South Asia

A note on field visits

The Victoria Dam (Click image for larger view)

Field visits were conducted by some of the Commission members on the 14-15 December 1998 at four different locations, as a way of evaluating the ground realities related to the social issues raised in the presentations at the consultation in Colombo.

The first site visited was the Victoria Dam. On the trip were the Chair of the Commission and 7 of the Commissioners, staff from the WCD secretariat and a few members of the media. The visit was arranged by the Ministry of Mahaweli Development. After an on-site briefing on the technical aspects of the dam the MMD had organised a meeting for the Commissioners with some members of a displaced farming community. The visit offered a quick opportunity to the Commission members to raise queries with regard to the dam project with the managers of the Victoria project as well as to the local community, which was unfortunately devoid of any female representatives. Community members displaced from the Victoria, Kotmale and Randenigala projects had been bused in by the MMD.

A second trip was made the same day to Haragama village, near Kandy. Belonging to a village of 160 settlers displaced by the Victoria Dam, the village community was well represented by men, women and children at a meeting organised with the assistance of an NGO participant of the consultation. As with the meeting at the Victoria Dam, Commission members introduced the purpose of the visit and asked the community to present issues of concern before the Commissioners present. Some of the key issues to emerge from the village dialogue were inadequate compensation, lack of access to drinking water, and generally poorer economic conditions 14 years after resettlement. Two officials of the MMD were present at the meeting to listen to the problems highlighted by community representatives. (Later they were given an opportunity to provide clarifications if they felt these were needed). The government presence was encouraged by the Commission at the community visits on the following day as well.

On December 15 two field visits were conducted to villages situated at 3-4 hours distance from Kandy. Six of the Commission members were present on these visits. The meetings were organised with the assistance of the Environmental Foundation Ltd whose representative provided interpretation facilities.

The first visit was to the village of Eppawala. The meeting was conducted under the aegis of local buddhist temple and its chief priest. About 50-60 citizens of Eppawela - men, women and children - took active participation in the question answer session. The community appeared to be economically better off than those from Haregama in terms of their physical conditions. With the assistance of the temple based organisation, the community had organised itself to lobby against an issue of major concern (a phosphate mining project near the village that envisaged resettling 10,000 of the local people, people already displaced 14 years ago under the Mahaweli project). Although dissatisfaction was expressed over the compensation package and its implementation and the loss of a lifestyle dependent on traditional water management through the system of rain fed tanks, the community appeared to have taken roots in Eppawela and were now disinclined to move again. Furthermore they revealed to the Commissioners that the village had not been consulted about the proposed resettlement plans.

The final field visit was to the village of Thalawa some 20 minutes from Eppawela. The community were displaced under the Victoria Dam project. The physical conditions (and appearance) of village representatives offered a marked contrast to the earlier communities met with. The Commission's visit appeared to be the first external means of communication for the community in the 14 years since their resettlement (it was claimed that no government official had visited the village). Their patience and generosity in answering questions after being informed of the limitations of the Commission's visit (to prevent any expectations being raised) were admirable. Issues raised related to insufficient compensation, poor access to drinking water and to water for irrigation, very poor health indicators, insufficient land for future generations, destruction of traditional water tanks etc.

Comments from two of the Commission members on the field trips:

What did the Commissioners learn from the field trips? Should these be repeated and can we improve their usefulness to the Commission?

Commissioner Jan Veltrop

"First of all, several of the commissioners, including myself questioned the usefulness of the field trips because the trips were exhaustive and time consuming in relation to what we learned. Yet, in light of the conclusions at the end of these comments, I am in favour of at least one repetition.

Community meeting : Haregama village (Click image for larger view)

"During the field trips we met many local people, who exposed us first hand to a number of beneficial and adverse aspects of dams, that people have actually experienced. In general, nothing new. However, in some cases I was surprised about the lack of planning on the part of responsible authorities to provide resettlers with the same amenities as they were used to in their original settings. Let me repeat, lack of providing promised new water supplies was foremost among the dissatisfactions often expressed. Such lack of implementation is of course unacceptable to those affected, especially when water was available in their old setting, albeit inadequate. At the same time, there were a number of local people who reported improvements in their lives. Several land-owners noted loss of land for which they received compensation in one form or another. I had the distinct impression that they were not opposed to and showed little resentment against the government for having imposed such a social and economic equalizer (e.g. 1 ha per family).

"The first day in the field we met with leaders of local agricultural organisations, who were, it seemed, in favour of the dam projects, especially for providing irrigation water in the dry season. Later on, we met with local farmers, mostly represented by women whose main concern was water supply. Other issues were touched upon as well, such as managing small boutiques after having been resettled. In one case we were made to understand that an entire village decided to move to another location than had been agreed upon initially. We were told on several occasions that land in Sri Lanka is in short supply. As a result opposition to submergence of good agricutural land is growing, especially among farmers, which form the vast, majority [80%] of this island's population. I find it difficult to conclude where planning mistakes were made originally, but the land issue is clearly one that planners have to consider much more seriously than in the past."

"The Sri Lankan field trip was of great value to those Commissioners who took part. It was important for us to hear the concerns of affected people in their own environment and there is nothing like nine hours of Asian driving to bond Commissioners together… We might want to consider another one day field trip if we can have our commission meeting fairly accessible to a dams site. Clearly the number of regional consultations we can hold will depend on funding. But I do think that it is very valuable for Commissioners to hear what stakeholders are saying."