Shopping Cart
RSS FeedSri Lanka: Six Months Later
Worldwatch Live Online Discussion
Leanne Mitchell and Dilena Pathragoda
June 30, 2005 - 2:00pm EDT
Join the Worldwatch Institute's Leanne Mitchell and Dilena Pathragoda from Sri Lanka's Centre for Environmental Justice for an online discussion on Thursday, June 30, 2005 about the ongoing social and environmental impacts of last year's South East Asian tsunami.
In the six months since the tsunami hit, Dilena and the Centre for Environmental Justice have been building awareness in Sri Lanka and around the world about the need for building and maintaining environmental protection mechanisms that may save the country's coastline and its people.
Leanne was in Sri Lanka earlier this year, where she saw first hand how unnatural factors—such as the destruction of coral reefs and other natural barriers—may have left many regions exceptionally vulnerable to the natural disaster. "Whether the government of Sri Lanka or the people rebuilding along the coast will heed this environmental message is still unclear," she wrote in her first person piece in the July/August issue of World Watch magazine.
Wellington, NZ: Hi, I am a SLn domiciled in NZ. I wonder what environmental laws are being activly implemented in Sri Lanka, and the infrastructure and tools available to enforce such laws. Isn't it crucial to encounter environmental pilage by building public awareness, commencing from grass root levels, by integrating this into school curricula?.
Leanne Mitchell and Dilena Pathragoda: With the intention of halting the continued deterioration of the coastal zone, in 1978 the government of Sri Lanka established a Coast Conservation Department within the Ministry of Fisheries. The government enacted the Coast Conservation Act in 1981. The Act required the Coast Conservation Department to prepare a Coastal Zone Management Plan and stipulated that all development activities in the coastal zone be subject to permits. One of the main elements of the management plan was a national permit-issuing programme, which required construction setbacks within the 300 meter coastal zone. The permit system became an effective but controversial tool for achieving the programme's limited management goals. Coastal setbacks varied from 10 meters to 140 meters, depending on the contours. The law specifically states that this setback is to protect the people and their property from sea-based disasters.
Vehement opposition continues today against the declaration of a 100 meter no construction coastal zone in the Western and Southern provinces of the country. The buffer zone will be 200 meters in the North and Eastern provinces. However, some information shows that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE or Tamil Tigers) is ready to declare a 400 meter zone in the Mulative area.
It seems that opposition in the Western and Southern provinces is backed by hoteliers who are already in the no construction zone. The Coast Conservation Department and other government agencies have decided to mark a 100 meter zone to assist local police officers with removal of illegal constructions. They have also decided that existing hotels will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
It is clear that while the law should be enforced, public awareness is the most important thing. Certainly, the key to gaining support for such practices lies in building both local and political awareness. As one of the major obstacles in enforcing these buffer zones is the lack of local support, building this should be a priority of the government as well as NGOs and other agencies working in the area. This a role that the Centre for Environmental Justice takes very seriously and much of our work in the tsunami-affected south has involved this kind of public outreach.
For World Environment day this year, CEJ helped communities on the southern coast to replant coastal vegetation, such as Pandanus Rotundus ("Wetakaiya") and various mangrove species, creating new and important Green Belt along the vulnerable coast. The local community groups welcomed this initiative for its move to provide protection against any further ocean-based disasters.
Toronto, Canada: In the aftermath of the tsunami, with its massive loss of life, assets, documentation and property demarkation, how have resource rights issues (such as contested and unclear ownership rights, compensation, relocations and inheritance) complicated or delayed the reconstruction process? Would strengthening resource rights not only reduce vulnerability to disasters but also reduce their impact by easing the reconstruction phase?
Leanne Mitchell and Dilena Pathragoda: It is true that many legal and social issues arose after the tsunami. These include resource rights and demarcation issues. Definitely, the strengthening of resource rights will help facilitate the reconstruction phase.
Alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation can be a good model in these areas. However, the size of these issues is wide, and therefore there are many unsolved problems.
Certain areas where common property regime existed had already been destroyed by the tourism industry in most southern parts of the country long before the tsunami. For example, beaches are public property, but many hotels were built on these beaches, and most of them are still there, encroaching on this public property.
Edmonton: I feel the work you are doing is very much needed in Sri Lanka. What do you feel is the best approach in asking the government to make these policy changes? Considering the barriers of internal corruption and inproper law enforcement for these policies?
Leanne Mitchell and Dilena Pathragoda: Unlike other countries, more than corruption, the lethargy of the government actors and the public sector is the main reason for the slow process. Policy changes are happening, but it is a very slow process. Except for some court provisions, it seems there will be no urgent policy changes.
With regard to the proposed coastal protection belt, the fight between Sri Lanka's two main political parties hinders the required policy changes to take place. We feel that instead of fighting with each other and using the tsunami to gain political popularity, the parties should join each other in rebuilding the country and bringing about the necessary changes.
Waterloo, Ontario: To what degree did coastal deforestation in Sri Lanka (e.g. mangroves, coastal forests, etc), exacerbate the damages caused by the Asian Tsunami?
Leanne Mitchell and Dilena Pathragoda: Sri Lanka's coastline extends over a distance of about 1585 kilometers. It includes a wide range of geomorphic features and provides a variety of tropical habitats, such as lagoons, estuaries, wetlands, mangrove swamps, salt marshes, sea grass beds, coral reefs, sand dunes, barrier beaches, and spits. The coast is one of Sri Lanka's most important natural assets. This meeting place of land and sea possesses distinctive landforms, flora and fauna, combining to create a unique scenic appeal and recreational prospects not available elsewhere. The coast also links various forms of land and sea transport with commercial activities.
The coastal zone accounts for about one third of the country's population and one fourth of the total land area. The main economic activities of this population are fishing, tourism and industries. Marine fisheries account for 97% of the country's fish production. Some 800,000 persons derive their livelihood from economic activities in this zone.
The increasing population in coastal areas has created many problems for the coastal environment, including coastal erosion, degradation of valuable coastal habitats, and resource use conflicts. A key coastal management problem is coastal erosion, resulting both from the natural action of tidal waves and currents and from human causes, such as ill-designed coastal erosion protection works and coral mining. Shoreline erosion has resulted in damage to or loss of hotels and other buildings near the shoreline, destruction of coastal vegetation, deterioration of fish breeding environments and disruption of recreation. The most severe effects of shoreline erosion are seen in Sri Lanka's Western and Southwestern coastal areas.
The tourism industry is most responsible for the destruction of the coastal green belts. There are many hotels which have destroyed the coastal forests in these areas. However, in areas with good coastal vegetation, the damage was low.
California: a lot has been said about the nature of tourism development along the sri lankan coast lines and how it contributed to environmental degradation and the subsequent destruction. What can the tourism industry do to make sure this doesn't happen again?
Leanne Mitchell and Dilena Pathragoda: The tourism industry is a significant and growing economic force in Sri LankaÃs south, which is also one of the poorest and most densely populated areas in the country, so without a doubt, re-establishing the industry to its former levels, and extending it even further, is in the interests of the country.
When we think about how the southern coastal environment has been degraded over the last decades, there is little doubt that tourism industries have played a significant role in this. When you travel along the Galle road, the major thoroughfare from Colombo down to the southern coastal resorts, you can see the impact of the industry. Rows of hotels, shops and restaurants line large sections of the coast. Many of the big five-star hotels have blocked off their sections of the coastline creating closed-in spaces for their guests, away from the hustle and bustle of the small local villages.
In addition to ignoring the existing zoning laws, which attempted to keep structures off the beaches, many of hotels and related businesses have been responsible for the clearing of mangroves and other native vegetation because these donÃt fit in with the idea of an island paradise. Many of these resorts were devastated.
If the devastation caused by the tsunami brings anything good ñ it may be in the fact that it offers an opportunity for the tourism industry to re-think itÃs approach and to re-build in an environmentally-friendly way. Individual operators and the industry now have the opportunity to make choices for the preservation of local environment.
There are certainly many positive economic and social benefits to be felt from establishing environmentally- friendly businesses and even a small mindset shift will make a big difference. If, for example, local tourist operators get behind campaigns to protect rather than destroy coral through lime mining, and get behind long-term protection of local sources they will have a profitable tourism resource. Similarly, there is a lot of potential for more eco-tourism industries, especially slightly inland from the coast, where the land is lush and beautiful.
Los Angeles, CA: what long term damage has been done to the coastal areas of Sri Lanka? Is it fixable?
Leanne Mitchell and Dilena Pathragoda: The damage to the marine environment following the tsunami was devastating. The debris that flowed into the sea from land smashed coral reefs and ripped coastal areas. Some initial research attained by the Centre for Environmental justice showed that 50% of the coral along the coast had been damaged due to waves and debris.
The natural environment of many marine organisms changed in a just a few hours. Toxic materials including PCBs would have entered the sea at many points, further affecting marine life. The amount of silt, sand and organic matter mixed with the water also would have smothered them. On land, wells and freshwater streams were been contaminated with seawater, posing more problems for local people.
In response to the tsunami, the Centre for Environmental Justice has been helping coastal communities test wells for water quality help clean contaminated wells. CEJ is collaborating with government and community groups to establish plant nurseries for coastal restoration projects.
Louisville, Kentucky: Are you working with the local community organizations such as the fisherfolk organizations (natinally represented by NAFSO), so that their low-impact, sustainable forms of fishing are not destroyed in order to allow hotel chains to take their land, on the pretext that living within 100 or 200 meters is unsafe (except for tourists)? Have you considered how critical it is to protect small scaled fishing instead of large scale and sometimes foreign owned industrial fishing vessels, in order to preserve the ecosystem of the sea? If so, is it not critical to fight for the rights of fisherfolk to remain on the coasts where their livelihood is located? (If there were other lands nearby available to relocate the fisherfolk, that would be a better solution, but lacking that, fighting for the rights of fisherfolk to remain in their coast villages appears to be essential to avoid the decimation of traditional fishing.
Leanne Mitchell and Dilena Pathragoda: Because CEJ is an environmental NGO, we are not working with local fisherfolk on this issue, but are instead focusing on the environmental impact of the tsunami. There are a number of other NGOs who are working directly with fisherfolk organizations and addressing their concerns regarding displacement, and we are content to let them carry out this work.
With regard to the 100-200 meter government-mandated Coastal Zone, it is important to clarify several points.
First, these zones are not new and were not created in response to the tsunami. The Coastal Conservation Department of Sri Lanka actually created such zones (with various limits depending upon geographic characteristics) in the 1980s under the Coast Conservation Act, requiring permits for any new construction to be undertaken within the zones. However, in practice, this has proven extremely difficult to enforce over the years.
Second, many people are under the mistaken impression that these zones have been put into place solely as a means of protecting people and their property from dangers that might potentially occur within 100-200 meters of the sea. Certainly, there is no logic to the idea that tourists would be safe within this zone whereas fishermen and other locals would not. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that all people located outside the zones would automatically be safe, particularly were the zones to remain developed. For this reason, the Coastal Zone must now be strictly enforced and given the opportunity to serve the important purpose for which they were designed: providing a protective barrier.
Throughout the regions affected by the recent tsunami, scientific evidence has shown that less-developed areas having sufficient natural coastal barriers--such as healthy ecosystems of mangroves, sea grasses, sand dunes, and coral reefs--were protected from the tsunami and remained largely in tact, while areas developed with hotels and other buildings along the coast suffered greatly in the absence of such natural buffers. The Coastal Zone would not be open to new hotel developments, but would rather be replanted with mangroves and other protective vegetation and restored to a healthy condition which would provide wave energy absorption and a natural barrier to protect the inlands against future tropical storms, tsunamis, and other sea-based dangers which are increasingly likely to occur in the future as a result of global warming.
Third, it is understandable that there is a great deal of confusion about tourism and hotel development along the coast and within this Coastal Zone. Certainly, there are businesspeople and investors who would like to exploit the situation and develop these areas once the locals have been relocated to permanent homes outside of the zone. However, by law, the only new development activities to be allowed within the Coastal Zone include the rebuilding of harbours, piers, anchorages, warehouses, and other facilities for the local fisheries industry. Hospitality Business Premises which were built legally (with proper permits, prior to the tsunami) within the Coastal Zone and which were not damaged by the tsunami will be allowed to remain where they are. The same is true for such premises that were partially damaged, if the cost of repair is less than 40% of the replacement value of the building. Buildings whose cost of repair exceeds 40% of the replacement value are considered completely destroyed, and will not be allowed to rebuild within the zone, but will be provided free land and the opportunity to rebuild elsewhere.
Unequivocally, CEJ opposes any new tourist development within the Coastal Zone, as such development would only mean further destruction of the valuable protective barrier ecosystems mentioned above and a further decline of the coastal environment.
Hong Kong: what environmental safeguards would be necessary to ensure that sri lanka's coastal areas are safe?
Leanne Mitchell and Dilena Pathragoda: As discussed above, the main environmental safeguard necessary to protect Sri LankaÃs coastal areas is the restoration of healthy mangrove, sea grass, sand dune, and coral reef ecosystems within the 100-200 meter Coastal Zone. And also we should consider illegal methods of fishing in the sea.
