October 21, 2010

A Humanitarian Response Index (HRI) team travelled to Sri Lanka for the third year to analyze donor response to the displacement crisis one year after the end of the conflict between the Government of Sri Lanka and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

One year on

The quarter of a century-long conflict in Sri Lanka has devastated the northern and eastern regions of the country and claimed the lives of more than 80,000 people. After a major push, the government declared victory in May 2009. During the last months of the conflict, grave violations of international humanitarian law were committed by both sides. The conflict left hundreds of thousands of people displaced and seeking refuge with host families or in temporary camps and centres.

HRI team in Sri Lanka

After winning the war, the Sri Lankan government increased its control over the response, calling on the international community to “reprofile [their] presence”. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been trying to negotiate a framework agreement with the government since July 2009.

Over 280,000 IDPs who were previously in the conflict area of the north and fled were held in Sri Lankan Army (SLA) internment camps (with 250,000 in Menik Farm). There was no freedom of movement and humanitarian access was limited. In October 2009, the government announced its “Crash Resettlement Programme”- an accelerated release of IDPs from the camps. At the moment there is increased movement for the nearly 100,000 still in camps and some returnees are even trying to go back to the camps because of the conditions in their districts of origin: absence of public infrastructure, adequate shelter, medical services and access to basic services. There are huge needs for basic humanitarian support in the return areas and little response from the international community. Many of these regions were also damaged by the Tsunami five years ago.

Challenges: government control over the response

The main challenge that donor countries face in this crisis is the government’s tight grip on the response. With the Presidential Task Force having to oversee everything, international presence and aid are diminishing. Overcoming the resentment and aversion towards the international community and negative image of aid agencies prompted by the government in the national media is key. The absence and rejection of a Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP) created doubts on whether the government will favour or allow any international involvement. An overall framework for the response is lacking. These factors have limited access, making it a major constraint in the response. A weak UN system and uncertain funding in the future remain other key challenges.

The response: donor fatigue

There is now increasingly a lack of donor response to humanitarian needs. During the conflict, donors were viewed as attempting to follow a principled approach when responding to the humanitarian situation. However, since the government declared the end of the conflict, there has been complete shift in donor positioning. The government’s animosity towards international actors has meant a lower incentive for them to engage.

Under provisions for “rapid response funding” US$23.5 million (CERF) were allocated to Sri Lanka in 2009. The operation was well funded, considering that a lack of access also reduced agency expenditure and capacity to respond throughout the year. This year Sri Lanka has received US$13.7 million in CERF funds.

Major gaps to the response included a lack of planning and adequate assistance for the IDP influx and those accommodated in camps as of April 2010. There is also a huge shelter problem. Some state that the resettlement process has failed to meet international standards for safe and dignified returns. There has been little or no consultation with the displaced and no independent monitoring. With regards to protection, the lack of ICRC access to the “surrendered” population is a concern.