UAS scheme, $14 million has already been disbursed. The remaining $1 million will be disbursed in the next two to four weeks.

NEERP also finances the repair of 77 damaged health care centers, 70 administrative buildings at the district and divisional level, four major peri-urban water supply schemes and 29 minor water supply schemes. It sponsors the training of health care workers, the placement of doctors in under served areas, the establishment of a management information system (MIS) for the region's health care system and the provision of medical equipment. NEERP also finances the establishment of a MIS to streamline administrative procedure in the North East and link the region with the information super highway. It includes a program of training for provincial and district officials. Overall disbursement under NEERP has been rapid with US$ 15 million released in the first year of program effectiveness. The US$36 million NEERP closes in the end of 2004.