Online edition of the Daily News: Feature: by Prof. S.T. Hettige,
Department of Sociology, University of Colombo
As is well known, the tsunami affected population is not homogeneous. They belong to different social strata, have different occupations and livelihoods, own varying extents of land, possess different types and amounts of property, etc. Their family structures are different. After the tsunami, the situation has become even more complex. It is true that they were all affected by the tsunami, yet, we cannot ignore their diverse backgrounds in the process of their resettlement.
In fact, the resettlement process should be managed in such a way as to take care of the pre-existing diversity.
What is required is to decide on a range of resettlement options which the affected families can opt for, depending on their livelihoods, social and other requirements. While it is necessary to take care of the most marginalized groups such as the landless, the poor and the unemployed in the resettlement process, the restoration of the living standards that the propertied and the well-to-do people enjoyed prior to the disaster can also be facilitated. Some of the possible resettlement options that can be suggested are as follows:
(A) provision of land and financial support to those who lost their lands and housing property.
(B) Provision of housing in a new settlement/housing scheme for those whose houses were destroyed.
(C) Provision of housing and restoration of livelihoods for those who lost their income sources,
The decisions will respect to the location and the type of housing should be left to the affected people. The latter should not be forced into situations that they do not want. Even in designing a housing settlement, it is necessary to consult the prospective settlers on such aspects as the size, composition and type of settlement as well as the location and social infrastructure facilities. If the settlers have no opportunity to participate in the decision making process, the sense of displacement that they already have might be further reinforced.
It is a widely accepted principle of resettlement that the situation of the resettlers should not be worse than what it was before their displacement. The situation should be better not only in terms of physical facilities but also in terms of social and cultural life.
Resettlement process should not lead to major disruptions of pre existing social networks and community life. Special attention needs to paid to commonly used community resources that have been destroyed.
Another important aspect of resettlement that deserves attention is the need to treat the process as a holistic process. Apart from physical aspects such as proper housing, roads, water and electricity, social aspects such as community development, education, health, recreation and the care of vulnerable groups are equally important.
These social aspects should be integrated into the resettlement process from the very beginning not as an after thought as has been the case in many recently completed resettlement projects.
Resettlement planners in the past had often adopted a top-down approach. The actual settlers have had no role to play in the planning process. Such an approach in the current resettlement process can have disastrous as we are dealing with a large heterogeneous population in many parts of the country.
It is necessary to put in place mechanisms to facilitate the participation of beneficiaries in the decision making process. A suitable community level planning methodology can be adopted to get the local people involved in planning and implementation of resettlement projects.
The primary objective of resettlement should be to address the felt needs of the affected people. This could be done only if we do a proper needs assessment. These needs can very widely from region to region as well as from one occupational group to another. The needs can also vary depending on family structure, class, social status, etc. It is because of these variations that we have to come up with different housing and resettlement options.
However careful the planners are, the implementation of their plans can face various difficulties and bottlenecks. It is in order to cope with such difficulties and problems that a system of monitoring, feedback and evaluation needs to be established.
Continuous monitoring of progress at different levels would allow the implementers to take corrective action while the projects are being implemented. On the other hand, a systematic evaluation of a project after a lapse of time allows, the policy makers and others to assess the impact of a project in terms of positive and negative outcomes for the beneficiaries.
What I have attempted in the present paper is to emphasize the need for paying attention to certain critical aspects of the resettlement process currently under way.
On the other hand, these aspects can be taken care of only if the resettlement process is sufficiently decentralized and broadly participatory in character.
While a decentralized management structure can be established at the divisional level (with the participation of Pradeshiya Sabhas, line ministry officials, civil society organizations and other elected representatives) to implement resettlement plans, at community level, a management committee can be established with the participation of relevant officials and representatives of beneficiary families.
The involvement of beneficiaries in the decision making process is more likely to ensure that resettlement projects take into account the needs and priorities of affected families. The active participation of the people affected by the disaster can also help arrest the growing unrest in tsunami affected areas.
The latter appears to be a critical need at present, if we go by media reports of increasing unrest and agitation in different parts of the country.
Department of Sociology, University of Colombo
As is well known, the tsunami affected population is not homogeneous. They belong to different social strata, have different occupations and livelihoods, own varying extents of land, possess different types and amounts of property, etc. Their family structures are different. After the tsunami, the situation has become even more complex. It is true that they were all affected by the tsunami, yet, we cannot ignore their diverse backgrounds in the process of their resettlement.
In fact, the resettlement process should be managed in such a way as to take care of the pre-existing diversity.
What is required is to decide on a range of resettlement options which the affected families can opt for, depending on their livelihoods, social and other requirements. While it is necessary to take care of the most marginalized groups such as the landless, the poor and the unemployed in the resettlement process, the restoration of the living standards that the propertied and the well-to-do people enjoyed prior to the disaster can also be facilitated. Some of the possible resettlement options that can be suggested are as follows:
(A) provision of land and financial support to those who lost their lands and housing property.
(B) Provision of housing in a new settlement/housing scheme for those whose houses were destroyed.
(C) Provision of housing and restoration of livelihoods for those who lost their income sources,
The decisions will respect to the location and the type of housing should be left to the affected people. The latter should not be forced into situations that they do not want. Even in designing a housing settlement, it is necessary to consult the prospective settlers on such aspects as the size, composition and type of settlement as well as the location and social infrastructure facilities. If the settlers have no opportunity to participate in the decision making process, the sense of displacement that they already have might be further reinforced.
It is a widely accepted principle of resettlement that the situation of the resettlers should not be worse than what it was before their displacement. The situation should be better not only in terms of physical facilities but also in terms of social and cultural life.
Resettlement process should not lead to major disruptions of pre existing social networks and community life. Special attention needs to paid to commonly used community resources that have been destroyed.
Another important aspect of resettlement that deserves attention is the need to treat the process as a holistic process. Apart from physical aspects such as proper housing, roads, water and electricity, social aspects such as community development, education, health, recreation and the care of vulnerable groups are equally important.
These social aspects should be integrated into the resettlement process from the very beginning not as an after thought as has been the case in many recently completed resettlement projects.
Resettlement planners in the past had often adopted a top-down approach. The actual settlers have had no role to play in the planning process. Such an approach in the current resettlement process can have disastrous as we are dealing with a large heterogeneous population in many parts of the country.
It is necessary to put in place mechanisms to facilitate the participation of beneficiaries in the decision making process. A suitable community level planning methodology can be adopted to get the local people involved in planning and implementation of resettlement projects.
The primary objective of resettlement should be to address the felt needs of the affected people. This could be done only if we do a proper needs assessment. These needs can very widely from region to region as well as from one occupational group to another. The needs can also vary depending on family structure, class, social status, etc. It is because of these variations that we have to come up with different housing and resettlement options.
However careful the planners are, the implementation of their plans can face various difficulties and bottlenecks. It is in order to cope with such difficulties and problems that a system of monitoring, feedback and evaluation needs to be established.
Continuous monitoring of progress at different levels would allow the implementers to take corrective action while the projects are being implemented. On the other hand, a systematic evaluation of a project after a lapse of time allows, the policy makers and others to assess the impact of a project in terms of positive and negative outcomes for the beneficiaries.
What I have attempted in the present paper is to emphasize the need for paying attention to certain critical aspects of the resettlement process currently under way.
On the other hand, these aspects can be taken care of only if the resettlement process is sufficiently decentralized and broadly participatory in character.
While a decentralized management structure can be established at the divisional level (with the participation of Pradeshiya Sabhas, line ministry officials, civil society organizations and other elected representatives) to implement resettlement plans, at community level, a management committee can be established with the participation of relevant officials and representatives of beneficiary families.
The involvement of beneficiaries in the decision making process is more likely to ensure that resettlement projects take into account the needs and priorities of affected families. The active participation of the people affected by the disaster can also help arrest the growing unrest in tsunami affected areas.
The latter appears to be a critical need at present, if we go by media reports of increasing unrest and agitation in different parts of the country.
