The tsunami of December 26th 2004 was – in terms of lives and property lost – the most devastating of natural disasters in Sri Lanka’s living memory.
The generosity with which the international community responded was overwhelming, their empathy and compassion were confirmed by massive waves of assistance that flowed in. A strong sense of Southern solidarity was evidenced by the reaction and support extended by the Southern nations to this tragedy. These developing nations contributed a sum of US$ 3.51 million through the UNDP’s Special Unit for South – South Co-operation, of which US$ 550,000 was allocated to Sri Lanka in two tranches. Four other nations affected by the tsunami, i.e. the Maldives, Indonesia, Thailand and India, also benefited from the SSGF program. The twin objectives of the grant were Livelihood Development and Construction of Small Infrastructure.
In Sri Lanka, the role played by the National Steering Committee in sifting through several project proposals, to identify the most deserving cases, was of tremendous value. Our implementing partners, the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), did a commendable job. Together we’ve learnt many lessons and understood how the communities could be better served. These observations have been highlighted in this report.
The SSGF funds were channelled through UNDP’s Global Environment Facility/ Small Grants Programme. GEF/ SGP was chosen to implement this plan in partnership with UNOPS. GEF/ SGP had been working with communities at the grassroots level for several years, in the protection of the environment. The experience thus gained and the contacts made with the communities was more than useful to reach out to the affected coastal communities, restore their lost livelihoods and address their basic infrastructure needs such as water, sanitary facilities and kitchens in their homes. The GEF/ SGP know-how ensured effective delivery mechanisms. Our time-tested methods used in the selection and monitoring processes of NGOs have resulted in the funds being appropriately deployed.
In the run-up to preparing this report, the authors visited the eight coastal districts and met with the beneficiaries of the thirty projects undertaken. We observed that SSGF has spurred the resilience of the tsunami-affected people. An estimated 4,768 beneficiaries have bounced back from the event.
In some areas along the coastline, broken and deserted houses are still visible, a grim reminder of that fateful morning when the sea encroached onto the land. But even more in evidence are happy faces, stories of courage and expressions of hope. This is the story of the buoyancy of the Sri Lankan people. Perhaps this story might have had a completely different ending but for the generosity of the people of Algeria, China, Brazil, Benin, Samoa, Trinidad & Tobago, Comoros, Tuvalu, Jamaica, Egypt and Venezuela.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
South - South Grants Facility
Community Based Organisations (CBOs) and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have now come to be accepted as key providers of innovative local-level solutions to development challenges. Donor countries find it feasible to contribute to these organisations through recognised development agencies such as UNDP that have mechanisms in place to deploy resources systematically and, more importantly, to monitor progress.
The South – South Grants Facility (SSGF) was established in 2005, by UNDP’s Special Unit for South – South Cooperation. The SSGF’s raison de etre is to enable Southern countries to co-operatively make resources available in support of specific community development initiatives.
The facility’s stated intent is to support some of the most difficult issues in development, such as disaster management. Grants have been recognised as an important means of financing micro-level local action that complements broader national disaster recovery efforts. The establishment of the SSGF, therefore, was intended to facilitate the implementation of grants programmes that are tailored to local needs.
From the substantial contributions mobilised, SSGF Phase I provided grants to four countries, i.e. Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Maldives and Thailand, for community work that addressed livelihood recovery and infrastructure development. India was included in Phase II.
The Sri Lankan component of the tsunami recovery programme was launched on September 16th 2005. Named ‘Livelihood Development’ and ‘One Village at a Time’, the micro-initiatives were implemented by NGOs and civil society groups. The livelihood development component was intended to benefit people whose means of earning an income had been completely or partially lost due to the tsunami. The intended target was the most vulnerable section of society, particularly women. They were to be assisted in the development of home-based business.
‘One Village at a Time’ built on the perspective that the tsunami was not merely a tragic event but also an opportunity. The involvement of affected communities in the task of rebuilding their infrastructure and facilities, it was felt, could help accelerate the development process.
Under Phase I, funding amounting to US$ 350,000 was released to NGOs and CBOs in December 2005 for thirteen projects lasting one year. After reviewing Phase I, it was decided - in 2006 - to extend the SSGF for another year. In Phase II, US$ 200,000 was released in January 2007 for seventeen projects. NGOs whose performances were found to be good during the first phase and submitted new proposals were funded by SSGF’s Phase II programme as well. Although individual projects are relatively small - ranging from US$ 4,000 to US$ 25,000, they have played a significant role in rebuilding infrastructure and restoring the livelihoods of communities.
The resources mobilised have been expended or committed. It is appropriate, at this juncture, to document the activities supported by the programme, share relevant experiences and key lessons.
The South – South Grants Facility (SSGF) was established in 2005, by UNDP’s Special Unit for South – South Cooperation. The SSGF’s raison de etre is to enable Southern countries to co-operatively make resources available in support of specific community development initiatives.
The facility’s stated intent is to support some of the most difficult issues in development, such as disaster management. Grants have been recognised as an important means of financing micro-level local action that complements broader national disaster recovery efforts. The establishment of the SSGF, therefore, was intended to facilitate the implementation of grants programmes that are tailored to local needs.
From the substantial contributions mobilised, SSGF Phase I provided grants to four countries, i.e. Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Maldives and Thailand, for community work that addressed livelihood recovery and infrastructure development. India was included in Phase II.
The Sri Lankan component of the tsunami recovery programme was launched on September 16th 2005. Named ‘Livelihood Development’ and ‘One Village at a Time’, the micro-initiatives were implemented by NGOs and civil society groups. The livelihood development component was intended to benefit people whose means of earning an income had been completely or partially lost due to the tsunami. The intended target was the most vulnerable section of society, particularly women. They were to be assisted in the development of home-based business.
‘One Village at a Time’ built on the perspective that the tsunami was not merely a tragic event but also an opportunity. The involvement of affected communities in the task of rebuilding their infrastructure and facilities, it was felt, could help accelerate the development process.
Under Phase I, funding amounting to US$ 350,000 was released to NGOs and CBOs in December 2005 for thirteen projects lasting one year. After reviewing Phase I, it was decided - in 2006 - to extend the SSGF for another year. In Phase II, US$ 200,000 was released in January 2007 for seventeen projects. NGOs whose performances were found to be good during the first phase and submitted new proposals were funded by SSGF’s Phase II programme as well. Although individual projects are relatively small - ranging from US$ 4,000 to US$ 25,000, they have played a significant role in rebuilding infrastructure and restoring the livelihoods of communities.
The resources mobilised have been expended or committed. It is appropriate, at this juncture, to document the activities supported by the programme, share relevant experiences and key lessons.
Implementation: Why GEF/ SGP?
The main focus of GEF/ SGP is protection of the environment; the agency works with NGOs and CBOs on environmental issues under the GEF thematic areas. Typically, GEF/SGP is not mandated to undertake projects that focus on development of livelihoods unless such projects are linked to environment conservation. GEF/ SGP was not associated with the provision of relief until the tsunami.
The tsunami’s impact on Sri Lanka’s infrastructure and its people’s livelihoods was unimaginable. The presence of buildings close to the coast, and the lack of appropriate planning standards, worsened the damage and destruction to property. This, in turn, generated an enormous volume of waste and debris. Groundwater wells were contaminated by seawater, wastewater and sewage, rendering them useless. Besides affecting access to drinking water, this situation also affected agricultural land, with soil salinity rendering agricultural fields unsuitable for farming.
The tsunami left a large number of people homeless, displacing adults and children. Some of the victims were members of NGOs working with GEF/ SGP in coastal regions. In the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, seven affected NGOs banded together to seek assistance.
Within days, GEF/ SGP initiated work to raise funds to assist affected communities. The project titled ‘Coastal Rehabilitation’ was sent to Central Programme Management Team (CPMT) of GEF/ SGP in New York, with a request for funding. The proposal was favourably considered because of the special circumstances of an extreme event affecting the country and was approved in mid-2005. With these funds, GEF/SGP initiated tsunami assistance work in the affected coastal areas.
In the meantime, UNDP’s Special Unit for South – South Cooperation had mobilised resources for tsunami assistance from countries of the southern hemisphere, seeking to assist affected people of other southern countries. The Special Unit needed a mechanism to reach targeted communities. GEF/ SGP was contacted by UNOPS because of its commendable record of reaching grassroots communities and also because they had expressed interest in doing tsunami assistance and development work.
A tripartite Memorandum of Understanding was signed between UNDP’s Special Unit for South – South Cooperation, GEF Small Grants Programme and United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). This is how the GEF/ SGP became the mechanism for implementation of the SSGF funding in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Thailand and later in India.
The tsunami’s impact on Sri Lanka’s infrastructure and its people’s livelihoods was unimaginable. The presence of buildings close to the coast, and the lack of appropriate planning standards, worsened the damage and destruction to property. This, in turn, generated an enormous volume of waste and debris. Groundwater wells were contaminated by seawater, wastewater and sewage, rendering them useless. Besides affecting access to drinking water, this situation also affected agricultural land, with soil salinity rendering agricultural fields unsuitable for farming.
The tsunami left a large number of people homeless, displacing adults and children. Some of the victims were members of NGOs working with GEF/ SGP in coastal regions. In the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, seven affected NGOs banded together to seek assistance.
Within days, GEF/ SGP initiated work to raise funds to assist affected communities. The project titled ‘Coastal Rehabilitation’ was sent to Central Programme Management Team (CPMT) of GEF/ SGP in New York, with a request for funding. The proposal was favourably considered because of the special circumstances of an extreme event affecting the country and was approved in mid-2005. With these funds, GEF/SGP initiated tsunami assistance work in the affected coastal areas.
In the meantime, UNDP’s Special Unit for South – South Cooperation had mobilised resources for tsunami assistance from countries of the southern hemisphere, seeking to assist affected people of other southern countries. The Special Unit needed a mechanism to reach targeted communities. GEF/ SGP was contacted by UNOPS because of its commendable record of reaching grassroots communities and also because they had expressed interest in doing tsunami assistance and development work.
A tripartite Memorandum of Understanding was signed between UNDP’s Special Unit for South – South Cooperation, GEF Small Grants Programme and United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). This is how the GEF/ SGP became the mechanism for implementation of the SSGF funding in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Thailand and later in India.
Independent Selection Process
To allocate funds for tsunami rehabilitation, GEF/ SGP followed its standard procedure for grant funding. Advertisements in Sinhala, Tamil and English were placed in five local newspapers, inviting NGOs and others interested in working in tsunami-affected areas to submit proposals.
At a meeting conducted at the Ceylon Continental Hotel in Colombo on September 16th 2005, GEF/ SGP formally launched the tsunami assistance programme with the participation of government agencies, embassy staff and UNDP. The audience consisted primarily of NGOs, media and other relevant agencies. Many of the NGOs submitted proposals in due course.
GEF/ SGP ensures transparency in selection of grantees. The National Steering Committee (NSC) scrutinizes all requests and its members also visit the proposed project sites. The NSC is a pivotal body in UNDP’s programmes. This twelve-member committee consists of officers from the Ministry of Environment, NGOs, academicians, scientific advisors and the private sector. Collectively, the NSC is the ultimate deciding authority.
The SSGF was different in that funding was available for small infrastructure development or livelihood development of the worst affected persons or groups. It received proposals like roofing for a small building and flooring for a classroom. That was all that certain communities needed for the moment but these were very important to them. In order to cope with the plethora of proposals that were generated, the NSC used the marking system used in approving grants for the GEF/ SGP but adapting it to the SSGF requirements.
When one considers that the funds had to be released in three tranches, the exercise threatened to become cumbersome administratively. To avoid that eventuality, GEF clustered smaller projects, designating one NGO to be responsible for fund disbursement according to schedule and reporting procedures. A mechanism was found whereby Memoranda of Understanding were signed within each cluster for this.
In Phase I, the NSC selected/ approved a list of 32 NGOs to undertake various projects on livelihood and small infrastructure. As stated earlier, NGOs were banded together based on similarity of work and geographical proximity to form thirteen clusters. In each cluster, one NGO was appointed as the Lead NGO. GEF/ SGP believed that this clustering would a result in a situation of mutual responsibility, wherein the NGOs could also monitor each other’s work.
In Phase II however, the clustering concept was put aside and funding allotted to projects implemented by seventeen individual NGOs.
At a meeting conducted at the Ceylon Continental Hotel in Colombo on September 16th 2005, GEF/ SGP formally launched the tsunami assistance programme with the participation of government agencies, embassy staff and UNDP. The audience consisted primarily of NGOs, media and other relevant agencies. Many of the NGOs submitted proposals in due course.
GEF/ SGP ensures transparency in selection of grantees. The National Steering Committee (NSC) scrutinizes all requests and its members also visit the proposed project sites. The NSC is a pivotal body in UNDP’s programmes. This twelve-member committee consists of officers from the Ministry of Environment, NGOs, academicians, scientific advisors and the private sector. Collectively, the NSC is the ultimate deciding authority.
The SSGF was different in that funding was available for small infrastructure development or livelihood development of the worst affected persons or groups. It received proposals like roofing for a small building and flooring for a classroom. That was all that certain communities needed for the moment but these were very important to them. In order to cope with the plethora of proposals that were generated, the NSC used the marking system used in approving grants for the GEF/ SGP but adapting it to the SSGF requirements.
When one considers that the funds had to be released in three tranches, the exercise threatened to become cumbersome administratively. To avoid that eventuality, GEF clustered smaller projects, designating one NGO to be responsible for fund disbursement according to schedule and reporting procedures. A mechanism was found whereby Memoranda of Understanding were signed within each cluster for this.
In Phase I, the NSC selected/ approved a list of 32 NGOs to undertake various projects on livelihood and small infrastructure. As stated earlier, NGOs were banded together based on similarity of work and geographical proximity to form thirteen clusters. In each cluster, one NGO was appointed as the Lead NGO. GEF/ SGP believed that this clustering would a result in a situation of mutual responsibility, wherein the NGOs could also monitor each other’s work.
In Phase II however, the clustering concept was put aside and funding allotted to projects implemented by seventeen individual NGOs.
Ensuring Equitable Distribution
In the days following the tsunami, staff members of GEF/ SGP fanned out to visit some of the affected areas to observe the extent of devastation to lives and property. Their intent was to assess the urgent and immediate needs of the affected people.
Nearly sixty applications for funding were received from NGOs at the UNDP office and copies thereof were sent to each of the NSC members. Proposals written in the local languages, Sinhala or Tamil, were accepted in keeping with GEF/ SGP practice. This ensures that funding is made accessible to all.
The GEF/ SGP National Steering Committee performed the same role for SSGF and followed the similar selection procedure that is normally adopted for the appraisal of GEF/ SGP proposals. During the two weeks following the receipt of proposals, members evaluated each project independently.
The major parameters considered were:
· Innovation – Creativity of project concept
· Provision for Community participation in design, implementation and evaluation
· Sustainability – Capacity to sustain the project beyond the funded period.
The minor criteria considered were:
· Realistic budget - Costs for stated activities should neither be under- nor over-estimated
· Social equity – Focus on women and marginalised groups and practices
· Other issues – Relevant factors that are not addressed elsewhere
Having scrutinised each project proposal in the interim, members shared their feedback and concerns at an NSC meeting.
Not all of the proposals could be approved; approval needed to be based on the quantum of funding available. Therefore, the selection process first weeded out projects based on conformity to SSGF guidelines and feasibility. Where unrealistic budgets were apparent, such proposals were rejected on grounds of infeasibility.
Thereafter, the members’ scores were tabulated, with each one’s score getting an equal weightage. Interestingly, when members gave marks, a pattern was perceptible - the differences were often marginal. While some project proposals qualified automatically, there was a lot of heated discussion at times when it came to rejecting a borderline proposal. At times a few good proposals from capable NGOs had to be turned down due to paucity of funding; hence, rejection did not necessarily reflect lack of merit.
The NSC members visited almost all project sites before proposals were given the collective stamp of approval.
Most NGOs working with UNDP had good track records. They took on work in areas that they had not previously operated in because the process of rehabilitation had to be commenced expeditiously.
When projects were approved, it was important that UNDP have the monitoring capacity to ensure proper deployment. In the absence of this capacity, there was the likelihood that the money could have been diverted for purposes other than those for which it was meant. Hence, if there was no NGO willing to work in certain badly affected areas, such areas did not receive SSGF funding – because there was no delivery mechanism.
SSGF funding reached the people who deserved it, although it was not consciously allocated to districts in proportion to the extent of devastation. Every affected person deserved support, irrespective of whether he/ she hailed from the badly devastated area such as Kalmunai in the East or marginally affected Moratuwa along the West coast. If an individual’s house got washed away, it did not matter to which district he belonged. The primary objective of any recovery programme is to restore the livelihoods; restoration and development of Infrastructure are concurrent or supporting activities.
The tsunami recovery programme involved several livelihood development initiatives that involved the improvement of the lives of women. The gender issue was thus consciously addressed. The improvement of domestic infrastructure was addressed by building kitchens and toilets in existing houses that did not possess the facility earlier. The centres of population as a whole benefited from infrastructure such as playgrounds, multi purpose community halls, repairs to school buildings and roads, and also community wells and water-tanks.
Individual grants to NGOs ranged from US$ 4,000 to 25,000. These resources helped two categories of people:
· Those who were economically productive previously but lost resources, who already had the right mental make-up
· Those who were previously inactive but were provided with the impetus and opportunity to redeem themselves
Prof. Nalini Ratnasiri, the Chairperson of the NSC says, “I have learnt a lot about my country from the people I met. These people have been battered by the tsunami, conflict and poverty. Yet, when I visit them, I never cease to be amazed at the resilience, hospitality and innovativeness of the Sri Lankan people.”
Nearly sixty applications for funding were received from NGOs at the UNDP office and copies thereof were sent to each of the NSC members. Proposals written in the local languages, Sinhala or Tamil, were accepted in keeping with GEF/ SGP practice. This ensures that funding is made accessible to all.
The GEF/ SGP National Steering Committee performed the same role for SSGF and followed the similar selection procedure that is normally adopted for the appraisal of GEF/ SGP proposals. During the two weeks following the receipt of proposals, members evaluated each project independently.
The major parameters considered were:
· Innovation – Creativity of project concept
· Provision for Community participation in design, implementation and evaluation
· Sustainability – Capacity to sustain the project beyond the funded period.
The minor criteria considered were:
· Realistic budget - Costs for stated activities should neither be under- nor over-estimated
· Social equity – Focus on women and marginalised groups and practices
· Other issues – Relevant factors that are not addressed elsewhere
Having scrutinised each project proposal in the interim, members shared their feedback and concerns at an NSC meeting.
Not all of the proposals could be approved; approval needed to be based on the quantum of funding available. Therefore, the selection process first weeded out projects based on conformity to SSGF guidelines and feasibility. Where unrealistic budgets were apparent, such proposals were rejected on grounds of infeasibility.
Thereafter, the members’ scores were tabulated, with each one’s score getting an equal weightage. Interestingly, when members gave marks, a pattern was perceptible - the differences were often marginal. While some project proposals qualified automatically, there was a lot of heated discussion at times when it came to rejecting a borderline proposal. At times a few good proposals from capable NGOs had to be turned down due to paucity of funding; hence, rejection did not necessarily reflect lack of merit.
The NSC members visited almost all project sites before proposals were given the collective stamp of approval.
Most NGOs working with UNDP had good track records. They took on work in areas that they had not previously operated in because the process of rehabilitation had to be commenced expeditiously.
When projects were approved, it was important that UNDP have the monitoring capacity to ensure proper deployment. In the absence of this capacity, there was the likelihood that the money could have been diverted for purposes other than those for which it was meant. Hence, if there was no NGO willing to work in certain badly affected areas, such areas did not receive SSGF funding – because there was no delivery mechanism.
SSGF funding reached the people who deserved it, although it was not consciously allocated to districts in proportion to the extent of devastation. Every affected person deserved support, irrespective of whether he/ she hailed from the badly devastated area such as Kalmunai in the East or marginally affected Moratuwa along the West coast. If an individual’s house got washed away, it did not matter to which district he belonged. The primary objective of any recovery programme is to restore the livelihoods; restoration and development of Infrastructure are concurrent or supporting activities.
The tsunami recovery programme involved several livelihood development initiatives that involved the improvement of the lives of women. The gender issue was thus consciously addressed. The improvement of domestic infrastructure was addressed by building kitchens and toilets in existing houses that did not possess the facility earlier. The centres of population as a whole benefited from infrastructure such as playgrounds, multi purpose community halls, repairs to school buildings and roads, and also community wells and water-tanks.
Individual grants to NGOs ranged from US$ 4,000 to 25,000. These resources helped two categories of people:
· Those who were economically productive previously but lost resources, who already had the right mental make-up
· Those who were previously inactive but were provided with the impetus and opportunity to redeem themselves
Prof. Nalini Ratnasiri, the Chairperson of the NSC says, “I have learnt a lot about my country from the people I met. These people have been battered by the tsunami, conflict and poverty. Yet, when I visit them, I never cease to be amazed at the resilience, hospitality and innovativeness of the Sri Lankan people.”
Livelihood Development
Sri Lanka was the second worst affected country in the region, suffering extensive losses. It has been estimated that more than 35,000 people died in the tsunami, over 15,000 were injured and in excess of 5,000 were reported missing. Nearly a million people were displaced from their homes. About 150,000 people lost their main source of income as a result and the unemployment rate more than doubled from 9% to 20% in the affected districts of Sri Lanka.
Some fishing communities had been decimated; their boats, their sole means of making a living, had been destroyed. Small hotels and restaurants that cater to domestic and foreign tourism had been damaged or completely destroyed along the coast. Farmers' livelihoods were threatened by the loss of crops, agricultural inputs and implements. Salt contamination of farming fields and damage to irrigation systems contributed to paint a bleak picture of the future.
Two significant national income-earning sectors - fisheries and tourism - were badly affected, a fact that would have negative implications for the wider population. In an initial assessment, the IMF said, “The fishing industry has been devastated, agricultural production may be affected and tourism will suffer, especially in the short term… The broader macro-economic impact will clearly be substantial.”
In response to a Flash Appeal, several aid agencies came forward and provided grants in cash and kind. While these provided immediate relief, there were some undesirable consequences, with the local population showing signs of becoming dependent on these handouts.
A Chinese proverb says, “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” It was clearly necessary to help people regain their livelihoods. Therefore, in order to help people recover from the disaster, SSGF’s ‘Livelihood Development’ initiative focussed on the following project areas:
· Rebuilding the capacity of communities to enhance their economic productiveness and their participation in economic and social life
· Creating employment that would either be sustainable or enhance sustainable pre-existing livelihoods
· Assisting entrepreneurs, particularly women in small businesses, who wished to resume producing and selling their products
· Promoting women’s welfare with a special focus on the improvement of their participation in economic development
By helping entrepreneurs to restore their livelihoods, the SSGF programme gave them the means to provide for themselves, their families and their communities. Specific programmes encouraged women’s participation in economic development, enhancing their sense of empowerment, self-esteem and status within the community.
Most of SSGF’s beneficiaries had lost their means of livelihood when the surging waters washed their materials and equipment away. However, some were indirectly impacted. For example, a couple that used to run a grocery store realised that their unfortunate customers were unable to repay the credit they had availed. They joined a samithi (CBO) to avail of SSGF funding that enabled them to replenish inventory.
Many women opted for livelihoods like tailoring and embroidery of women’s and children’s garments. These have been restored with sewing machines that were acquired with SSGF funding. In keeping with the traditional role of rural women, others cooked food items - ranging from lunch packets to savouries - with equipment procured through the programme. Some even ventured to set up small stores, from which household essentials like groceries, milk and bread are sold. Home gardens were a popular occupation in some districts.
Men had a variety of means of earning a livelihood that revolve around fishing and agriculture. The Department of Agriculture played its part by teaching agriculturalists how to desalinate their land, which they did with small grants from the SSGF. Many farmers thought it prudent to switch to alternate crops that are economically more viable.
Carpentry and pottery also feature as popular professions in certain affected districts. Some opted for activities like de-husking of coconuts and breeding of ornamental fish.
In the ultimate analysis, the timely support provided by SSGF has resulted in a revival of the industrious nature of these people. For the beneficiaries, it’s back to business as usual. The adverse macro-economic impact had been contained and – to an extent - reversed. During 2006, Sri Lanka’s economy performed better than in previous years, with GDP growing at 7.4%. Significantly, unemployment during the first quarter of 2007 was – at 6.2% - at its lowest level ever.
Some fishing communities had been decimated; their boats, their sole means of making a living, had been destroyed. Small hotels and restaurants that cater to domestic and foreign tourism had been damaged or completely destroyed along the coast. Farmers' livelihoods were threatened by the loss of crops, agricultural inputs and implements. Salt contamination of farming fields and damage to irrigation systems contributed to paint a bleak picture of the future.
Two significant national income-earning sectors - fisheries and tourism - were badly affected, a fact that would have negative implications for the wider population. In an initial assessment, the IMF said, “The fishing industry has been devastated, agricultural production may be affected and tourism will suffer, especially in the short term… The broader macro-economic impact will clearly be substantial.”
In response to a Flash Appeal, several aid agencies came forward and provided grants in cash and kind. While these provided immediate relief, there were some undesirable consequences, with the local population showing signs of becoming dependent on these handouts.
A Chinese proverb says, “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” It was clearly necessary to help people regain their livelihoods. Therefore, in order to help people recover from the disaster, SSGF’s ‘Livelihood Development’ initiative focussed on the following project areas:
· Rebuilding the capacity of communities to enhance their economic productiveness and their participation in economic and social life
· Creating employment that would either be sustainable or enhance sustainable pre-existing livelihoods
· Assisting entrepreneurs, particularly women in small businesses, who wished to resume producing and selling their products
· Promoting women’s welfare with a special focus on the improvement of their participation in economic development
By helping entrepreneurs to restore their livelihoods, the SSGF programme gave them the means to provide for themselves, their families and their communities. Specific programmes encouraged women’s participation in economic development, enhancing their sense of empowerment, self-esteem and status within the community.
Most of SSGF’s beneficiaries had lost their means of livelihood when the surging waters washed their materials and equipment away. However, some were indirectly impacted. For example, a couple that used to run a grocery store realised that their unfortunate customers were unable to repay the credit they had availed. They joined a samithi (CBO) to avail of SSGF funding that enabled them to replenish inventory.
Many women opted for livelihoods like tailoring and embroidery of women’s and children’s garments. These have been restored with sewing machines that were acquired with SSGF funding. In keeping with the traditional role of rural women, others cooked food items - ranging from lunch packets to savouries - with equipment procured through the programme. Some even ventured to set up small stores, from which household essentials like groceries, milk and bread are sold. Home gardens were a popular occupation in some districts.
Men had a variety of means of earning a livelihood that revolve around fishing and agriculture. The Department of Agriculture played its part by teaching agriculturalists how to desalinate their land, which they did with small grants from the SSGF. Many farmers thought it prudent to switch to alternate crops that are economically more viable.
Carpentry and pottery also feature as popular professions in certain affected districts. Some opted for activities like de-husking of coconuts and breeding of ornamental fish.
In the ultimate analysis, the timely support provided by SSGF has resulted in a revival of the industrious nature of these people. For the beneficiaries, it’s back to business as usual. The adverse macro-economic impact had been contained and – to an extent - reversed. During 2006, Sri Lanka’s economy performed better than in previous years, with GDP growing at 7.4%. Significantly, unemployment during the first quarter of 2007 was – at 6.2% - at its lowest level ever.
One Village at a Time
The least developed areas in the country were the ones most affected by the tsunami. Nevertheless, the consequential asset loss was estimated to be around US$ 1,000 million - or 5% of the country’s GDP. This included loss to private property, transport infrastructure, fisheries harbours, hotels, schools, hospitals, water and electricity supplies and telecommunications.
More than 70,000 houses have been reported as completely destroyed, with a further 30,000 damaged. Most of the community infrastructure (such as wells and drainage) was also destroyed. Without access to clean water and sanitation, the health and life of affected communities were threatened.
The damage and destruction to affected communities’ infrastructure services - including market centres and links - hampered relief efforts. Altogether, 178 schools, 57 local government complexes and 52 places of worship were either destroyed or severely damaged. Four universities and 13 vocational training institutes were also damaged. An unspecified number of libraries located in the affected areas were also destroyed. The damage to facilities such as community centres, schools and libraries had the potential to destroy the social fabric of affected areas. Villages need these places of interaction to sustain community relationships; therefore, these facilities were needed to be rebuilt in order to restore these relationships. In the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, the Government established a Centre for National Operations to coordinate the relief operation and provide a point of interface between the Government, the NGOs and the UN. At the district level, the Government Agents (GA) was coordinating all assistance.
SSGF’s ‘One Village at a Time’ Project focused on:
· Rebuilding community infrastructure such as schools and community spaces
· Creating employment that is sustainable or enhances sustainable livelihoods
· Assisting the recovery of villages in an integrated manner
· Promoting communities’ welfare with a special focus on the improvement of their participation in economic development
Specific small infrastructural facilities that have been funded by the SSGF grant include:
· Construction of drinking water projects
· Construction of agricultural wells
· Providing housing materials for villagers
· Construction of community centres and conference halls
· Constructing of roads
· Constructing and rebuilding of dharmashalas, schools and class rooms
· Building libraries and reading centres, providing books and other material
· Building playgrounds for children
· Renovating dilapidated walls and roofs
· Building toilets for householdsCleaning beaches and restoring vegetation
More than 70,000 houses have been reported as completely destroyed, with a further 30,000 damaged. Most of the community infrastructure (such as wells and drainage) was also destroyed. Without access to clean water and sanitation, the health and life of affected communities were threatened.
The damage and destruction to affected communities’ infrastructure services - including market centres and links - hampered relief efforts. Altogether, 178 schools, 57 local government complexes and 52 places of worship were either destroyed or severely damaged. Four universities and 13 vocational training institutes were also damaged. An unspecified number of libraries located in the affected areas were also destroyed. The damage to facilities such as community centres, schools and libraries had the potential to destroy the social fabric of affected areas. Villages need these places of interaction to sustain community relationships; therefore, these facilities were needed to be rebuilt in order to restore these relationships. In the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, the Government established a Centre for National Operations to coordinate the relief operation and provide a point of interface between the Government, the NGOs and the UN. At the district level, the Government Agents (GA) was coordinating all assistance.
SSGF’s ‘One Village at a Time’ Project focused on:
· Rebuilding community infrastructure such as schools and community spaces
· Creating employment that is sustainable or enhances sustainable livelihoods
· Assisting the recovery of villages in an integrated manner
· Promoting communities’ welfare with a special focus on the improvement of their participation in economic development
Specific small infrastructural facilities that have been funded by the SSGF grant include:
· Construction of drinking water projects
· Construction of agricultural wells
· Providing housing materials for villagers
· Construction of community centres and conference halls
· Constructing of roads
· Constructing and rebuilding of dharmashalas, schools and class rooms
· Building libraries and reading centres, providing books and other material
· Building playgrounds for children
· Renovating dilapidated walls and roofs
· Building toilets for householdsCleaning beaches and restoring vegetation
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)