The
situation was even more acute in highly densely populated
Kalmunai and Maruthamunai, which had the highest death toll in
the whole country. More than 11,300 died in Kalmunai alone. It
did not seem practically possible to find suitable land in
sufficient quantity within a reasonable distance from the sea in
these areas for the affected fisher families to be relocated.
There was no vacant land even to set up a
temporary camp for the displaced. ‘Settlements have extended
right to the edge of the sea because of the lack of land. Here,
relocation can only mean migration to an area many miles away. I
do not think anyone is prepared for it. I certainly am not’,
said a displaced person in Kalmunai. The other displaced fishers
I met in Kalmuani and Maruthamunai expressed similar sentiments.
One of them said, "We are not opposing relocation blindly. If
land were available beyond say 50 meters from the sea, I would
consider relocating. The important point is that 100 or 200
meters buffer zone makes no sense here. Perhaps some may have
other options, but for most of us there is no option but to
return to our coast, start fishing and rebuild our lives."
He said that about 50 meters of land was already
lost to sea as a result of the tsunami and complained that it
was difficult to do coastal fishing because debris had been
dumped on the coast. The fishers of Kalmunai staged a mass
demonstration on 24 February, nearly two months after the
tsunami, to voice their demands and concerns. They demanded free
and exclusive access to the proposed buffer zone and registered
their opposition to any future use of their lands for security
camps or tourist hotels and industries. They appealed for
financial assistance to rebuild their fishing assets.
The displaced from Kathiraveli, which lies in an
LTTE-controlled area, seemed to have reached a consensus to
relocate. There were 275 families living in tents provided by an
international NGO, which they said was doing things in close
consultation with them. There were another 138 families from the
neighbouring village of Poochakerni in the same camp. Many from
these two groups practised both fishing and farming and some
were also migrant workers. ‘We have suffered too much to go back
to the same place to live. We lost 53 lives. We have decided to
move to a safer area. There is enough land for all of us. An
international organisation has promised to assist us’, said a
spokesperson.
However, there was a dissenting voice. ‘I want
to go back to where I have lived for 45 years. My land is just
outside the 200 meters limit. It has a well and I have already
started putting up a hut there. The land identified for
relocation is a bit too far from the coast. I am sure there will
be practical problems regarding taking care of the boats and
nets, which have to be left on the beach. People will realise
only after moving there’, said a 60 years old man. ‘Of course,
we are not giving up our lands. We shall put up wadiyas (huts)
on our beach to keep our nets and other things and for us to
stay. The Grama Sevaka (village officer) has informed us that
the government in Colombo will not take our land’, said the
spokesperson. A woman sounded a sceptical note: ‘Yes but what
does the Grama Sevaka know about the plans the government may
have? Has any government kept its word in this country? We have
an acre of homestead with some coconut trees. I did a lot of
home gardening and I will go back to our land and start doing it
again. My husband is a fisherman and I am a farmer. We must have
at least a hut on our land so that we can continue to practise
both."
She said that soon after the tsunami when the
international NGO asked them what their first priority was they
had said ‘housing’ in one voice. The NGO then began to work on
their first priority. ‘But now, after two months of living on
relief, we feel reviving our own economic activities is also
equally important. Now we think it was a mistake not to make
both housing and getting back to fishing or some other work such
as farming as the first priority.’
A young fisherman responded: "Well, we have
missed a great opportunity to make some good money because we
don’t have our boats and prawn nets. This is the prawn season,
which began in January and will last till the end of March. A
man known to me made 30,000 rupees the other day because he had
a big catch of high value prawns. His boat was not damaged
because it was anchored in a safe place.’ He said that ideally
there should have been a scheme to provide them with soft loans
to revive their fishing during the prawn season, as it would
have helped them recover faster with the high income from
prawns. He was not talking of grants but soft loans to invest in
the basic capital goods to revive fishing. He was aware that
banks would not lend to disaster-stricken, assetless fishers. He
talked of a special group credit scheme involving the
fishermen’s organisation and a willing NGO as partners. ‘But I
am not going to wait for it. This is just an idea, which might
not interest anyone. Now I am prepared to do any job including
farm labour in neighbouring Sinhalese areas until I am able to
return to fishing’, he said.
Perceptions regarding post-tsunami
reconstruction in the South
A widespread view among the people I met in the
East was that the government, while neglecting them, was
providing a lot of assistance to tsunami victims in the South.
‘I have been listening to the radio ever since the tsunami
struck’, said a displaced man from Thambiluvil, ‘everyday a new
programme is being launched by some minister in the South. The
President opened a big project in Hambantota the other day.
Something is happening there everyday but nothing here. Many
ministers and powerful politicians are there to take care of
them.’ It was quite common to hear such statements.
Apparently, they were not aware yet of the
complaints and protests by the tsunami victims in the South.
When I told them about this, the immediate response was, ‘well
we should start our own protests too’. They had serious doubts
about the commitment and capacity of the government to address
their grievances. However, everyone, Tamil and Muslim, I spoke
to remembered with deep feelings the material and moral support
they received from fellow Lankans. In Kathiraveli, Tamils
recalled with emotions how a Sinhalese from far away Moneragala
and some Muslims from a neighbouring area brought cooked food
for them.
Need for Rethinking
The government’s decision to introduce a buffer
zone without consulting the people concerned has created
confusion and uncertainty amongst them. Recently, the government
has publicised the steps it was taking regarding the enforcement
of the buffer zone, housing of tsunami-affected people and
tourism development. ‘The government’, says an official
advertisement, ‘will set up special Tourism Zones covering all
the tourist areas in the coastal belt. These zones will have
modern infrastructure with an unencumbered view and access to
the coast. There will be special incentives provided to promote
sustainable and value added tourism.’ (Daily Mirror, March 2,
2005)
The most widespread concern among the coastal
communities in the country as a whole is that that the
government has framed post-tsunami reconstruction as a programme
of privatisation and commercialisation of the coastal zone and
marine resources without paying adequate attention to their
long-term livelihood security. The fishing communities in
particular have valid reasons to fear that they may lose their
customary rights to coastal zone resources. An activist in the
south of the country told me that, ‘the policy of tourism
development and large-scale privatisation of fisheries is likely
to accelerate the ongoing marginalisation and exclusion of
sections of the coastal communities. Tourist hotels and the
recreation industry will effectively privatise long tracts of
our beaches. There will of course be some local beneficiaries
but many small fishers including women are likely to lose their
traditional livelihoods and become displaced and unemployed or
under-employed. This is why we are speaking of a second tsunami
and the only way to prevent it is to defend the right to
livelihood of the vulnerable sections of the coastal
communities.’ Campaigns and protests have already been mounted
in the South and in the East. The signs are clear that the
people are not happy with the government’s policy and its
handling of post-tsunami recovery. In many parts of the
North-East, post tsunami reconstruction cannot easily be
separated from the tasks of rebuilding war-torn communities and
livelihoods. The government and the LTTE have yet to reach an
understanding regarding a joint mechanism for reconstruction. An
opportunity to link reconstruction, reconciliation and
peacebuilding seems to be drifting away. The use of emergency
regulations and militarisation to enforce the buffer zone is ill
advised. The consequences could be disastrous if this is not
abandoned in favour of a better informed and more realistic
approach that would take account of the ecological and
socio-economic variations and the views of the affected people
in the coastal zones of Sri Lanka.
