LST’s initiative to further rights based development
View(s):Sri Lanka’s Law and Society Trust recently held a forum in Colombo on “Sri Lanka’s Road to Sustainable Development” aimed at furthering the discourse on human rights based approach to development in the context of post war Sri Lanka.
While the forum featured ideas and points of view from a variety of actors:
political, academic and civil society what follows is a brief summary of the main points; which are presented here in order to carry forward the discussions initiated at the forum, the LST said releasing the proceedings to the media.
Part of the Urban Regeneration Project
UN Resident Coordinator in Sri Lanka, Subinay Nandy commenced the discussion with his keynote address and noted that the recent surge in infrastructure development needed to be tempered with equal attention being paid to social justice. He also focused on the need to uphold the rights of disabled persons and involve them as stakeholders in the development process.
Urban Development and its consequences
The resettlement of residents from low-income households often referred to as ‘slums and shanties’ as part of the Urban Regeneration Project (URP) by the Urban Development Authority (UDA) was the main focal point.
The key issues raised, consistent with recent reports, were inadequate compensation, heavy handed approach towards residents, as well as ignoring rights of some residents who own deeds to the land. Discussion focused on families having to pay up to Rs. 1 million in 20 years for alternate housing offered by the UDA, which residents complain are significantly low in quality and smaller than their original homes and thus unsuitable for conducting small home-based businesses, through which many families supported themselves. This is in addition to having to uproot their livelihoods some of which depend on proximity to the metropolitan areas. A few weeks back some UDA officials threatened the residents of 34 Watta in Wanathamulla who filed petitions seeking to resolve the matter in court. The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has also issued a prevention order. The Appeal Court in which a petition had been filed prior to demolition has ordered the UDA to settle the matter through an amicable solution.
“This trend development tactics that marginalise the urban poor, as noted in the discussion is not challenged, due to the lack of interest by many politicians, the lack of awareness of rights by low-income dwellers but more importantly the apathy of the middle class of Colombo as these changes have minimal adverse effects on their livelihoods. The need for such discourse from the public including the middle class was emphasised within the session not merely to oppose the UDA but also to contribute and perhaps amend the process of development which looks to create a better future for all – including the low-income dwellers,” it was noted.
Earlier in the session a presentation on the Urban Regeneration Project detailed the efforts put into improving the current status quo through many development projects which included the Pettah floating market, Wanathamulla residencies and Slave Island residencies to name a few. However, the tone of the discussion emphasised the need for change to end the forced land acquisition, to provide proper compensation and to engage in inclusive development.
“The private right to land vs public development: irreconcilable differences?” was a discussion in which the panellists were Eran Wickramaratne – MP, Anushka Wijesinha – research economist at the Institute of Policy Studies and A. Weerasena, senior consultant to the Urban Development Authority (UDA). Moderator: Niran Anketell, Attorney-at-Law, expert on Human Rights and Constitutional Law The fact that Sri Lanka’s legislation already has adequate safeguards in place, as exemplified by the National Involuntary Resettlement Policy (NIRP) was one of the key legal points raised during the initial presentations.
Panellists also mentioned that many of Sri Lanka’s land policies are pro poor; for instance the Paddy Lands Act of 1953 was enacted to secure the rights of tenant cultivators to ensure secure tenure. Further elaborations were made on the placement of notice of acquisition – i.e. it is implicit in the Land Acquisition Act that the owner of the land is on the premises at the time the notice is issued.
However, land acquisition and compensation that has disrupted the lives of people in regions like Sampur or Kalpitiya raised the question whether the private right to land, and development in the interests of the nation as a whole, are necessarily irreconcilable.
The issue of justifiability and proper compensation was stressed by panellists who went on to point out that mediation maybe preferred to court cases in resolving issues. However, these negotiations are hard to come by due to the lack of rights awareness by low-income land owners, whose livelihoods are threatened due to the lack of interim measures of these mega developments drives, the LST release said.
The long unresolved matter of Muslim IDPs drew attention to the multi-faceted discriminatory effect that current policies have on this community. The lack of an official state policy on IDPs – which leaves no legal recourse for Northern Muslim IDPs to pursue resettlement or durable solutions, was raised as a major obstacle to resolving this issue. The lack of acknowledgement by the state is also problematic – as Muslims displaced from the North during the conflict in the 1990s are excluded from official displacement figures. With regard to those displaced by development projects, once again the National Involuntary Resettlement Policy was hailed as having the potential to provide durable solutions, provided that it is fully implemented.
Social Justice and Development: “The Rich, the Poor and the Benefits of Development” – was another discussion in which the panellists were Rajiva Wijesinha – MP, A.M Faaiz -Attorney At Law, member of Sri Lanka Muslim Congress; and Rasika Mendis, Attorney at Law and independent legal and policy consultant. Moderator: Gehan Gunatilleke, Attorney-at-Law, Senior Analyst, Verité Research The need for good governance in order to implement a human rights based approach towards development was the focus of the panel. It was noted that integration of Social Justice as an intrinsic part of development would not only create a sustainable future but also contribute to resolving current issues, including the issues raised in the prior sessions.
One of the participants, Prof. Savitri Goonesekere drew attention to the Buddhist stanza at the end of the Constitution, the stanza concludes with the line “May the ruler be righteous.” She emphasised that those who wield political authority must realise that their authority derives solely from their ability to serve the public. The inclusion of women in the development process, as opposed to casting them off as helpless bystanders unable to actively participate in their communities flagged by panelists may need urgent attention as resettlement takes place in the north and the east.
The incorporation of the concept of social justice into the development machinery as well as into governance was echoed by all the panellists. The need for serious constitutional amendments, if not a complete overhaul, in order to initiate good governance was brought forward in the discussions in the Q & A session. By way of explanation, the expenses and resources needed for competing in re-elections was cited as a major reason for lack of good governance and embezzlement as politicians attempt to raise adequate funds to stand a fighting chance in the next election.
The discussion on “Social justice and whether the poor are benefitting from the post-war development drive” saw the presence of Vasantha Senanayake – MP; Feizal Samath – journalist; and Prof. Savitri Goonesekere, an international expert on the rights of Women and Children on the panel. The moderator was Shanthi A. Sachithanandam, Chief Executive Officer, Viluthu.