Focus on Rights

Do we need a peoples planning commission for Lanka?
Recent proposals by grassroots activist networks including the Movement for National Land and Agricultural Reform, National Fisheries Solidarity and Women's Action for Social Justice, that a Peoples Planning Commission ought to be set up in order that peoples concerns be taken into account more substantially during the post tsunami period raise some interesting questions.

In the abstract, such a proposal is no doubt attractive given the undeniable reality that the process of planning since the biggest natural disaster to us for decades has been Colombo centered and woefully problematic in its process. Months after the disaster, people are still living in tents and lack the basic identity that is required to live their lives with the semblance of dignity that they possessed earlier.

Reams have been written meanwhile not only about the inadequacies of the government machinery utilised purportedly in their aid and the corruption manifested in the process but also about the equally corrupt interventions made by international aid actors as well as newly sprung community groups and non governmental organisations. This is, of course, not an unusual phenomenon. Disaster experts have long examined similar phenomena in other countries stricken by natural disasters. Unfortunately, solutions proposed for the mitigation of such obscenely unprincipled processes have been more in the theory rather than in practical terms. In the default thereof, ordinary people continue to suffer manifold miseries.

In this context, public hearings and deliberations by a Peoples Planning Commission may at least serve the objective of bringing these issues into the public arena in a manner that may 'name and shame.' The reasons why activists have proposed such a Commission have been spelt out by them in no uncertain terms. In the first instance, a singular concern is that the Task Force to Rebuild the Nation (TAFREN) comprises only big business leaders, the majority major operators in the tourism industry, with no representation of the expertise of the affected people and sectors of society and economy such as the small-scale coastal fishing communities.
In addition, they have critiqued the manner in which international financial institutions such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, and the 'donor' agencies from countries such as the US, Japan and EU have interacted with the government in relation to the aid process. This intervention, activists claim, lack the same elements of people based planning that characterises government actions which has admitted only a few elite 'civil society' actors while omitting others who work closely with the people.

Plans prepared in this regard have been at staggering amounts. Examples such as the document 'Rebuilding the Tsunami Affected Area' (an estimated cost of $1.5 billion, completed by 13th January 2005 or within 10 days of the appointment), 'Rebuilding Sri Lanka' (estimated cost of $1.8 billion completed in March), 'Post-Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Strategy' (estimated cost of $2.1 billion submitted to the 'donor meetings' in Geneva in early May and at the Sri Lanka Development Forum in Kandy in mid-May), are being cited. It is further alleged that these documents are being formulated with minimum input from the actual victims of the tsunami.

Sensibly, it is questioned as to whether the planners really intend to help the recovery of the affected people and to rebuild their lives and livelihoods by such planning processes. The allegation is clear: Are these plans only intended for the further benefitting of a few rich individuals and corporate personalities who already have substantial interests in the hospitality sector? Would this process not lead to further marginalisation and displacement of the affected coastal fisher population and a massive process of destruction of their livelihoods?

Articulated fears of some of the grassroots groups working with fisher families hinge on the proposed Tourism Master Plan which has stated that 'in a cruel twist of fate, [tsunami] has presented Sri Lanka with a unique opportunity [to become] a world class tourism destination'. They ask as to whether the goal of being such a 'world class tourist destination' will be at the expense of the poor and marginalised victims of the tsunami who will be subjected to forced evictions and further displacement?

The proposals that have been included in the plans have raised consequent concerns thereby. These proposals include pushing the fisher people inland to make the beaches available for the expansion of tourism, suggested construction of fifteen new large-scale tourism development zones, making the revival of the livelihoods of small-scale fisher people almost impossible and even their relocation uncertain, revival of the strategy of introducing large-scale Resurgence of the proposed building of motorways, including a new highway from Matara to Batticaloa (to be funded by the EU), in addition to the 4 motorways proposed earlier.

Meeting these plans head on, grassroots activists have suggested and are now in the process of launching a strategy of a People's Process. Such a process, they argue, will first work towards giving the affected people the understanding that it is their 'right' to have immediate relief as well as entitlement to a process of rehabilitation that would lead to a meaningful rebuilding of their lives and livelihoods.

Such a right is premised on the basis that the financial resources to be used in their aid has been generated through the generosity of the people or by utilising taxpayers' money in various countries or through loans obtained by the government. Such moneys which have been raised in their name, belongs to them. Consequently, they have a right to decide and plan how these resources have to be utilised.

In earlier columns, it was pointed out that whether the issue concerns a major expressway or the substantial rebuilding of infrastructure that is devastated owing to a natural calamity, the guiding principles are the same. Where the priorities of sustainable development, (economic cost as well as environmental cost), are not transparent/accountable and involve massive human cost, such processes are in violation of basic rights.

A particular duty of reasonableness is imposed thereby on the Government to engage in careful and meticulous planning when putting into effect the proposed rebuilding after the tsunami in a manner that balances competing ecological concerns and proportionately affects members of the community as little as possible. The Directive Principles of State Policy as contained in Article 27(14) of the Constitution specifically requires the State to protect, preserve and improve the environment for the benefit of the community.

Management of vast highway projects as well as the future development of the coastal zone in Sri Lanka should be subject to a public trust, to be exercised for the benefit of the public, primarily the affected individuals. Actions of the donors as well as that of the government should be strictly monitored for this purpose.

Back to Columns