VZCZCXRO8683
OO RUEHIK
DE RUEHLM #1148/01 3510517
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 170517Z DEC 09 ZDK
FM AMEMBASSY COLOMBO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0998
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA PRIORITY 2189
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 9213
RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU PRIORITY 7463
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 5312
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 3616
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO PRIORITY 5238
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 0102
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM PRIORITY 0773
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 4360
RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI PRIORITY 9773
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI PRIORITY 7064
RUEHON/AMCONSUL TORONTO PRIORITY 0094
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 3928
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 COLOMBO 001148 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INSB 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PREF PHUM PTER EAID MOPS CE
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON KEY IDP PROTECTION ISSUES 
 
COLOMBO 00001148  001.6 OF 003 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Civilian population displacement issues in 
Sri Lanka have evolved rapidly over the last several months. 
Key protection issues identified most recently by the 
humanitarian community in Colombo include freedom of 
movement, transferred displacement, de-mining and 
demarcation, single-headed households, a need for the 
re-training for persons with disabilities, NGO access, 
infrastructure and services, land and property restitution, 
information sharing with IDPs, continued militarization of 
the North, the complications of returning "old IDPs," and the 
possibility of forced returns.  END SUMMARY. 
 
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT 
------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) As of December 6, the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that over 158,000 
IDPs had returned to their homes or been released to host 
families. Approximately 126,000 remained in camps.  The 
protection issues detailed below were identified as 
priorities through a donor update meeting hosted by UNHCR and 
the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) on December 8, 
a Human Rights Group meeting of donors, UN agencies and NGO 
presenters on December 9, and conversations with humanitarian 
aid actors over the past week. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The Government of Sri Lanka's (GSL) new freedom of 
movement policies may come with caveats. UNHCR reported that 
IDPs in some districts were told that if they did not return 
within 10 days they would be dropped from assistance rolls 
and/or ineligible for assisted returns, whereas Assistant 
Secretary Blake was told by Major General Gunaratne, 
Commander, Security Forces (Wanni) and Competent Authority 
for IDPs, at Manik Farm on December 8 that there was no limit 
on how long departees could remain outside the camps. 
December 10 marked the end of a 10 day period for the first 
group of departees, and UNHCR will monitor how many people 
come back and any repercussions for those who overstay their 
time outside the camps.  IDPs who receive exit passes are not 
permitted to visit other camps except under the previous 
visitation site policy.  Some individuals have been denied 
passes, presumably based on suspected LTTE associations. 
 
TRANSFERRED DISPLACEMENT 
------------------------ 
 
¶4. (SBU) Many people counted as "returnees" are actually 
currently with host families and may be without a durable 
solution until at least mid-2010.  Humanitarian actors 
emphasized the importance of maintaining a distinction 
between returns to places of origin and "returns" to sites of 
continued displacement.  IDPs would have differing assistance 
and protection needs depending on their returns status. 
UNHCR had developed a policy on what types of assistance 
would be provided to the different groups and urged the donor 
community not to forget about the longer term needs of those 
still in limbo.  According to UNHCR, 90 percent of the 69,000 
returns to Jaffna over the last two months were to host 
families. The main obstacles to returns to original homes 
included incomplete demining, homes in inaccessible high 
security zones, houses that had been destroyed during the 
war, and land ownership titling issues.  Other Jaffna-born 
returnees were waiting to return to the Vanni where they had 
settled for years previous to their most recent displacement. 
 In Mannar, 89 percent of those recently surveyed by an INGO 
were with host families. 
 
DEMINING AND DEMARCATION 
------------------------ 
 
 
COLOMBO 00001148  002.6 OF 003 
 
 
¶5. (SBU) In addition to the threats returnees face when 
returning to areas not fully demarcated, the UN cannot access 
areas lacking demining certification, and thus returnees must 
walk long distances, often through mined areas, to transit 
centers to pick up food and other assistance. Lack of UN 
presence in many areas also limits protection monitoring. 
Lack of demining in many paddy fields prevents farmers from 
planting and leaves them without a livelihood.  While some 
advocates continued to call for mine risk education, one INGO 
representative noted that IDPs from the Vanni had been 
educated about mines for years and that accidents would stem 
less from lack of awareness than the necessity of earning a 
living. 
 
SINGLE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS 
------------------------ 
 
¶6. (SBU) The war, subsequent disappearances, and large 
numbers of persons held in detention centers had left many 
people, primarily women, heading households on their own. 
Many were only recently on their own and had not yet 
developed coping strategies.  Some women did not yet feel 
capable of returning and preferred to stay in camps.  Some of 
those who did return felt vulnerable in isolated areas 
without electricity, or ill-equipped to rebuild their homes 
on their own.  Gender-based violence and exploitation has 
been reported in the camps and could also surface in returns 
areas.  IDPs had also reported considerable anxiety about 
separated family members, making family reunification an 
important part of recovery. 
 
RETRAINING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) Land-mine accidents and other war-related violence 
had left a large population of amputees and other disabled 
persons. They would need assistance developing new skills and 
livelihoods. 
 
NGO ACCESS 
---------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) NGOs and INGOs still lacked adequate access to 
returns areas.  While some INGOs have recently been granted 
access to work in the health sectors, others have had their 
applications for work in returns areas denied by the 
Presidential Task Force (PTF).  The Sri Lankan Consortium of 
Humanitarian Agencies had circulated guidelines entitled 
"Collaboration between Government and NGOs in North Sri 
Lanka" regarding selection of INGOs for approval and 
collaboration requirements, but INGOs had not received the 
guidelines directly from the PTF and it was unclear whether 
the PTF has approved them.  In addition to playing an 
important role in protection monitoring, INGOs could bring 
specialized services such as trauma recovery and 
physiotherapy if granted access. 
 
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES 
--------------------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) Many returns areas lack infrastructure, school 
systems, health care, transport vital to emergency medical 
care and other services.  UN agencies were working to ensure 
a smooth transition from relief to development activities. 
 
LAND AND PROPERTY RESTITUTION 
----------------------------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) As returns increase, so will property disputes in 
particular, as some of the more long-term IDPs begin to 
 
COLOMBO 00001148  003.12 OF 003 
 
 
return to areas more recently occupied by others.  Rule of 
law and transparency in the judicial system will be essential 
to resolving disputes, particularly where parties lack 
documentation. 
 
INFORMATION SHARING WITH IDPS 
----------------------------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) While the GSL had greatly improved the returns 
process by providing the International Organization for 
Migration advance notice of organized returns, the IDPs 
themselves were still excluded from the process. IDPs were 
asked to be on standby for organized returns for up to a 
week.  They were given insufficient detail about conditions 
in their areas of origin to make informed decisions about 
returning. 
 
DE-MILITARIZATION 
----------------- 
 
¶12. (SBU) In some areas, particularly Kilinochchi, the 
military maintained a strong presence and sometimes occupied 
civilian homes.  Interlocutors reported slow 
demilitarization.  High security zones continued to bar some 
returns as well. 
 
PREVIOUS IDPS 
------------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) The GSL has taken a new interest in the "old IDP" 
caseload of approximately 300,000 who were displaced before 
August 2008.  On December 7, Resettlement Minister Bathiudeen 
announced that the GSL would begin returning Muslim IDPs from 
the Northern Province back to their homes on December 26.  An 
estimated 65,000 to 72,000 Muslim Sri Lankans were expelled 
from the Northern Province by the LTTE in October 1990. They 
have lived in displacement for the last 19 years, mainly in 
camps in Puttalam.  The GSL had indicated that it would like 
UNHCR to extend its support, which now targets post-August 
2008 IDPs, to this caseload. UNHCR's budget provided only for 
the "new IDPs."  In UNHCR's view, the newer group was 
generally more vulnerable as it had not had access to 
livelihoods in camps.  However, UNHCR did recognize that 
there were vulnerable IDPs among the older group too, and 
would consider supporting them based on funding availability 
and donor input. 
 
POTENTIAL FOR FORCED RETURNS 
---------------------------- 
 
¶14. (SBU) One humanitarian advocate opined that political 
pressure could prompt the GSL to close Manik Farm completely 
before all IDPs had safe, viable destinations for return. 
The GSL could simply force returns and decline to continue to 
recognize IDPs or it could move people to transit camps in 
Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu.  Some felt transit camps would be 
preferable, but there is currently little humanitarian access 
to these areas. 
 
¶15. (SBU) COMMENT:  While recent GSL policy changes may be in 
part politically motivated as the election draws near, they 
are nonetheless welcome improvements. As IDPs move from camps 
to home or transferred displacement, the focus of those 
providing assistance will also shift, while continuing to 
provide for any residual population in the camps. Post will 
continue to monitor and report on protection issues.  End 
Comment. 
BUTENIS