- Local report finds negative among positive impacts on the socio-econ-environmental spheres in the Batti & Trinco Districts
- Projects having heavy military presence, local communities being excluded from decision-making & accessing employment, inadequate Central-Provincial Govts. power-sharing, & the lack of attention to socio-econ-political grievances/peace-building/reconciliation, noted
The main thrust of the State’s economic strategy in the Eastern Province in the post-conflict period (since 2009) has been on infrastructure development. In the Batticaloa and Trincomalee Districts, two of the three Districts that constitute the Eastern Province, infrastructure development has been particularly focused on increasing connectivity and trade with the rest of the island by demining, developing roads, railways, transport, electricity and water supply, as well as improving the economic and living conditions of the population. However, these infrastructure development projects have had both positive and negative impacts on the social, economic, and environmental spheres in those Districts. These projects being accompanied by a heavy military presence, excluding local communities in decision-making and/or access to employment in these projects, inadequate power-sharing between the Central and Provincial Governments, and a lack of attention to political and socio-economic grievances, peace-building, and reconciliation, are pressing concerns.
This was explained in a recently issued study report titled ‘Impacts of Infrastructure Development on Gender and Wellbeing in Coastal Communities: A Comparative Analysis of the Batticaloa and Trincomalee Districts’. Authored by researchers N. Weeratunge, V. Gunasekera and N. Vanniasinkam, and published by the International Centre for Ethnic Studies, the report attempted to assess the impact of post-conflict infrastructure development – specifically transportation, industrial and tourism projects – on the wellbeing of women and men in coastal communities. The socio-economic and environmental costs and benefits of these transformations on the communities were also analysed.
Post-conflict infrastructure dev. & issues
Addressing various forms of development projects, especially infrastructure development projects, the report explained that infrastructure development has resulted in social and ecological transformations, which are perceived as largely positive by the stakeholders in terms of the social impacts but less so in terms of the environmental impacts.
“District level key informants and research participants from households identified better connectivity through road construction and expansion as leading to increased employment opportunities and incomes, and improved access to markets, education and health. The small-scale displacement of people from their land or resources have occurred in both Districts through infrastructure development, apart from land acquired for military, religious, and archaeological purposes. However, industrial and tourism infrastructure development have reduced access for fishers to beaches, and in some cases, previous boat landing sites.”
Maps presented in the report showed the increase in the built space along the coast of Trincomalee due to the development of tourism infrastructure and revealed the potential loss of beach access to fishers. The report explained that while some attempts have been made to provide alternative access, District key informants and fishers had indicated decreasing fisheries production and incomes, offset in some cases by new opportunities in tourism, such as providing boat services or higher prices for the fish catch from tourist hotels.
Meanwhile, District level key informants from Batticaloa had stated that even though there is development in terms of road construction, development projects have not addressed the needs of those affected by the war, particularly those whose lands had been taken away, widows, and persons with disability.
“The destruction of mangroves, the cutting of trees, the filling of wetlands, waste disposal and the pollution of water and air are among the main impacts on the ecological systems due to the rapid infrastructure development, as indicated by the national and District level key informants. Representatives of civil society organisations (CSOs) were most critical in identifying the negative environmental impacts, although some District level key informants from the State sector also indicated environmental destruction resulting from infrastructure development. This destruction of ecosystems that has occurred post-war is despite a sound framework of legislation in place in Sri Lanka to conserve the environment,” it was explained, adding that key informants from CSOs in Batticaloa were sceptical of the laws and regulations, pointing out that even though laws exist theoretically, their implementation is faulty, at times due to political influence. However, a few key Government informants had claimed that the laws to protect the environment have been tightened currently, compared to the past.
The study report raised concerns about the environmental impact assessment (EIA) system and stakeholder consultation processes. The report noted that despite its importance, the EIA was seen merely as a document to file and that the process was manipulated to achieve the desired outcome. “Often, projects had begun construction before the EIA process had started with very little options to change the trajectory of the project. Moreover, even if EIA findings showed major impacts, mitigation measures were not necessarily followed as monitoring was lacking. This also meant that there were never lessons learnt from the process. While District level key informants were generally less knowledgeable of the EIA process, District representatives from the CSOs were critical about the extent of consultation of the communities and the consequences of a flawed process, while State sector key informants perceived that adequate consultation has taken place.” A few State sector officers from both the Districts had however referred to the negative impacts of political influence within this process, not just in bypassing the requirements of the EIA process.
With regard to the impacts of infrastructure development and community responses, the report explained that overall, key informants in Batticaloa had perceived greater benefits than costs to coastal communities from infrastructure development, while those in Trincomalee had perceived a mix of benefits and costs. Costs identified by community research participants had been mainly relational and linked to tourism or industrial development, especially where no consultation process with the affected people had taken place.
“In both the Districts, key informants indicated a range of negative impacts on the coastal ecosystems. Key informants from CSOs were largely critical of waste management and pollution control by the Local Authorities, while those from the Government sector maintained that adequate waste management systems were in place, but that they were constrained by a lack of awareness among communities and non-compliance by some who implement the projects. Research participants from communities were less aware of the issues around the destruction of ecosystems, waste management and pollution, and did not articulate these as negative impacts of infrastructure development to the extent indicated by the key informants. The response to negative impacts was relatively low among community members, although several national non-Governmental organisations had taken action against the construction of major infrastructure that would cause harm to the environment in both the Districts.”
Conclusion and policy implications
The analysis of infrastructure development projects in five study locations in Batticaloa and Trincomalee have revealed several issues and challenges in relation to impacts on coastal communities and ecosystems, as per the report.
Given the fragile coastal environment, it explained, decisions on constructing infrastructure need to take into account the appropriateness of the type of infrastructure physically, economically, and socially. It added that therefore, the fisheries harbour and coastal tourism projects are more aligned with the coastal zone physically and fit into the livelihood patterns of the coastal people dependent on fishing, farming, and micro-,small-scale enterprises, even if these can generate some negative environmental and social impacts.
“The water treatment plant meets social, economic and health related needs and has a relatively small footprint. However, the construction of a 50-acre industrial zone alongside a picturesque bay can be questioned both in terms of more viable investments, such as tourism, that could bring higher returns, as well as on the grounds of negative environmental impacts, such as industrial pollution and waste. In this case, it appeared that the industrial development zone as an infrastructure project was not well planned, and has not attracted the envisaged investment or brought economic benefits of any consequence to the nearby communities. However, it has resulted in the clearing of forests and the construction of roads that do not appear to serve any purpose except political patronage, and an environment of insecurity and fear in relation to land acquisition among the affected people.”
Secondly, the report said that although Sri Lanka has an EIA process that requires the consultation of State and non-State stakeholders, including the affected people, in three of the study locations, the EIA process appeared to have not been conducted or adequately conducted. In two of the study locations, projects funded by a multilateral bank had gone through an EIA process, including consultations with the affected people based on the bank’s social safeguards policy, which includes identifying development priorities and appropriate locations, and minimising harm and providing compensation to those who are displaced or suffer losses. While this process might not be ideal, the report said, benefits to communities outweighed costs in these two infrastructure projects (fisheries harbour expansion and water treatment plant), where such a consultation process was followed. Both women and men had been informed and/or had participated in meetings as part of this process. However, in the three locations where no consultation had taken place, the research participants had indicated mixed impacts or only costs, leading to inadequate wellbeing related outcomes and frustration among them. “At the minimum level, a consultation process consistent with social safeguard policies to identify development priorities and locations to minimise harm and provide compensation for losses needs to be implemented. However, a process that takes into account the identities, cultures, sense of place and long-term aspirations of the coastal communities, as advocated by several national level key informants, is recommended.”
The report explained that the State policy orientation of infrastructure development projects under broad-scale programmes, such as Negenahira Navodaya, is based on achieving goals of material wellbeing for local communities through a trickle-down approach from better connectivity to markets and services. District level key informants of both the Government sector and from CSOs largely subscribe to this approach in their understandings of development and wellbeing, as per the report, which added that the findings of the study however show that research participants held more holistic notions of wellbeing.
“Some communities and individuals indeed emphasised the relational or subjective dimension over the material dimension. Tourism-related projects need to pay heed to relational and subjective costs linked with resource access and cultural change. While impacts and perceptions on infrastructure development and wellbeing articulated by women and men in the study locations were similar to a great extent, there were nuanced gender differences that need to be taken into account.”
The report said that women were able to start or expand micro-small scale enterprises or employment in the formal sector and obtain greater wellbeing-related outcomes from infrastructure development, especially when the projects were well planned and consulted both women and men from the affected communities. Moreover, some social groups or sections of the population had been excluded from receiving material benefits or suffered undue relational or subjective costs in the implementation of infrastructure projects in the study locations in the two Districts.
Thus, the report recommended, infrastructure projects need to be implemented with a holistic understanding of wellbeing as an outcome of development, as well as with an inclusive and equitable approach to the sharing of benefits among social groups.
In addition, the report observed that the attention to impacts of infrastructure development on coastal ecosystems was inadequate as revealed by incidences of sand mining, the destruction of forests and mangroves, and the filling of wetlands, reported by District level key informants and some research participants. In contrast to the impacts on coastal communities, the findings had shown relatively low awareness and knowledge of the impacts of infrastructure development on the structure and dynamics of coastal ecosystems. The report said that in this context, preventing environmental destruction, pollution and waste through awareness creation and the better implementation of regulations on coastal conservation among all stakeholders is a priority.
“Overall, the underlying motivations in the pursuit of wellbeing by affected women and men within the political ecological context of infrastructure development need to be better understood for a more transformative approach to policies in relation to coastal development and conservation,” the report stressed.