Involuntary Displacement and Resettlement — Policy and ... - CEPA

The Western Province assessment found that slightly over 50% of the 1,323families living in transitional shelter sites in the Colombo district had notreceived any permanent housing assistance (Table 2 below), whichprompted an additional study to better understand the circumstances ofthese families.Table 2: Resettlement options for families in shelter sites in Colombo –May 2007ABCDFamilies who were notified of receiving apermanent house (donor driven)Families who received a land grant for Rs.250,000 (self-settlement)Families who received the grant andbought the land (as a % of B)Families who received neither (noresettlement assistance)# %160 12447 34418 93.5716 54Tsunami reconstruction followed a ‘house-to-house’ rule meaning that if onecould prove owning a house at the time of the tsunami, then that housewould be replaced. Table 2 shows the post-tsunami housing replacementmodalities. The first modality is donor-driven housing (A). Under thisscheme, the government handed over a block of land to a donor that usuallyhired a contractor to build rows of identical houses that were ‘handed over’to beneficiaries. The donor is responsible for constructing internal roads,providing water, sanitation and electricity and often a community centre or aplayground. The second modality is known as ‘owner-driven’ housing andhas two sub-divisions. The first type of owner driven housing is the receiptof a cash grant from the government of Rs. 250,000 to rebuild one’s housewhere the house was standing at the time of the tsunami (no relocationinvolved – not shown in Table 2). The second type of owner-driven housingwas the receipt of a cash grant of Rs. 250,000 to buy a piece of land forrelocation and then a second cash grant of Rs. 250,000 to build a house onthat newly-purchased piece of land (B, which I refer to as ‘self-settlement’).The high number of families (54%) in Colombo shelter sites that claimedthat they had yet to receive any housing resettlement assistance (D)prompted the follow-up study that is the subject of this section 9 .9The study, funded by UNICEF, was undertaken by UNOPS on behalf of the Center on HousingRights and Eviction (COHRE). The interview format included 97 questions that correspondedwith the various property rights regimes and land tenure arrangements that would have beenpossible at the time of the tsunami as well as questions about the family’s current location in thecompensation/resettlement process.184