Financial Times

Govt. aid:Rhetoric and reality
There seems to be a strange gap between government claims of providing relief to tsunami victims and the reality faced by those affected. The Task Force to Rebuild the Nation has taken to publishing advertisements in the media about the work it is doing and measures being taken to help victims, especially in the sphere of providing housing.

But the reality faced by victims living in tents or other places of refuge appears to be much different from the promises by government through impressive advertisements. This has been revealed by people who have travelled to affected areas and spoken to the victims.

There appears to be near universal agreement that the task of rebuilding the nation, which the government has turned into some kind of image building exercise, has got off to a slow start and that aid and relief are still to reach the needy in the required manner. There have been protests among victims although the state media has tried to make out that these have been engineered by the UNP.

To be sure, in a disaster of this magnitude there are bound to be mistakes made, delays in delivering aid and corruption. It is also inevitable that those less responsible sections of opposition political parties will seek to capitalise on this tragedy to attack the government.

But what is undeniable is that there are serious delays in giving aid to the victims and much confusion and controversy over the 100-metre no-building zone rule.

All this could have been avoided if the government had adopted a more realistic attitude and shown a willingness to be flexible and to consult those affected by the tsunami before taking decisions that affect the lives of victims.

A good example of the disorganization in the government is the 100-metre no-building rule. There appears to be no scientific basis to this rule, or at least for applying it as rigidly as the government proposes. Despite noises about consulting the victims before taking action, no such consultation appears to have been done. Instead, the government is stubbornly sticking to its decision whereas the prudent thing would be to demonstrate some flexibility.

There also appears to be some discrimination in the manner in which this rule is to be implemented, even if such discrimination is unintended. Existing tourist hotels and those approved just before the tsunami struck are to be allowed to stay and to go ahead with construction while ordinary people, especially fisherfolk whose livelihood depends on access to the sea, are to be deprived of their coastal homes.

Most residents of coastal areas appear adamant about wanting to stick on in their traditional habitats. The uncertainty over the 100-metre rule has prompted many developers to put their hotel projects on hold. This is not good for future investments or for the country's image. Another pressing issue is lack of suitable land to house the displaced.

The damage caused by the tsunami has not been uniform as revealed by a Peradeniya University field survey which said that some areas suffered more, some less, and in certain parts of the coast there was no damage at all. In some areas waves had penetrated far beyond 100-metres, even over a kilometre.

What is required is to identify vulnerable areas which can be done by the use of modelling techniques as has been proposed and to adopt a balanced approach where a compromise is made between risks posed by natural disasters and the need to minimize disrupting the lives of people by relocating them against their will. A buffer zone is certainly necessary but it should be applied sensibly.

Back to Business