UNHCR REPORT - 2006 - IHDP

DRAFT – Not for Circulation
The dramatic change in preferred durable solutions may be the result of the publicity
surrounding the proposed World Bank housing project and misunderstandings regarding the
purpose of the 2006 revalidation exercise in relation to the receipt of assistance under the
proposed housing project.
Of those wishing to integrate locally, 75% (11,118 families) possess land in Puttalam. Of
these, 74% (8,281 families) have documentation to prove their land ownership. As noted
above, the overwhelming number of IDPs who own land in Puttalam indicates that a majority
of the Puttalam IDPs have de facto locally integrated. Given the relatively high number of
families who possess land and have valid land documents, the 2004 report suggested that it
might be warranted for the Government to review “who is still an IDP as many have
registered but were already living in a relocation village and may have had a durable
solution.” Similar conclusions may be drawn from an analysis of the 2006 survey data.
It is important to note however, that local integration of the Puttalam WC population will
need to be officially supported through Government assistance to facilitate land ownership,
the acquisition of deed documentation and development assistance designed to improve
physical infrastructure and access to public services such as medical and educational
facilities. Without this assistance, sustainable integration will not be achieved. Moreover,
voter registration in Puttalam District and the voting rights of the Puttalam IDPs will also
need to be examined in order to ensure sustainable integration. IDPs should be provided with
full information on their right to return, restitution and compensation, and while IDPs should
be able to choose their place of residence in accordance with the fundamental rights
guaranteed in the Sri Lankan Constitution, they should also be made aware of the
implications of not being registered voters of Puttalam District. There should be some
discussion of how to allocate sufficient resources to the DS of Puttalam to ensure equal
access to public infrastructure and services.
Interestingly, of those wishing to return to their place of origin, only 68% (371 families)
possessed land, and only 23% (128 families) had documentation to prove their land rights. Of
those wishing to return home, and who possessed land that was available (i.e. not in a HSZ or
occupied by another), 78% (109 families) claimed to have documentation to prove their land
rights. The fact of landlessness, compounded by lack of documentation, will pose significant
obstacles to the return of these families.
A relatively small number of families (116 or less than 1%) reported that some of their family
members had returned to their district of origin. Of those families whose preferred solution
was return home, 16 (3%) reported that they had family members who had already returned
to their district of origin.
Final Report on the 2006 Revalidation of the 2004 Puttalam WC Survey
April 2006
10