Post Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction in Sri Lanka

Key Policy Issues and Concerns

Tsunami was a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon in Sri Lanka. The absence of any public knowledge of its natural warnings has caused heavy human casualties. Want of a tradition of risk mitigation in construction has added to the damage caused to human settlements. Although most of the coastline of Sri Lanka has been affected by the tsunami, its impacts vary considerably. The North East coastline has borne the brunt, with the affected areas reaching 2-3 km inland. In the Southern and Western coastlines, except in extremely small pockets, the tsunami has affected a much narrower strip, with the affected areas limited to approximately 500 meters or less and at elevations below about 2.5 to 3 meters.

Acknowledged as the largest and most devastating natural catastrophe in the history of the nation, it affected nearly 8 percent of the population killing 30,974 and injuring 23,176 persons. Another 4,698 persons remain missing and unidentified remains of missing persons are still being unearthed. The fact that the areas ravaged include some of the most urbanized and densely populated parts of the country has significantly increased the death and suffering, as well as destruction and damage to property. The property damage on the North East coast line is very significant, with virtually no area being spared.

Housing is by far the largest economic asset lost to the nation. It also represents the most valuable family asset lost by the 232,000 families affected by it. Nearly 78,000 houses have been destroyed and a further 41,600 partially destroyed, displacing 975,000 persons. In the North East of Sri Lanka where the destruction is observed to be most severe, it has displaced nearly 300,000 people adding over 40 percent to the nearly 700,000 persons already displaced by a protracted internecine war.

Similarly, valuable social and economic infrastructure along the coast, including many health related infrastructure facilities, urban facilities such as markets and public transport terminals, and the national and provincial roads networks have suffered heavily. Water supply and sanitation has suffered disruptions to the distribution networks, with nearly, 50,000 wells been abandoned and 12,000 made unusable due to salt-water intrusion. Since the area affected was not served with pipe borne sewerage, large number of toilets and drainage networks were made unusable filled with mud, water and debris.

The damage caused to livelihoods too is substantial with fisheries being the worst hit. About 90,000 fishermen's families have been displaced with fishermen counted amongst largest number of persons who lost their lives. Tourism comes second in terms of loss of livelihoods and the contribution to national income resulting from the damage. Since tourism generates around 100,000 direct and indirect employment and a tourist visiting Sri Lanka spends on the average 40 percent of the nights on the coast, the loss of employment opportunities to those dependent on tourism on the coast has been significant. Over 3,500 hectares of agricultural land including, paddy fields, vegetable and fruit crops have also been made uncultivable due to induced high levels of soil salinity and likely to remain so for several years until seasonal rains naturally reduce the salinity. Losses have also been reported amongst livestock. Damage caused to manufacture has been insignificant since very few industrial facilities were located in the affected area. However, a large number of home based production and income generating activities have been destroyed. The social impact of this loss could be heavy, as many of these enterprises were invested and managed by women contributing significantly to increased family incomes.  

The overall damage to property and assets is estimated to be $900-$930 millions. Over 30 percent of it was the values of housing. Loss of outputs including livelihood damage adds up to a further $300 millions.  

In the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, the global media focus on the human suffering was unprecedented and outpouring of sympathy, both national and international, to help the affected had been heart warming. While the international pledges for support have far exceeded expectations, the government has offered a rather generous package of assistance to those affected. In addition to a standard relief package, those who have suffered damage or lost their housing have been promised the following assistance. The owner of a fully damaged house has been promised Rs. 250,000 and a partially damaged one Rs.100, 000. In addition, those who have utilized the above grants will be offered a concessionary bank loan of Rs. 500,000. Those who are not allowed to rebuild their houses within the official set back zone have been promised a free house with a minimum floor area of 500sq.ft.  

It is a cause for regret however, that both the government and the donor community have failed to coordinate this assistance and channel this global public support in the best interest of the affected people. While the decision making process of the government as well as the efficiency, transparency and fairness of the government machinery have come in for serious criticism, the donor and the NGO have added to the confusion by their inability to coordinate with the government and with each other, and for their own lack of transparency.

A case in point is the introduction of restricted development zones in almost all countries   affected by the event. In Sri Lanka a 100 to 200 meter no construction zone, (100 meters in the more densely populated South coast and 200 in the North East) from the mean high water line has been imposed within an overall proposal for a kilometer deep development zone along the 260 km long coastal belt around the Island. The coastal areas in Sri Lanka are better connected with main transport networks and are better serviced, making them more densely populated reflecting the ribbon pattern of development characteristic of human settlements in Sri Lanka. As such, the 236 km. belt round the Island is estimated to include nearly 25% of Sri Lanka's population. The 100 meter development setback   within the zone will include an extent of over 2600 hectares. On the assumption that in most populated areas penetration of water did not exceed 500 meters, and the main arteries ran closer to the beach, the imposition of the zone will prevent nearly 30 of the affected population from returning to the land, requiring the construction of nearly 30,000 new houses for rehousing them. Since the fisher families and informal settlements were closer to the coast,a large number of the persons affected by this setback are believed to be the poor,

There is general agreement that the post tsunami rehabilitation should be conflict sensitive, and should avoid rebuilding poverty and existing vulnerabilities. As such there is a need to voluntarily resettle a smaller percentage of those affected who were living in hazardous areas exposed to natural disasters and in areas harmful to the nature such as the river banks, reclaimed marginal and low lying lands, and in areas threatening the beaches, estuaries and the mangroves. However, in the post tsunami planning phase, the decision to indiscriminately apply a general set back of 100 meters has become controversial with strong differences in opinion amongst the politicians as well as the professionals. On the other hand, the affected persons have been unanimous in their opposition to the decision, in view of its impact on their lives, resulting from delayed resettlement, loss of asset value of their mostly private owned beach properties, loss of social capital, and displacement from their cultural roots and their location centred employment, such as fishing, carpentry, fibre industry etc.

A new act passed by the Parliament has given the provision force of law. The enforcement of the provision however has few more legal obstacles to clear in view of the international covenants governing IDPs of which Sri Lanka is a signatory. Further, Sri Lanka judiciary has interpreted 'alternative accommodation' setting strict guidelines and conditions that should be met relating to space, physical and family needs of the affected person, which makes it difficult for a large house building programme to follow. In the particular situation the beneficiaries who will be resettled involuntarily, as it would be in   the case in Sri Lanka, the decision could go up for legal review.

Given the current political environment and the institutional capacity both sustainability of the decision and the capacity of the government machinery to enforce the setback are in doubt. The issue has already been heavily politicized with a clear possibility of a future government reversing it, leading to a huge waste in public investment. As enforcement capacities of the government has demonstrated in the past,   (a set back from the high water mark on the coast was already available in various legal documents and plans) the government machinery lacks the capacity to implement a country wide setback or to enforce even desirable planning standards in the area earmarked for controlled development. A bigger question will be the equity, as with time exemptions are likely to be made for foreign and local investors, making the poor the final victims of the decision. Already the exemptions made for tourist hotels and related businesses are far more favourable than for people who had lost their housing.

In addition to the huge new investment and management effort associated with an undertaking of the scale to build new houses and their amenities, the set back will deprive the nation of the potential savings from building on what is left of existing structures. The economy will also suffer the loss of market value of land debarred from development. The land so lost will have to be replaced with the opening of new lands for housing including conversion of forest land, change of use of land presently under agriculture and reclamation of marginal land, countering to some extent, the pro environment arguments that supported the decision for a no development zone in the first place.

Housing represents by far the most valuable family asset lost by the affected families. For most of them it also represents the asset they most want to repossess with least possible delay. Majority of the houses lost were in traditionally settled land where people owned their own houses and lived in neighbourhoods with deep cultural roots. This combined with the urge to return to the land to escape the dehumanizing conditions of living in welfare centres, provided all the necessary ingredients for promoting a people's process to housing which experience the world over has shown is the fastest way to recover the lost housing stock. Sadly, lack of vision, failure to consult the affected and ill informed decisions by authorities, have resulted in increased bureaucratic involvement, inefficiencies in delivery and heavy social costs. As such, a great opportunity for rapid and participatory recovery and reconstruction after tsunami is being lost, when the need of the day is to make the time taken for recovery as short as possible..