Jaffna Welfare Center Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Danish Refugee Council Sri Lanka Jaffna Welfare Centre Assessment – Final Report Background The families living in Jaffna’s Welfare Centres are categorized as long-term displaced, with the earliest displacement taking place in 1983, and families first arriving in the Welfare Centres in 1984. Since then, most of their ‘places of origin’ were declared – and currently remain – as high security zones (HSZ), so no return has yet been possible. The tsunami in December 2004 and the resulting massive displacement and devastation caused on coastal areas of the country drew mass media attention and funding to the populations affected by that disaster. Four of the Centres surveyed had received tsunami funding. However, the renewal of hostilities in August 2006 led to the closure of the A9 highway that linked Jaffna to the rest of the island. Since then access to Jaffna has been severely restricted. Prior to August 2006, the long-term displaced had developed coping mechanisms that allowed for a reasonable standard of living. The closure of the A9 and subsequent loss of access to markets, coupled with the loss of livelihoods (fertile farm land and coastal/fishing areas are within the HSZs) has severely impacted on the Jaffna population. DRC Jaffna As part of its partnership project with UNHCR, Danish Refugee Council opened a sub-office in Jaffna in March 2007 and undertook an assessment of the Jaffna Welfare Centres, to gain a better picture of the situation. The Assessment Assessments began in May 2007 and were completed in late July. By prior agreement, the DRC teams covered 57 Welfare Centres in the divisions of Chankanai, Kopay, Nallur, Sandilipay, Tellipalai and Uduvil while the UNHCR team covered the 12 Welfare Centres in Karaveddy, Maruthankerny and Point Pedro (See maps in Appendices II and III). The 2-member teams (1 male and 1 female) spent an average of 1.5 days at each Welfare Centre to collect and verify data. Teams met with a number of IDPs from each location, seeking to get as broad a representation of age and gender as possible, and trying to include at least one representative of each Centre’s IDP Committee, if one existed. They also interviewed special cases, vulnerable individuals and talked with many families as they walked through the Centres. Notes on the data: • Data, such as numbers and types of shelters, wells, and toilets, were visually verified by the teams. While much other information could not be precisely verified, the degree of consistency across all 69 centres lends credibility to the information; Jaffna Welfare Centre Assessment – Final Report • The data from the 4 tsunami-assisted Welfare Centres for shelter, water and sanitation has been disaggregated in order not to skew the averages. These 4 locations represent less than 6% of all Welfare Centres, but they account for 11% of all shelters, 49% of all wells, and 30% of all toilets. In addition, the housing is of the permanent variety, and the families have received or are receiving permits to remain on the land. Therefore, the averages used in the narrative and charts represent the 65 Welfare Centres that did not receive this tsunami assistance. The graph and table below illustrate the need for this disaggregation by showing the ratio of families to shelters, wells and toilets in tsunami assisted and non tsunami assisted Welfare Centres. 2500 2228 1823 2000 Families 1500 Shelters 1000 Potable wells 516 Toilets 500 281 236 205 218 99 0 Tsunami Non-Tsunami Overview of Tsunami vs Non-Tsunami Assisted Welfare Centres Wells Toilets Families Persons Flood Shelter Potable Total Potable Need Total Perma Need prone water repair nent repair Non- 2,228 8.548 40 1,823 38 210 99 105 516 153 229 tsunami (65) Tsunami (4) 281 1,104 2 236 4 205 205 3 218 218 0 • It is important to note that the unit for the data is the Welfare Centre, not individual families. Most Welfare Centre families were displaced in groups rather than individually, and, therefore, the conditions - under which they fled, under which they now live, and which affect their ability to return - are largely the same for families within a Welfare Centre. Sections A 6-page form (Appendix I) was developed in consultation with UNHCR and with technical input from other UN agencies and NGOs. The information presented is organized into 12 sections following the site reference: information sources, demographics, current location, shelter, water and sanitation, health and medical, place of origin, protection, safety and security, food and nutrition, livelihoods, and education. General: The brief analysis that follows is intended purely as a guide to understanding the data better. The full database is available on CD by request. Page 2 of 22 Jaffna Welfare Centre Assessment – Final Report Site Reference Information This section includes the name of the division where the centre is located, the GS code, GS Officer’s name, site name, and numerical reference number. The distribution of centres across divisions is illustrated below. Welfare Centres by Division 16 15 14 12 12 12 11 10 8 7 5 Centres 6 4 4 2 1 Number of Welfare 2 0 i y a ny lur r al ke nkan Kopa n N Uduvil a raveddy a Tellipalai Sandilipay Ch K Point Pedro Marutha 1. Information Sources The names of IDPs interviewed were recorded, and their role in the community. However, this information is kept confidential. Page 3 of 22 Jaffna Welfare Centre Assessment – Final Report 2. Demographics • Total Families: 2,509 • Total Individuals: 9,652 • Average Family Size: 3.8 0-<2 yrs. 2-5 yrs 6-17 yrs 18-59 yrs >60 yrs Total M 188 395 1,489 2,351 235 4,658 F 191 376 1,480 2,692 255 4,994 Total 379 771 2,969 5,043 490 9,652 The population is categorized into age and gender groups, as well as vulnerable categories. Women represent 52% of the total population, and 81% of the vulnerable population. Slightly more than 15% of the population falls into one or more vulnerable categories, with the largest group being single-headed households which account for 24% of all families. Welfare Centre Population by Division 600 499 516 500 385 400 382 284 300 241 200 160 100 Number of Families 15 27 0 y y y r ai a n u vil n p ll u o er K nk Na Ud ha Tellipalai t Sandilipay Chanka Karavedd u Point Pedro Mar Extremely Vulnerable Individuals (EVIs): • Single-headed households: 605 (97 male / 508 female) (24% of households) • Physically disabled 204 (132 male / 72 female) • Mentally disabled 29 (13 male / 16 female) • Separated/unaccompanied children 12 (5 male / 7 female) • Elderly without support 99 (29 male / 70 female) • Pregnant women 115 • Lactating women 385 Page 4 of 22 Jaffna Welfare Centre Assessment – Final Report 3. Current Location Information • Site ownership: 80% (55) privately owned • Problems with landowner: 10% (7) • Registration of IDPs by: o GS 100% o IDP Committee 77% (53) o SLA 59% (41) 3% • Contact with DS/GS: 3% 6% As needed Frequency of meetings with DS/GS: 9% 19% As needed: 3% (2) Rarely 1% Rarely: 19% (13) Weekly Weekly: 59% (41) Bi-weekly Monthly: 9% (6) Monthly Bi-monthly: 3% (2) Bi-monthly Never: 6% (4) Never 59% • Responsiveness of DS/GS: 50 40 30 DS 20 GS 10 0 Good Fair Poor • Road type: o Tar 67% (46) o Gravel 16% (11) o Clay 17% (12) • Flood prone: 61% (42) • Average walking/cycling time to nearest town: 22 min • Mobile coverage: 99% (68) • Received assistance in past 6 months: 32% (22 of 69) • Average number of agencies active in the Welfare Centre: 1 (18 had none) • With Community Centre or other common building: 59% (41) Page 5 of 22 Jaffna Welfare Centre Assessment – Final Report • Community-Based Organizations: IDP Committee 61% (42) Women’s Committee 56% (39) Children’s Committee 38% (26) Sports Committee 41% (28) Agriculture Committee 4% (3) Fishing Committee 18% (12) • Constraints in current location: Lack of livelihood 100% (69) Firewood collection 91% (63) Documentation 57% (39) • Birth certificate – 32 Centres (46%) • Death certificate – 14 Centres (20%) • Marriage certificate – 25 Centres (36%) • National ID Card (NIC) – 31 Centres (45%) Fear of attacks / harassment / intimidation 12% (8) Discrimination in delivery of assistance 9% (6) Displacement / constant movement 6% (4) Proximity to conflict areas / forward defense lines 4% (3) Schools destroyed / damaged 3% (2) Tensions with host communities 3% (2) Undue pressure to return 3% (2) Current Priority Water 7% Shelter 7% Employment Food Sanitation Sanitation 16% Employment Shelter 50% Water Food 20% Page 6 of 22 Jaffna Welfare Centre Assessment – Final Report 4. Shelter This data has been disaggregated to exclude the 4 Welfare Centres that received permanent housing as a result of tsunami assistance. In the remaining 65 Welfare Centres, 2,228 families are living in 1,823 shelters. One Centre in Uduvil has only communal shelter for its 22 families, while the remaining sites have individual shelters or a combination of individual and communal. Types of Individual Shelters Number of Centres with Types of Shelter 7% 7% 59 60 40 20 86% 5 1 0 Individual Communal Both Temporary Transitional Semi-Permanent Shelter definitions: TYPE DEFINITION Designed for post-emergency, short duration; concrete posts, timber roof structure, Temporary cadjan roof and side cover; floor of mud and cow dung (Rs. 45,000) Designed for more than 1 year; concrete posts, timber roof structure, zinc-coated Transitional aluminum roof sheets, half wall of mud brick, plywood or cadjan side cover, floor of mud with cement plaster (Rs. 100,000) Designed for long duration; concrete posts, timber roof structure, zinc-coated Semi-permanent aluminum roof sheets, half wall of concrete bricks plastered with cements, plywood or tin sheet side cover, floor of concrete with cement plaster (Rs.