Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions
POLICY BRIEF
Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, Restitution and Resettlement Project, November 2008
Towards a National Policy for Housing, Land and Property Restitution in Sri Lanka Introduction: The Right to Restitution and Implications for Policy The end of conflict does not spell the end of displacement. The political and socio–economic complexities associated with displacement require a well–defined policy and programme of action to effectively address problems associated with displacement. Housing, land and property restitution (HLP restitution) goes to the heart of a process of bringing displacement to an end. Restitution is a legal remedy on the basis of which displaced persons have their former homes and property restored, in a context of post–conflict re–building and rehabilitation. It envisages both legal and equitable entitlements, based on due considerations of restoring the dignity and well–being of persons disadvantaged by displacement. Thus, the right to return to one’s original home is incomplete unless there is adequate recognition of the right to full HLP restitution, i.e. adequately fulfilling the right to have one’s home, lands and property restored with a sense of security and dignity. The contents of this brief will highlight those policy issues that impede the realisation of a rights based approach to restitution. The information and data given below are based on a survey jointly conducted in Trincomalee and Batticaloa in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka, in the months of July-September 2008 by the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) and the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). The implementation of the survey and the final report are funded by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The survey constituted a segment of a wider fact finding programme comprising of structured and semi-structured interviews among Government officials working in the East as well as at the central level, and among UNHCR and INGOs working in the East. Information from these interviews will also be included where relevant, in this brief. The fact finding programme is an initiative by COHRE to formulate a comprehensive set of recommendations for a national policy on HLP restitution in Sri Lanka. A larger report on the above recommendations will follow the publication of this brief.
their original locations, referred to as ‘returnees’. The background information and data of the sample population contained in this brief is presented to inform a discussion on a rights based policy position for HLP restitution in Sri Lanka. The sample was further broken down into the following sub-categories: • HSZ IDPs – Those still displaced whose places of origin are within the former boundaries of the High Security Zone (HSZ) before its reduction to 4 GN divisions; • Non-HSZ IDPs – Those still displaced whose places of origin in Trincomalee were never inside the boundaries of the HSZ; • Batti IDPs – Those still displaced within the Batticaloa district. • Returnees – Those who have returned to their own homes or close by. This brief is divided into six sections. The first section will give some background information containing demographic details and displacement experiences and statistics on damage, looting and secondary occupation. Section 2 provides information about the process of registration and assistance received upon return. Section 3 contains information on the type of land rights, land ownership and documentation. Section 4 contains statistics on compensation and expectations of remedying losses suffered. Section 5 deals with the issue of access to information and the sixth and final section provides information on housing standards. This policy brief will be followed by a larger report, which aims to advocate for a policy position that approaches restitution as a legal remedy to bringing displacement to an end, based on grounds of equity, and in recognition of the right of displaced persons to have their homes and property restored to them.
Presentation of Data
The above find finding programme was implemented exclusively in the East, following the liberation of the East and initiative by Government to Return and Resettle displaced persons in their original homes and lands. However, it is intended that the findings of this brief and the policy recommendations of the main report to follow, will facilitate the formulation of a national HLP Restitution policy that will be applied to address displacement in the North, and to all other instances of displacement in Sri Lanka.
1. Background Information This section contains information about the demographic details of the sample population, displacement histories, and an outline of losses suffered due to damage to housing and looting. The statistics presented in this brief are based exclusively on the survey, which included 384 interviews. This sample size allows for the identification of trends among the survey population and is therefore indicative of issues commonly encountered among the displaced and recently returned population in Batticaloa and Trincomalee. Survey results are, however, not representative of the entire displaced and recently returned population in Batticaloa and Trincomalee.
A questionnaire was developed by COHRE in collaboration with UNOPS to gather information that broadly corresponds to the sections of this brief. The UNOPS research team conducted a total of 384 interviews: 192 among IDPs living in IDP camps, welfare centres or with host families, and 192 among displaced persons who had returned to their original locations or to an area close to
1.1 Demographic Details and Displacement experiences The average family size among the sample population was 4.28 persons per household. A total of 23.18% (89 families) of these families are single parent households, and 22.14% (85 families) of all families are female headed. Most interviewees (IDPs and returnees) stayed in camps/welfare centres while displaced. The term ‘welfare
POLICY BRIEF - Towards a National Policy for Housing, Land and Property Restitution in Sri Lanka
80
100
Number of members per household (%)
70
84
80
61
60
1.2 Outline of Losses - Damage, Looting and Secondary Occupation Given below is an outline of the losses suffered due to displacement. It includes losses suffered due to damage, looting and secondary occupation.
Desplacement living location (%)
50
1-2 members
Welfare camp
3-5 members
60
On private land owned by another induvidual
40
Public space with no care/maintanace
6-8 members
40
Host family
9 and more members
30
On your own land
20
19
18
20 12
10 3
0
CHART 1
80
2
0
1
1
CHART 2
Length of displacement (%)
camp’ used in the charts of the survey (below) refers to a camp setting 61 1-6 months 60 of any kind, as opposed to individual shelter 6-12 months 50 or housing, which 1-3 years accommodate persons 40 3-6 years who have been subject 30 to displacement, and 6-10 years have not yet found a 20 17 15 > 10 years durable solution to their displacement. Returnees 10 5 1 1 who stated that they 0 0 currently stay in a CHART 3 “welfare camp” mostly stayed in transitional shelter sites, designed for short term stay. 70
< 1month
Many of those displaced in the East have complex displacement histories. Most interviewees were displaced following the resumption of hostilities in 2006. However, many interviewees had experienced sporadic, mostly short term displacement since the early 80’s, while a few have been continuously displaced since the 90’s. The majority of persons interviewed (61%) have a displacement history of 1- 3 years, and a significant number have been recurrently displaced for over 6 years. The length of displacement and displacement history is important to understand the extent of disruption to life, and the losses suffered as a result of displacement, which has in some cases been recurrent over a long period of time. 60
53 Dont know
Was damaged, repaired since return
Completely damage/destroyed
40
Too damaged to live in
Partially damaged
Completely destroyed, repaired since return
Not damaged
30
31
30
18 14
13 10
7 3
2
0
IDPs
CHART 4
1
Returnees
Also refer chart 14 for return dates and chart 12 for information on current accommodation of returnees.
100
As to the cause of damage to housing, interviewees (both IDPs and returnees) gave answers as presented below.
40
95
Dont know
80
Yes
60
No
53 46
20 0
5
1
IDPs
CHART 6
300 250 200 150
28
20
Home looted during displacement (%)
1.2.2 Losses due to looting The majority of IDPs are not aware whether their homes have been looted or not. Answers from returnees indicate a high incidence of looting during displacement from their homes.
Condition of home now (%)
50
1.2.1 Losses due to damage The chart below indicates the different categories of damage to housing stock in the East that was recorded by the survey. 31% of both IDPs and returnees answered that their homes were completely damaged/ destroyed during their displacement, i.e. destruction was so severe that their former homes did not resemble a house anymore. The chart also indicates that a considerable amount of IDPs have no knowledge of the condition of their homes. The majority of returnees (65%) have answered that their house is completely damaged/destroyed, partially damaged or too damaged to live in at the time of the interview. This indicates that a significant number of returnees are yet to receive compensation for their damaged homes. Only 19% of returnees interviewed 2 1 Condition of home now (%) who suf9 fered damDamaged during the fighting age to their 9 Damged by looting home have repaired this Damage in military operation after fighting damage Damaged due to lack of since return. upkeep/wild animals These repairs Dont know were in part made pos- 16 Other 62 sible by asCHART 5 sistance, and in part carried out on the initiative of returnees who had the capacity to do so.
Returnees
What was Stolen (%) 274
Housing matierial Furniture, personal belongings, productive assets 177
Other
Chart 7 outlines the different categories of items that have been lost among a total 100 of 271 interviewees who stated that their 50 homes had been looted. These interviewees 17 gave multiple answers to the question of 0 CHART 7 what was stolen, so that the total in the chart below is greater than 100%. Note that a total of 384 interviews (100%) returned a total of 468% of answers.
POLICY BRIEF - Towards a National Policy for Housing, Land and Property Restitution in Sri Lanka
In the chart, answers are grouped in three categories: • Housing material includes roof tiles, doors and windows, locks and hinges and electrical outlets • Furniture, personal belongings, productive assets includes all types of furniture and personal belongings, and any tools and appliances interviewees need to earn a living; • Other includes any looted items not listed in the above categories. Answers often included livestock, rice and seeds, cement bags, as well as other items. 1.2.3 Loss due to Secondary Occupation Barries to return (%) 87
In HSZ
Secondary Ocupation
Security issues
Livelihood and social issues
Area not yet cleared for return
About to return/in process of returning
Home too damaged to live in
Other
55 44
42
33
31
15
19
18
13
17
13
9 4
4
0
HSZ IDPs
3
0
4
0
Trinco non-HSZ IDPs
13 6
0
0
Batti IDPs
CHART 8
The survey attempted to investigate the loss to IDPs and returnees by the occupation of their houses and lands by other entities. This is known as secondary occupation, and the most common forms of secondary occupation in Sri Lanka are by other displaced persons and the military. The survey indicated high percentages of secondary occupation among IDPs from Trincomalee who wished to return to lands outside the HSZ (at 30%), and a higher incidence of secondary occupation in the District of Trincomlaee among returnees (at 13%). Secondary occupation in the East is predominantly by the military. These percentages together with other information gathered during the fact finding programme indicate that secondary occupation by the military is a significant issue in the East, especially for displaced persons who are now able to return to their homes and villages. Quite apart from the numbers involved, those who are affected by military occupation of their houses and lands are at a particular loss, and feel there is little they can do to assert their restitution rights (which they are often not aware of). While it is understood that the military may need to occupy residential lands and properties during conflict and post conflict contexts, the lack of coordination and negotiation with the affected parties produce undue hardship for returning IDPs. They discover the secondary occupation only on return to their lands, are constrained to live in temporary shelters or in a public building, and at times have no access to their agricultural lands for purposes of livelihood. 2. Registration and Assistance This section contains information about the process of registration for both IDPs and returnees, as well as assistance received upon return. Chart 8 gives a summary of the obstacles IDPs named in their answers to the question of “why do you not live at your place of origin.” Interviewees could give more than one answer to adequately capture the multiple barriers to return that IDPs face. Some of the answers have been grouped into larger categories in the chart.
2.1 Registration The process of IDP registration serves as a record of all displaced persons, including those who reside with host-families (typically relatives or friends, or families who rent out residential space to IDPs). Registration is used to organise distribution of assistance to IDPs and is therefore the primary means by which IDPs can access assistance. Registration is conducted by local government authorities (the Grama Niladhari’s office) or the Divisional Secretariats of each District. The survey results indicate that the registration process for IDPs works well. Almost 100% of those interviewed have been registered; this includes all IDPs living with host families who were interviewed in the district of Batticaloa. IDPs are required to ‘de-register’ if they move from their place of displacement to another location (where they would ideally be reregistered), or pending return to their original locations and homes. The issues that are apparent in the data pertain to the process of de-registration pending return, and the lack of criteria to determine the point at which registered persons can no longer access assistance and entitlements, and cease to be treated as displaced persons. For instance, a group of IDPs in Trincomalee who stated that they have been removed from the IDP register, have been de–registered pending return, even though they continue to live in camps. They are reluctant to move to land offered at a relocation site, which they claim is not conducive to their livelihood activities and is therefore not agreeable to them.
Once displaced persons return to their places of origin (or to an area of relocation), they are entitled to resettlement assistance, comprising of financial and non-financial assistance. The Grama Niladhari records the names of those who have chosen to ‘permanently resettle’, for purposes of assistance. There is no register to monitor and indicate the position of returnees in a process of resettlement. Many returnees continue to live in circumstances of displacement after return and are not in a position to fully utilise the assistance towards overcoming displacement, or do not receive timely and adequate assistance and compensation to achieve full restitution. CHART 9
Registered as an IDP Yes
No Registered as a refugee in India
TOTAL
IDPs Returnees Combined 190 99% 163 85% 353 92% 1 1% 2 1% 3 1% 1 1% 192 100%
27 14% 192 100%
28 7% 384 100%
CHART 10
Recorded/ Registered as a returnee Yes
182 2 1
No, was told I could not register No, no registration process Don’t know
Given below is data about the current living conditions of returnees and their access to assistance, which illustrates that having returned does not necessarily mean that people have overcome displacement, or are in a process of overcoming displacement, to any considerable degree.
95% 1% 1%
7
4%
Access to original home - returnees (%) 60 50 40 30
58 42
20 10 0
Yes
No
CHART 11
POLICY BRIEF - Towards a National Policy for Housing, Land and Property Restitution in Sri Lanka
A total of 48 returnees had not yet returned to their original homes since going back to their places of origin. Of these 48 interviewees, 58% did not even have access Current living location of to their original homes. 50
Reasons given include the lack of temporary shelters on their own lands, that their lands and homes are now within the demarcation of the HSZ, and the buffer area on either side of the ‘ring road’ that is being built for the facilitation of the special economic zone in Sampoor, or are occupied by the military. Social and economic situation is - (%)
100
92
80
60
Same as before displacement Better than before displacement
40
returnees (%)
47
In own original home On own land but in temporary shelter
40
30
In welfare camp Hot family Temporary shelter on land owned by another individual
29
Other On a new price of land and in the process of building a house
20
Temporary shelter on public space
10
On a new price of land and living in 7
7
5 2
0
1
1
1
CHART 12
In the case of returnees, interviewees were asked to assess their feeling (a subjective statement) of overcoming displacement based on a comparison between their social and economic situation before displacement and now, after they had returned. As indicated here, most returnees ‘feel’ that they are worse off now than they were before becoming displaced.
Worest than before displacement
This chart shows the time period in which return took place, and puts into context the rating of the socio5 3 economic situation shown above. Most 0 returnees interviewed have been back CHART 13 at their places of origin or close by for a considerable time. Yet the majority still feels that their socioeconomic situation is worse than it was before displacement. 20
Most returnees received some form of assistance after return, either in kind or a mix of in kind and financial assistance. Food assistance (dry rations) is provided by the Government with the assistance of the World Food Programme, for periods ranging from six to eighteen months. Provision of non – food When did you come to assistance, including post 35 this location (%) return shelter assistance is 32 2002-2006 provided predominantly 30 2007, 1st quater by the non – governmental 2007, 2nd quater sector and the UNHCR, 25 2007, 3rd quater on the basis of instructions 2007, 4th quater received by the Divisional 20 2008, 1st quater 2008, 2nd quater Secretary. Food assistance 2008, 3rd quater 13 typically lasts for six 15 11 11 11 months, though some 10 9 returnees complained that 7 6 they did not receive the 5 full 6 months of assistance that was promised, and 0 CHART 14 numerous others reported that assistance was not given equally across the board, in some instances within the same village. While it is encouraging that the vast majority
of returnees receive at least some form of assistance, this inconsistency is a cause for concern with respect to ending displacement, and facilitating an effective and equitable process of restitution. Most people interviewed had returned more than 6 months before they participated in the survey, and hence did not receive assistance anymore when they were interviewed. Further, the Government implements a Unified Assistance Scheme (the UAS scheme), comprising of a unified package of financial assistance. This package includes a grant for post-return relief and settling in allowance (currently Rs.25,000), which returnees are entitled to irrespective of their needs and damage to property, if they fall within the eligibility criteria for the scheme. (see also section 4.0). Many of the returnees have not yet received any assistance under the UAS (due to a lack of funds), though a few in Batticaloa have received this assistance, based on a particular need, or at the end of a six month period, while others have Received assistance since return - (%) been registered for the 2 UAS. In the meantime I/ Yes, in kind assistance only NGOs provide financial assistance with available Both/mixed funds. There is little coordination of these No funds however, both 51 at the Ministerial and 47 District levels; in certain CHART 15 instances returnees have received funds in excess of the stipulated Rs. 25,000, and in other instances have received funds from both INGOs as well as the Government. Taken together, the data on the socio-economic situation, the Still receiving assistance - (%) time period since return, assistance received and the discontinuation of 80 76 assistance after return powerfully 70 illustrates that the post return 60 assistance, including housing 50 and livelihood assistance, is not 40 implemented consistently and 30 24 may prove insufficient, given the 20 circumstances of return, to allow 10 returnees to overcome return to 0 Yes No durable conditions of life. While CHART 16 displaced persons are registered after return for assistance (and are spoken of as having been ‘resettled’ in their homes), there is still no guarantee of full and adequate HLP restitution (and resettlement) in the near future for many of the returned IDPs who live in conditions of displacement. The provision of assistance alone may be insufficient for the recovery and post return stage of resettlement, without an administrative process (an extension of the IDP registration possibly), which can monitor a process of restitution, and systematically restore housing, land and property to displaced persons. Policy Issue 1 The lack of a well-defined administrative process that is transparent, equitable and timely to effectively coordinate the return of IDPs and that allows them to re-establish durable conditions of life, in keeping with standards of HLP restitution, and sustainable recovery and development.
POLICY BRIEF - Towards a National Policy for Housing, Land and Property Restitution in Sri Lanka
3. Housing, Land Ownership, and Documentation This chart shows the answers interviewees gave about the type of land rights they hold over the land they used to live on. It reflects that ownership is relatively high among the survey population, and that very few people occupied land without permission at their places of origin. Among the survey population, landlessness, while a serious obstacle to those affected by it, was low. Those who used to live on public land in their majority stated that they had a permit. However, interviewees seemed unsure about the distinction between permit and grant, so that both answers are represented together to reflect the percentage of people who hold a title over state land.
Type of land right IDPs and Returnees(%)
60
59
Owned
50
Legal permit or grant Occupied public land without permission
40 32
Occupied private land without permission Joint family situation
It is important to highlight in 20 this context that among the IDP population surveyed, ownership 10 was especially high among those who have been displaced from 0 within the current boundaries of the High Security Zone in Trincomalee. Property documentation is extremely important for HLP restitution, as claims can only be made and housing assistance accessed upon proof of property rights.
Other
30
3
3
1
1
CHART 17
Do you have property documents (%) 59
60
Originals
50
No, but we were Legally occupying the land
40
We werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t legally occupying the land
35
Policy Issue 2
Copies
Chart 20 below shows the reasons interviewees gave for not having tried to obtain a copy of their
Tried to get a copy (%) IDPs
80
Returnees
35
70
5
60 50 40
59 1
30 20 10 0
Why did you not try As pointed out above, IDPs to get a copy (%, N=62)(%) and returnees can usually Other only access housing assistance 35 34 32 Not important if they have documentary 30 Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know how evidence of property rights. to get a copy Therefore, it is paramount that 25 Need assistant to displaced persons, at all phases complete the paperwork Originals in safe place of displacement, have easy 20 (Kachcheri) 16 access to institutional assistance 15 15 No time to replace lost documents or to get it regularize any documentation 10 that they might have. Furthermore, the high number 5 2 2 of people who felt it was not 0 important to replace documents CHART 20 indicates the need to raise awareness among the displaced population of the importance of property rights documentation and any supporting evidence in lieu of property rights documents.
It also needs to be ensured that those who used to informally live on public land (see chart 17) are given access to adequate housing, including security of tenure.
All interviewees were asked 30 whether they have documents with them to prove their 20 property rights. As chart 18 shows, most interviewees 10 5 (59%) managed to keep their 1 property documents with them 0 CHART 18 throughout displacement and return. However, the low number of people who hold copies (1%) and the relatively high number of people who do not have their documents with them (35%) show that attention needs to be paid to property documentation. Those who have lost their documents need to be given easy access to copies. Those interviewees who stated that they did not have property documents with them were asked whether they had tried to obtain a copy of their documents. As is perhaps to be expected, more returnees than IDPs who lost their property documents tried to get a copy of these documents.
property documents. Most notably, many interviewees are unaware of the importance of property rights documentation, as illustrated by the high number of people who answered that obtaining copies was not important.
Yes
CHART 19
No
The need to establish a system that ensures easy access to property rights documentation, either by enhancing the capacity of the current institutional structure, or establishing additional institutional capacity to address the property rights of displaced persons.
4. Compensation and Expectations of Remedying Losses The losses suffered as a result of displacement are indicated in three broad categories, which include - loss due to housing damage (charts 4 and 5), looting (charts 6 and 7) and secondary occupation (chart 8). The topic of compensation is significant to overcoming these losses and in addressing overall displacement. 4.1 Compensation for Loss by Damage Interviewees who stated that their house had been damaged were asked to indicate their thoughts (subjective statement) on what they were legally entitled to as compensation for their losses. As illustrated by the charts below, virtually all interviewees who suffered damage to their housing as a result of displacement think that they are legally entitled to receive compensation for these losses. It is to be noted that this information is by no means decisive of the entitlements and compensation of displaced persons. [Note: the expectation that a house will be built by an agency will be discussed in the section on housing standards]
POLICY BRIEF - Towards a National Policy for Housing, Land and Property Restitution in Sri Lanka
Expectation of compensation(%)
80 70
Financial compensation to repair/rebuild the house Financial compensation to spend on anything Home rebuildt by other agency/govt (non-financial) Given materials to rebuild and work to be done by owner (non-financial) Mixed / Combination of any of the above I am entitled to something but I don’t know what 19 Don’t know if I am entitled
64
60 53
50 40 30 19
20 10
14
11 5
0
4
2
6
I am not entitled to compensation
2
0
IDPs
1
0
Expectations of compensation do not vary significantly between those who are still Expectations of compensation - (%) in displacement and 0 those who have already People who believe 3 they are entitled returned to their home locations. Note that Don’t know nobody answered Not entitled that they do not believe themselves to 97 be legally entitled to any compensation for CHART 22 damage caused during their displacement. Of those who answered that they expected financial compensation for damage caused to their housing, many did not know how much they would be entitled to, and others indicated that it would depend on the extent of damage. But overall, most stated that they believed themselves to be entitled to a sum in excess of Rs.250,000. CHART 23
If financial, how much IDPs Returnees Combined < 50,000 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 50,000-99,000 0 0% 3 6% 3 4% 100,000-199,000 2 7% 6 12% 8 10% 200,000-249,000 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% > 250,000 16 57% 17 33% 33 42% Depends on how much the repair will cost Don’t know TOTAL
10 36%
28 100%
21 41% 3
6%
51 100%
60
Preferred institution to work with for compensation(%) 56
GA/Kachcheri/DS
50
GS I/NGO
40 30
37
Other, incl. Police Don’t know
27 28
19
20 10
10
8
11 4
CHART 21
Returnees
to restore their housing to its pre-displacement condition, due to increasing prices of building materials. This sum of money is available as housing compensation for ‘permanently resettled’ families (recently increased from Rs 250,000 to Rs. 325,000), in addition to the assistance available under the UAS scheme.
21 27% 13 16%
79 100%
161 returnees (84%) reported that their home had been at least partially damaged during their displacement (see chart 4). These interviewees were asked whether they had been in touch with any agency or authority on receiving compensation for the damage to their houses. 80% of returnees interviewed have approached authorities regarding compensation for their damaged housing. However, the data indicates that in some areas residents have neither received financial nor in-kind compensation for damage to their houses (including for damage suffered more than a decade ago). While many persons have indicated that they would require financial compensation in excess of Rs. 250,000 to address their housing loss, the few who have received Rs.300,000 as compensation are unable
The UAS scheme provides 0 IDPs (N=78) Returnees (N=159) for housing assistance CHART 24 (amounting to Rs. 75,000) in a fixed amount for repairs or for re-building a temporary or permanent structure. The UAS has established criteria to determine eligibility. There is no differentiation however, between money intended as ‘assistance’ in the post-conflict recovery, and money paid as compensation for loss by damage to housing (with due consideration of restitution to pre-loss standard, or at least an adequate standard of housing). While both IDPs and returnees are aware that they are entitled to assistance/compensation, there is little information to indicate adequately ‘who’ is eligible for ‘what’. Among the returnees interviewed, only 3% of returnees in the Batticaloa District indicated the UAS (and the settling in allowance) as a factor that influenced their decision to return. 0
In addition to concerns relating to compensation and adequate information concerning entitlements, another area that needs to be addressed for a successful programme of HLP restitution is institutional responsibility for implementing compensation schemes for housing. Both IDPs and returnees indicated a preference for I/NGOs to work with to obtain redress by way of compensation for housing damage (chart 24), despite the availability of assistance and compensation schemes implemented by the Government. 4.2 Compensation for Secondary Occupation Compensation and redress for secondary occupation is not well defined. Available relief is dependent on the discretion and ability of the District officials to find alternative solutions to this problem, especially where secondary occupation by the military is concerned. While the majority of IDPs interviewed feel they will not receive any compensation, some feel they should receive a lump sum payment for their loss. One IDP displaced in Batticaloa feels entitled to alternative accommodation while the problem of secondary occupation is resolved. Displaced persons were asked to indicate what they felt were solutions to addressing this problem. Their varying responses included - asking the occupants to move themselves, and asking the GA of Trincomalee to intervene in instances of military occupation of their lands and houses. Among returnees, a significant number of those affected by military occupation feel there is nothing they can do about their loss, and do not feel they are ‘fully resettled’. 4.3 Compensation for loss due to looting Claims for compensation for losses resulting from looting are high among both IDPs and returnees. 84% of IDPs in Batticaloa, and 65% of non-HSZ IDPs in Trincomalee reported that their houses were looted after displacement, while only 26% of HSZ IDPs were aware that their houses were looted. Of those IDPs who reported
POLICY BRIEF - Towards a National Policy for Housing, Land and Property Restitution in Sri Lanka
looting, over 50% of IDPs from Trincomalee made claims for compensation, the majority of them with the police. A majority of IDPs in Batticaloa who filed claims filed them with the DS. However, 66% of those who reported loss by looting in Batticaloa did not file a claim, for reasons which include - that they didn’t think they would receive anything, or were unaware that they could make a claim. None of those who have made claims for loss by looting have received any compensation at the time of interviewing. Incidents of looting recorded among returnees are higher (probably due to greater awareness of the conditions of their homes). Of the 93% whose houses were looted, 70% filed claims for compensation, a majority with the police, and 4% with the DS. The general understanding (in Batticaloa) is that there will be no compensation for looted items as of yet, though returnees have registered their losses with the DS (and though there is an official claims form for loss by looting). Policy Issue 3 The need for a better definition of the different entitlements arising from losses due to displacement, based on both legal and equitable criteria, and commensurate compensation for each of these entitlements, together with a distinct claims procedure.
5. Access to information Having access to information is especially important for displaced people. While in displacement and even after return, displaced persons live with an Contact with authorised uncertain future ahead of re.house during displacement (%) them and often outside of social support structures. 80 73 Knowledge of the situation 70 63 Yes back home, and the assistance 60 No available upon return – for 50 housing, livelihoods and 40 37 for their general welfare – is 30 27 important to enable people 20 to make informed decisions about the best way for them 10 0 to find durable solutions to IDPs Returnees displacement. Throughout CHART 25 the survey, interviewees indicated that information is hard to come by, often vague or inaccurate, and leaves them with no choice but to wait and see what is to follow. For instance, while assistance under the UAS scheme is available to returning IDPs, very few of them (3% of returnees in Batticaloa) indicated the UAS as a factor which influenced them to return. There is an apparent gap in information with regard to available schemes of assistance and compensation and eligibility criteria for these schemes. IDPs and returnees were asked whether they had been in touch with authorities or agencies about the condition of their home during displacement. As shown here, most IDPs have sought information, while most returnees stated that they had not been in contact with authorities regarding the condition of their homes while still displaced. We assume that one reason for the difference in contact with authorities between the two groups may be that most returnees
interviewed returned in 2007, relatively soon after open conflict ended. In contrast, the IDPs interviewed are still displaced more than one year after the fighting ended. It is supposed that over time there has been more space for contact with authorities, and people are increasingly anxious to know about the condition of their homes. Even though 73% of the IDPs interviewed stated that they had been in contact with authorities about the condition of their home (chart 25), the majority of IDPs (53%) stated that they did not know the condition of their home (see chart 25). Among the returnees interviewed, 51% were unaware about the condition of their home before return (see chart 26). Interviewees who had information about the condition of their home while still in displacement (both IDPs and returnees) received this information from a variety of sources, as shown in chart 27 below. For both groups, the question was Yes No asked from the perspective of CHART 26 displacement, i.e. returnees were asked whether they had received information about the condition of their home during displacement, and if so, from where. Received news about condition of home before return - returnees (%) 60 51 49 50 40 30 20 10 0
In the second half of 2007, the number of ‘go and see visits’ (whereby IDPs are taken to their original lands) in return areas increased. This positive development is clearly reflected in chart 27. However, many IDPs and returnees still had to rely on friends or family as a source of information, instead of receiving information directly through go and see visits or Government authorities. Source of information The increase in the number of go and see visits particularly is 60 59 condition of home (%) 55 a step in the right direction. Go & see visit However, 53% of IDPs 50 Government authorities and 51% of returnees knew Friends or family nothing about the condition 40 Other 34 of their homes while in Don’t know 29 displacement, indicating that 30 there is still a significant lack of information that needs 20 to be addressed. Access to 10 9 information needs to be given 10 its due importance. If the 2 2 displaced population in the 0 IDPs (N=78) Returnees (N=159) East is to truly benefit from CHART 27 the development that has been planned for the East, they need to be given adequate information and genuine opportunities to participate in this process of development that impacts their lives. Giving people access to information is one step to ensure that they become part of the process, which would also lead to better ownership of the process and less frustration on the part of displaced persons.
Policy Issue 4 There is a lack of access to information and a process to empower and enable displaced persons to actively participate in decisions that affect HLP restitution and their post-displacement lives.
POLICY BRIEF - Towards a National Policy for Housing, Land and Property Restitution in Sri Lanka
6. Housing Standards Most interviewees stated that they used to live in houses built from cement blocks or bricks before they became displaced, indicating a high quality of housing stock in most areas affected by the conflict (see chart 28). The number of people who stated that they used to have a cement block or brick house before displacement was especially high among IDPs who cannot return due to the current boundaries of the High Security Zone, as indicated in chart 29.
Quality of original home (%) 80 Cement blocks/bricks
60
Cadjun / Clay
50
Tin sheet
40
Wood
30
Other 20
20
80
1
0
HSZ IDPs 71
Trinco non-HSZ IDPs
60
56 46
Batti IDPs Batti Returnees
40
20
0
58
CHART 29
1
CHART 28
98 78
17
10
Cement blocks / Bricks (as % of group) 100
The above information indicates a disparity in the perception of what constitutes a permanent house. Unless a standard for permanent housing is defined, which is adequate and in keeping with the majority perception of what constitutes a permanent house, this issue is bound to lead to much discontentment and friction within the resettlement process in the East.
70
70
housing. The interviewees claim that agencies have used inferior materials to re-build their homes, or have offered to build permanent houses which are more akin to temporary shelters.
IDPswere further asked to give a description of the land they used to live on. The answers to this question corroborate the conclusion drawn above that most IDPs used to have quality housing and land before they became displaced (see chart 30)
As indicated from the data above, a significant number of returnees live in welfare camps and temporary Description of housing land - IDPs (%) shelters on their 1 own lands or on the Plot of land with 6 lands of others (see only a house chart 12). Many Plot of land with a house and homegarden of them are living 22 in anticipation of Plot of land with a house, homegarden permanent housing, and large trees 71 for which some of Other them have been CHART 30 registered by the relevant Divisional Secretary or the Grama Niladhari. As the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;permanent houseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; phase is due to commence for a number of returnees, there is an apparent lack of clarity among both the beneficiaries and agencies of what constitutes a permanent house. In an area of Pallikudiurrupu for instance, the majority of those interviewed were unhappy with the shelter that they have been given. The beneficiaries claim the shelter provided is of a temporary nature, while officials have declared it to be permanent. There is also contention concerning the assistance given by donor agencies for the repair of damaged houses and for the building of permanent
While it is noted that 37% of those interviewed previously lived in houses built of Cadjun/Clay or Tin Sheet, a process of restitution based on considerations of rights and equity must essentially pay due regard to concerns of adequacy both in the quality of the house that is repaired or replaced, and the overall living conditions of displaced persons who have suffered much through involuntary displacement due to conflict. Policy Issue 5 The need for a definition of housing standards that are relevant to the context of displacement, and which are in keeping with the requirements of the human right to adequate housing and international standards for HLP restitution.
CONCLUSION Restitution is not just about replacing a house or land, it is also about enabling people to regain their pre-displacement situation as far as practicably possible. HLP restitution is one significant means by which the right of displaced persons to re-establish their lives can be realized. There is a sufficient institutional and procedural structure that is able to carry forward a process of adequate HLP restitution, if directed by a coherent policy and plan for resettlement and restitution. Of considerable concern in the current socio-economic context of Sri Lanka is the lack of resources (and funding) to take forward the resettlement process into the development phase, including the restitution of adequate permanent houses for displaced persons. It is encouraging however that the Government of Sri Lanka has initiated a process to formulate a resettlement policy incorporating the return of and HLP restitution for conflict displaced persons. A policy that reflects the will and the commitment to follow a systematized process would be a positive step that precedes finding the means to accomplish its purpose. The lack of financial resources does not negate the rights and entitlements of displaced persons affected by the conflict to have access to durable solutions to their displacement. It is hoped that the rights based policy issues highlighted in this policy brief, and the policy recommendations based on the above survey (and other research associated with the survey) which are to follow, will be a reference point, and constitute a component of the overall national policy for the resettlement of displaced persons. Initiated by the Ministry of Resettlement and Disaster Relief, with coordination by the UNDP
Design and print: Wits Associates