Are Existing Systems and Regulatory Regimes Important for Relief?

Is it not incumbent upon the relief community to act responsibly with donor funds?

1. The importance of existing systems and regulatory framework and sustainability of RRR effort -

  • Task Forces and Relief Organisations seem to be operating on the premise that Sri Lanka never had proper governance and central and devolved administration. Task Forces and Relief Organisations seem to be developing/preparing policies, reconstruction plans, environmental impact assessments, data bases, town planning, architectural designs, water supply and drainage systems, sanitation systems, etc and possibly implementing all of these independently of the relevant Government Authorities.

    The country has a Central Environmental Authority, Physical Planning Department, Census Departments, National Housing Schemes, Electoral Registers, Water Supply and Drainage Boards, Irrigation Departments, Health Services, etc. that have the resources to undertake all the above and more (and may have already done so).
  • Why spend time, money and effort duplicating the roles and functions of Government Authorities. Will the private sector task forces and relief Organisations be able to sustain the effort for the duration of the RRR phase. Is it not far easier to coordinate efforts directly through Government Authorities (is it not their job) with a system of checks and balances so as to ensure that the Government Authorities are functioning properly.
  • More importantly, there are laws and regulations governing Government Authorities. Are the Task Forces and Relief Organisation taking into account these laws and regulations. For example, a Relief Organisation (desirous of building houses) intends to raise money for a housing scheme in Komari (Ampara) situated on land that is subject to UDA regulations is it not possible that the building plan and cost per unit may have to adjusted in order to comply with such regulations.

    Is it possible to build roads, set up telecommunication networks and other local infrastructure without considering whether this is permissible under the existing regulatory regime? The same principle will apply to the provision of raw materials for reconstruction.

    e.g. Several entities have offered to dredge sand (washed) from the sea for reconstruction. Is this possible? What are the regulatory considerations? Is there a licensing mechanism that relates to dredging? Does TAFREN (or the UDA) have the authority to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’) with any entity in this connection? Should the relevant regulatory authority not be the entity (or the treasury representing the Government of Sri Lanka) that signs the relevant documents (provided it is not prohibited/precluded by the prevailing regulatory regime and connected laws and any restrictions contained in any agreement such regulatory authority may have entered into with other existing licensees)?

    If an existing regulatory regime is set aside or disregarded in this manner, will it have an impact on future investments in Sri Lanka. After all investment may not necessarily end with the tsunami.
  • Is the relief community willing to put up shop in Sri Lanka for the next fifteen plus years and maintain the houses, local infrastructure, livelihoods generated, etc.? Is it not incumbent on the line ministries to maintain these elements being provided by the relief community? If the line ministries are to maintain and sustain houses, local infrastructure, livelihoods generated, etc, the relief community will have to ensure that the relevant line ministries have the authority and jurisdiction to do so depending on the relevant governing statute. Is it possible for the President to confer authority and jurisdiction on a line ministry notwithstanding any restrictions/preclusions in the relevant governing statute? Is she not infringing on the role of the legislature (that has the power to amend a governing statute)? For example, can the Water Board provide a water system to a private property in the middle of ‘no where’ if the President says so?
  • Can the relief community that provides relief without taking into consideration existing systems and regulatory regimes go back to their donors and say that we have been successful in providing relief in Sri Lanka

2. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution -

The President seems to have taken control of the RRR effort and through presidential directives and the setting up of Task Forces. Her motive may possibly be the coordination of RRR centrally. I agree with this position in principle. However, is it not possible to do so without undermining the very provisions of the 13th Amendment (that provides for the devolution of powers to the provinces). These provisions if undermined may have far reaching consequences. Will the LTTE be willing to even consider self-autonomy based on the 13th Amendment if they feel that the President could impose her in this manner. Will this not strengthen the argument that is presently being put forward by the LTTE.

3. The impact on the rest of the country -

It is my view that RRR, if not properly coordinated through existing systems (taking into consideration existing regulatory regimes), will have far reaching consequences for Sri Lanka as a whole.

SDS – Relief Worker

Rebuild Sri Lanka Trust