SRI LANKA 28692
NORTH-EAST IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE PROJECT (NEIAP)
Funded by WORLD BANK
Implemented by NORTH-EAST PROVINCIAL COUNCIL
SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS & RISKS
ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMANT FRAMEWORK
Prepared by
Project Management Unit (NEIAP)
North-East Provincial Council
Trincomalee – Sri Lanka
Cleared by WORLD BANK
Contents
Page
Foreword 1 - 2
Chapter 1. Introduction 3
Conflict torn Sri Lanka 3
Impacts of the Conflict 3
Government Support to Conflict Affected People 4
The Current Status of the North East 4
The World Bank’s Role – conflict and post conflict situation 5
Social Safeguards and Risks associated with NEIAP 7
Chapter 2. Social Safeguards Issues – Involuntary Resettlement 8
The World Bank Policy – Operational Policy 4.12 8
OP 4.12 and NEIAP 8
NEIAP’s activity portfolio 9
Chapter 3.
The World Bank Policy on Indigenous people 10
Operational Directive 4.20 10
O D 4.20 and NEIAP 11
Extend of the Issue 11
I P Village 11
Plan of Action 12
The World Bank Policy on Cultural Heritage 12
Operational Manual Statement on Cultural Heritage 12
Chapter 4. Social Risks 13
Legal Protection of Owners’ Rights and Grievance Redressal 16
Chapter 5. Monitoring & Evaluation: An Extended Agenda 22
Framework of Implementation Monitoring 22
A Land register to form a part of Village Social Profile 22
Strengthen SMO dispute resolution skills 22
Sensitization workshops on land issues 22
Boxes
1. North East Irrigated Agriculture Project 6-7
2. Indigenous Peoples 10 -11
3. Agrarian Development Act 17
Attachments
1. District Social Profile
2. (a) List of participants of project stake holders’ workshop on social safeguard issues – Ampara District
(b) List of participants of project stake holders’ workshop on social safeguard issues – Batticaloa District
(c) List of participants of World Bank Review Mission workshop on social safeguard issues -
3. Operational Policy 4.12 -Involuntary Resettlement
4. Operational Directive 4.20- Indigenous Peoples
5. Revised by laws of Farmers’ Organization
6. Landownership Categories in Sri Lanka
7. Framework of Implementation Monitoring - Social and Institutional Aspects
8. M & E Frame work
9. NEIAP land monitoring records
Tables
Land use Titles
Land Encroachment and Dispute Resolution
2
Foreword
The compilation of a comprehensive Implementation and Monitoring framework (IMF) was a pre-requisite agreed upon with the World Bank, the funding agency of NEIAP. Accordingly following the agreements reached further during CPR mission (May-June 2001) and thereafter, the PMU, with assistance from the World Bank prepared this manual. This is aimed at creating a larger awareness about the current and potential social safeguards / risks and the mechanism to address them among the stakeholders in general and the field level project functionaries in particular.
The manual among others comprises of an expanded Framework of Implementation and Monitoring (FIM) along with tools and mechanism developed to identify and monitor safeguard and risk issues and the mitigatory measures there of.
Though the manual has been developed chiefly keeping NEIAP in mind, its scope, relevance and utility are rather general and will prove as a useful tool for all land based projects in the ensuing times.
I therefore would like to thank the staff of the World Bank, particularly Mr.Nihal Fernando, Task Team Leader of NEIAP, World Bank, Colombo and Dr.Suryanarayanan Satish, Community Development Specialist, World Bank, India, for the invaluable advices and guidance given in designing and compiling the manual.
My thanks are also due to Mr.P.Ramanathan, Project Director, of NEIAP for the initiative taken in directing his staff, specially Mr.H.K.S.Hettiarachchi, Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, who undertook the task from collection of information to final editing of the report, in which there were many other intermediatories whom had been contacted by him for necessary information.
Among them were MR.G,Kirushnamurthy, Former Chief Secretary, North East Province, Mr.N.P.K.Nelumdeniya, Government Agent, Trincomalee, Mr.H.A.Ariyadasa, Government Agent, Moneragala, Mrs. Thanuja Murugashan, Provincial land Commissioner, North East Province, Mr.B.R.Senarathne, Assistant Commissioner (legal) Land Commissioner’s Department, Colombo, Mr.B.M.Ariyarathne, Assistant Commissioner lands, Kachcheri, Trincomalee, Mr.A,A,Bawa, Deputy Project Director, NEIAP, Kachcheri, Ampara, Mr.A.C.Vinotharajah, Deputy Project Director, NEIAP, Batticaloa, Mr.S.Samithambi, Assistant Commissioner, Agrarian Development, Batticaloa, Mr.V.Velumylum, Divisional Secretary, Town & Gravets, Trincomalee, Mr.Elamaldeniya, Agrarian Development Officer (Head Quarters) Dept. of Agrarian Development, Trincomalee, whose support had been extended to Mr.Hettiarachchi was unforgettable. I thank them all for their valuable support to prepare this manual.
S.Rangarajah – Chief Secretary,
North East Provincial Council,
Chairman – Project Steering Committee,
NEIAP.
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Conflict torn Sri Lanka
1. For nearly two decades Sri Lanka in general, and its Northern and Eastern Provinces in particular have been suffering from a devastating conflict between the Armed forces of the Government and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The conflict induced war has taken an enormous toll on the country’s human and financial resources, physical assets and social capital. It has taken nearly about 64,000 lives, resulted in displacing over 1,000,000 people and deteriorating social and economic infrastructure, mainly in the Northern and Eastern provinces (hereafter called North-East in this document). The social and economic costs of the war as well as missed opportunities for the country and the affected people are enormous.
2. The war has divided the North and East region into two zones such as areas under the administrative control of the Government (called as “cleared” areas by the Armed forces) and areas not under the Government control but controlled by the LTTE (“uncleared” areas). These areas over the past have moved back and forth from Government control to LTTE control indicating intense continuous conflict situation.
Impacts of the Conflict
3. The project complied District Social Baseline Profiles as a requirement for project Appraisal at the beginning of the project. These profiles reflect the situation that existed in 199-2001 and the impact of conflict on people and social and economic infrastructure. A summary of the profiles in Attachment 1 (In dynamic situation of the conflict area this is only a snap shot and base line profile). The war displaced a large number of people and enforced them involuantry to flee from their homes leaving behind their assets including lands and other private property. Many have been displaced multiple times. While a large number of families remain internally displaced (IDPs) within the country, some unconfirmed number of families have left the country and settled down overseas permanently and some families have fled to India and now live in and outside refugee camps in Tamil Nadu state.
4. Among the IDPs, majority have taken refuge with friends and relatives (for short periods), whereas the poor and more vulnerable families continued to reside in government-run welfare camps for relatively long periods of time. With the signing of the MoU and the expectations for peace, most of the displaced people are returning to their original settlements and many others expect to return as and when the situation would become more secure to re-establish their livelihoods.
5. Livelihood support systems have been seriously disturbed as a consequence of displacement. Irrigated agriculture used to be the backbone of the economy in the North-East with nearly two thirds of its pre-war population eking their livelihood from agricultural farming, livestock rearing and deep sea fishing. The agriculture and domestic water needs are typically supplied by about 2,400 minor irrigation reservoirs (locally called irrigation tanks) and run-off-river structures (anicuts), about 135 major/medium tanks and large number of open dug wells scattered over the area.
6. However, the forced displacement of people from their settlements have left agricultural land without sufficient resources to maintain cultivation. This situation coupled with the weakened administrative system and agricultural and agrarian extension support services have left the irrigation facilities to damage and heavy dilapidation. Most of these irrigation schemes are either operating at much lower capacity or damaged to the extent that those cannot store water to allow irrigated farming on the agricultural lands at optimum levels. In addition, many rural roads that link villagers, and farming and fishing communities to irrigation schemes and nearby townships and market centers are heavily dilapidated. Large areas of productive farm lands and previously inhabited areas are reported to have been heavily mined.
Government support to conflict-affected people
7. The Government of Sri Lanka was ever interested in re-integrating the affected people with social and economic mainstream. However, till recently, Government’s administrative delivery systems in the North-East were weak due to lack of man power and constraints on mobility due to security restrictions. Hence, the Government, with the help of UN agencies and international and national NGOs, arranged for relief and humanitarian assistance to sustain the basic living conditions. Now, with the MOU signing, there are improvements in mobility and availability of government machinery. Now attention is focused on resettlement (returning of displaced people to their original settlements) and relocation (displaced people being relocated in new settlements). The government policy with regard to relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction aims at bringing the population affected by the conflict back to productive life by providing basic amenities to help the people to live with dignity, and to create a physically, economically, and socially sustainable environment for their re-integration. Priority is given to reviving irrigated agriculture production as the returning displaced families would depend on agriculture as their main source of income. This is followed by employment generation through micro enterprises and small scale reconstruction. Several International External Bilateral and Multilateral agencies including the World Bank as well as NGOs are complementing the government’s efforts with technical and financial assistance to help jump starting the lives of returnees and relocates.
The Current Status of the North-East
8. With the signing of the MOU in early 2002 between the Government and LTTE on the cease-fire, the security situation in the North-east has significantly improved. Under the agreement, both sides agreed to stop offensive operations and allow unarmed combatants access to each other's territory. Paramilitary groups have been disarmed and agreement reached that the civilian population will not be harassed by either armed party. The cease-fire, monitored by a team of Scandinavians, has been the longest to hold so far and reopen the space for a negotiated settlement. The military has begun vacating schools and public buildings while the Government lifted the economic embargo on LTTE-controlled territory. The LTTE established political offices in military controlled areas in an effort to participate in the political process.
9. Formal negotiations between the two parties held in Oslo has been completed successfully. Discussions have centered around interim arrangements for the North East Province under a proposed LTTE-led administration. The Government plans to introduce a policy of asymmetrical devolution where the interim administration would be given extensive powers in education, health care, rural development and infrastructure. This situation has raised optimistic expectations that there would be a favorable settlement to the long standing conflict in the foreseeable future. In this interim period, the Government plan to facilitate the transition to sustainable peace by providing unprecedented assistance to the North-East to bring normalcy, stable political, social, and economic infrastructure, thus restoring an enabling environment conducive to productive activities. In the immediate time frame, the Government plans to expand its support to the:
· Resettlement and relocation of displaced and returning people in their original settlements or on new lands;
· Provision of permanent houses for the IDPs;
· Repairs / reconstruction to selected items of infrastructure, immediately needed for the resettled people mainly in the areas of education, health, livestock, agriculture and fisheries and in lesser extent in the road sector;
· Provision of equipment in hospitals and schools; and
· Establishment of income generating activities to special target groups.
The World Bank’s Role – Conflict and Post Conflict Situation
10. The Bank responded to the Government of Sri Lanka’s request and approved and commissioned a Credit Support towards assisting in implementing the North East Irrigated Agriculture Project (NEIAP) in 1999 (details in Box-1) when the conflict was still ongoing. This project aims at helping the conflict affected communities in the North East Province and adjoining areas to reestablish at least a subsistence level of production and basic community services, through assistance with jump starting agricultural and small scale reconstruction activities, and to build their capacity for sustainable social and economic integration. The project, budgeted at US$ 32.4 million, became effective in March 2000; and is expected to close in June 2005. Implementation is now in the 4th year and development objective and implementation performance are rated ‘satisfactory’. The project designers were well aware of the risks, including social safeguard issues, associated with such an intervention and made substantial provision for addressing them. This included developing a Framework for Implementation and Monitoring (FIM), in particular to ensure that the potential social safeguard and risk issues are identified, remedial measures taken, and monitored.
Box 1
Sri Lanka North-East Irrigated Agriculture Project (NEIAP)Major project components are aimed at:
· Rehabilitation of the existing Irrigation Schemes, essentially small scale tanks and diversion weir/ Anicut systems;
· Social mobilization support & capacity building to create sustainable and self reliant community based organizations (CBOs);
· Rural road rehabilitation to enable mobility of rural communities and to facilitate the transport of agricultural inputs/outputs;
· Drinking water facilities
· Other Reconstruction activities such as urgent repairs of vital facilities such as schools, health centers, shelter, sanitation etc; and livelihood support activities through credit based micro enterprises etc.; and
· Feasibility studies for major / medium irrigation schemes.
The project would reach an estimated 24,000 families totaling about 100,000 people living in approximately 400 villages in the North-East Region. It finances rehabilitation of irrigation schemes and rural roads, provision of drinking water, and community capacity building activities. Agriculture productivity of an estimated 16,000 hectares will be revitalized by restoring roughly 400 neglected irrigation schemes. Service capacity of about 1,200 km of priority village roads will be rehabilitated, connecting rural villages to irrigation schemes and markets and supporting the transfer of goods, services, and people. About half-a-million families will receive livelihood support assistance.
Community-based organizations (CBOs) and NGOs play a vital role in planning and implementation of the project. The project concentrates on “focus villages” identified through a bottom up, participatory process involving all stakeholders including CBOs and NGOs. Community services and reconstruction activities in focused villages are based upon priorities identified by the villagers themselves. NGOs work closely with the communities to implement project activities and to monitor and facilitate the transfer of organizational and management skills and technical knowledge as needed by the villages to become self-reliant.
Community Mobilization strategy is based upon the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) and essentially involves establishing effective partnerships among the communities, government, UN agencies, international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the World Bank. While a plan is prepared for the village as a whole reflecting all the requirements, individual components are supported by different agencies with a single service delivery at the grassroots. In addition, the project is building capacity within the North-East region to undertake larger reconstruction activities once the ground conditions become more favorable.
Total costs for the project are US$32.4 million, to which the government of Sri Lanka will contribute US$4.0 million and beneficiaries will contribute US$1.4 million. The US$27million equivalent interest-free credit is provided to the government of Sri Lanka by the International Development Association (IDA), the World Bank’s concessionary lending affiliate, on standard IDA terms with 40 years maturity and a ten-year grace period.
Social Safeguards and Risks Associated with NEIAP
11. Given the volatile socio-political situation of the project area and the conflict resultant displacement of a number of households, the NEIAP Preparation Team felt the need for developing a district-wise baseline social profile (DSPs) as a prerequisite for effective planning as well as implementation and monitoring of micro level interventions. Accordingly, the Project Management Unit (PMU) prepared the DSPs during 2001. A review of the profiles (Attachment-1) raised, among others, three key issues: (i) identify people, if any, who are likely to lose lands as a result of the project intervention and plan for mitigatory measures thereof; (ii) identify indigenous populations, if any, in the project area and the measures thereof to reach them and (iii) mechanisms to address in the event of a potential conflict between returning displaced people and those who (might) have occupied their vacant property. While the first two fall in the realm of the World Bank’s social safeguard policies, the last one relates to ‘reputational risks’. Though the latter is rather external to the project, its implications are too high to be ignored. As the situation is improving and signs of peace are becoming visible, more and more displaced people are returning for resettlement. This has also necessitated the need for expanding the initially designed FIM to render effective monitoring of social safeguards and risks.