Sri_Lanka_Coastal_Zo.. - Stockholm Environment Institute

Improving Policy-Livelihood Relationships in South Asia
Policy Process Analysis Report 2
Can Coastal Zone Management in Sri Lanka
Sustain Local Livelihoods and Ecosystems?
Alexandra Clemett, Sonali Senaratna and Ranaweera Banda
2003
The UK Department for International Development (DFID) supports policies, programmes and projects to promote
international development. DFID are providing funds for this study as part of this objective but the views and opinions
expressed here are not necessary those of DFID.
Acknowledgements
Several people contributed to this report in various ways and it would not have been possible
to write it without all of those inputs. The authors are extremely grateful to all these people. It
is necessary to mention in particular the field teams from the three project areas: Sumana,
Saman, Ranjith, Nishardi and Chaturika from Kalametiya; Madu and Sureka from Rekawa;
and Chaturika from Malala who learnt the necessary participatory techniques incredibly
quickly and without whom we would not have got so much reliable data. The field team from
the University of Ruhuna, headed by Dr Banda and including Rohana, Indira and Mahesh
also have to be thanked and commended in this regard.
The team received considerable help from a huge number of government staff, particularly
from the Coast Conservation Department, the Central Environment Authority and the
Department of Wildlife Conservation. Particular thanks go to Dr. R.A.D.B. Samaranayake,
Mr. I. Ranasinghe and Dr. J. Samarakoon. Consultants attached to the Coastal Resources
Management Project (funded by the Asian Development Bank and the Netherlands
Government), Mr S Tiller, Mr H. M. J. Wickramesinghe and Mr L. Joseph also provided us
with very useful insights in regard to coastal zone policies and issues. The team would also
like to thank the GTZ project team in Rekawa, specifically Maike Waltemath.
Several other people and groups from the project sites provided significant background
information that helped with understanding the situation in the areas as regards coastal zone
policies, issues and livelihoods. The team would like to thank in particular members of the
Rekawa Development Foundation.
The data would have been of very little use to the authors if it had not been for the work of
Lalantha Jayasuriya, who developed the database in which the data was stored and
analysed, and who managed the data inputting team. Also Niranjala Wickremasinghe and
Upamali Surangika who translated hundreds of questionnaires and several focus group
discussions.
Various other people and organisations provided all sorts of support but the International
Water Management Institute (IWMI) must be singled out for providing a base in Colombo and
in which to work.
Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................................ iii
Summary .................................................................................................................................. v
1
Development of the Coastal Zone Management Policy ................................................ 1
1.1
Coast Conservation Act and Coastal Zone Management Policy........................... 1
1.1.1
1.2
Revised Coastal Zone Management ......................................................................... 3
1.2.1
Regulatory System............................................................................................... 3
1.2.2
Special Area Management .................................................................................. 4
1.3
Key Policy Issues and Their Relationship to a Livelihoods Approach................. 5
1.3.1
Coastal Erosion.................................................................................................... 6
1.3.2
Coastal Water Pollution ....................................................................................... 6
1.3.3
Coastal Habitats................................................................................................... 6
1.4
Institutional Framework for Coastal Zone Management ........................................ 8
1.5
Government Structure ............................................................................................. 10
1.6
Donor Assistance to the Sector .............................................................................. 12
1.6.1
2
Review of Coastal Policy ..................................................................................... 2
Coastal Zone Management Projects and Activities ........................................... 14
Analysis of Local-Level Policy Interventions............................................................... 17
2.1
Using the Livelihoods Approach ............................................................................ 18
2.2
Research Methodology ............................................................................................ 19
2.3
Rekawa Lagoon – Special Area Management ....................................................... 21
2.3.1
Location and Study Site ..................................................................................... 21
2.3.2
Environmental Conditions .................................................................................. 22
2.3.3
Socio-economic Conditions ............................................................................... 24
2.3.4
Policy Setting and Interventions ........................................................................ 25
2.3.5
Planning and Management ................................................................................ 26
2.3.6
Problems, Activities, Outcomes and Impacts .................................................... 27
2.3.7
Current Status of Special Area Management Activities..................................... 35
2.4
“Second Generation” Special Area Management – Kalametiya Lagoon ............ 36
2.4.1
Location and Environmental Setting .................................................................. 36
2.4.2
Site Selection ..................................................................................................... 38
2.4.3
Environmental Conditions .................................................................................. 38
2.4.4
Socio-economic Conditions ............................................................................... 40
2.4.5
Policy Activities, Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts ............................................ 44
2.5
Non-SAM Coastal Zone Management Activities – Malala Lagoon ...................... 48
2.5.1
Site Selection ..................................................................................................... 49
i
2.5.2
Environmental Conditions and Water Management .......................................... 52
2.5.3
Socio-economic Impacts.................................................................................... 54
2.5.4
Institutional Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts .................................................... 55
2.5.5
Department of Wildlife Conservation Activities .................................................. 56
2.5.6
Other Project Activity ......................................................................................... 57
3
Policy Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts ....................................................................... 58
4
Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................ 60
4.1
A People-Centred Approach.................................................................................... 60
4.2
Alternative Livelihood Strategies must be Better Conceived and Supported ... 60
4.3
Resource Entitlements should be Preserved ........................................................ 61
4.4
Actively Support Local Resource User and Community Groups........................ 61
4.5
Greater Collaboration is Required Between Agencies......................................... 62
4.6
Special Area Management Concept is Unsustainable.......................................... 62
4.7
A National Strategy for Coastal Zone Management.............................................. 63
4.8
Monitoring, Evaluation and Scaling-Up ................................................................. 63
4.9
The Future ................................................................................................................. 63
References ............................................................................................................................. 65
Annex A: Special Area Management Plan ............................................................................. I
Annex B: Village Maps .......................................................................................................... VII
ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADB
Asian Development Bank
CBC
CCA
Community-Based Conservation
Coast Conservation Act
CCAC
CCC
Coast Conservation Advisory Council
Community Coordination Committee
CCD
CEA
Coast Conservation Department
Central Environment Authority
CERM
CFC
Coastal Environment and Resource Management
Ceylon Fisheries Corporation
CFHC
CRM
Ceylon Fishery Harbour Corporation
Coastal Resource Management
CRMP
CZM
Coastal Resources Management Project
Coastal Zone Management
CZMP
DANIDA
Coastal Zone Management Plan
Danish International Development Agency
DFAR
DFID
Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
Department for International Development
DoA
DS
Department of Agriculture
Divisional Secretary
DWLC
FCDRMP
Department of Wildlife Conservation
Fisheries Community Development and Resources Management Project
FCS
FD
Fisheries Cooperative Society
Forest Department
FGD
GCRMN
Focus Group Discussion
Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network
GEF
GEF-RUK
Global Environment Facility
Global Environment Facility Rekawa, Usangoda and Kalametiya
GN
Management Project
Grama Niladhari
GoN
GoSL
Government of the Netherlands
Government of Sri Lanka
GTZ
HDF
German Technical Agency
Hikkaduwa Development Foundation
HICZMP
ICZM
Hambantota Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project
Integrated Coastal Zone Management
ID
IIED
Irrigation Department
International Institute of Environment and Development
IRMP
IUCN
Integrated Resources Management Programme
World Conservation Union
KCDF
KOISP
Kalametiya Community Development Foundation
Kirindi Oya Irrigation and Settlement Project
MFARD
MFOR
Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development
Ministry of Fisheries and Ocean Resources
MPPA
Marine Pollution Prevention Authority
iii
NAQDA
National Aquatic Development Authority
NARA
NAREPP
National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency
Natural Resources and Environmental Policy Project
NGO
NORAD
Non-Governmental Organization
PC
PRA
Provincial Council
Participatory Rural Appraisal
PS
RDF
Pradeshiya Sabhas
Rekawa Development Foundation
RLFCS
RLFMA
Rekawa Lagoon Fisheries Cooperative Society
Rekawa Lagoon Fisheries Management Authority
RLFMC
RSAMCC
Rekawa Lagoon Fisheries Management Committee
Rekawa Special Area Management Coordinating Committee
SAM
SAREC
Special Area Management
SIDA
TCP
Swedish International Development Agency
Turtle Conservation Project
UNDP
UNESCAP
United Nations Development Programme
USAID
WCP
United States Agency for International Development
Wetlands Conservation Project
iv
Summary
This paper has been prepared as a contribution to a Department for International
Development (DFID) funded research project “Improving Policy-Livelihood Relationships in
South Asia” led by the University of Leeds. The goal of the work is to develop and promote
practical policy options to support rural livelihoods through a range of research, development
and advocacy activities. This study considers coastal zone management (CZM) policy
processes and their livelihood impacts in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is well known for its early introduction of an integrated coastal zone management
(ICZM) policy and for being one of the first countries to introduce “Special Area Management”
1
(SAM) to its coastal policy . Coastal zone management in Sri Lanka dates form the 1920s
and in 1981 Sri Lanka’s Coast Conservation Act (CCA) was gazetted by parliament. Three
Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs) have since been written, the third of which is
waiting to be formally accepted.
SAM, introduced in the second iteration of the CZMP, is a tool to reduce natural resources
degradation, with the objective of providing for the sustained use of coastal resources for the
economic and social benefit of the nation (CCD, 1997). However, SAM has been appended to
a traditionally erosion management focus and whilst it is of central importance to the 1997
CZMP, the need to reduce degradation remains largely as a means to prevent coastal
erosion, which is at the forefront of the majority of the objectives set out in the policy. Whilst
coastal erosion management is vital for Sri Lanka, and a move towards achieving this through
methods other than infrastructure development is a positive direction to take, participatory
approaches to resources management may benefit from greater emphasis on sustainable
livelihoods in both analysis of options and implementation.
The aim of this paper is to understand how the policy objectives of participatory approaches
to coastal resources management are implemented and to determine their effectiveness, and
the effectiveness of other components of the current CZMP, at improving resources
management and conditions, and positively impacting on sustainable livelihoods. It is
intended that these findings can be used to identify how community participation and other
policy options can be incorporated into revisions of the CZMP in order to ensure issues
surrounding resource degradation and sustainable livelihoods are better addressed.
The paper considers two interlinked aspects of policy: the policy process; and the impact of
policies on livelihoods. This is achieved through analysis of activities undertaken as part of
the CZMP in three locations in the dry zone on the south coast, one of the poorest regions in
the country, and through interviews with actors in the policy process from the local to the
central level, including policy makers, influencers and implementers.
1
A concept pioneered in the United States of America.
v
1 Development of the Coastal Zone Management Policy
Interpretation of the effectiveness of the CZMP is only possible with at least a brief
introduction to the Plan, the aspects contained within it, the process by which it has evolved
and the means by which it is implemented. It is also useful to draw out the components of the
Plan that directly relate to development activities and natural resources management in the
coastal zone, which are integral to the livelihoods of coastal populations.
1.1
Coast Conservation Act and Coastal Zone Management Policy
Coastal management in Sri Lanka has its origins in efforts to prevent coastal erosion, which
began in 1920 and led in 1963 to the establishment of the Coast Protection Unit in the
Colombo Port Commission, and later to the establishment of the Coast Conservation Division
(now Department) in the Ministry of Fisheries in 1978 (CCD, 1997). The Coast Conservation
Act (No. 57) was written in 1981 and gives power to the Coast Conservation Department
2
(CCD) to undertake “schemes of work” in relation to the Coastal Zone , comprising “any work
of construction, alteration, demolition, excavation, reclamation, repair or maintenance and
includes dredging, and drilling, the removal or dumping of materials, or the sowing or planting
of vegetation for the purpose of protecting the Coastal Zone from sea erosion or
encroachment by the sea, or for the development of the Coastal Zone” (CCA, 1981, section
42, p 21).
CCD was also given responsibility for regulation of all “development activities” including “any
activity likely to alter the physical nature of the Coastal Zone in any way” this includes “the
construction of buildings and works, the deposit of wastes or other material from outfalls,
vessels or by other means, the removal of sand, coral, shells, natural vegetation, seagrass or
other substances, dredging and filling, land reclamation and mining or drilling for minerals, but
does not include fishing” (CCA, 1981, section 42, p 20). The main mechanism at CCD’s
disposal for performing this responsibility was the “Permit Procedure” (CCA, 1981, Part III,
p 8), which was implemented in conjunction with the recommendations made in the CZMP on
guidelines to determine the suitability of development activities (CCA, 1981, section 12, p 6).
The CCA (1981) required that CCD undertake scientific and socio-economic surveys of
coastal conditions and trends and, from this, prepare a coastal zone management plan (CCD,
1997) including:
•
Proposals which deal with: land use, transport facilities, preservation and management of
the scenic and other natural resources, recreation and tourism, public works and facilities
including waste disposal facilities, harbours and power plants, mineral extraction, living
resources, human settlements, agriculture and industry.
2
Defined in the CCA (1981) as the area lying within 300m landward of the Mean High Water Line and to a limit of
2 km seaward of the Mean Low Water Line and in the case of rivers, streams, lagoons, or any other body of water
connected to the sea either permanently or periodically, the landward boundary shall extend to a limit of 2 km
measured perpendicular to the straight baseline drawn between the natural entrance points … and shall include
waters of such [water bodies] (CCD, 1997).
1
•
Proposals for the reservation of land or water for certain uses or the prohibition of certain
•
activities.
A programme for the utilization of manpower displaced as a result of more effective
•
Coastal Zone regulation.
Recommendations for strengthening governmental policies and powers in respect to
coast conservation.
(CCA, 1981, Section 12, pp 6-7)
Sri Lanka’s first CZMP was formally approved in 1990 but it was acknowledged that there
were a number of constraints that influenced its content. Firstly, CCD was one among more
than ten agencies with responsibilities for coastal zone management. Secondly, the Plan
needed to deal with coast conservation in socially and politically sensitive ways, thereby
“legitimising” it. Finally, the Plan had to be cognisant of CCD’s ability to implement the Plan
due to its limited personnel and funds (CCD, 1997, p 2).
As a consequence of this CCD chose to limit its focus. Efforts were concentrated on: coastal
erosion as CCD had evolved out of the Coastal Protection Unit of the Colombo Port
Commission; and the degradation and depletion of coastal habitats and loss of valuable
historical and cultural sites, due the perceived urgency of these issues and because the
permit system made it possible (CCD, 1997, p 4).
1.1.1
Review of Coastal Policy
In 1989 a study was initiated into the future of coastal resource management in Sri Lanka.
The study was conducted by CCD with the University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources
Centre under the Coastal Resources Management Project (CRMP), of the Natural Resources
and Environmental Policy Project (NAREPP), funded by the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) (CCD, 1997, p 8). The output of this review, “Coastal
2000: A Resource Management Strategy for Sri Lanka’s Coastal Region” was endorsed by
the Cabinet in 1994 and provided the direction for future strategic interventions in the Coastal
Zone (ADB, 1999).
Coastal 2000 identified a number of strengths but also several problems in the initial CZMP
implementation activities. These problems and suggested means of solving them were:
•
Single agency and sectoral approaches to solving coastal resources management
•
problems must be replaced by a more comprehensive perspective and approach.
Implementation of the CCA by CCD has demonstrated that the emphasis on regulation
•
needs to be revised.
Important resources management concerns such as water quality, habitat degradation,
natural resource use and institutional weaknesses are interrelated and require strategies
involving more than one agency and a variety of management techniques.
•
The narrow geographic definition of “the Coastal Zone” does not adequately recognize
the interconnections within coastal ecosystems and resources.
2
•
Participation by local and provincial officials and coastal communities in the formulation of
plans and strategies must be strengthened.
(Olsen et al., 1992a; cited in Lowry et al., 1999)
Coastal 2000 recommended a second-generation coastal resource management (CRM)
programme with a broader perspective of CZM in terms of objectives, participating agencies
and levels of government, and the range of geographic areas and environments affected,
such that it is expanded into a more holistic approach (Olsen et al., 1992). Consequently six
policy recommendations were made:
1. Coastal management should be implemented at national, provincial, district and local
levels with collaboration between governmental and non-governmental agencies to
achieve effective and participatory resources management.
2. Monitoring of coastal resources conditions and outcomes of management projects.
3. Research to provide a better understanding of ecological processes and social and
cultural issues, and to inform CRM plans.
4. Institution and human capacity strengthening.
5. Update and extend the scope of the master plan for erosion management.
6. Awareness raising.
(Olsen et al., 1992a, p 4)
Within this it was recommended that planning and management be undertaken based on
geographically distinct sites through the formulation of SAM plans.
1.2
Revised Coastal Zone Management
In 1997 the CZMP was revised in accordance with the requirements of the CCA. The new
Plan which laid out the strategies to be employed by CCD to reduce or mitigate the worst
3
environmental problems affecting Sri Lanka’s coastal areas , retained its strong emphasis on
coastal erosion management and the regulatory system but also incorporated issues and
recommendations arising from Coastal 2000 such as addressing habitat degradation and
SAM.
1.2.1
Regulatory System
The primary mechanism for managing activities for most of the Coastal Zone remained the
system of permits. These had to be obtained from CCD by any person wishing to engage in a
“development activity” such as waste management, landscaping and the removal of natural
resources. Specific criteria were provided for the removal of sand and a number of activities
were prohibited within boundaries or setback areas specified by CCD. The Director of Coast
Conservation had responsibility for issuing Major Permits but in a continued effort to
decentralise activities with a view to ensuring adequate regional and local level participation,
CCD delegated responsibility for Minor Permits to the Divisional Secretary (DS).
3
Defined as coterminous with the 67 Divisions of the Assistant Government Agents (CCD, 1997, p 1).
3
1.2.2
Special Area Management
SAM was proposed as a comprehensive strategy to cope with small-scale developments and
activities not adequately covered by the permit system and to complement the existing
approach. SAM is a community-based, collaborative process between residents and local,
regional and national government departments that allows for intensive, comprehensive
management of coastal resources in a well-defined geographic area (CCD, 1997;
Lowry et al., 1999). Central to the concept is the premise that “it is possible to organize local
communities to manage their natural resources, and they will continue to do so if they
perceive that they derive tangible benefits from better management” (CCD, 1997).
In SAM, the communities develop a natural resources management plan with the planning
agency as a facilitator or co-manager, providing technical and financial support and acting as
a mediator between competing demands. The SAM planning process actively encourages the
local community groups to participate as principal stakeholders in planning and
implementation sessions with local and central government agencies. In this way the local
communities gain “ownership” of the planning process. The resulting actions are more likely
to address the most pressing issues and lead to sustainable resource use, and by taking a
lead role in planning and management, community groups can ensure that they share
tangible benefits from project activities (RSAMCC, 1996). Implementation and monitoring also
become a local responsibility, which reduces the need for long-term support (CCD, 1997).
These mechanisms were to be implemented to address four main management objectives of
which three – habitat management, erosion management and pollution control – are
significantly linked to livelihoods (Table 1-1). The management activities selected build on
those of the 1990 Plan and can be implemented without substantial supplements to resources
or external support (CCD, 1997, p 11).
4
Table 1-1: Core Coastal Management Strategy Policies and Management Techniques
Policy
Management Technique*
Erosion Control
A. Regulate development suitability at specific
Education, Permit
sites
B. Ensure proper location in relation to the
Setback, Education
shoreline
C. Regulate amount, location and timing of sand
Permit, Devolution
mining
D. Build coast protection structures at appropriate
Master Plan for Coast Erosion Management
locations
E. Regulate
private
construction
of
groins,
Permit
revetments
F. Limit construction in erosion-prone areas
Building setbacks
Habitat Protection
A.
Regulate
location/use
of
development
Education, Permit, Special Area Management
may
Education, Permit, Special Area Management
activities to valued habitats
B.
Regulate
discharges
which
affect
habitats
C. Reduce resource use conflicts
Special Area Management
Coastal Pollution
A.
Regulate discharge of waste and residues
Permit
from new development activities
Archaeological, Historical, Religious, Cultural
and Scenic Sites
A.
Regulation
of
development
activities
in
Permit
relation to valued sites
* More than one management technique is normally used to implement a given policy, only primary
techniques are listed.
Source: CCD, 1997, p 11
1.3
Key Policy Issues and Their Relationship to a Livelihoods Approach
The range of issues covered in the most recent iteration of the CZMP address some of the
issues pertinent to coastal policy, particularly in relation to reducing degradation of coastal
habitats, which coastal communities rely on for their livelihoods. However, the Plan retains a
strong emphasis on control, regulation, prohibition and management for the benefit of the
4
resource, rather than taking an anthropocentric or livelihoods approach . There are some
exceptions however, such as SAM, awareness raising and some provision of alternative
livelihoods.
4 A brief description of the livelihoods approach is given in Chapter 3, but for a full discussion of the livelihoods
concept as used in this project, see Soussan, J. et al. (2001) “Understanding Livelihood Processes and Dynamics,
Livelihood-Policy Relationships in South Asia, Working Paper 1”, University of Leeds.
5
1.3.1
Coastal Erosion
Coastal erosion has long been considered the most pressing problem for coastal
management in Sri Lanka. In 1981 government estimates of land loss through coastal erosion
2
were in the order of 200,000-300,000 m per year along western and southern coasts. A Sri
Lankan Government and Asian Development Bank (ADB) report concluded that coastal
erosion rates will increase as a result of the decline in sand supply from the rivers to the nearshore areas, an increase in relative sea level rise and the depletion of coral reefs (ADB,
1999). This will affect property, tourism and reduce fish landing sites.
Erosion is significantly influenced by human activities such as: the mining of beach and river
sand; collection of coral from coastal areas and reefs; poorly sited coastal erosion prevention
structures; and the removal of coastal vegetation. These processes and activities can be
controlled through the permit and setback system but the CZMP also asserted the need for
action to minimize the social and economic impacts that such control may cause. The CZMP
referred specifically to the impacts of the prohibition of coral mining, to be addressed by
coordinated inter-agency efforts to provide alternative employment to displaced coral miners
(CCD, 1997).
1.3.2
Coastal Water Pollution
Sri Lanka’s increasing urbanization and industrialization, agricultural expansion and
inadequate waste management and treatment have led to substantial increases in the levels
of coastal water pollution. Pollutants from urban sources such as heavy metals, petrochemicals and faecal matter are degrading coastal ecosystems and threaten the sustainability
of near-shore fisheries (CCD, 1997, p 8). Similarly research conducted for this project has
shown that increased volumes of silt from agricultural activities and altered volumes of
freshwater due to water diversions and irrigation management, also threaten the hydrological
balance of lagoons and estuaries.
To redress these problems, CCD is bound under the CZMP to ensure compliance with
Central Environmental Authority (CEA) coastal and marine water quality standards and to
provide incentives for pollution abatement and treatment.
1.3.3
Coastal Habitats
As an overarching objective, CCD seeks to preserve and enrich coastal habitats that are
economically and ecologically important, and highly sensitive to resource-use pressures, and
promote sustainable development. Specific objectives exist for: coral reefs, on which coral
mining is prohibited; estuaries and lagoons, to protect fisheries and recreational value;
mangroves, as wildlife habitat and fish nurseries; seagrass beds as habitat; and salt marshes
as flood defence, habitat and pollution sinks. However, the CCD shares responsibility for
natural habitats in the Coastal Zone with a number of other government agencies such as the
Forest Department (FD) and Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWLC). Furthermore,
activities outside the Coastal Zone can have significant impacts on natural resources within it.
The activities specified to achieve CCD’s objectives therefore include inter-agency
6
cooperation in planning and management, and improving scientific understanding (CCD,
1997, p 33).
Mangroves
Mangroves, though limited to a small percentage of Sri Lanka’s coastline, are important to
coastal communities as sources of construction material and fuel wood, and as breeding
grounds and nurseries for a variety of crustaceans and fish species. They also provide the
service of shoreline stabilization and help to reduce siltation of estuaries and seagrass beds
(CCD, 1997). In some areas mangrove forests have suffered degradation as the selective
removal of species has reduced diversity. In areas where mangroves have been depleted fin
and shrimp fisheries appear to have declined due to the loss of breeding and nursery sites.
Coral Reefs
Reefs are important to the livelihoods of coastal communities as protection against erosion, a
source of fish and a means to attract nature-based tourism, which if managed effectively,
could potentially provide a substantial income to the community. However, the coral reefs
around Sri Lanka’s west and south coasts are significantly degraded. The USAID-funded
5
CRM Project found that only two out of the eight sites studied had greater than 50 percent
live corals (ADB, 1999, p 3). Coral degradation arises from collection of ornamental fish for
the export trade, reef anchorage, damage by glass bottom boats travelling over reefs,
pollution, siltation and fishing nets dragged along the corals. The problem is believed to have
been seriously compounded by the coral-bleaching event that occurred in 1998 due to a rise
in sea temperature caused by the El Nino effect, which destroyed large areas of coral reef.
Corals are also depleted by sea coral mining for lime production, an industry that still exists in
certain areas along the south and east coasts despite being illegal and considerable efforts to
stop it.
Fisheries
Fisheries do not fall under the remit of CCD but under the Department of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources (DFAR). However, fisheries management and fish availability in both
coastal, ocean and lagoon waters are a central issue for coastal communities.
Fish production in Sri Lanka (excluding fish caught by foreign vessels and brought into Sri
Lanka) increased between 1990 and 2000 by 120,390 metric tonnes to 304,380 metric
tonnes. Of this the entire increase came from marine fish, 60 percent of which was from
offshore fishing. By contrast, production from inland fisheries and aquaculture has declined by
1,490 metric tonnes in the 10-year period (Figure 1-1). This figure however masks the 17
percent increase in production in inland capture fishery and aquaculture between 1999 and
2000, of which the majority is shrimp. In the period 1990-2000, fish production increased in all
Districts of Sri Lanka (NARA, 2001).
5
Kandakuliya and Talawila.
7
Fish Production (metric tonnes)
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1990
2000
Coastal
Offshore
Fishing Zone
Inland and
Aquaculture
Figure 1-1: Fish Production by Fishing Zone 1990-2000
Source: Statistical Unit of the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development, 2000; in NARA
(2001, p 4)
Total fish exports from Sri Lanka in 2000, including live ornamental fish, amounted to 19,739
metric tonnes at a value of 10,426,876,857 SLRS (approximately £ 84,087,717) (NARA,
2001, p 28).
Wildlife
The Coastal Zone contains a number of important wildlife habitats, including three national
parks, one of which is designated as a wetland of international importance under the
Ramsar Convention. There is some conflict of interest in these areas between the Flora and
Fauna Protection Ordinance, which is administered by DWLC, and the CZMP. Livelihoods are
not only hampered by rules and regulations set by DWLC but there is also conflict between
humans and wildlife.
1.4
Institutional Framework for Coastal Zone Management
CCD, which at the time of implementation of activities arising from the 1990 and 1997
CZMPs, came under the auspices of the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
Development (MFARD), has overall responsibility for all matters relating to the coastal zone.
MFARD (now the Ministry of Fisheries and Ocean Resources (MFOR)), had overall
responsibility for fisheries and coastal resources management, which were administered
through CCD, DFAR, the National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency
(NARA), the Ceylon Fishery Harbour Corporation (CFHC), the Ceylon Fisheries Corporation
(CFC) and CEY-Nor (Figure 1-2).
•
•
DFAR is involved in extension services and coordination of fishery-related activities.
CFC is the marketing arm of MFARD and is involved in the distribution and marketing
of fish that are purchased by the Corporation from local fishermen. It has offices at
district level to coordinate the activity.
8
•
NARA is the research arm of MFARD. Activities include research, development and
management of activities pertaining to aquatic resources, including all living and nonliving resources in or beneath water.
•
CFHC is responsible for infrastructure development such as the construction and
maintenance of fisheries harbours.
•
The role of CEY-Nor is to supply fishing gear and nets to fishermen and undertake
repair and maintenance of boats.
(ADB, 1999)
Figure 1-2: Structure of MFARD
CCD’s responsibilities are met though the activities of several Divisions. The Planning
Division has the responsibility of designing coastal resources management plans in
accordance with Ministry-level policies. The Research and Design Division has responsibility
for research and design of coast protection structures, coastal investigation and monitoring of
coast protection structures. The Works Division is the engineering division and undertakes
construction and maintenance work of coast protection structures. The Coastal Resources
Management Division is responsible for all other components of the Plan including all nonengineering activities, coastal habitat management, socio-economic issues and SAM.
In addition to the Departments within MFARD/MFOR, the CCA (1981) provided for the
creation of the Coast Conservation Advisory Council (CCAC), a body comprised of
representatives from: all Government ministries and agencies whose work is pertinent to that
9
6
of the CCA ; universities of Sri Lanka; private voluntary organisations; and the fishing
industry. The main role of CCAC to date has been to review and issue permit applications,
with little emphasis placed on a policy advisory role (ADB, 1999).
Matters relating to fisheries are outside the remit of CCD and are dealt with by DFAR and the
National Aquatic Development Authority (NAQDA), which was established by the 1998 Act
No. 53. The activities of NAQDA complement the work of CCD. Its functions include:
development of aquatic resources and aquaculture to increase fish production and to create
employment opportunities; and conservation of biodiversity. The inclusion of DFAR, NAQDA
and CCD under MFOR supports cooperation between departments.
The remit of the Marine Pollution Prevention Authority (MPPA) also compliments the work of
CCD. However, MPPA is under the Ports Authority, not MFARD, making cooperation less
easy. The role of MPPA is to prevent, control and reduce pollution in Sri Lankan waters and it
is a criminal offence to discharge or allow the escape of any pollutant into Sri Lankan waters
from an offshore installation pipe, ship or other apparatus.
In general, the departments that come under MFARD/MFOR work closely with one another to
conduct environmental impact assessment studies, issue permits and undertake SAM
activities. Greatest cooperation in coastal related matters is between CCD, NARA, MPPA and
the Forest Department (Banda, pers. comm., 2003).
1.5
Government Structure
Traditionally Sri Lanka was divided into nine provinces, which are sub-divided into 24 districts.
Up until 1981 each district contained administrative offices representing most national-level
ministries and known collectively as kachcheri (government offices). During this time all
decisions were taken at the central level and passed to the regional and local levels for
implementation.
In 1978, the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka was written (the
third promulgation of the constitution) and included a commitment to decentralize the
th
country's administration. In 1987, the 13 Amendment of the Sri Lankan Constitution and the
th
Provincial Councils Act No. 42 established the Provincial Council System. The 13
Amendment provided for the: establishment of Provincial Councils; appointment and powers
of the Governor of Provinces; membership and tenure of Provincial Councils; appointment
and powers of the Board of Ministers; legislative powers of the Provincial Councils; alternative
arrangements where there is a failure in the administrative machinery; establishment of the
High Court of the Province; and the establishment of the Finance Commission. The Provincial
Councils Act No. 42 of 1987 provided for the: membership of Provincial Councils; meetings
and conduct of business in Provincial Councils; financial procedure in the Provincial Councils;
and the establishment of the Provincial Public Service (GOSL, 2003).
6
This includes the Ministries of: Coast Conservation; Tourism; Shipping; Local Government; Industries; Home
Affairs; Urban Development Authority; Irrigation; NARA; and the Land Commissioner (CCA, 1981, section 6, p 2).
10
A Provincial Council is not a Government Ministry or a Local Authority, but is an autonomous
body and is not under any Ministry. It undertakes activities which had earlier been undertaken
by the Central Government Ministries, Departments, Corporations and Statutory Authorities.
In general, the central government’s administration system links to the village level through a
number of layers (Figure 1-3). At the top is the Ministry where the permanent secretary plays
the key role in the decision-making process. Within the Ministries are the Departments or
Institutions headed by directors, commissioners and chairmen. The activities of this level
mainly involve coordination and providing the linkage between the National and District level.
The eight Provincial Councils (PC) form the next layer, in which the provincial Governor of
each province is responsible for the execution of policies and statutes made by the PC on
devolved subjects, through the Board of Provincial Ministers. A provincial public service has
been constituted for each province to support the executive. Except for policies on the form,
structure and constitution of local authorities and the national policy making related to local
government, all other activities inclusive of operations, supervision of management, including
the power to dissolve a local authority, come under the purview of a PC. The provincial
Minister and the provincial Commissioner of Local Government are holders of these offices in
the provincial council (UNESCAP, accessed 2003).
The third layer is the District Secretariat, of which there are currently 25. Branches of the
national-level departments, institutions, boards and authorities, have been established at this
(district) level to implement decisions taken at the national level. The District Secretary,
whose designation was changed in 1992 from Government Agent of a District, to correspond
with the Provincial Council Administration, is the “head” of the District, has responsibility for
implementing national policies and programmes within the District and links to the political
authority at this level through the Chief Minister, who is the head of the political authority of a
Province (Banda, 2003). The current responsibilities of the District Secretary are issuing food
stamps and various permits, collecting revenues and settling land disputes (CEA, 1995).
Below the District Secretariats are the 258 Pradeshiya Sabhas (PSs), the divisional or rural
councils, which are bodies of elected members that form the divisional-level link in the tiers of
decentralized power. The Divisional Secretary (DS) is secretary to the PS and serves under
the Chairman, an elected PS member, but is also under the supervision of the District
Secretary and the Chief Secretary of the PC, with responsibility for implementation of
devolved welfare and certain development work. There are a number of DS offices in a
District and their administrative role is to execute, assist and direct the District Secretary and
coordinate the state activities at the DS-division level (CEA, 1995).
The Grama Niladhari (GN) is the lowest rank of the government’s administrative system. A
DS division is divided into a number of GN divisions with approximately 300-400 households
and several villages in each. The GN assists the DS in executing state activities at village
level (CEA, 1995).
CCD is responsible for coastal resources management policies and implementation through
the District Secretary, DS and GN but is not a devolved subject under the 13th Amendment of
11
the Constitution, under which the Provincial Councils were established. CCD remains under
the central government as the coast is a totality and difficult to divide according to Provinces.
If CCD were to be devolved to Provincial level, a decision of one Province may affect the
coast of another Province thereby creating complexities and administrative problems (Banda,
2003).
Figure 1-3: Sri Lanka’s Government Structure for Devolution of Power
Source: http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/sri-lanka/sri-lanka131.html, 1988
1.6
Donor Assistance to the Sector
Over the decades there has been considerable support for development efforts in the Coastal
Zone from bilateral and multilateral donors including USAID, the German Technical Agency
(GTZ), the Government of the Netherlands (GoN), the UK Department for International
Development (DFID) and ADB (Table 1-2). Funding and technical assistance have been
provided for a range of activities from coastal stabilization to alternative livelihoods. In addition
12
there has been substantial research, which has informed project activity and government
direction.
Table 1-2: External assistance to the sector
1987-1992
DANIDA: Coast Conservation Project
1988-1991
GTZ: Coast Conservation Project
1989-1996
UNDP, MFARD-NARA: Marine Research
1990-1995
GTZ: Institutional Strengthening of CCD
1990-1992
USAID: Coastal Resources Management Project
1993-1999
ADB and MFARD: Fishery Sector Project
1997-1998
GTZ: Strengthening Hydrographic Capability of NHO and NARA
1998-2000
SAREC and SIDA: Research on the Natural Resources Management
in the Coastal Environment of Sri Lanka
1998-2002
GoN: Integrated Resources Management Programme (IRMP)
in Wetlands
1998-2000
NORAD: Hambantota Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project
(HICZMP)
1998-1999
ADB: Coastal Resources Management Project (project formulation)
1998-1999
SIDA: Improvement of Fishing Quality Standards
2000-2005
ADB and GoN: Coastal Resources Management Project
2001-2006
UNDP/GEF and CCD, DWLC, IUCN: Rekawa Ussangoda Kalametiya
Biodiversity Project
2000-2003
NORAD: HICZMP Phase II
Source: ADB-RETA, 2002
Certain projects such as the USAID-funded Coastal Resources Management Project and the
current ADB-GoN CRMP have been instrumental in shaping macro-policy and there is
suggestion from other government departments that CCD is highly donor driven. However, it
appears that activities have been undertaken at the request of and with the full cooperation of
MFARD/MFOR and that, while donor inputs are critical to development of coastal policy and
CCD activities, agendas are not strictly donor driven. SAM for example has at all stages relied
on donor funding but was a concept developed collaboratively between USAID and the
University of Rhode Island with CCD.
Fisheries-related projects, of which there are a considerable number in addition to the CRM
projects, have in the past tended to emphasize increasing fish catch and improving fish
quality. The effectiveness of these programmes has contributed to a decline in fish stocks
and, as a result, the focus of development interventions has switched to fisheries
management, conservation, environmental protection and poverty reduction (ADB, 1999, pp
7-9).
13
1.6.1
Coastal Zone Management Projects and Activities
There are several CZMPs and activities being undertaken currently, that are of particular
relevance to this study. These include the ADB-GoN CRMP, the Global Environmental Facility
project “Conservation of Biodiversity through Integrated Collaborative Management in the
Rekawa, Ussangoda and Kalametiya Coastal Ecosystems, Sri Lanka” (GEF-RUK) and the
GoN funded Integrated Resource Management Programme (IRMP) under the Wetlands
Conservation Project being conducted by CEA.
ADB-GoN CRMP
The ADB-GoN CRMP is being conducted in: the Northwestern Province, in Puttalam District;
the Western Province in Gampaha, Colombo, and Panadura-Kalutara Districts; and in the
Southern Province in Galle, Matara and Hambantota Districts. The Project aims to minimize
the potential adverse impacts of coastal erosion in critical coastal stretches through
establishment of appropriate physical interventions intended to stabilize the coastline.
Environmental degradation in selected lagoons that support fishing, will be addressed through
the SAM-planning approach. The Project also aims at encouraging the sustained
management and development of coastal fisheries resources by the implementation of
activities intended to address issues such as overfishing in coastal waters, reduction in the
high percentage of fish wastage through improved handling, and the lack of infrastructure
support facilities in specific locations. The Project includes aspects of enhancement of the
institutional capabilities of concerned government agencies and community organization in
resource managements.
The objectives of the Project are to:
• Introduce physical interventions to address coastal erosion and establish a proactive
coastal erosion management system;
• Improve the sustainability of coastal resources and alleviate environmental
degradation;
• Prevent fisheries resource depletion in coastal waters; and
•
Strengthen MFARD, its key agencies, and local communities in resource
management.
The Project is comprised of four components:
• Coastline Stabilization;
• Coastal Environment and Resource Management (CERM);
•
Fisheries Resource Management and Fish Quality Improvement, and the construction
of harbours/anchorages and ancillary facilities for improvement of fish quality and
reduction of pollution in lagoons; and
•
Institutional Strengthening of MFOR, community organizations in coastal and
fisheries resource management, and other concerned agencies.
(ADB, 2000)
14
GEF-RUK
The UNDP-funded GEF-RUK project is designed to assist the Government of Sri Lanka in
meeting its obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity and responds to Coastal
2000, the National Environmental Action Plan and the 1997 CZMP, and will further develop
the SAM concept, based on the SAM Plan for Rekawa lagoon. The project is designed to
integrate, supplement and increase biodiversity conservation objectives into the proposed
ADB-GoN CRMP. It also is also proposed that GEF-RUK will expedite the implementation of
coastal and marine sector initiatives proposed in the ADB Protected Area Management and
Wildlife Conservation Project, to be implemented by DWLC. The intention is to provide a suite
of targeted interventions that complement and strengthen activities already initiated and
others programmed under national budget funds. The project will also provide guidance and
replicable experience for the management of other SAM sites designated in Sri Lanka’s
revised CZMP.
Project formulation was undertaken by IUCN-Sri Lanka, in consultation with relevant state
agencies including CCD, DWLC and provincial authorities, and universities, NGOs,
community organizations and other organizations involved with development planning.
Throughout the project preparation, consultations were held with the ADB-GoN CRMP project
to ensure that the GEF project constitutes an integral part of the CERM component of the
project.
Collaboration has been sought with research institutions and NGOs to undertake the
collection and interpretation of biodiversity data. All data generated from the baseline and
monitoring surveys are being fed into the national database that will be established under the
ADB-CRMP, while specific data from coral reef surveying is being fed into the Global Coral
Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) Programme.
The project is attempting to build upon the successful Rekawa SAM experience and assist in
updating and implementing the SAM plan and extending its reach to cover the entire 27 km
coastal reach from Rekawa to Ussangoda. Such intervention is urgently required if the
biodiversity of the reach is to be preserved.
The overall objective of the project is to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity of this globally-significant site through the development of a collaborative
management system, actively involving local communities, NGOs and government agencies.
Upon completion of the four-year project, the following outcomes are expected:
•
•
A Coastal Environmental Profile and replicable SAM plan for the three lagoon areas.
Participatory mechanisms for resources management developed and livelihoods of
the local community improved through the introduction of nature-based tourism and
other sustainable incomes.
•
Conservation programmes for the globally-significant biodiversity established at the
project site and local biodiversity units established to enhance community awareness.
This focuses on turtle nesting sites and mangroves.
15
•
Efficient policy-level coordination and law enforcement established to improve
•
biodiversity conservation.
An effective monitoring system in place to assess development activities and their
impact to biodiversity.
The project activities include: collecting biodiversity and socio-economic data to aid planning
and management; collaboratively developing a management framework; strengthening and
implementing conservation initiatives with local communities; and establishing a monitoring
programme (GEF-RUK Project Proposal, 2000).
Integrated Resource Management Programme in Wetlands
IRMP is funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, managed by CEA and
implemented by the Netherlands consultant ARCADIS (WISARD, 2002). The programme is a
follow-up to the Wetlands Conservation Project (WCP), in which a master plan, including
development and conservation components, was developed for Muthurajawla Marsh and
Negombo Lagoon (ARCADIS, 2002). The general, long-term project objectives are to:
•
Preserve the area’s natural resources in order to safeguard the country’s biological
•
and ecological diversity and genetic heritage;
Alleviate rural poverty through optimal sustainable exploitation of suitable natural
•
resources;
Strengthen capabilities of agencies and rural communities to cooperate in resources
management.
(ARCADIS, 2002)
16
2 Analysis of Local-Level Policy Interventions
Specific policy interventions and their impacts on livelihoods are most effectively studied at
the local level, particularly in areas where intervention is known to have taken place or where
there is a perceived need for intervention.
Research for this project was conducted in Hambantota District on the south coast of Sri
Lanka (Figure 2-1). Hambantota is in the dry zone, where 25.9 percent of the population is
7
considered poor using a consumption poverty line of SLRs 950 per person per month
(Department of Census and Statistics, 1996). The three locations chosen centre around
lagoons traditionally used for fishing, which according to local communities have a number of
similar environmental and socio-economic problems, including: water management issues
leading to degradation of agricultural land and lagoons; depletion of fish stocks; and conflict
between wildlife conservation and livelihood activities based on natural resources use.
Malala
Kalametiya
Rekawa
Figure 2-1: Research Locations
Source: Microsoft MapPoint
Rekawa Lagoon area was selected because it was one of the two original sites where SAM
was initiated in 1992 and therefore offers the opportunity to study the community’s opinion on
the SAM process, the current status of SAM implementation and the changes that have
occurred as a result of this implementation. Kalametiya Lagoon area was chosen as a
comparative since it has been selected as one of nine sites in which SAM will be undertaken
7 However, Sri Lanka has not defined an official poverty line and the targeting of programmes has been decided on
an ad hoc basis by the implementers (Tudawa, 2001, p 13).
17
by CCD through the GoN-ADB CRMP. Activities under the GoN-ADB project were initiated
during the research for this study and offered the opportunity to observe the community
mobilization and organization, and planning process. In addition, activities are being
conducted in Kalametiya under the UNDP GEF-RUK Project. The third research site, Malala
Lagoon area, is located within Bundala National Park, where DWLC has primary responsibility
for natural resources management, and where the community reports that livelihoods and
wildlife needs conflict. Although Malala is not a location in which specific CCD activities or
other coastal project interventions are taking place, it provides a comparison with such sites.
It therefore facilitates investigation of non-CCD CRM activities, awareness of the CZMP
outside project areas, and collaboration between CCD and other agencies responsible for
natural resource management in coastal areas.
2.1
Using the Livelihoods Approach
The overall project methodology utilised the livelihoods approach to analyse:
1. The outputs of policy: for example changes in legal rights and tenure structures,
development of support capacities and formation of user groups.
2. The outcomes of policy: for example increasing participation in local collective decisionmaking and development activities.
3. The impacts of policy on households’ livelihoods: for example enhanced flows of coastal
products and increased income.
(Chadwick et al., 2001)
The livelihoods approach is a complex and dynamic concept that has been developed and
utilized by a number of organizations and about which an enormous array of literature has
been produced. For the purposes of this research, a livelihoods model was developed based
on the Carney (1998) model. The model addresses the project’s thinking about the concept
and the external factors that contribute to the livelihoods of a household or community
(Soussan et al., 2001). It is not possible to present a full discussion of the livelihoods
approach or the model developed by this project, but it is necessary to outline the basis of the
livelihoods approach adopted by the project in order to understand the field research
methodology. The main concepts are that:
•
People draw on a set of capital assets: human, natural, financial, physical and social as
a basis for their livelihoods (Carney, 1998). The capitals available to a household depend
not only on their existence but also the household’s ability to gain access to them. For
example, fishing can only be undertaken if the household has fishing gear and then only if
there are no social barriers, such as a fisheries cooperative society, that prevent them
from fishing without a permit.
•
Livelihoods are built from a series of choices over the use of these assets. This decisionmaking process can be seen as a livelihood strategy.
•
Based on the choices made, members of the household will undertake a number of
livelihood activities. These activities are the most familiar dimension of livelihoods to
people and have been the focus of many development efforts in the past.
18
•
These activities generate income for the household, including goods, services and
•
money. This income contributes to the decisions made as part of the household livelihood
strategy.
Many local and external factors exist that influence livelihoods including markets, the
physical environment and the social and political environment. These features are
themselves inherently dynamic and livelihoods are vulnerable to the shocks (sudden
changes) and trends in these factors.
(Soussan et al., 2001)
It was intended that the livelihoods approach should give an improved understanding of both
households’ livelihood processes and how these are affected by interventions, and was
therefore the central methodology around which the research programme was developed and
through which research findings were analysed.
2.2
Research Methodology
A series of specific activities were conducted in the three field sites to improve understanding
of the livelihood dynamics of the communities and individual households, and how policy
interventions had, and were perceived by individuals to have, impacted on households. The
research techniques centred on collection of information relating to the five capital assets,
with natural capital and social capital playing a prominent part because of their interrelatedness with the coastal policy. The fieldwork comprised of a number of participatory
research techniques including household interviews, wealth ranking, focus group discussions
8
(FGDs) and in-depth, semi-structured interviews .
At all three sites background research was conducted, including interviews with the Grama
Niladaris, District Secretaries and community members, to identify the number of GN
Divisions and villages surrounding the lagoons and the main livelihood activities undertaken in
each of these. Using this information three villages were selected in each area on the basis of
livelihoods, and proximity to the lagoon and coast. The selection criteria where that the village
should have a high number of people whose primary activities required natural coastal
resources, such as fishermen and coral miners. Village location was based on one village
adjacent to the coast on the seaward side of the lagoon, one village on the inland side of the
lagoon and one village at an intermediary point between these but near the lagoon. In each
village selected for the research, a village map was obtained from the GN or drawn by the
local field team, and a household list was compiled including the name of the household head
and the primary livelihood activity of the household.
In each of the villages selected, at least three wealth rankings were conducted: one with three
female community members; one with three male community members; and one with a mixed
group. All groups were asked to rank only the households they knew and felt confident
ranking. Initially the groups were asked to use as many wealth categories as they felt
necessary but it became clear that the categories of “very rich”, “rich”, “poor” and “very poor”
8
The full field research manual can be found on the project website:
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/sei/prp/downdocs.html
19
were sufficient and were used throughout the sites. In each ranking the volunteers were
asked to give a description of the four categories and to include anything they considered
relevant.
The criteria chosen by the groups to define poverty or poor households generally fell within
four of the five livelihoods capital assets (listed on p 18 above). For example, wealth was
associated with type of house (physical capital), quantity of land (physical/natural capital),
number of children and their level of education (human capital), and employment and income
status (financial capital). The criteria were also found to be similar between research sites.
However, livelihood-related criteria were site specific because of the dominance of livelihoods
relating to available natural resources such as land, fishing grounds and salt (Table 2-1). Due
to the nationally high levels of education (92 percent adult literacy) the absence of education
is seen as a reflection of poverty (DFID, 1999).
Table 2-1: Wealth ranking criteria
Medium
• Own assets
such as tractors,
motorbikes,
boats or cattle
• Permanent
house
• Water and
electricity supply
Poor
• House is
incomplete
and/or small
• Two families
living in one
house
Very Poor
• Small cadjun
(mud) huts
• No facilities
• Can not afford 3
meals a day or
sufficient clothing
• Children above
school age are
employed
• Labour in
saltant*
• Employed
overseas e.g.
Middle East
• Paid labour such
as fishing or
farming
• Seasonal income
• Low education
levels
• Sea fishermen
• Large numbers of
children
• Paid labour
• Make coir rope
• Lagoon fishermen
• Children
uneducated
Financial
capital
Rich
• Large houses with
tiled roofs, brick walls
and cement floors
• Electricity and water
supply
• Luxury household
goods e.g.
televisions, radios,
dinner sets and good
chairs
• Small families
• More than one family
member has a
source of income
• Large scale trading
• Government sector
employees
• Owners of businesses
• Permanent source of
income
• No savings
• Can not meet
basic needs
Natural
capital
• Own large plots of
land
• Own more than
2 acres of paddy
land
• Debts with no
means of
repayment
• No income
Physical
capital
Human
capital
• Own small areas
of land for home
gardens (~0.5
acre)
The primary livelihood activities and wealth ranking categories were used to select a random
stratified sample of 35 households in each village, ensuring a minimum sample of 27 percent
of the village. Each household in the sample was asked if they would mind completing a short
questionnaire. Of these, five households were asked if they would be interviewed in more
depth. In addition FGDs were held with key members of the community and livelihood groups.
The household questionnaires were designed to provide information on the livelihood
activities of the household both now and in the past, and the reasons for changes. Alterations
to livelihoods could be due to changes in access to, or quality of, natural resources or due to
20
policy impacts of either the CZMP or other policies that influence the coastal area.
Households were also asked about specific problems related to their livelihoods both now and
in the past, and how they felt these problems could be addressed.
The household questionnaires were to be asked to a male household member and a female
household member individually, with slightly different questions asked of each where
appropriate. The intention of this was to provide a check, to see the differences in opinion
between men and women and to ensure that women’s opinions were heard.
In each location a two-page questionnaire was appended to the main household
questionnaire, which related to CZM policy, other policies and projects. Initially respondents
were asked if they had heard of certain projects, departments and agencies and knew of, or
were involved with, any activities being undertaken by them. Location-specific questions were
then asked about projects and activities in each area. For example, the Rekawa questionnaire
asked about knowledge of, or involvement with, the SAM process; the Kalametiya
questionnaire asked about knowledge of the new SAM process and DWLC activities; and the
Malala questionnaire asked about knowledge of CCD and the CZMP but had greater
emphasis on DWLC activities than the other questionnaires. In all three sites, both the
household and site-specific questionnaires were designed to give the respondents freedom to
discuss whatever they considered relevant.
The “intra-household interviews” conducted with a total of 45 households were designed to
provide a more in-depth understanding of livelihood dynamics in the research areas, including
any problems associated with making a living. The interview was constructed to consider the
five livelihood capitals; financial, social, natural, physical and human. The social capital
section included discussion on all community level groups that the household was involved in
or knew about, and any external departments or agencies that were active in the village. The
interview was kept deliberately open to facilitate a full discussion and all members of the
household were encouraged to participate.
2.3
2.3.1
Rekawa Lagoon – Special Area Management
Location and Study Site
Research in Rekawa was primarily concerned with the SAM process, which focuses on the
250 ha lagoon and its surrounding area including the shorefront, 200 ha of mangroves and
scrub forest. The SAM area covers six GN Divisions, within which are 15 villages. Of these
GN Divisions all but Rekawa East and Marakolliya bound the lagoon, although Netolpitiya
stretches some distance from the lagoon. Madagama, Netolpitiya South and Marakolliya do
not make contact with the shoreline, the latter being located on the landward side of the road
(Figure 2-2).
21
Figure 2-2: Rekawa Lagoon Research Area
Source: RSAMCC, 1996
The three villages in the Rekawa area selected for more detailed research were based on
their location and primary livelihood activities identified in the initial village survey.
Boraluwagoda, in Rekawa West was selected for its proximity to the lagoon and the high
proportion of both lagoon fishermen (18 percent) and labourers (29 percent). Oruwella in
Rekawa East was selected for its proximity to the coastline and coral reef, the high proportion
of sea fishermen (48 percent) and because it was at the centre of efforts under the SAM Plan
to eradicate coral mining. In Kapuhenwala in Medilla there is a diversity of livelihoods and an
apparently high level of unemployment (19 percent). All three villages were included in the
SAM process.
2.3.2
Environmental Conditions
According to the local community the environmental conditions in Rekawa have altered
considerably over the past 10-20 years due to human intervention and more recently the
lower than average rainfall, although yearly variations in precipitation are characteristic of the
area (Gunewatte et al., 1995, p 10). Irrigation developments upstream of the lagoon have had
a serious impact on the quantity of freshwater entering the system, which has affected the
lagoon itself and the adjacent salt marshes, and the organisms that depend on them
(Ganewatte et al., 1995). Evidence of gradual shrinkage of the lagoon is found by comparison
between the 1983 Hambantota District Profile in which 339 ha of water surface were recorded
and a study by NARA in 1992 that found nearly 250 ha of water surface, (Samaranayake,
1983; and Jayakody and Jayasinghe, 1992; cited in Gunewatte et al., 1995, p 15).
These and other changes to the environmental profile of the area have had consequences for
the many households who rely on the lagoon for their livelihoods. Both lagoon and sea
fisheries have declined considerably over the years, with 41 percent of the households
interviewed, including 72 percent of the fishermen, citing lack of fish in the sea and lagoon as
22
one of the major constraints faced in securing a livelihood. The main reasons given for the
reduction in sea fish availability were the increasing number of fishermen and inappropriate
fishing gear or practices that reduce stocks and destroy habitats, including beach seine,
coarse nets and “bottom set nets”. Increasing fishing pressure, poor or non-existent
management and lack of water were cited as factors contributing to the reduction in lagoon
fish catches.
The fluctuation in freshwater availability has also impacted on paddy lands much of which are
saline and periodically flood when large amounts of water received in the catchment area
raise the level of the lagoon (Gunewatte et al., 1995, p 15). The environmental profile of the
Rekawa area compiled in 1995 states that of the 750 ha of paddy land in the area, some two
thirds of the land closest to the lagoon are not used for these reasons (Gunewatte et al.,
1995, p 22).
The drought conditions in the Southern Province over the past four years have, according to
the community, added to problems and further reduced the productivity of the lagoon and
agricultural lands. Of those interviewed 54 percent cited lack of water as a problem for
securing a livelihood. When asked about the effects of last year’s drought, 62 percent claimed
that it affected their household through the loss of some form of cultivation including coconut
plantations, chena (traditional slash-and-burn cultivation), home gardens and cattle and
buffalo farming (Figure 2-3). Further discussions with the community suggest that irrigation
water has been insufficient to meet demands and that the ancient freshwater tanks have only
retained rain water for two of the past five dry seasons and have been saline for much of the
time. Piped water is available for drinking and bathing but not all households have access,
and the water pressure is said to be insufficient to allow anything other than household use.
Percentage of
households affected
60
50
49
41
40
30
23
20
10
4
6
0
Coconut
cultivation
Agriculture
Fish
Prawn
Livelihood component
Drinking /
Household
needs
Figure 2-3: Aspects of Livelihoods Affected by the Drought in 2001/2002
The limited mangrove stands surrounding the lagoon are utilized for fuel wood collection,
often to be used in lime kilns and the brick industry, for house and fish trap construction, and
for medicinal purposes. They also provide an important habitat for fish and crustaceans,
23
particularly in their larval and juvenile stages, which the community are heavily dependent on
(Gunewatte et al., 1995, p 24). At the time of SAM planning the total mangrove area had
increased due to sedimentation in the lagoon area but the important good quality mangrove
trees such as Rhizophora mucrorata and Bruguiera gymnorhyza had declined in abundance
(RSAMCC, 1996, p. 24) resulting in a degraded habitat.
2.3.3
Socio-economic Conditions
The impacts of these environmental conditions on households and communities are tempered
by the spatial distribution of the villages and hence their dependence on the resources. For
example figures collected by Rekawa Development Foundation (RDF) in a survey conducted
in 1997, suggest that Rekawa East which borders a long stretch of coastline but has relatively
little land mass is dominated (56 percent) by fishing, whilst in Netolpitiya South, which has
only a short piece of its border in contact with Rekawa Lagoon just 8 percent of households
engage in fishing. Families undertaking either fishing or farming comprise the majority in all
but two GN Divisions, with 63 percent of all Rekawa households relying on agriculture or
fishing, making them susceptible to changes to natural resources. Villages with greatest
access to the road, such as Netoloitiya South, have a larger number of families employed in
the private sector (Figure 2-4).
Figure 2-4: Main Employment Activities in Rekawa
Source: RDF, 1997
9
9 These data were initially collected under the SAM process, but the data contain a number of inconsistencies and
there are concerns regarding their use for decision making and development of SAM Plans. Data were not collected
for Marakolliya as it was not included in the SAM process.
24
2.3.4
Policy Setting and Interventions
The main policy interventions in Rekawa have been through SAM. A number of donor-funded
projects and activities led by other departments have also taken place in the area but the
majority of these, particularly those relating to welfare and fisheries have been undertaken in
connection with the Rekawa SAM Coordination Committee (RSAMCC), the body responsible
for SAM planning and coordination. RSAMCC is comprised of government departments, local
community groups and other relevant parties. It includes representatives from CCD, DFAR,
NARA, DWLC, FD, the DS of Tangalla, Hambantota Integrated Rural Development Project
and the Coastal Resources Management Project of the Natural Resources and Environmental
Policy Project, the Irrigation Department (ID), the Tangalla Pradeshiya Sabha (PS), Lagoon
Fishermen’s Organization, Sea Fishermen’s Organization and Women’s Development Society
(RSAMCC, 1996; Ekaratne et al., 2000).
The role of RSAMCC was, through community workshops, to identify management issues for
the area and to develop management plans to address the environmental, social and
economic problems. Implementation of the plans was also to be undertaken on a
collaborative basis between Government and Community Coordination Committee (CCC)
representatives (Figure 2-5).
As SAM progressed, community-based organizations were formed or strengthened and more
representatives were assimilated into RSAMCC. An important contributor to RSAMCC is the
Rekawa Development Foundation (RDF), which was formed in 1997 as an extension and
formalisation of CCC, a group originally created to act upon issues pertaining to socioeconomic development of the village. RDF represents the six GN Divisions and acts as a
focal organization to channel funding into the area and to coordinate implementation of SAM
activities on behalf of the community.
The main decision-making body of RDF is entrusted with responsibility over seven areas of
development activities: agriculture; fisheries; lagoon and environment; self-employment and
micro-enterprises; health and education; vocational training; and awareness building (Banda,
2003).
RDF execute proposals submitted to them by members of the community-level organizations,
which meet monthly to discuss development issues in the village. If the proposals are too
difficult to execute within the resources of RDF, they are submitted to RSAMCC. If the
submitted proposals fall within the subject area of the representative government agencies,
then they will suggest appropriate actions that may be taken (Banda, 2003).
25
Figure 2-5: Institutional Framework for Planning and Implementation of the Rekawa Special Area
Management Plan
Source: RSAMCC, 1996, p 60
2.3.5
Planning and Management
The planning process started with a series of informal discussions held with the community to
gain an understanding of the relevant issues. After the discussions and consultations, a social
mobilization programme was initiated, to convince the villagers that proper management of
natural resources is the way to overcome poverty in the village (Banda, 2003). A graduate
was placed in the village for a period of two years to coordinate the programme. He selected
and trained a group of female social mobilizers to conduct awareness-building exercises with
the villagers, gave lectures and organized discussions with the community (Banda, 2003).
The social mobilizers visited each household in the SAM area and discussed the need for
26
environmental protection, particularly of the coastal and lagoon environment. At the same
time, they initiated activities to organize the community to undertake some of the
responsibilities of the SAM process and strengthen community organisations, including the six
GN level organizations represented in RDF.
Consequently, there was a high level of community involvement in the planning process, and
81 percent of those interviewed stated that they were involved in the general process, of
which 58 percent participated in workshops. The community identified the issues and means
of solving them, but the social mobilization programme influenced the issues selected through
the education and awareness activities undertaken. For example, the community did not see
coral mining and mangrove degradation as important environmental issues until their
perceptions were changed by the social mobilizers employed under the SAM Plan
(Banda, 2003).
Despite this, the community mobilization was seen by Ekaratne et al. (2000, p 25) as one of
the strengths of SAM, organizing local communities such as lagoon fishermen into groups
and linking them with resources, and thereby facilitating project interventions. The greatest
achievement of the social mobilization was perceived by Banda (2003) to be community
support to SAM implementation, specifically the formation of CCC. Of those interviewed, 19
percent were involved with CCC.
2.3.6
Problems, Activities, Outcomes and Impacts
The planning process led to the development of a comprehensive local management plan to
address four main issues (Annex A):
•
•
•
•
Water supply to the lagoon;
Management of lagoon and marine resources;
Land-use planning; and
Poverty alleviation and alternative livelihoods
To address these issues a number of project objectives were set (Table 2-2) which led to the
definition of several specific activities, their administration and outputs (Figure 2-6).
27
Table 2-2: Rekawa SAM Objectives
1.
Strengthen and build community organizations to enable them to actively participate in
management of natural resources and livelihoods
2.
Improve the productivity and diversity if ecosystems by reducing degradation of the
beach, lagoon, mangroves and fisheries
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Increase community awareness of natural resources’ values and understanding of
resource ownership for management to sustain environmental and economic well-being
Reduce conflicts among users of the natural resources
Conduct research and periodic monitoring activities to provide information and feedback
to the Management Plan
Develop alternative employment for those engaged in degrading natural resources
through development of agriculture, aquaculture, tourism and other appropriate means
Promote policies to provide institutional and legal support for the Management Plan and
its implementation
Source: RSAMCC, 1996, p 11
Water supply and the lagoon system
The main issues relating to lagoon water supply at the time that the SAM Plan was written
included: the influx of agricultural run-off containing agricultural inputs and sediment; and
alterations to the natural inflow of fresh and brackish water due to the construction of
numerous irrigation works and the Kapuhenwala causeway, which sealed the connection with
the sea and prevented flows in and out of the lagoon mouth (Banda, 2003).
Modification of the causeway has taken place since the development of the SAM Plan,
allowing freer exchange of the water with the sea, and the health of the lagoon appears to be
improving. However a few respondents (10 percent) remain concerned about siltation and
pollution, suggesting that the expected results have not been adequately attained. The
objective of improved ecosystem productivity appears not to have been met, although there is
evidence that this may be due to fishing practices as well as ecosystem quality. The impact
on the livelihoods of fishermen appears to be negligible with most of those interviewed still
complaining about low catches and only 4 percent stating that the SAM project has
contributed to improving the conditions of the lagoon or fish stocks.
According to the community, better drainage has reduced waterlogging on agricultural land
but the current drought situation means that the paddy fields have not been cultivated since
1999 and vegetable crops have been poor.
28
Figure 2-6: Roles, Inputs and Coordination for Management and Expected Outputs
Source: RSAMCC, 1996, p 61
29
Management of Lagoon and Marine Resources
i.
Mangroves
It was proposed that the mangroves be protected by the implementation of a zonation
scheme and sustainable use plans. Activities including awareness raising and mangrove
management were conducted under SAM, of which the awareness-raising campaign was
relatively successful, with 34 percent of respondents citing mangrove protection as a benefit
arising from the SAM process. However only 4 percent referred specifically to the impact this
would have on fish in the lagoon and a few households mentioned the negative impacts on
their livelihoods, with some respondents now buying fuel wood from outside the area,
increasing their cost of living, and others complaining that they could not obtain sufficient
10
wood for brick making and lime production . Although timber extraction is not permitted some
families still collect timber for construction and the, now improving, mangroves are considered
a valuable resource in this respect. Destruction of fish breeding grounds is still considered to
be a problem by some but it is acknowledged that the work by the FD is helping to recreate
them and given time substantial benefits will hopefully accrue, in particular to fishing
households.
ii.
Lagoon Fisheries
The Rekawa Lagoon Fisheries Cooperative Society (RLFCS) was registered in 1995 to
address the decline of fish stocks and the degradation of the lagoon, through the
implementation of the Rekawa Lagoon fishing regulations. The regulations formulated in the
early 1980s, limit the number of fishing units, areas of operation and specifications of gillnets
and fish kraals (Joseph and Kumara, 2001). Unfortunately by the late 1990s, RLFCS was no
longer operating, for a number of reasons including non-participation by members in the
management process and the apparent inability of the society to mobilize people (Joseph and
Kumara, 2001). According to some society members the problems also included
mismanagement of funds accrued from membership fees. This and other issues resulted in
the members loosing faith in the society (Senaratna and Milner-Gulland, 2002).
In 1999 the Rekawa Lagoon Fisheries Management Area Regulations were gazetted under
the Fisheries Aquatic Resources Act No. 2 of 1996. Despite this there was no mechanism in
the fishing community to implement them. Consequently, RDF requested the support of a
GTZ-funded Fisheries Community Development and Resources Management Project
(FCDRMP). The project held several workshops with the Rekawa fishermen and in 2001 the
Rekawa Lagoon Fisheries Management Committee (RLFMC) was gazetted and later in the
same year transformed to the Rekawa Lagoon Fisheries Management Authority (RLFMA)
(Joseph and Kumara, 2001).
GTZ are working to resolve conflicts within RLFMA dating back to the days of RLFCS, and
between the fishing and farming communities, and to address the historical failure of RLFCS
to control inappropriate fishing methods and overfishing.
10
An activity which is prohibited under the CZMP, 1997.
30
Recently, according to community members, conflict between fishermen and farmers over the
untimely opening of the lagoon mouth and loss of fish stocks, caused the fishermen to make
representation to the authorities but without success. GTZ supported the fishermen by
organizing, with RLFMA and the DS, a suitable time to breach the lagoon mouth, which
avoided flooding of agricultural land and loss of fish and shrimp stocks.
Although stocks and catches remain low there is anecdotal evidence that management and
regulation of fishing by RLFMA is becoming more effective and the fishermen are hopeful
shrimp harvests will be better this season. There also appears to be a fair degree of positive
thinking among the committee members that RLFMC will be a more dynamic organization
that plays an important role in lagoon-resource management and sustainable livelihoods.
A second project was conducted by the University of Colombo, Sri Lanka and University
College Cork, Ireland, and sponsored by the International Institute of Environment and
Development (IIED) to determine whether the management of lagoon biological diversity can
be facilitated by enhancing the economic value of the lagoon environment by the stakeholder
fishermen by:
1. Restocking the lagoon with high value shrimp (Panaeus monodon);
2. Devolving harvesting rights, and hence ownership of the restocked shrimp, to
local fishermen; and
3. Bringing about a favourable environment and protective benefit to lagoon
biodiversity, leading to biodiversity conservation and management through
stakeholder interest.
(Ekaratne, 2000, p 2)
The results of the project showed that 3 percent of the restocked shrimp were caught,
providing a profit on the initial investment of Rs 34,110 (Ekaratne, 2000, p 30). A survey
revealed that the restocking also brought about additional benefits such as empowerment and
attitudinal and functional changes within the community (Ekaratne, 2000, p 40). However,
despite proof of the financial viability and additional benefits of such a project the restocking
was not repeated by the community. The evaluation concluded that such communities have
poor management capabilities and are not sufficiently economically astute and consequently
did not reinvest in stocking the lagoon (Ekaratne, 2000, p 40).
Residents in Rekawa said that there was no shrimp fishery that year because of the drought
and Kapuhenwala causeway. They also suggested that they would like the lagoon to be
restocked (Senaratna and Milner-Gulland, 2002).
iii.
Sea Fisheries
By contrast, the two Sea Fisheries Cooperative Societies of Rekawa East and Rekawa West
are, according to the two secretaries of the societies, totally inactive due to corruption and the
large amounts of money owned to the societies from loans granted to members.
31
Destructive Activities
The SAM Plan proposed to stop destructive activities such as coral mining, certain fishing
techniques and turtle egg poaching through prohibition, and promotion of alternative
employment for those engaged in such activities. This component had mixed success.
i.
Turtle Conservation
Turtle egg poaching was addressed by the Turtle Conservation Project (TCP) sponsored by
Care for the Wild. The concept was to train turtle egg poachers to protect nests and to replace
their income from egg sales with income generated by wildlife tourism, in the form of a nightwatch programme in which tourists would be shown layingturtles. The project appeared
successful at first, with community participation and the feeling of ownership contributing
substantially to its success. However in 2001 the funding period came to an end and the
income from the tourist night-watch programme was insufficient for it to be self-sustained
(Senaratna and Milner-Gulland, 2002).
DWLC has taken over the role but with a conservationist approach, segregating nesting sites
to prevent poaching rather than soliciting community participation. Some short-term benefits
may accrue but the fundamental problem of poaching is unlikely be addressed and there will
undoubtedly be a negative impact on the livelihoods of the households involved in turtle egg
collection if the project is successful. There has been suggestion that community conservation
was not successful because those employed by TCP continued to poach to supplement their
incomes. However, this has not been substantiated.
Currently turtle egg poaching continues on areas of the beach around Rekawa that are not
patrolled.
ii.
Coral Mining
Coral mining was one of the main justifications for CCD’s intervention in Rekawa. The CCA
and the Amendment Act, No. 64 of 1988 prohibit coral mining, stating that, “no person shall
2
within the limits of the coastal zone engage in the mining, collecting, processing, possessing,
storing, burning and transporting in any form whatsoever of coral” (Amendment Act, 1988,
section 31 A, 1). CCD therefore instructed the police station in Tangalla to fine those who
violated the clauses of the Act and a police post was established in Rekawa in 1993 to control
coral mining (Banda, 2003). The police provided assistance to CCD, in demolishing all lime
kilns located within the limits of the Coastal Zone, and fining coral miners and lime producers,
temporarily reducing the income of many households. In conjunction with law enforcement an
alternative income generating programme was established to train coral miners, who are
predominantly women, in other livelihood activities but according to the villagers in Oruwella,
the alternatives offered could only be undertaken by a limited number of people, due to
insufficient demand, lack of access to external markets or lack of expertise.
Both the law enforcement and failure to provide sufficient, satisfactory alternative livelihoods
created resentment and many still associate these actions with SAM and RDF, which may be
detrimental to the wider objectives of the Plan (Banda, 2003). The attitude of those
interviewed in Oruwella was that destruction of kilns, confiscation of goods and fines, only
32
encouraged them to work harder to replace their losses. The majority of people returned to
coral mining and lime production, with 18 kilns built since 1999.
Of the alternatives offered however, poultry farming had some initial success with 15 of the 30
households set-up in poultry farming by SAM earning more money than from coral mining
(Wickramasuriya et al., 1999). However later reports suggest that just one individual is
continuing in poultry farming (Senaratna, 2002).
Reduction of destructive fishing practices has had more success especially as regards fishing
kraals and net size, largely as a result of the work of RLFMC with GTZ. However, discussions
with the community suggest that there is still some way to go before the problems are fully
addressed.
Poverty Alleviation and Alternative Livelihoods
The fourth strategy of the SAM Plan overlapped with elements of the other components but
was distinct in its primary objective of addressing issues of poverty and livelihoods rather than
resources management. RSAMCC hoped to achieve self-reliance to reduce the number of
families dependent on public assistance and to improve productivity to increase household
incomes. Dependence on assistance programmes may have been reduced as only
25 percent of the sample received Samurdhi benefits compared with 70 percent receiving
food stamps in 1996. However it is likely that this figure is distorted because people do not
like to discuss these matters and because Samurdhi payments had, at the time of the
research, been temporarily suspended by the Government elected in 2001, to allow for
reassessment of beneficiaries. Hence benefit receipts may be a poor indicator of
improvements.
The wealth rankings conducted by this project provide an indication of current wealth status
but the lack of historical data makes it impossible to use this to indicate whether or not SAM
has led to an improvement (Figure 2-7). However, it does show that that the majority (57
percent) of the households in the study are considered by community to be poor or very poor.
Rich
11%
Very poor
22%
Quite rich
32%
Poor
35%
Figure 2-7: Wealth-ranking of Households in Rekawa
33
In terms of the activities introduced to reduce poverty in the area, these were primarily aimed
at community members believed to be engaged in “destructive practices” such as coral
mining, or activities that were no longer producing good outputs, such as fishing. According to
community members activities introduced included rabbit, poultry and goat farming, and beekeeping. These appear to have had limited effect with very few people continuing such
activities. For example, a group of women engaged in coral mining explained that they were
taught how to make sweet meats and clothes, but of those trained only one had continued
with dressmaking as there were not enough villagers to support more than one dressmaker
and they did not have access to markets to sell their products. In another discussion, one
community member explained that the rabbit farming failed because the climate was
unsuitable. In general, alternative income-generating activities appear to have had an
extremely low success rate, predominantly because they were poorly thought through and
were insufficiently based on existing resources, skills and access to markets.
RDF has however been effective in securing funding from donors resulting in improved
livelihoods through access to electricity, water supply and sanitation. The development of
good village-level institutional capability has therefore benefited the local community
(although probably not the poorest members) even if it has not addressed the aims of the
CZMP and the SAM Plan.
The effectiveness of such an intervention can be measured in part by the community
perceptions of the activities. The research projects found that 85 percent of sample
households were aware of SAM, of which 61 percent had a positive impression of the process
and activities, 21 percent had a negative impression and 18 percent knew of SAM but could
not give details of it and were unaware of the possible livelihoods impacts (Table 2-3).
Table 2-3: The Impression that Households had of the SAM Process
Village
Oruwella
Number
of
Number
of
Number
of
Number
Households
households
households
households
Aware of SAM
with
28
positive
of
with negative
that could not
impression
impression
explain SAM
9
16
3
Boroluwagoda
24
15
-
9
Kapuhenwela
25
23
-
2
TOTAL
77
47
16
14
Those who could give details mentioned a variety of activities and positive or negative
impressions appeared to be associated with the activities recalled. For example, in
Boroluwagoda the 15 positive households associated the SAM process with the Rekawa
lagoon fishery; in Kapuhewela the 23 positive households were of the impression that the
SAM process was about the protection of mangroves, other natural habitats and wildlife;
whilst all 21 percent of those who had a negative impression were from Oruwella village,
34
which was at the centre of attempts to stop coral mining and lime production and there is still
some resentment regarding this in the village.
2.3.7
Current Status of Special Area Management Activities
SAM is still being actively pursued in Rekawa more than ten years after it was initiated.
Discussions with members of RDF and attendance at an RDF meeting provided evidence that
RDF is still functioning. The community-based RDF GN committees are still active in Medillia,
Marakolliya, Medegama, Netolpitiya, Rekawa East and Wellodaya and continue to provide
seven representatives from each committee to serve on RDF central committee (Maha
Sabawa) and two members from each committee to serve on the RDF management board.
The central committee still meet annually and the management board meet monthly.
RSAMCC also continues to function and meets regularly, usually once every one or two
months, although the schedule depends on the availability of the DS. The community
committee members generally perceive RSAMCC to be successful in comparison to other
committees in the Hambantota District because many of the issues raised at RSAMCC
meetings are effectively addressed.
Although central funds are no longer available from MFOR or CCD for SAM activities
RSAMCC, RDF and Rekawa as a whole continue to attract donor funding and as a result
development and conservation work is taking place at a high rate. Whilst this has and
continues to provide a number of benefits to the area, comments have been made about the
sustainability of a string of, often unrelated, donor projects. Ekaratne (2000, p 41) states quite
categorically that in the case of the community-based conservation (CBC) project that he was
part of “when the well-meaning foreign-funded SAM project came to an end, as every
assistance programme inevitably does, the foreigners left, leaving no one to revisit and
monitor the site and/or the community. The dynamism of the Rekawa Lagoon Coordinating
Committee, that served as the cornerstone of the CBC initiative, waned with the demise of the
SAM project.”
Ekaratne (2000) raises a point that was clearly observed in this research: the lack of
monitoring and evaluation. This is despite one of the key policy recommendations made by
Olsen (1992, p 4) which led to the formulation of SAM, being “monitoring of coastal resources
conditions and outcomes of management projects”. Furthermore, the Rekawa SAM Plan
specifically requires “… periodic monitoring activities to provide information and feedback to
the Management Plan” (RSAMCC, 1996, p 11) and in the Revised CZMP (1997, p 100) a key
aspect of SAM is that “implementation and monitoring also become a local responsibility,
which reduces the need for long-term support”. There is no evidence that community
monitoring takes place and after the mid-term evaluation of SAM in Rekawa and Hikkaduwa,
no comprehensive monitoring or evaluation appears to have taken place.
35
2.4
“Second Generation” Special Area Management – Kalametiya Lagoon
SAM looks set to form a substantial part of future CZMPs despite the fact that funding is
unlikely to be made available by the Government of Sri Lanka but will be provided by donors.
A number of sites have already been selected and work has been initiated by GoN and ADB
for the development and implementation of SAM Plans under the Coastal Environmental and
Resource Management (CERM) component of the CRMP. Kalametiya Lagoon area is one of
the first locations in which the new phase or “second generation” SAM planning has
commenced.
2.4.1
Location and Environmental Setting
Kalametiya Lagoon is located approximately 20km east of Rekawa. Situated at the end of the
Katchchigal Ara (stream) it receives water from the ara, Uda Walawe and Lunama Lagoon to
which it is connected by a channel. The entire Kalametiya-Lunama area encompasses eight
GN Divisions all of which fall into Ambalantota DS except Gurupokuna, which is within
Tangalle DS (Figure 2-8). These eight GN Divisions comprise of 15 villages, within which are
approximately 1992 households (Table 2-4).
Figure 2-8: Kalametiya-Lunama Lagoon Area and Surrounding Grama Niladhari Divisions
Source: CEA/Euroconsult, 1993a
36
Table 2-4: Demographic Data for Kalametiya Lagoon Area
GN Division
Batatha South
Village
Number of families Number of houses Total population
Linda Yaya
344
326
1312
260
289
1239
194
174
1044
407
370
1605
Weweagoda
Batatha South
Udagama
Gurupokuna
Gurupokuna
Thilla Watawana
Hathagala
Hathagala
Kalametiya
Hungama
Hungama
Medaeliya
Tuduwa
Kiula North
Kiula North
139
132
826
Kiula South
Kiula South
189
172
1060
Lunama North
Lunama North
208
202
735
Lunama South
Lunama South
251
204
897
Source: 2000 Census, Ambalantota GN Division
Kalametiya Lagoon is a brackish body of water fringed by mangroves and salt marshes and
separated from the sea by a narrow beach. Past research identified over 40 fish species, 38
species of reptiles including estuarine crocodiles, and four species of endangered turtles
(CEA, 1995; HICZMP, 2000). The 2500 ha Kalametiya-Lunama site is also important for
migratory wildfowl and this is the main reason for its designation as a sanctuary and the
continued impetus behind the efforts to have it declared a wetland of international importance
under the Ramsar Convention (UNDP, 2000). A biodiversity survey was conducted by IUCNSri Lanka in the latter part of 2002 under the GEF-RUK project, to determine the current
status of biodiversity in and around the lagoon area and to provide a baseline against which
to measure the success of GEF-RUK interventions. However at the time of producing this
report the data are not yet publicly available.
Despite its status as a sanctuary and its historical richness of biodiversity, Kalametiya lagoon
and the surrounding area has become severely degraded and the HICZMP (2000) report
identified Kalametiya and Lunama Lagoons as areas requiring “special attention”. This
degradation has impacted heavily on the communities who utilize the lagoons’ resources.
37
2.4.2
Site Selection
The research focussed around Kalametiya Lagoon and therefore centred on Batatha South,
Hungama, Hatagala and Gurupokuna (Figure 2-8).
The villages selected for the research were Weweagoda, Thuduwa and Gurupokuna (Annex
B: Village Maps) because of their proximity to the lagoon and high numbers of households
that are dependent on coastal resources. In Gurupokuna for example, household data held by
the GN show that the main livelihood activity for 53 percent of the households is fishing, of
which 13 percent are traditionally lagoon fishermen (although the household survey and focus
groups discussions suggest that this number has declined) and in Weweagoda, household
lists from the GN suggest that 63 percent of household heads are sea fishermen, 3 percent
are lagoon fishermen and 6 percent are fish traders. Thudwa is traditionally a lagoon fishing
community, situated adjacent to the lagoon and not bordering the coastline. At present GN
figures show that around 15 percent of the population are involved in lagoon fishing and
5 percent in fish trading, whilst over 30 percent have become paid labourers.
The communities selected for research were also poor, with the community ranking
respectively 52 percent, 77 percent and 72 percent of the households in Gurupokuna,
Weweagoda and Thuduwa as poor or very poor (Figure 2-9).
70
Percentage of
60
households
50
40
Rich
30
Medium
20
Poor
10
Very poor
0
Gurupokuna
Weweagoda
Thuduwa
Village
Figure 2-9: Percentage of Households in each Wealth Category in Selected Villages in
Kalametiya
Note: Data for Gurupokuna and Thuduwa are less than 100 percent because some households are living in other
areas and the community are unable to determine their wealth status.
2.4.3
Environmental Conditions
The conditions in Kalametiya Lagoon have altered greatly over the past 30 years due to the
development of irrigation schemes in the Uda Walawe and Kuchchigal Ara, and the
subsequent changes that have taken place. According to fishermen in Tuduwa with whom
FGDs were held, Kalematiya Lagoon was approximately 100 acres in extent 35-40 years ago
and the average depth was eight feet. There were no weeds except some water hyacinth and
you could travel to Hungama Junction by boat. During that time there were plenty of shrimp,
38
crabs and fish, and one elderly fisherman commented that during his childhood people could
collect shrimps in their hands because there were so many.
Historically the lagoon was fed with water from Kuchchigal Ara and during the maha (rainy)
season. At the time of planting and harvesting, the sandbar between the lagoon and the sea
was cut at the request of the farmers. A written order was given by the District Officer to the
Patabendi Arachchi, a designated person who made everyone aware before the event. The
process benefited both the farmers by draining the fields, and the fishermen by removing the
sediment form the lagoon and thereby reducing the build up of weeds, maintaining the salinity
and recruiting fish and shrimp fry.
However, developments in upstream irrigation in the Udawalawe Basin resulted in an
increased inflow of water and sediment to the lagoon. Consequently, low-lying paddy lands
were flooded and the salinity of the lagoon reduced. According to one elderly lady, this
brought benefits to the people of Gurupokuna, Batata, Batata South and Tuduwa who
previously had to go to Hungama Junction for freshwater, but had negative effects for the
fishermen and farmers. In the maha season, the combination of heavy rain and inflow from
the irrigation scheme badly flooded the land and the farmers complained to the Government
Agent (the representative of all government institutions at district level) and the Agrarian
Services Department. In response, in the late 1960s, the Government Agent instructed the
Irrigation Engineer to construct a permanent canal to drain the lagoon.
The permanent canal benefited farmers but has apparently had a negative impact on lagoon
fisheries. There is anecdotal evidence that the velocity of the outgoing water limits the
exchange with seawater, altering the salinity and preventing recruitment of shrimp fry. It also
results in excess drainage at times of low rainfall causing the observed reduction in the extent
and depth of the lagoon. Maps drawn by fishermen and farmers during FGDs show dramatic
differences in the current surface area of the lagoon compared to 30 years ago (Figure 2-10).
30 years ago
Now
Figure 2-10: Participatory mapping showing the extent of the lagoon, according to the
fishermen, now and in the past, and the bund (red) along Kachchigal Ara
39
Further engineering interventions undertaken as late as 2001 have influenced the condition of
the lagoon. Two bunds built either side of the Kachchigal Ara have channelled the water
further towards the sea, preventing flooding either side of the ara, on land that was previously
lagoon but which has become paddy land (Figure 2-10). Furthermore, the water is now
directed towards the outlet channel and does not spread out to fill the lagoon area, as it would
historically have done. Upstream irrigation water also carries sediment, fertilizers and
pesticides to the lagoon, contributing to the degradation and eutrophication, which can be
seen to be taking place.
2.4.4
Socio-economic Conditions
These environmental changes have had a considerable impact on livelihood activities carried
out in and around Kalametiya Lagoon, especially lagoon fishing and paddy farming. They
appear to have led to an increase in the number of households engaged in other incomegenerating activities such as sea fishing, shell mining and labour.
There also seem to be changes to other income-generating activities, particularly sea fishing,
which may be due to changing environmental conditions as a result of human activities and
policy interventions.
Lagoon fisheries
The changing hydrology in Kalametiya Lagoon and the subsequent changes to the ecosystem
have, according to local fishermen, resulted in the numbers of lagoon fishermen declining by
around 60 percent in Batatha South and 20 percent in Tuduwa. Other villages have been
affected in a similar way. Those who remain in lagoon fishing were found in the household
questionnaires to be among the poorest in the area, earning only SLRS 1800 on average per
month, compared to an approximate monthly average for other livelihood activities in
Kalametiya of SLRS 4350. Focus group discussions with poor fishermen in Tuduwa revealed
that daily incomes from lagoon fishing had declined from around RS 2000 per day to just RS
100-150 or less, which has meant that whereas in the past they only needed to fish for two or
three days per week to make sufficient money, they now fish daily often going to the lagoon 23 times per day. Some fishermen estimated that to make RS 100 it could take a total of about
18 hours fishing over several days. For poor fishermen in Tuduwa, lagoon fishing now makes
up only about 25 percent of their income and they undertake labour, rear and sell chickens,
and mine for shells. In Batatha South, traditional lagoon fishermen explained that they now
almost exclusively undertake other forms of income-generating activity with the amount of
time spent on each varying with the season and the demand for agricultural labour, fishing or
other work (Figure 2-11). Furthermore, when the children of these households reach working
age they often seek employment in towns and cities, often in factories, rather than entering
traditional occupations like fishing because of the decreasing benefits.
40
Figure 2-11: Percentage of Income Derived from Each Income-generating Activity for
Respondents in Batatha South
Source: Cards completed by FGD respondents in Batatha South
Photograph 1: Fishing in Kalametiya Lagoon
The importance of the lagoon to the livelihoods of the local population in Kalametiya has
declined considerably in line with its increasing degradation, but many people still rely on it, if
41
not for their main livelihood activity then to supplement their income and to meet nutritional
needs. According to intra-household interviews, the lagoon is still used for bathing and
washing clothes, and women collect certain edible plants to cook or to sell at market. The
older generation remember what an important source of income it was, particularly in the
shrimp season when they could make thousands of rupees in one night, enabling them to pay
back debts accumulated during the year, or to invest in fishing equipment, land or home
improvements. These people in particular wish to see a return to the natural productivity of
the lagoon.
Sea fisheries
Sea fishing is the predominant activity in the Kalametiya Lagoon area but as with Rekawa this
depends to an extent on the location of the household. For example in Gurupokuna and
Weweagoda villages, 57 percent and 63 percent of households respectively are engaged in
sea fishing, whilst in Tuduwa 33 percent of households undertook paid labour and 15 percent
were engaged in lagoon fishing, according to figures held by the GN.
Photograph 2: Tidying Away Nets in Kalametiya after Returning from Sea Fishing
However, 82 percent of the sea fishermen interviewed and 44 percent of the households
surveyed complained that one of the problems they encountered in securing a livelihood was
lack of fish. Of these 70 percent felt that the problems were caused by overfishing or the use
of harmful fishing techniques such as bottom set nets and beach seine, and the use of nylon
nets (mandel nets) instead of coir, which makes them more effective, but more damaging to
fish. They suggested that the problem could be addressed by banning certain forms of fishing
gear, issuing fewer permits for beach seine and restricting the number of large fishing boats in
the area, particularly vessels registered outside Sri Lanka. They feel that adequate fish can
still be caught but not by traditional fishermen in canoes. Furthermore, a good deal of the fish
caught is wasted because it is caught on multi-day, deep sea boats with insufficient storage
42
facilities, or because beach seine are used that are so large that much of the catch has turned
bad before all the fish can be retrieved from the net. However many fishermen, including
some of the poorest rely on beach seine to maintain their livelihoods.
Some comments made by the fishermen interviewed:
“I use a traditional fishing boat and am unable to compete with trawler boats.”
“Limit the use of multi-day boats and beach seine.”
“Do not release the wastage into the sea. Limit beach seine.”
Fishermen, like other livelihood groups, are also affected by the reduction in the extent of the
lagoon. In the past the lagoon reached Hungama Junction and provided easy access to
market by boat. Now villagers walk the 4 miles to the junction, or catch the infrequent bus to
buy or sell produce. Consequently, fish sales are usually conducted on the beach and traders
carry their purchases to market by motorbike. This gives traders an advantageous position
over the fishermen who rarely have road transport, which combined with the lack of
refrigeration facilities, means that the traders can effectively dictate the price they pay.
Agriculture
Traditional agricultural patterns have also changed over the years due to changing monsoon
patterns and the irrigation developments. Paddy land has been affected both by excess water
when the irrigation scheme was initially developed and more recently by insufficient water.
The household questionnaire revealed that the combination of the drought conditions of the
past few years and the lack of available irrigation water in much of the Kalametiya area is
causing serious problems for general household livelihoods. 61 percent of all households
interviewed and 81 percent of farmers cited the drought or lack of water as a livelihood
constraint. Buffalo farmers complained of insufficient food for their buffalo and labourers said
that there was a lack of labour work because of the drought. Many others complained that
their coconut trees had died due to the lack of rain.
FGDs were also held with paddy farmers in Bathatha South and Hatagala, two of the major
farming communities in Kalametiya, who farm land respectively to the north-west and northeast of Kalametiya Lagoon. There are about 200 families cultivating approximately 250 acres
of paddy land in the Hatagala area and around 50 families cultivating 30-35 hectares in the
Batatha South area, although some of these families are from other GN Divisions.
The farmers in Batatha South feel that part of the water problem is due to the fact that there is
no proper canal system in Kalametiya. Farmers in Batatha South for example only receive
water that runs off the paddy fields of Batatha North, which is supplied by the Batatha Main
Tank. Therefore these fields can only be cultivated if the fields upstream are cultivated and if
there is sufficient excess water. Conversely, if there is excess run-off from the Batatha North
fields, their land is inundated and they said that inadequate drainage causes water logging.
In Hatagala the farmers stated that the Kachchigal Ara is an ancient system that did not
negatively impact on paddy cultivation until 30 years ago but now excess irrigation water from
Udawalawe is released through Kachchigal Ara and floods the land. They estimate that when
43
this happens, of the 250 acres cultivated, 79 acres would not have a successful yield. In
contrast to the lagoon fishermen of Tuduwa, the Hatagala paddy farmers are happy about the
construction of the bunds along Kachchigal Ara as they reduce flooding of their paddy lands
but they feel that they are too low, badly maintained and should be extended.
In both areas however, much of the land under cultivation is not historically paddy land and
has been claimed from the receding lagoon. This lack of legal tenure to the land is likely to be
the primary reason for the lack of irrigation supply channels. This creates a dilemma as
hundreds of farming families rely on this land for an income or for subsistence even though it
is part of the wildlife sanctuary and traditionally provided a livelihood to hundreds of lagoon
fishermen.
Perhaps linked to the issue of lack of tenure is another problem cited in both the household
interviews and FGDs: lack of agricultural extension services. The farmers feel that they are
not given sufficient support or information by the relevant government departments.
In addition to these problems the farmers cited encroachment of water weeds into homemade
irrigation canals and damage to crops by feral cattle as problems affecting their ability to
cultivate paddy. Furthermore, they were struggling to cultivate home gardens due to the lack
of rain and irrigation water.
2.4.5
Policy Activities, Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts
These complex issues will not have an easy solution, not least due to the potential for conflict
between the lagoon fishermen and paddy farmers. However, two projects, the ADB-GoN
CRMP and the GEF-RUK, have been initiated in the area to devise and implement strategies
to deal with natural resource management issues.
Critical to these projects and any other CRM activities in Kalametiya is the designation of the
area as a wildlife sanctuary, which places it under the primary jurisdiction of DWLC, not the
CCD. The consequence of this is that no economic activities can legally take place within the
sanctuary, including fishing, collection of edible plants and fuel wood, or nature-based
tourism. The primary concern of DWLC is preservation of the habitat and its associated fauna,
which fits well with the CZMP objective of Coastal Habitat Management but not with SAM.
However, the collaborative nature of SAM, particularly the coordination committee that is
established in all SAM areas should, hopefully facilitate agreement between CCD and DWLC
on management plans for Kalametiya Lagoon area.
There is very little evidence of CRM activities in Kalametiya until this year, as demonstrated
by the low proportion (19 percent) of respondents who had some knowledge of CCD and the
even smaller number (two percent) who felt that its activities impacted on their livelihoods.
DFAR, DWLC and various donors have been much more active in the area and had greater
impacts on livelihoods, both positive and negative.
The contributions of NORAD through the HICZMP were the most often cited, including the
provision of a school building, a community hall, a library and the Fisheries Cooperative Bank
44
and credit facilities. Of pertinence to the Coastal Zone was their programme to provide
subsidies for 18” fibreglass boats with outboard motors, for which any member of the
Fisheries Cooperative Society (FCS) could apply to the Fisheries Extension Officer. If the
application was approved the FCS member paid a RS 5000 deposit, followed by monthly
payments, until the ownership of the boat was transferred from the FCS to the applicant. The
process was however hampered by the need for a politician to approve the loan, which many
poorer fishermen felt resulted in politically influential and wealthier fishermen receiving boats.
Although the greatest financial benefits from this scheme were felt to accrue to the already
wealthier fishermen, others agreed that this at least provided greater opportunities for fishing
labour work. However in the long term the project may have increased pressure on the
coastal fisheries, which over 40 percent of respondents cited as a problem that they currently
face in securing a livelihood.
According to one elderly fisherman, DFAR also provided five traditional lagoon fishing craft
(oru) at a 94 percent subsidy in response to the lagoon fishermen’s complaint regarding
reduced fish catches in the lagoon. While this may have been well-intentioned it did nothing to
address the problem.
The greatest negative impacts have been from the activities of the Irrigation Department and
Department of Agriculture (DoA), highlighting the lack of coordination between CCD and other
government agencies active in the Coastal Zone or in areas where interventions may impact
on the Coastal Zone.
The negative policy and donor interventions that took place in the past have the potential to
be addressed by the two current project interventions.
Special Area Management was initiated in Kalametiya less than 12 months ago by CCD and
the GoN-ADB CRMP, and is still in the initial stages. The overall objectives of the project are
to:
1.
Conserve and sustainably manage natural resources in the area.
2.
3.
Improve people’s livelihoods by sustainable use of lagoon resources.
Establish a system to coordinate government institutions, (NGOs), private sector and
4.
local administration.
Reduce wastage of resources and to use those resources to the optimum level.
5.
Deviate from the approach of rules and regulations and instead develop a
community-based approach to manage natural resources in the area.
These objectives are to be achieved through community organization and participation. In a
series of meetings, the eight villages have already selected representatives for their village
committees and two members of each of these have been nominated to represent the village
in the Kalametiya Community Development Foundation (KCDF). In addition, a CCC chaired
by the District Secretary and including representatives from the public sector, local
government, NGOs and the private sector has also been established (Figure 2-12). Initial
discussions with community members suggested that from the outset elections and
community organization were dominated by the wealthier members of society and those with
45
political influence. However, it appears from more recent discussions that these problems are
being addressed and that the community is becoming more satisfied with the process.
Figure 2-12: Implementing Procedure for the SAM Process
Source: Mr Kulatunga, Kalameitya SAM project coordinator
Community meetings were held to introduce the project; to discuss resources management,
environmental and livelihoods issues for the Kalametiya area; and to identify potential
solutions. These meetings mainly highlighted concerns over the deterioration of the lagoon,
primarily resulting from ill-planned upstream activities. The solutions offered by the community
included:
1. Control freshwater from Katchaga Ara by: Constructing a storage tank upstream of
the lagoon; diverting Katachaga Ara around the lagoon; and rehabilitating the small
tank system
2. De-silt the lagoon
3. Restock lagoon with fingerlings
4. Demarcate the lagoon to prevent encroachment and find a use for, or destroy
invasive species, for example composting of water hyacinth
5. Set up a visitors’ centre
6. Provide drinking water
7. Create self-employment opportunities
46
The process to develop the Plan is continuing and management options have yet to be
finalised, though it was tentatively decided before the community planning process was
initiated that Kalametiya would be a site for harbour development, to reduce post-harvest
waste and maximize the benefits of sea fishing. However, no action has been taken on the
harbour as yet and according to fishermen in Gurupokuna village, the proposal has been
shelved. The information that has reached them regarding this matter is patchy and is made
up of hearsay and rumours, with no project representative coming to the village to keep them
informed of what is taking place. Whether the rumours are true or not has now become only
part of the issue, as there may have been some damage to the reputation of the project. The
community say that they have less faith in the project and feel that they have been ill-informed
and somewhat neglected.
The project is only in the early stages and will have plenty of opportunity to rectify this
situation, however it must retain its focus on community decision making and involvement.
One of the main advantages of SAM in Kalametiya is that a budget is available from the ADBGoN project, which should ensure that activities are implemented, unlike Hikkaduwa, one of
the first SAM sites, where it appears that SAM was hampered by lack of funds (H.M.J.
Wickremaratne, ADB-CRMP, pers. comm.).
The project has also undertaken some training activities, which have, according to some
community members, been received quite favourably. These include:
!
A two-day training programme was held for community leaders and youth leaders (a
!
total of 40 individuals).
A group of 15 youths, one of the groups with the highest rate of unemployment, were
given training in the detection of faults and repair of out-board boat engines in a 15day training programme.
!
A seven-day training programme on food technology was held for 15 women, mainly
from fishing families. The training was supposed to lead to the women taking up
manufacturing of various local food products as an income-generating activity. Some
women are engaged in this currently while others have not got the finances to do this.
!
An education and awareness training programme consisting of two workshops on
mangrove conservation was held in each GN division, in addition to a programme to
eliminate an invasive plant species that was destroying the mangrove habitats.
However, it is too early to say how effective these will be.
Research and management activities are also being conducted in the area by CCD with IUCN
under the GEF-RUK Project, which should supplement the biodiversity conservation
objectives of the ADB-GoN CRMP. The project was scheduled to start in 2000 but due in part
to delays caused by the change in Government in 2001, the start date was postponed until
2002.
To date the project has undertaken a biodiversity survey to obtain baseline data, initiated a
socio-economic survey and started the process of demarcating the boundaries of the lagoon.
Once this is complete, management activities will be developed and initiated based on the
47
designated land-use areas. It will be interesting to see how the project and DWLC deal with
the issue of encroachment of lagoon land by paddy farmers, especially since much of this
encroachment took place around 30 years ago. Furthermore, if it is decided to return the land
to the sanctuary how will the problem of loss of livelihoods be addressed?
Some intervention activities have also been started, including the introduction of rainwater
harvesting and some training activities. According to an FGD held with women in Thuduwa,
the village residents were asked to suggest which were the poorest households. They then
received rainwater harvesting systems. According to another source, the GEF-RUK project
asked the community to attend a working party to undertake activities to improve the state of
the lagoon ecosystem, for example removal of weeds from the lagoon. All those who attended
were rewarded with a rainwater harvesting system, although it was not previously publicised
that there would be any form of payment.
Considering the lack of freshwater in the Kalametiya area, the provision of rainwater
harvesting systems appears to be an extremely useful activity. Furthermore, the concept of
rewarding those who actively support the project is essentially sound as it will encourage
future support. However, this method could be criticized for being ad hoc and unstructured
and not targeting those most in need. There is also the potential issue of raising expectations
when the community are next asked to contribute labour to the project. The link between this
intervention and the goals of the project is also weak. However, it will undoubtedly benefit the
recipients and addresses one of the proposals made by the community in the SAM planning
process.
The project is still in the early stages and there is potential for it to have a positive impact on
biodiversity and livelihoods. However, activities must be formulated in consultation with local
communities, should be structured and interconnected, and fit with the activities and the
community management structure being developed in the SAM Plan.
2.5
Non-SAM Coastal Zone Management Activities – Malala Lagoon
CCD appears to focus its activities on coastal stabilization and Special Area Management,
with the result that locations that do not fall into either category seem to be neglected even if
they have coastal zone management problems that should be addressed under the CZMP.
Particular difficulties arise in locations where the primary responsibility for management is
with a different government agency and where management decisions may not necessarily fit
with the requirements of the CCA.
An example of such a site is the Malala Lagoon area, where environmental and social
problems are similar to those found in Rekawa and Kalametiya but where SAM is not being
undertaken and where DWLC has primary responsibility for management. Malala Lagoon,
and Embilikala Lagoon to which it is linked, are two of five brackish lagoons found within
Bundala National Park (Figure 2-13). The area was declared a sanctuary in 1969 and a
National Park in 1992, and is consequently under the overall control of DWLC
(CEA/Euroconsult, 1993b). It is the only area in Sri Lanka to be listed under the International
48
Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention). The park has important populations of wildlife
including wild birds, elephants and turtles, and the lagoons serve as nurseries for shrimp, fish
and other marine organisms (Matsuni et al., 1998), that in turn support the rural population
that utilize the lagoon as part of their livelihood strategies. To the east can be found a number
of large salterns (salt beds), which provide income for a large proportion of the population.
2.5.1
Site Selection
There are four Grama Niladari (GN) Divisions surrounding the Malala and Embilikela lagoons
comprising of a total of ten villages, namely:
GN Division
Village
Koholankala
Mayurapura,
Koholankala
Udamalala
Arabedda
Pallemalala
Kiripattiya
Pallemalala
Boralessa
Weligatta
Boralessa
Bundala
Bundala
Wellegamgoda
All but four of these villages were considered inappropriate for the study because the
residents were largely undertaking agriculture or were government employees and few were
reliant for their main income on coastal resources. Mayurapura for example was developed in
1990 as residential land to be allocated people working in and around the town of
Hambantota. Consequently 98 percent of the residents are government employees working in
the state-owned saltants. Koholankala and Arabedda are traditional agricultural villages with
90 percent of the households relying primarily on paddy cultivation and cattle farming in
Koholankala and the same number relying on paddy and chena cultivation in Arabedda.
Bundala and Wellegamgoda are made up of 60 and 55 households respectively and both are
traditional agricultural villages. However, approximately 90 percent of villagers in Bundala
now depend on the Bundala saltant for their livelihood and most people in Wellegamgoda
have found it necessary to undertake agricultural labour in more productive locations such as
Tissamaramahama, as the shortage of water in the area has made agriculture particularly
difficult to undertake. Boralessa village is also agricultural and comes under the Kirindi Oya
Irrigation and Settlement Project (KOISP).
49
Figure 2-13: Malala Lagoon Area Showing Grama Niladhari Divisions, Lagoons and the National Park Boundary
Source: CEA/Euroconsult, 1993b
50
Of the ten villages in the area, the three selected were Udamalala, Kiripattiya and
Pallemalala. The rationale for selection was their location, the diversity of livelihoods
undertaken and the dependence of the community on coastal and other natural resources.
For example, according to GN figures, households in Udamalala are dependent on casual
labour (20 percent), fishing (15 percent) and private and government employment (18
percent), in addition a not insignificant proportion (12 percent) are unemployed (Figure 2-14).
In Pallemalala 30 percent of the households have fishing as their primary income-generating
activity, 11 percent undertaken some from of farming usually paddy or chena, and 13 percent
undertake labour, principally agricultural labour. In Kiripattiya 17 percent undertake paddy,
Unemployed
Sea and lagoon
fisherman
Sea fisherman
Paddy farmer
Dead/retired/migrated
Day labourer
Skilled worker
Business owner
Cattle farmer
Casual labourer
Government
employee
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Private employee
Percentage of households
chena or cattle farming, 16 percent are labourers, 20 percent are fishermen and 7 percent
work in the saltants.
Income generating activities
Figure 2-14: Primary Income Generating Activities of Households in Udamalala
Source: GN statistics, 2000
All three villages had high poverty levels with 70 percent and 67 percent of households in
Kiripattiya and Pallemalala respectively categorized as poor or very poor, although over half
(53 percent) of the households in Udamalala were categorised as rich or very rich (Figure
2-15).
51
60
50
40
Percentage of
30
households
Very rich
Rich
Poor
Very poor
20
10
0
Udamalala
Kiripattiya
Pallemalala
Village
Figure 2-15: Percentage of Households in each Wealth Category in Selected Villages in Malala
2.5.2
Environmental Conditions and Water Management
As the main livelihood activities for the villages located around Malala Lagoon suggest, the
area has a high dependence on agricultural activities. This has largely been made possible
due to extensive water management in the catchment area north of the Malala and Embilikala
lagoon systems, which has for centuries had land under irrigation in the form of a scheme
comprising of a number of freshwater tanks.
In the 1970s the government proposed to expand the irrigated area through the construction
of the Lunugamwehera reservoir with the intention of expanding irrigation and resettling
people in two new areas. In 1976 construction started and the dam and associated Left Bank
and Right Bank Kirindi Oya river irrigation schemes were completed in 1986. A separate
scheme around the old Badagiriya tank was also established which has a connection to the
Right Bank of the Kirindi Oya scheme (CEA/Euroconsult, 1993b).
The scheme has had a serious effect on the ecosystems of the lagoons due to drainage flow
from tracts 5, 6 and 7 of the Right Bank of the KOISP, as the scheme is known. The drainage
water from this area flows via a series of canals and streams into Embilikala Lagoon and the
Badagiriya irrigation scheme run-off flows into Malala Lagoon. The problem of run-off from the
schemes is compounded by land use within the scheme not developing as expected. On the
free-draining land in the upper reaches of the scheme, it was intended that non-rice cultivation
such as chillies would take place because of the high rates of loss of water through the soils.
However, the farmers have continued to grow rice, in part because of the high inputs required
for other forms of cultivation and because of existing tenure rights which are linked to Sri
Lanka’s historical drive for self-sufficiency in rice. This has led to greater demand for irrigation
water than expected and consequently greater amounts of drainage water reaching the
lagoons.
52
Figure 2-16: Map of the Main Irrigation Tracts around Bundala
Source: CEA/Euroconsult 1993b
Consequently, the salinity levels in the lagoons declined after KOISP was implemented (Table
2-5) and this has affected many brackish water organisms and water birds found in the area.
The shrimp industry, which previously supported the livelihood systems of much of the
surrounding population, has been severely affected and has almost disappeared (Kularatne,
1999). Of the fishermen interviewed in the Malala area, 75 percent complained that one of the
livelihood problems that they faced was a lack of fish, both in the sea and lagoon.
Table 2-5: Salinity Levels in Malala Lagoon Between 1985 and 1997
Year
Lowest (ppt)
Highest (ppt)
1985/87
10
41
1991/92
1995/97
5
10
0
7
Source: Jayakody and Jayasinhe, 1992; and NARA, 1998; cited in Kularatne, 1999
The high inflows of freshwater also resulted in the expansion of the lagoon to a maximum
surface area of 650 ha in 1997 compared to a maximum of 437 ha in 1983 (Kularatne, 1999).
The result was that the lagoon periodically inundated the farmland at the land-water interface.
According to the lagoon fishermen interviewed at the Lagoon Fisheries Society office, the
53
situation at one point was so severe that the farmers took the drastic action of cutting a
breach in the sand dune which resulted in loss not only of the water from the lagoon but also
fish and shrimp, leading to conflict between the farmers and lagoon fishermen.
Recent variability in rainfall has meant that the situation has changed dramatically and levels
in the reservoir have now decreased substantially. The Irrigation Department, which is
responsible for regulating the quantity of water released from the irrigation scheme has
chosen to limit its release to ensure the water level does not go beyond the required minimum
in the reservoir. This has affected both farmers and fishermen, with farmers unable to grow
crops in many parts of the scheme and high salinity levels in the lagoon that are toxic to fish
(Sunday Observer, 19 August 2001).
2.5.3
Socio-economic Impacts
In normal years when there is sufficient rainfall to cultivate lands in the Malala area and to fish
the lagoon, household livelihood activities are divided between lagoon fishing, sea fishing,
paddy cultivation, animal husbandry, agricultural labour and labour in the salterns. However,
due to these changes in water management and low rainfall, paddy cultivation has been
extremely limited since 1999 and many men and women have been forced to undertake day
labour in the paddy fields 30 km away in Tissamaharama. There is insufficient work for
everyone and rates of pay are low. All five of the households with whom in-depth discussions
were held felt that this one of the main problems facing people in the area.
Lagoon fishermen and those in related trades such as net making are equally badly affected
and either work as labourers on multi-day fishing boats, undertake lobster fishing out of
season or join the hundreds of people seeking agricultural labour. Of the fishermen
interviewed 35 percent cited lack of water as a constraint to securing a livelihood.
Photograph 3: Fishing in a Canal Near Bundala National Park
54
These impacts are exacerbated by other problems facing lagoon fishermen in the area.
Related to the changing hydrological regime is eutrophication of the lagoon which is arising
from the high levels of fertilizer entering the water body in irrigation run-off and due to the high
number of animals, primarily buffalo and cattle grazing in the surrounding area.
The reduction in water availability and increasing demand is not just of concern to farmers
and fishermen. Of all the people interviewed in the household questionnaire, 58 percent cited
lack of water as one of the main problems in securing a livelihood both in terms of income and
other livelihood requirements. For example, a number of families without access to piped
water supplies are currently dependent on water-tanker deliveries because the changes to the
water regime mean that the wells that they once drank from and near-by freshwater tanks that
they bathed in are drying up. Instead the in-depth household discussions revealed that they
must now walk several kilometres to bathe and survive on the 40 litres of drinking water
delivered weekly, and that depends on whether or not the water tanker arrives.
The already complex situation is likely to become worse given new developments in the area.
Tourism has increased markedly in Sri Lanka in recent years and the presence of the
National Parks in the area has led to the expansion of hotels and restaurants and their
associated service industries, all of which need ample supplies of water. The government,
keen to support development in an area that was previously underdeveloped, is also
proposing the construction of a new harbour and has already started building a new
commercial zone at Hambantota (SDA, 2001). This development raises several issues, which
may either alleviate or compound problems in the lagoon areas. It is likely that the commercial
zone will require large amounts of water, one possible source being to re-use the irrigation
drainage water from the KOISP project. The off-take of water for industry may help during
periods of peak run-off but there is concern that demand during times of shortage may
exacerbate the existing problems.
2.5.4
Institutional Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts
The livelihood impacts observed in Malala are similar to those in Rekawa and Kalametiya,
relating as they do to water availability and its impacts on lagoon fish and shrimp stocks.
However, the problems in Malala appear to be more severe, especially in the agricultural
community, where numerous households can not at present cultivate their land and are being
forced to travel daily to work in fields some 40 km away.
The percentage of households changing their primary livelihood activities in each area ranged
from approximately 35 percent to 65 percent but the largest change occurred in the Malala
area (Figure 2-17).
55
Percentage
100
80
60
40
20
0
Rekawa
Kalametiya
Malala
Area
Figure 2-17: Percentage Change in Livelihood Activities by Area
Some of these changes are for personal reasons such as ill health and retirement but almost
50 percent of the households that changed their livelihood activities did so because of
problems related to changes to the condition of natural resources, either through natural
processes or as a result of human intervention. In Malala these changes to livelihood patterns
appear to be a direct result of poor irrigation planning and management, in which the impacts
on downstream communities were insufficiently considered, and unpredictable rainfall
patterns.
Coast Conservation Department Activities
In Rekawa and Kalametiya where similar conditions exists, attempts are being made by CCD
and other participants in the SAM process to address the situation and protect costal habitats
and the people who depend on them. Malala is not designated as a SAM site and
consequently no CZMP-related activities are being undertaken in the area by CCD or other
parties. This is supported by the findings that only 31 percent of respondents to the household
questionnaire know that a coastal policy exists and only 5 percent believe that it will impact on
their livelihoods.
2.5.5
Department of Wildlife Conservation Activities
There are a number of reasons for the lack of CCD activities in Malala. The first is that CCD
undertake few if any habitat management activities outside SAM areas due to capacity
restrictions and SAM areas are limited for the same reason. However, Malala is further
complicated by the existence of Bundala National Park, a status which precludes livelihood
activities in the DWLC-managed park area.
There is considerable tension between DWLC and local communities as traditional livelihood
activities have been considerably disrupted by the designation of the area as a National Park.
It has affected access to fuel wood, open water bodies, edible plants, fruits and gravel for
roads. A number of households also mentioned the problem of human-animal conflicts,
particularly with elephants and monkeys that destroy crops and homes. One family with whom
an in-depth discussion was held explained that their main income was from fruit crops which
were often attacked by monkeys. They discussed the problem of land and crops being
56
damaged by elephants and are concerned about whether or not they would be compensated
if this happened. They assume that DWLC would pay compensation as they do when a house
is damaged but they feel that DWLC are very slow in paying it and in general seem more
concerned with the animals’ needs. For example they said that if the villagers go to DWLC
saying “Come quickly there is an elephant destroying my house”, DWLC will say that they do
not have enough vehicles and will come later. However, if the villagers go saying that an
animal is lying injured, they will rush there. This causes resentment of DWLC by the villagers.
Recently DWLC has tried to move away from its traditional protectionist approach towards a
more participatory approach to Park management, trying to involve the local community and
to increase their understanding of the benefits to be gained from conservation. As yet this is
not proving effective and many of the households interviewed feel that activities by DWLC in
this respect are insufficient and piecemeal.
2.5.6
Other Project Activity
SEWA Lanka, a national NGO have tried to address the issue of lack of water for household
consumption by providing rainwater harvesting equipment to houses with tiled roofs, but
according to recipients in the village, the project has been hindered by the failure of monsoon
rains since 1999.
GTZ have tried to undertake similar work in Malala to that in Rekawa, under the FCDRMP,
however, their work was cut short after the initial PRA because the National Park does not
allow ecotourism or other activities that conflict with strict nature conservation. GTZ hoped to
declare the area a fisheries management area so that the site could be protected under the
fisheries act but this conflicted with conservation law (Maike Waltemath, pers. comm., 2001).
57
3 Policy Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts
The field-level research demonstrated considerable disparity in the level of activity in
implementation of the CZMP in different areas of the south coast of Sri Lanka, particularly in
relation to coastal habitat management and SAM. Discussions at national level suggest that
this is representative of Sri Lanka as a whole, where CZMP activities tend to be localized,
project-based and often donor-unded.
The “outcomes” (direct effects of these implementation measures) and impacts (at the
household level) of CZM-related activities, either by CCD or other agencies were
correspondingly disparate both spatially and in terms of the outcomes and impacts of
individual CZMP components. For example, the Planning and Works Divisions have arguably
been the most active and fund-consuming divisions but despite the funding made available for
coastal stabilization and the building of hundreds of kilometres of coastal defences, erosion
continues at a steady pace (ADB, 1999). By contrast, efforts to reduce the anthropogenic
causes of erosion have been much more limited. Shell, coral and sand mining have been
addressed primarily through prohibition and law enforcement including fines, destruction of
equipment and prison sentences, and only in a few areas has education and training in
alternative income-generating activities taken place. Neither of these approaches has been
particularly successful, as demonstrated by the research in Rekawa where the majority of
coral mining and lime kiln operating households have continued with these activities despite
being fined, and where few have taken up alternative income-generating activities.
The impacts of physical interventions for coastal stabilization were not assessed in the field
work, however the general consensus in Sri Lanka appears to be that the pace of erosion
continues with little signs of slowing but that specific locations may now be better protected,
ensuring landing areas for fishing vessels and protection of infrastructure close to the shore
line, thus protecting households’ physical capital and access to natural capital. Interventions
to limit coral mining and kiln operations also had few positive household impacts and for many
impacted negatively on their livelihoods. Some of the households interviewed in Rekawa had
their lime kilns destroyed, removing their main source of income.
Similarly, activities to address coastal habitat management and unsustainable resource use
have been limited to SAM, the activities of individual government departments often in
isolation from CZMP activities, and donor-supported projects. The main outputs have been
awareness-raising campaigns and research activities but impacts have been minor because
of the localized nature of most interventions and the lack of opportunities to undertake nondestructive activities. Where conservation has been imposed with insufficient consideration of
livelihoods, such as in Malala, negative impacts can be observed, including restricted access
to traditional natural resources and conflict between animals and humans. A further
complication is the inadequate cooperation between agencies and disparity between the
policies and objectives, which results in an incoherent message and conflicting outputs.
Of all the CZMP components, SAM has had the widest range of outputs, outcomes and
livelihood impacts. For example, CCD successfully mobilized local community groups and
agency staff across a number of government departments at a range of levels. RSAMCC and
58
RDF subsequently developed a management plan for each area, implemented awareness
raising, local institutional strengthening, resources management activities and secured donor
funding.
SAM implementation in Rekawa proved more successful and sustainable than in Hikkaduwa,
the second of the original SAM sites, although Rekawa also had significant short-comings
(Lowry et al., 1999). The successes at Rekawa were attributed to the relatively few resource
user types, with the majority of households engaging in fisheries-related activities, and
therefore fewer conflicts. Income levels were also less diverse than in Hikkaduwa where
groups included fishermen, glass-bottom boat owners and hoteliers, the latter of which
dominated the Hikkaduwa Development Foundation (HDF) leading to inadequate “ownership”
of the SAM Plan and its activities (Lowry et al., 1999).
Participation by local government officials has been shown to be critical for the success of
SAM. In Hikkaduwa, local officials seemed not to understand or to accept their role (Lowry et
al., 1999) where as in Rekawa the commitment of the then DS was an important driving force
in the process and the community members still involved in RDF and RSAMCC continue to
stress the importance of an effective DS.
In Rekawa, creation or strengthening of local institutions based around resource user groups
appears to be starting to improve management, particularly of lagoon fisheries, but the
effective functioning of these groups did not arise quickly or smoothly. In the case of the
lagoon fishermen, it was not until RDF requested that GTZ work with the lagoon fishermen
that they began to function as a coherent group. Furthermore, the successes of the SAMsupported institutions are not particularly impressive when compared to those in non-SAM
areas. In all areas, lagoon fisheries societies, farmers societies and women’s societies exist
to: manage and ensure equitable sharing of resources, such as irrigation water; mediate in
conflict resolution; and provide loans and saving facilities. Their effectiveness is varied but is
not significantly greater in Rekawa. Political influence appears to be the major determinant of
effectiveness, equity and inclusiveness. Many of the people involved in intra-household
interviews, particularly in Malala, said that office bearers, who change with each newlyelected government, favoured supporters of the same party. This prevents full functioning of
societies, as effective resources management can not be achieved unless strategies are
given time and all resource users are included in the process.
The formation of RDF has probably been the single most important outcome of SAM and led
to the greatest livelihood impacts. Through RDF the community are able to raise issues with
government agents and have the opportunity to have them addressed. Furthermore, through
RDF, Rekawa has attracted significant donor funding which has had a variety of householdlevel impacts. For example, Plan International has provided sanitary latrines and drinking
water connections to many households, improving their physical and human capital, through
good health and reducing the time spent collecting water. It is also likely, given the current
situation, that the activities of GTZ in Rekawa will have significant positive impacts on lagoon
fisheries resources and in the longer term on the natural and financial capital of RLFMA
households.
59
4 Conclusions and Recommendations
CCD has a dauntingly difficult task, with a clear disparity between the objectives which it has
been set and the tools at its disposal. Safeguarding coastal resources from degradation
through over-exploitation and pollution is made particularly difficult due to: the wide number
and cumulative nature of the forces at work; the scientific uncertainty over the relative
significance of each; and the large number of individual household and commercial decisions
that lie behind them. Their problem is further complicated by limited manpower, overlapping
and conflicting jurisdictions and the restriction of its options for intervention. As a result,
actions by CCD have often proved of limited or temporary value, with many negative trends
continuing largely unabated.
For these problems there is no simple solution.
However, it is clear that a better
understanding of the livelihoods of the households involved (often inadvertently) in destructive
practices might have steered CCD towards initiatives that were of more lasting benefit. The
task in this section thus becomes one of seeing why individual CCD initiatives failed and
where a sustainable livelihoods approach might have helped.
4.1
A People-Centred Approach
At present coastal erosion management strategies are not cost-effective and are failing to
address the problem of erosion or its causes. Greater efforts should be made to address the
socio-economic contributions to coastal erosion management but this should be done on a
wider scale and not based solely on SAM. Large sand-mining operations both in the Coastal
Zone and upstream should be targeted first and, where enforcement of regulations relating to
small-scale sand mining and coral mining are necessary, this should only be undertaken once
an effective programme has been initiated to replace lost income. To achieve this CCD could
undertake a full livelihood analysis of those involved, including for example trends, assets
required, sources of financial capital, importance of political capital, and incomes generated
and how these compare to other sources.
4.2
Alternative Livelihood Strategies must be Better Conceived and Supported
Previous attempts at introducing alternative income-generating activities have not been
successful and CCD should try to avoid repetition of these failures. In Rekawa alternatives
were poorly conceived and only impacted on a limited number of households and therefore
had little effect at reducing coral mining or habitat degradation. Consequently interventions to
address degradation of natural resources should be based around a sound understanding of
current livelihood strategies, capitals and markets. Many community members have ideas for
alternative livelihoods and CCD may find it more effective to provide a service that advises
and supports them.
What is crucial is that there is careful targeting of beneficiaries in both alternative livelihoods
and other intervention strategies. The research has shown that it is not always the poorest
60
that benefit from interventions due to poorly thought through interventions, lack of
collaboration or inadequate access by certain groups. This can be addressed by greater
community involvement from inception and paying adequate attention to mechanisms that
enhance access. For example, studies have shown that combining credit and savings
schemes with alternative income generating activities leads to better uptake and greater
sustainability of activities as it provides community members with the necessary finances to
establish activities that suit their skill sets and needs (Jambiya, Puri and Risby, 2004).
4.3
Resource Entitlements should be Preserved
Where it is felt that the only option for controlling natural resources degradation is to impose
restrictions on access and use, then CCD, DWLC and CEA should collaborate with one
another and other relevant agencies to assess the importance of coastal resources in
supporting local livelihoods and develop mechanisms to preserve communities’ entitlements
to them or mechanisms for adequate compensation for restrictions. This is of particular
importance to the poorest households, who are most dependent on open access resources, if
they are not to be made increasingly vulnerable.
4.4
Actively Support Local Resource User and Community Groups
Where restrictions do not need to be so rigorously enforced and where community
management is deemed appropriate CCD, in collaboration with other relevant agencies such
as DoA, FD and local government, should work to strengthen existing groups, with the
emphasis on representativeness and equity. Many coastal communities have well established
resource-user societies and community groups and although some do not function well or are
influenced by local elites and political motivations others, such as the “death societies”, which
raise money for funerals and for the bereaved families, are highly effective and involve all
community members. These groups can form the basis around which to build community
action plans.
Linked to this is the need to ensure that project staff and mobilisers are all sufficiently
engaged in the process and have a direct stake in the outcomes of the work. Drawing on the
community for these positions will enhance this, as will ensuring that external personnel are
sufficiently motivated through incentives and are adequately integrated into the community,
thereby intimately understanding the needs of various community groups.
This is not to suggest that community management is a solution per se as Foell, Harrison and
Stirrat (1999) identified in their analysis of coastal zone management in the Puttalam District,
where they concluded that “Participatory mechanisms are not necessarily the most
appropriate and/or efficient management tools for many CZM issues. Their use should thus
not be promoted at any cost, but their feasibility has to be individually assessed for different
management activities. A dogmatic insistence on participatory mechanisms can lead to
unwanted outcomes and/or compromise donors’ objectives”. Furthermore they found that
where participatory mechanisms are to be included careful stakeholder analysis is required to
61
ensure that the complexities of a society are fully understood and taken into consideration
before interventions and activities are planned.
To facilitate this institutions need to review their operating procedures and develop not only
stakeholder analysis but also mechanisms to empower communities to deal with issues of
governance and political interference which were identified in this research as a constraint to
community organisation but which Foell, Harrison and Stirrat (1999) found could also be
developed into a positive and dynamic factor in community management.
4.5
Greater Collaboration is Required Between Agencies
Natural resources management and management plans must involve greater collaboration
between relevant agencies. This should not take place only within spatially-defined
management areas, as policies implemented in one location can affect the implementation,
outcomes or impacts of another policy in another area. For example, much of the habitat
degradation occurring in the narrow 300m Coastal Zone is caused by activities that occur
outside CCDs jurisdiction. In all three research sites it was clearly observed that the activities
of the Irrigation Department were impacting on downstream, coastal water bodies.
A review of policies is also required as many have opposing goals, or similar goals but
conflicting means of achieving them, for example the Flora and Fauna Act, which focuses on
conservation and the CZMP, which has a strong community management and sustainable
resource-use element. Collaboration and alignment of policy goals and strategies for
implementation is therefore critical to prevent conflict and improve impacts.
SAM goes some way towards addressing this issue through SAM coordination committees
designed to ensure that all relevant agencies work with one another and local community
groups. However, coordination is still insufficient, a problem which may be attributed to lack of
funding and ensuing reluctance to take responsibility. Furthermore, collaboration in SAM is
focused on the designated SAM areas and does not adequately extend beyond this
boundary.
4.6
Special Area Management Concept is Unsustainable
Despite some benefits such as this increase in collaboration and notably the continued
functioning of RDF and RSAMCC, in general it has not been demonstrated that SAM is a
viable and effective tool for CZM as it has not achieved its desired objectives and has been
time and finance consuming.
The financial costs of SAM are of particular relevance because no funds are available from
the Government of Sri Lanka for the implementation of SAM and it is intended to seek funding
from donors, the private sector and through collaboration with other departments and local
government. There is the potential for this to result in a series of project-type interventions
that address local-level issues with no means of “scaling-up”. In addition, lack of
62
implementation funding causes resentment and disillusionment with the process. Funding
should be secured for implementation before planning is initiated and mechanisms for the
community to sustain funding or revenue generation must be built into the Plan. This later
aspect in particular has been deficient in previous SAM sites.
4.7
A National Strategy for Coastal Zone Management
Funding should not only be made available for SAM but for a wider CRM strategy with
activities at regional and national levels, of which SAM would form one component. In the
Revised CZMP (1990), SAM was envisaged as a tool for management of the most important
or severely degraded coastal sites however it appears to have become the sole tool used by
CCD to manage coastal habitats.
4.8
Monitoring, Evaluation and Scaling-Up
In such a context, SAM should provide lessons for implementation of SAM in other sites and
for “scaling-up” of SAM components. This is of particular importance given the current funding
situation for SAM, to ensure that SAM does not result in a series of project-type interventions
that only address local-level issues but not boarder CZMP objectives. However, no final
evaluations or monitoring of SAM have taken place in Rekawa or Hikkaduwa despite the fact
that SAM is set to form a significant part of the latest iteration of the CZMP and that it is a
significant component of the ADB-GoN CRMP. It is critical that: monitoring and evaluation
take place; these components are built into SAM Plans at the outset; and a mechanism is
developed to enable lessons to be fed into future CRM activities. It may also be beneficial,
and is an objective of SAM, for long-term community monitoring to take place but this must
also be planned at the outset in collaboration with communities to ensure that suitable
indicators are adopted, that individual’s roles are clear and that the monitoring is not a burden
for communities.
4.9
The Future
There is considerable international interest in CZM in Sri Lanka and a drive both from within
CCD and other concerned agencies to address CZM issues in a more sustainable and
collaborative manner. However, the translation of this into actions has been less effective and
the objectives of the CCA, the Revised CZMP and SAM have not so far been fully realized.
The latest revision of the CZMP provides an opportunity for sustainable management of
coastal resources provided it addresses issues of stakeholder involvement, funding, and
monitoring and evaluation. Mechanisms must also be devised and implemented to facilitate
CZM at a regional and national scale.
This research clearly highlighted that the livelihoods of coastal communities are still
insufficiently considered and that management plans, though developed in consultation with
63
community groups, had already been outlined prior to the initiation of the action. For
community co-management to be effective CCD and other implementing agencies would
benefit from undertaking greater livelihoods analysis to provide a clearer understanding of the
needs of communities, their reliance on natural resources and how interventions will impact
on them and natural resource exploitation. This process should not stop when the plan has
been developed. A clear and effective information strategy should be developed to ensure
that communities remain aware of the management plan, its objectives, activities and
impacts, and are able to provide input into the process as it the plan is implemented.
64
References
ARCADIS (2002) Sri Lanka – Integrated Resources Management Programme in
Wetlands
Asian Development Bank (1999) Report and Recommendation of the President to the
Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri
Lanka for the Coastal Resource Management Project (RRP: SRI 31287)
Carney, D. (ed. 1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. DFID, London
Coast Conservation Department (1997) Revised Coastal Zone Management Plan. Sri
Lanka
Central Bank of Sri Lanka (2002) Recent Economic Developments Highlights. Sri Lanka
Central Bank of Sri Lanka http://www.lanka.net/centralbank/y-td_tourism.html
Central Environmental Authority/Euroconsult (1993a) Wetland Site Report & Conservation
Management Plan, Kalametiya & Lunama Kalapuwas. Ministry of Environment and
Parliamentary Affairs
Central Environmental Authority/Euroconsult (1993b) Wetland Site Report & Conservation
Management Plan, Bundala National Park, Ministry of Environment and Parliamentary
Affairs
Chadwick, M., Clemett, A. and O. Springate-Baginski (2001) A Field Methodology for
Assessing the Impact of Policy on Rural Livelihood Systems. Livelihood-Policy
Relationships in South Asia, Working Paper 10, University of Leeds, UK
Ekaratne, S. U. K., Jinendradasa, S. S., Abeysisrigunawardana M. D. and J. Davenport
(2000) Coastal Conservation through Enterprise at Rekawa Lagoon, Sri Lanka,
Community Based Conservation in South Asia: Case Study No. 5. Kalapavriksh and
International Institute for Environment and Development, New Delhi, India
Foell, J., Harrison, E. and R.L. Stirrat (1999) Participation, Patrons and the Village: The
Case of Coastal Zone Management in the Puttalam District, Sri Lanka. University of
Sussex, UK
Ganewatte, P., Samaranayake, R.A.D.B., Samarakoon, J.I., White, A.T. and K. Haywood
(eds.) (1995) The Coastal Environmental Profile of Rekawa Lagoon, Sri Lanka. Coastal
Resources Management Project, Sri Lanka
HICZMP (2000) HICZMP Output No. 4, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Identification
and Classification of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the Coastal Zone. SDA and
CCD, Sri Lanka
65
Jambiya, G., Puri, J. and L.A. Risby (2004) The Nature and Role of Local Benefits in GEF
Programme Areas: Pilot Case Study Tanzania (Zanzibar) Jozani-Chwaka Bay
Conservation Project, Draft Report. Global Environment Facility, Washington
Joseph, L. and L. Kumara (2001) Report on Rekawa Lagoon. FCDRMP, GTZ, Sri Lanka
Kularatne, M. G. (1999) “Fishermen Without Fish”, The Effects of Productivity Decline in
Lagoon Fisheries on a Fishing and Farming Community and its use of Natural
Resources, a Case Study of Malala Lagoon, Hambantota, Sri Lanka. MSc Thesis,
International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences, Enschede, The Netherlands
Joseph, L. and S. Seneviratne (2000) Report on Awareness Workshop on Management of
Rekawa Lagoon Fisheries. FCDRMP, GTZ, Sri Lanka
Lowry, K., Pallewatte, N. and, A.P. Dainis (1999) Policy-relevant Assessment of
Community Level Coastal Management Projects in Sri Lanka. Ocean and Coastal
Management, 42, pp. 717-745
Marzano, M. (2002) Rural Livelihoods in Sri Lanka: An Indication of Poverty?
Department of Anthropology, University of Durham, UK
NARA (2001) Sri Lanka Fisheries Year Book. Socio-economic and Market Research
Division, National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency
Nurse, M. and G. Hitinayake, (2001) Livelihoods Approaches and Project Design:
Participatory Forest Management.
AusAID, http://www.livelihoods.org/post/design1postit.html
Olsen, S., Sadacharan, D., Samarakoon, J.I., White, A.T., Wickremeratne, H.J.M. and M.S.
Wijearatne, (1992a) Coastal 2000 Recommendations for A Resource Management
Strategy for Sri Lanka's Coastal Region Volume I. CCD, CRMP, USAID and University of
Rhode Island, Sri Lanka
Olsen, S., Sadacharan, D., Samarakoon, J.I., White, A.T., Wickremeratne, H.J.M. and
Wijearatne, M.S. (1992b) Coastal 2000 Recommendations for A Resource Management
Strategy for Sri Lanka's Coastal Region Volume II. CCD, CRMP, USAID and University of
Rhode Island, Sri Lanka
Rekawa Special Area Management Coordinating Committee (1996) Special Area
Management Plan for Rekawa Lagoon, Sri Lanka. CCD, NARA and CZMP
Senaratna, S. and E. J. Milner-Gulland (2002) Community Management of the Rekawa
Lagoon Resources. IUCN, http://www.iucn.org/themes/sustainableuse/index.html
Southern Development Authority of Sri Lanka (2001) Ruhunapura, City of Ruhuna, Sri
Lanka. Ruhuna 2001, Consultancy Company (Pvt) Ltd.
66
Tudawa, I. (2001) Chronic Poverty and Development Policy in Sri Lanka: Overview
Study. CPRC Working Paper 9, Institute of Policy Studies, Sri Lanka
UNDP (2000) Conservation of Biodiversity Through Integrated Collaborative
Management in the Rekawa, Usangoda and Kalametiya Coastal Ecosystems. Sri Lanka
Weeratunge, N., Rajasingham-Senanayake, D. and A. Jafferjee (2000) Perceptions of the
Poor, Poverty Consultations in Four Districts in Sri Lanka, Final Report. Asian
Development Bank and Poverty Impact Monitoring Unit, Sri Lanka
Wickramasuriya, H.V.A, Ginige, I. and S. Andrahennedige, (1999) Alternative Agricultural
Employment for Coral Miners. Unpublished report
White, A. T. and J. I. Samarakoon (1994) Special Area Management for Coastal
Resources: A First For Sri Lanka, Coastal Management in Tropical Asia. Newsletter No.2
March, Colombo
Web based Information Systems for Agricultural Research for Development (WISARD) (2002)
http://www.wisard.org/wisard/shared/asp/projectsummary.asp?Kennummer=8595
67
Annex A: Special Area Management Plan
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Annex B: Village Maps
VII
VIII
IX
X