Page 1
繆
USUNANMI INSR
ge 『년]] e-+ | 死 门口 【り』
《
-《鐵 《 | 5
 

Page 2

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery in Sri Lanka

Page 3

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery in Sri Lanka
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
International Centre for Ethnic Studies Colombo, Sri Lanka

Page 4
International Centre for Ethnic Studies
2, Kynsey Terrace, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka
Copyright G International Centre for Ethnic Studies
July, 2007
ISBN 978-955-580-114-0
Printed by Unie Arts (Pvt) Ltd. No.48 B, Bloemendhal Road Colombo 13
Cover Photos by Amantha Perera

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Research Study Team vi Acknowledgements viii Acronyms / Abbreviations / Glossary Χ List of Tables xii Abstract xiv Cartography of Tsunami Affected Areas in Sri Lanka xxiii
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1. 1.2. Objectives 2 1.3 Rationale 3 1.4 Research Process and Methodologies 4 1.5 Organisation of the Study 12
CHAPTER2 - IMPACT OF THETSUNAM ONASA 14
2.1 Introduction 14 2.2. Deaths, Displacement & Destruction 14 2.3 Economic Impact 16 2.4 Conclusion 18
CHAPTER3 - IMPACT OF THETSUNAMI
ON SRI LANKA 19
3. l Introduction 19 3.2 Deaths, Displacement & Destruction 19 3.3 Economic Impact 21 3.4 Conclusion 24

Page 5
CHAPTER4 - LOCAL ECONOMIES OF THE
AFFECTED PROVINCES 2S
4. l Introduction 25 4.2 Extent of the Local Economies 25 4.3 Nature of the Local Economies 27 4.4 Conclusion 30
CHAPTER5 - PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCESAND
EXPECTATIONS 31
5.1 Introduction 31 5.2 Household Characteristics 32 5.3 Relief 44 5.4 Housing 59 5.5 Gender & Children 74 5.6 Health 76 5.7 Employment 80 5.8 Satisfaction & Concerns 81 5.9 Conclusion 86
CHAPTER6 - CONCLUSIONS 88
References 99 Statistical Tables 105

RESEARCH STUDY TEAM
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan - Lead Researcher & Author Ph.D. (Wales). M.Sc. (Bristol). M.Sc. (Salford). B.A. (Hons) (Delhi).
Hewa Madihage Priyanga Sanjeewanie - Research Associate M.A. (Colombo). B.A. (Ruhunu).
Selliah Varatharajan - Database & Data Processing Officer
Gurunnanselage Dona Narmada Nilusha - Data Entry Officer
Nishanthy Kanagasabai - Data Entry Officer
Abdul Razeek Farzan - Field Survey Co-ordinator - Ampara & Batticaloa Districts
Gustinna Wadu Kaushal Ganaesh Nandasiri - Field Survey Co-ordinator - Galle, Hambantota & Matara Districts
Selvarajah Karthikeyan - Field Survey Co-ordinator - Jaffna District
Mahadevan Karunanithy - Field Survey Co-ordinator - Trincomalee District
In addition to the foregoing persons, there were 38 young persons (20 females and 18 males) involved in the conduct of questionnairebased interviews in seven districts (three in the East, one in the North, and three in the South) of the country, whose names are not included here due to brevity of space. An overwhelming majority of this field staff was in fact chosen from the tsunamiaffected households, as our meagre contribution to the people who have suffered enormously in this tragedy of nature.
vii

Page 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank each and everyone who contributed to the successful completion of this large-scale empirical research study. I thank the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, for commissioning this research study with financial sponsorship, and the International Centre for Ethnic Studies for appointing me as the lead researcher. I am greatly indebted to Sanjeewanie for able research assistance in terms of collecting secondary data, information, literature, and co-ordinating the field survey and data entry.
My sincere gratitude is also due to the regional field survey co-ordinators, namely Farzan (Ampara & Batticaloa), Karthikeyan (Jaffna), Karunanithy (Trincomalee), and Kaushal (Galle, Hambantota & Matara), who supervised the field survey staff under very trying security situations and circumstances, particularly in the East & North. Moreover, my heartfelt appreciation goes to thirty-eight young persons, who undertook the painstaking task of conducting the questionnaire-based interviews among the tsunami-affected communities in different parts of the country. As a token contribution to the tsunamiaffected people, we hired an overwhelming majority of this field staff from the tsunami-affected households in the respective regions.
I am also greatly indebted to Varatharajan for setting up the database and processing the data using SPSS, and Narmada and Nishanthy for their tedious work of data entry and editing of three thousand questionnaires, each with one hundred and eleven questions. I am also grateful to the administrative and finance staff of the ICES for the logistical support provided for this study. I sincerely thank Celia Male and Darini RajasinghamSenanayake for being external reviewers of the first draft of this study. Corrections and suggestions made by Dorathee Klaus and Indra Tudawe of the UNICEF (Sri Lanka Office) are gratefully acknowledged. I also appreciate the comments and suggestions made by ICES research staff, particularly Sunil Bastian, Pradeep
viii

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Jeganathan, Malathie De Alwis, and Jeevan Thiagarajah, on the first draft. Corrections and insightful comments and suggestions provided by the foregoing professionals have helped improve the quality of this knowledge product.
Above all, I am immensely grateful to more than three thousand respondents to the Survey, who gave their precious time to answer the lengthy questionnaire, despite apparent fatigue of answering questions from numerous such consultations, monitoring, evaluation, and research exercises undertaken ever since the tsunami. Without their studious co-operation this study would not have borne fruit. I sincerely hope that the time given by the respondents for the survey does not go down the drain, and appropriate authorities, policy makers, and the financial sponsors would take the results of this research study seriously, and rectify the past mistakes arınd shortcomings, and heed the needs and aspirations of the tsunami-affected population in the remaining recovery work to be accomplished.
All errors, of omission and commission, and views expressed in this study are solely the responsibility of the author and not of the UNICEF, ICES, or other members of the research team.
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan Lead Researcher & Author March 2007
saviGislt.k

Page 7
ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS / GLOSSARY
ADB
CBSL,
CFS
DCS
DS
EHED
FCC
GDP
GoSL.
HIES
LO
NR
I OM
J BIC
JICA
L KR
LTTE
OD
Asian Development Bank
Central Bank of Sri Lanka
Consumer Finances and Socio-Economic Survey
Department of Census and Statistics
Divisional Secretariat (sub-district unit of public administration)
Eastern Humanitarian and Economic Development
Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industries
Gross Domestic Product
Government of Sri Lanka
Household Income and Expenditure Survey
International Labour Organisation
Indian Rupee
International Organization for Migration
Japan Bank for International Co-operation
Japan International Co-operation Agency
(Sri) Lankan Rupee
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
Overseas Development Institute
Χ

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
OECD -
PDS
PGDP -
RADA –
SA
SEA
TAFREN
T
TRO ra
Tsunami
UNDIP -
UNICEF -
USD
WB XWY
WFP
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
Planning and Development Secretariat (of the LTTE)
Provincial Gross Domestic Product
Reconstruction And Development Authority (successor to TAFREN)
South Asia
South East Asia
Task Force for Rebuilding the Nation (predecessor to RADA)
Transparency International
Tamils' Rehabilitation Organisation
an exceptionally large tidal wave, a series of long high sea waves caused by earth movement
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund
United States Dollar
World Bank
World Food Programme

Page 8
LIST OFTABLES
TABLE I: Respondents by Divisional Secretariat Area TABLE 2: Respondents by Gender, Ethnicity, and Religion TABLE3: Respondents by Caste TABLE4: Impact of the Tsunami by Region and Country TABLE5: Impact of the Tsunami by Province and District TABLE6: Gross Domestic Product by Province 1990–2004 TABLE 7: Sectoral Composition of GDP by Province 2000-2004 TABLE 8: Decomposition of Sectoral Contributions to
Provincial GDP 2003 TABLE9: Size of Households Before the Tsunami TABLE 10: Size of Households After the Tsunami TABLE 11: Employment Before and After the Tsunami TABLE 12: Monthly Household Income Before and After
the Tsunami TABLE 13: Education of Children Before and After the Tsunami TABLE 14: Reasons for Children Not Attending School. After the
Tsunami TABLE 15: Employment of Children Before and After
the Tsunami TABLE 16: Receipt of Payment for Funeral Expenses TABLE 17: Receipt of Allowance for Cooking Utensils TABLE 18: Receipt of Weekly Food and Non-Food Relief TABLE 19: Receipt of Monthly Household Cash Allowance TABLE 20: Source of Relief Immediately After Tsunami TABLE 21: Favouritism in Disbursement of Relief TABLE 22: Current Shelter of Respondents TABLE 23: Type of Residence Before Tsunami TABLE 24: Extent of Damage and Repair to House TABLE 25: Receipt of Money for Housing Reconstruction TABLE 26: Opinion on the Buffer Zone TABLE 27: Displacement due to Civil War prior to Tsunami TABLE 28: Benefactor and Satisfaction of Temporary Shelter TABLE 29: Benefactor and Satisfaction of Permanent Shelter
xii
9. 92
93
95
00
101 102
103 104 105
106 07
108 109 10 111

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
TABLE30: Contribution of the Recipients to Permanent Shelter 112 TABLE 31: Ownership of Land Before and After the Tsunami 3
TABLE 32: Harassment of Women 14
TABLE 33: Harassment of Children 15 TABLE 34: Sanitary and Water Facilities 16 TABLE 35: Privacy and Safety of Children 117 TABLE 36: Sickness and Treatment after the Tsunami 118
TABLE 37: Job Preference 119 TABLE 38: Educational and Health Facilities at the Current
Place of Residence 120 TABLE 39: Satisfaction with Domestic Relief Organisations 121 TABLE 40: Satisfaction with External Relief Organisations 122 TABLE 41: Religious Conversions 23
TABLE 42: Coping Post-Tsunami Situation and Expectation of
Permanent Houses 124
xiii

Page 9
ABSTRACT
This is an empirical research study based on a questionnaire-based survey of 3,000 tsunami-affected households in the east, north, and south of Sri Lanka, incorporating 1,000 households in each region, and secondary data and literature. The objectives of this study are:
(i) To provide a comparative perspective of the impact of the
tsunami and the recovery process. (ii) To assess the socio-economic background of the affected people in different parts of the country, prior to and after the tsunami. (iii) To evaluate the services rendered and the disbursement of relief to the affected people in different regions of the country. (iv) To assess the provision of temporary and permanent housing
to the affected people in different regions of the country. (v) To identify particular issues and concerns pertaining to
women and children. (vi) To find out the expectations of the affected people with
regard to their future employment, and (vii) To find out the opinions of the people affected, about various
aspects of the recovery process.
The tsunami of 2004 struck a number of countries in the Indian Ocean in Asia and Africa. However, the degrees of human, physical, socio-economic, and environmental impacts of the tsunami have been different in different sub-regions, countries, and geographical regions within countries. While the heaviest human, physical, and social destructions have been on Indonesia followed by that on Sri Lanka and India, the heaviest economic and environmental impacts have been on the Maldives. Besides, only certain parts of the affected countries and certain economic subsectors bore the brunt of the tsunami, and therefore the impacts on the population have been lopsided.
xiv.

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery * Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Similarly, within Sri Lanka, the tsunami struck different geographical areas, sub-sectors, and peoples differently. Thus, though the human, physical, social, and environmental destructions have been heaviest in the east and the south, the heaviest economic impact has been on the north, because of its meagre local economy. Further, because of the tsunami's geographical concentration and nature of the northern economy, the fisheries sub-sector and the fishing community bore the brunt of the natural catastrophe, which was already severely affected by a quarter century of civil War.
The empirical results of the household survey undertaken for this study reveal the following:
1. There has been a marginal reduction in the size of households in the post-tsunami compared to the pre-tsunami period. While the reduction in the household size could enhance the living conditions and environment, it also depletes the social capital of extended family networks that help enormously in terms of coping strategies during times of crisis, within households and communities. -
2. There was a significant rise in unemployment among the tsunami-affected households, i.e. among both heads of households (respondent as well as spouse). Unemployment was very high even at the time the tsunami struck, i.e. 37% among the respondents and 42% among the spouses of respondents. The unemployment rate among the respondents increased after the tsunami to 54%, and to 53% among the spouses of respondents. The unemployment (among both the respondents and their spouses) was greatest in the north prior to the tsunami (42% and 47% respectively), but was greatest (among both the respondents and their spouses) in the south after the tsunami (57% and 56% respectively). However, the occupational patterns of both the respondents and their spouses have hardly changed in the post-tsunami period.

Page 10
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
3.
Poverty, in terms of both headcount and severity, has increased after the tsunami in comparison to what it was before in all three regions under consideration. Overall, while 64% of the households were deemed poor before the tsunami (severity-35%), it increased to 80% after the tsunami (severity-57%). The headcount and severity of poverty was greatest in the north both in the pre- and post-tsunami period. Thus, while 82.5% of the households were deemed poor in the north before the tsunami (severity-68%), it increased to 94% after the tsunami (severity-81%). However, while the east had the second highest poverty level (headcount-64% as well as severity-24%) prior to the tsunami, the south had the second highest poverty level (headcoun-76% as well as severity-47%) after the tsunami.
The survey results indicate that the highest loss of children was in the south followed by the east. Although nearly 5,000 children were reported to be orphaned (lost at least one parent) by the tsunami in Sri Lanka, very little welfare programmes have been launched for them by the government or the donors. The majority of the children in the households surveyed were either of non-school-going age or were at home after completing schooling both prior to and after the tsunami. The second highest share of children were attending school before as well as after the tsunami. The number of children who had stopped going to school after the tsunami was marginal. Financial hardship was the primary reason for children dropping out of school, as well as further/higher education after the tsunami.
A vast majority of the affected people (>80%) have received various relief payments in cash or in kind, such as funeral allowances, cooking utensils allowances, and relief coupons.
However, the majority of the affected people did not get
relief for the stipulated period of 32 weeks. Whatever little corruption existed in the tsunami relief, was largely confined to the north followed by to the east. Over 90% of the
xvi

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
affected households have received the monthly livelihood allowance (cash grant) as well, but only for three or four months against the stipulated period of Six months. Again the north had the highest number of affected households receiving livelihood allowances for a shorter period. A bulk of the relief in terms of food and clothing in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami was provided by the local communities and neighbouring villages.
6. Besides, a significant majority (>70%) of the affected households did not experience any discrimination in the distribution of relief. However, considerable number of households who experienced discrimination cited bribery and corruption (44%) as the primary reason, followed by political patronage (43%) for such discrimination. Racial, religious, or caste-based discrimination in relief disbursement was very marginal in Sri Lanka, in the aftermath of the tsunami.
7. A vast majority of the tsunami-affected households in Sri Lanka have been living in concrete houses (75%) owned by them (>80%) at the time of the tsunami. The South had the highest share of affected househoids living in concrete houses prior to the tsunami (91%), followed by the east (84%). On the other hand, the east had the highest share of owner occupied houses prior to the tsunami (94%), followed by the south (84%). On both counts, the north had the least (48% and 66% respectively).
8. Construction of houses for the affected households (whose houses had been completely damaged/destroyed by the tsunami) has been the most difficult and slowest in the entire reconstruction/recovery phase. Almost half of the tsunamiaffected households were still languishing in transitory/ temporary shelters at the time of the survey; it was highest in the east (62%) and south (42%).
9. There seems to be inequity in the distribution of permanent houses thus far. The highest number of recipients of
xvii

Page 11
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
10.
ll,
12,
permanent houses among the surveyed households was in the north (36.5%), followed by the south (21%) despite that the majority of the houses damaged by the tsunami were in the east (67%).
Those who are not provided with a newly constructed house were to receive a housing reconstruction grant (paid in two instalments) from the government, sponsored mainly by the World Bank. A vast majority of the affected households (73%) had not received this grant at the time of the survey, The highest share of households who have not received the housing reconstruction grant was in the north (82%), followed by the east (72%). Further, an overwhelming majority (93%) of the affected households felt that the housing reconstruction and repair grants were inadequate for their needs,
Surprisingly, the majority of the households (61%) were in agreement with the original buffer zone stipulation for reconstruction of houses along the coast, which was highest in the east (65%), followed by the south (60%), Nevertheless, a significant proportion of households were against the original buffer zone stipulation, which was highest in the north (42.5%), followed by the south (40%), Moreover, a majority of the households (53%) have experienced displacement due to the civil war (in the north and east) prior to the tsunami, which was overwhelmingly in the north (87%) and a smaller share in the east (19%),
Overwhelming majority of the temporary shelters (82%) were built by international, national and local NGOs (60%), and individual philanthropists (22%), However, a significant majority of the households (68%) were not satisfied with the temporary shelters. Dissatisfaction with temporary shelters was highest in the east (84%) followed by the south (63%). Further, a significant majority of the households , (71%) had not been consulted or their preferences taken
xviii

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
13.
14.
15.
into account in the construction of their temporary shelters. Moreover, a majority of the permanent houses were also built by the I/NGOs (60%). In contrast to temporary shelters, a significant majority of the households (70%) were satisfied with their permanent homes, highest shares being in the north (93%) and the south (60%). Nevertheless, only a simple majority of the households (57%) had been consulted and their preferences taken into account, prior to building their permanent houses, again the highest shares being in the north (83%) and south (44%).
An overwhelming majority of the affected households (>94%) were unaware of any physical or verbal abuse/ harassment of women or children either in relief camps or temporary shelters. Whatever little abuse/harassment took place was mostly in the east, followed by the south.
There were hardly any health problems in the aftermath of the tsunami in Sri Lanka in contrast to popular expectation. A vast majority of the affected households had safe sanitary facilities and clean water supply both in the relief camps (78% and 76% respectively) and temporary shelters (78% and 70% respectively). There was a serious lack of privacy in relief camps (63%). Though it has improved a bit, a significant proportion of the households (48%) still lacked adequate privacy in their temporary shelters. On the other hand, the vast majority of households felt secure both in the relief camps (84%) as well as in the temporary shelters (86%). An overwhelming majority who fell ill either in relief camps (84%) or temporary shelters (78%) received prompt medical attention.
In terms of employment, the vast majority (90%) wished to continue the same vocation as before the tsunami. As a corollary, only about a third of the respondents wished to undergo skills training, in order to switch occupations. However, a smaller majority of children of the respondent
xix

Page 12
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Mut tukrishna Sarvananthan
16.
17.
households (69%) wanted to continue their pre-tsunami vocation. While the majority of the households do have educational and health services near their temporary shelters or permanent abodes (61%), a significant share (39%) do not have such services nearby.
A vast majority of affected households were not satisfied with the services provided by the government (77%) or the local (district/provincial based) NGOs (56%) in the aftermath of the tsunami. However, the majority of the households were satisfied with the services of the national NGOs (55%), the highest share being in the north (59%), followed by the east (56%). Similarly, while the majority of households were satisfied with the services provided by the INGOs (55%) (again the highest share being in the north-59%, followed by the east-56%), a considerable majority was dissatisfied with the services of bilateral (65%) and multilateral (53%) organisations. An overwhelming majority of the households (86%) denied religious conversions taking place in the guise of tsunami relief work. However, the Small number who admitted such conversions taking place was largely in the south (20%) and east (17%).
Nearly two-thirds of the tsunami-affected households have coped with the post-tsunami situation "reasonably' (65%), and another small percentage “well' (5%). Nonetheless, a considerable proportion (30%) has not done well or reasonably in terms of coping with the tragedy. This result indicates lack of psycho-social support to the victims of the tsunami. A majority of the households expecting permanent houses are expecting the government to build the same (53%), which is contrary to the experience thus far.
The following suggestions are made to improve the delivery, responsiveness, participation of the affected people, and communication and transparency in decision-making and implementation of the remaining tsunami reconstruction/recovery
XX

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
work to be done in Sri Lanka. As things stand today, it would take at least five years (i.e. end 2009) for full recovery from the devastation of the tsunami in Sri Lanka. Two years have passed and at least there are three more years to go. Therefore, it is still not too late to make amends.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
While maintaining equity in the delivery of assistance to different regions/districts, not only the impact of the tsunami on different regions/districts, the extent and nature of the respective local economies should also be taken into consideration.
Even at this late stage the GoSL and the donor community should launch a dedicated assistance programme for the tsunami orphans throughout the country, in order to secure their future, and grant an incentive package for those who have dropped-out, to return to school.
All reconstruction and recovery assistance (monetary or inkind) should be given in the joint names of the heads of households (husband & wife). Currently, only permanent houses or housing reconstruction grants are due to the affected people. Therefore, the principle of joint ownership should be adhered to in the housing give-away or grants.
The government should constitute Ombudsman offices in all affected DS areas to receive complaints from the affected people, and each Ombudsman office should adjudicate on the complaints received. This is particularly important for the housing construction programme, which is largely not met so far.
A rolling survey of tsunami-affected households should be undertaken periodically, (e.g. every six months) to track changes in living conditions, livelihood restoration, and recovery of tsunami-affected households. That is, the same households should be surveyed periodically to monitor the
xxi

Page 13
Peoplc's Verdict on Tsunami Recovcry Multuk rishna Sarvailanthain
(vi)
(vii)
progressuntil five years after the tsunami. This rolling survey should have an in-built poverty tracking system as well.
Case studics on the merits and demerits of different relief programmes, such as food-for-work programmes, cash-forwork programmes, livelihood allowance (cash grants), and housing reconstruction grants by different donors should be undertaken, to ascertain the cfficacy of such programmes. Lessons learned would be of use in the future.
A cost-benefit analysis of the entire relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction activities should be undertaken to find out the costs and benefits of recovery strategies adopted in Sri Lanka, by differcill governmental, non-governmental, and donor agencics,
xxii

Peoplc's Werdict on Tsunani Recovery MLLukish Swatha
Cartography of Tsunami Affected Areas in Sri Lanka
DSDMsions of Sri Lanka affected by the TSE.I.O.
ELJArs
District NWO
Affactod
| Not affectad
di Links "
.hii!!!-- *1 - || L ... || . | خلية s "" سيليا =
ridiu righ Eh Eurr LLLLLL L LLLLLLLLMLL LLL0 LLLLLL LLLLLL LLL LLTLLLLLLL LSaa
LLLLLLSzzLLLLLLLLuuLLLLLL LLLLLLuuuL uLLuLS TKLLLL
Ertl
xxiii

Page 14

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
On 26 December 2004 an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale struck under the sea, off the Coast of the Island of Sumatra in Indonesia that triggered a tsunami across the Indian Ocean countries in South East and South Asia, and East Africa'. It brought untold misery to the people of Asia, particularly in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India. Whilst the sheer magnitude of the devastation spanning over several countries and several geographic regions shook the world, it also elicited unprecedented pouring of compassion and sympathy, by way of monetary donations by concerned citizens, private corporate sector, countries, and international organisations across the globe.
For Sri Lanka, in its entire history there was no other incident that devastated the country more than the tsunami of 2004. Although undergoing a protracted civil war over the past two decades, within an hour, the tsunami took away around 35,000 lives, whereas two decades of civil war took away around 65,000 lives. Thus, Sri Lanka has never experienced a human-made or natural disaster of this scale and intensity. Sri Lanka has had no prior experience in handling such a natural disaster unlike many other countries in Asia. Hence, the initial response to the calamity by the government was chaotic, to say the least.
Nonetheless, this unprecedented natural calamity also brought about the unprecedented attention of the international community, towards ailing Sri Lanka. With the change of government in April 2004, resumption of peace talks between the government and the rebel group (LTTE) was even more remote. Further, with severe drought and rising world oil prices during the
l For scientific reasons for the wide geographical spread of the tsunami
see Athukorala and Resosudarmo (2005) and references therein.
1.

Page 15
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
later half of 2004, the economy was in the doldrums. Amidst this gloomy socio-economic and political scenario, the tsunami was a respite to the government of Sri Lanka.
This was because, for once the tsunami brought about a very rare common bonding among the masses throughout the country within the affected as well as the non-affected communities. Besides, many heads of governments and international organisations, dropped by to express their sorrow and sympathy, along with commitments of grant aid. Further, the G7 countries offered a debt moratorium for 2005, which greatly bolstered the economy despite the huge cost of relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.
1.2. Objectives
The broad objective of this research study is to map out the recovery process from the impact of the tsunami, as experienced by the affected peoples themselves in different geographical areas of Sri Lanka, and to contribute to the policy and implementation discourses among the government, donor, and private/individual actors involved in the rehabilitation and reconstruction activities.
Specific objectives of this research study are:
O To provide a comparative perspective of the impact of the tsunami globally and within the country, and the recovery process.
O To assess the socio-economic background of the affected people in the eastern, northern, and southern coasts of the country, prior to, and after the tsunami.
O To evaluate the services rendered and the disbursement of relief to the affected people in different regions of the country, by the government, I/NGOs, donor agencies, and individual philanthropists.

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthar,
To assess the provision of temporary and permanent housing to the affected people in different regions of the country, one year after the tsunami.
O To identify particular issues and concerns pertaining to
women and children.
O To find out the expectations of the affected people as regards
their future employment.
To find out the opinions of the affected people, as regards adequacy of relief and rehabilitation assistance, services provided by different service providers, new places of residence, and other socioeconomic concerns.
All the foregoing were investigated in the targeted districts and regions, roughly one year (12-15 months) after the tsunami, in order to assess the progress thus far, and feed into the remaining reconstruction/recovery process and activities. The limitation of the study is, that it does not evaluate the reconstruction/recovery of public goods and services such as schools/colleges of further education, hospitals/primary health care centres, power supply, telecommunications, roads, public buildings, etc, which were damaged by the tsunami.
1.3 Rationale
Although quite a few studies have been undertaken within the country and globally on the experiences of tsunami affected people in Sri Lanka, they are by and large based on qualitative research methodologies such as anecdotes, narratives, ethnographic and case studies and/or confined to a particular village/town, district, region, sector/sub-sector and recovery activity (Alailina, 2006; Domroes, 2006; Human Rights Center of the University of California and East-West Center, 2005; Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka and CUCEC, 2005; IPS, 2006; Jayasuriya, et al, 2005; Mel and Ruwanpura, 2006: Moonesinghe, 2006; Steele, et al, 2006).
3

Page 16
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Hence, this study fills the knowledge gap of a survey based quantitative and qualitative study of the tsunami-affected communities in the three worst affected regions, viz. east, north, and south, of Sri Lanka to find out the similarities and differences on the road to recovery, by different gender, area, ethnic, and religious communities. Thus, this study complements the existing body of knowledge and literature on the tsunami tragedy in the country as well as outside the country. This is the largest survey based empirical study on the impact of the tsunami undertaken in Sri Lanka thus far.
1.4 Research Process and Methodologies
This policy-oriented empirical study was undertaken through the following modes:
O Reading and collection of qualitative and quantitative data from secondary sources, i.e. from the Department of Census and Statistics, Central Bank, and TAFREN of the GoSL, PDS of the LTTE, and studies undertaken by other local, national, and international institutions, organisations, and individuals. Browsing Scholarly articles in academic journals was also utilised.
O Attending several workshops/symposiums/seminars organized by government institutions, donor agencies, and civil society organisations within the country and listening to the voices and concerns of grassroots level activists and other stakeholders.
O Collection of primary data through questionnaire-based random sample survey of 1,000 tsunami-affected households, each from the worst affected coastal regions, namely east, north, and south. While all three districts of the east (Ampara, Batticaloa, and Trincomalee) and south (Galle, Hambantota, and Matara) were covered by the survey only one district in the north (Jaffna) was covered,
4

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Writing up of the study by integrating the primary and secondary data and assessing the recovery performance thus far, and proposing the future course of policy and action for various stakeholders.
The survey questionnaire had a total of 111 questions to meet the aforementioned objectives of the study. The questionnaire had eleven sections:
(i) Interviewer (to be completed by the interviewer)
(ii) Respondent (details of the respondent and the household)
(iii) Spouse (information about the respondent's spouse if any)
(iv) Children (information about the respondent's children if any)
(v) Relief
(vi) Housing
(vii) Gender (questions in this section were asked from the female
head/member of the household)
(viii) Employment
(ix) Health
(X) Future, and
(xi) General.
Most of the questions were closed while a few were open-ended. That is, for most of the questions the respondents had to answer one of the optional answers provided. All the respondents were over 18 years of age and represented themselves as well as the household. The questionnaire was in two vernacular languages as well as English. Interviews were conducted in pre-tsunami homes of affected people, homes of relatives and friends of the displaced, rented dwellings, relief tents, transitory shelters, and permanent houses.
The total number of questionnaire-based interviews conducted was 3,000 tsunami-affected households, split between 1,000 each in three (out of four) affected coastal regions (east, north, and south). The sample size was 2.3% of the total number of households displaced by the tsunami in the east, north, and south (127,993 - derived from Table 5). Whilst the survey covered
5.

Page 17
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
all three affected districts each in the east and south, it covered only one out of three affected districts in the north, because the other two (Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu districts) are under the control of the LTTE where independent surveys could not be undertaken. The total number of questionnaires incorporated for analytical purposes was only 2,988; divided into 1,000 from the east, 999 from the north, and 989 from the south. However, all the questions were not answered by all the respondents because of non-applicability or some other reason. Thus, the east represented 33.5%, north 33.4%, and south 33.1% out of the total sample size of 2,988 incorporated for analysis.
Share of Respondents by Region
South East
33%
North 33%
East North South
Source: Table 1
The 1,000 sample households in the east were distributed as 600 in the Ampara district, 296 in the Batticaloa district, and 104 in the Trincomalee district, in the order of the severity of the impact of tsunami in terms of death, displacement, and damaged houses (see Table 5). All 999 sample households in the north were from the Jaffna district. Further, out of the 989 sample households in the south, 400 were in the Galle district, 300 were in the Hambantota district, and 289 were in the Matara district, again in the order of the severity of the impact of tsunami in terms of
6.
 

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
death, displacement, and damaged houses (see Table 5). Moreover, almost all the tsunami-affected divisional secretariat (DS) areas in each of the districts were covered by the survey (see Table 1). The distribution of the sample by district was as follows: While the Ampara district accounted for 71.0% of the total deaths (10,436 out of 14,691) and 47.5% of the total displaced families (38,866 out of 81,905) in the east, the sample size of Ampara accounted for 60.0% of the total sample in the east (600 out of 1,000). On the other hand, the Batticaloa district accounted for 21.6% of the total deaths (3,177 out of 14,691) and 37.3% of the total displaced families (30,545 out of 81,905) in the east, but the sample size of Batticaloa accounted for 29.6% of the total sample in the east (296 out of 1,000). Similarly, while 7.3% of the total deaths (1,078 out of 14,691) and 15.3% of the total displaced families (12,494 out of 81,905) in the east were in the Trincomalee district, 10.4% of the total sample in the east was in Trincomalee (104 out of 1,000).
While the entire sample in the north (100% or 999) was in the Jaffna district, only 40.5% of the total deaths (2,640 out of 6,523) and 62.8% of the total displaced families (10,827 out of 17,241) in the north were in Jaffna. In the south, while the Galle district accounted for 42.1% of the total deaths (4,248 out of 10,090) and 80.7% of the total displaced families (23,278 out of 28,847) in the region, district sample size was 40.4% of the regional total (400 out of 989). On the other hand, the Hambantota district accounted for 44.6% of the total deaths (4,500 out of 10,090) and 11.6% of the total displaced families (3,334 out of 28,847) in the region, but represented 30.3% of the total sample in the region (300 out of 989). The Matara district, while accounting for 13.3% of the total deaths (1,342 out of 10,090) and 7.7% of the total displaced families (2,235 out of 28,847) in the region, accounted for 29.2% of the total sample in the south (289 out of 989).
The sample size by district could not be distributed in proportion to the number of displaced families because of conflicting numbers of displaced families and damaged houses reported by different authorities (TAFREN, PDS, DCS, donors, et al) at different times. Moreover, in many districts there were
7

Page 18
People's Wer clict on Tsina ni Rice very Mutil lukrisilur hil Sarw:Irl:Anthraun
considerable numbers of non-affected households claiming relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance as well. Thus, not all the registered displaced families would have been actually affected by the tsuna Ili. Thc foregoing problems encountered in sample distribution and sclection is quite common in conflict and disaster situations like that of Sri Lanka. Furthermore, in conflict and disaster situations, population will be in and out of displacement at different time periods. Therefore, the number of displaced would be a flow variable in a given time period.
The gender distribution of the total sample was 56.5% female and 43.5% male respondents'. By region, female sample was 57.7% in the east, 57.5% in the Ilorth, and 54.4% in the south. Similarly, male sample was 42.3% in the east, 42.5% in the north, and 45.6% in the south. Further, district-wise breakdown of the sample by gender is also available (see Table 2),
The ethnic distribution of the total sa inple was 29.1% Muslim, 27.3%. Sinhalesc, and 43.5% Tallil. By region, Muslim respondents comprised 67.5% in the east and 19.9% in the south, Sinhalese respondents comprised 2,5% in the east und 80. 1% in the south,
Share of Respondents by Ethnicity
마Muslim D Sinhalese oTamil
Source: Table 2
Whercals 53%* of the interwiewcrs werc fe nales (20) and 47% were Illales (8).
 

'plc's Werdict II is in Ali Ellis', try M, 1LIL4LI.k. Tish I1:1 S;ir"w':LI 1i111Llı;ıri
and Tamil respondents comprised 30.0% in the east and 100% in the north, District-wise breakdown of the ethnic sample is also available (see Table 2).
Share of Respondents by Gender
D. Female Male
Source: Table 2
Share of Respondents by Religion
Buddhis. Chri51 iä Hill
O EAST NORTH DSOUTHOTOTAL
Source: Table 2
g

Page 19
People's Werdict on Tsunami Recovery M,ʻlLI t 1Luk, rish Th:l S:Lr WqarniaIı L l1;1T1
By religion the total respondents were distributed as 26.9% Buddhists, 13.8% Christians, 29.9% Hindus, and 29.4% lslamists, Buddhists comprised 78.6% of the sample in the south and 2.3% in the east; Christians comprised 34.5% of the sample in the north, 5.6% in the cast, and 1.5% in the south; Hindus comprised 65.5% of the sample in the north and 24.4% in the east; Islamists comprised 67.7% of the sample in the east and 19.9% in the south. Buddhists doininated in southern districts, Hindus and Christians dominated in the Jaffna district, and Islamic people dominated in the Ampara district (Table 2).
The survey questionnaire requested the interviewers to guess the caste of the respondents from the name or occupation. The purpose of this question was to find out caste discrimination, if any, in the disbursement of relief and the distribution of rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance. However, the response was very poor and disappointing, particularly in the east and the north. Overall, the caste of 71.9% of the total respondents was unknown. Out of the known castes of respondents, 3.8% were Karawa or Karayar (i.e. the fishing community in Sinhala and Tamil respectively), followed by Govi (farmingland owning community) (4.4%), Durawa (coconut palmyrah toddy tapping)
Respondents by Ago Group
< 20 уг5 1.ሳኝሩ > = 50 угs 20-29угs 29.5% 1 ኛ ,ûዓ%
0-39 yrs
25.2 40-49yrs
25,0
|ロ<20 yrs =20:29 yrst 30-39yrs L40-49yrs => = 50 yrs
O

People's Werdic on Tsunami Recovery Mult Luki sılılığı S:ır wanıHTı Lhı: III
(4.3%), Salagama (cinnanon peelers/cultivators) (3.5%), and the rest just 2.1% (Table 3),
By age group, the largest share of respondents were over 50 years (29.5%) and the least share was in the age group of <20 years (1.4%). Besides, 17% of the respondents were in the age group of 20-29 years, 26.2% of the respondents were in the age group of 30-39 years, and 26% was in the age group of 40-49 y elrs.
This study commenced on September (), 2005. The first three nonths were spent on secondary literature search, preparation of the questionnairc, and Lindertaking the pilot survey in all three larget regions. The questionnaire underwent a consultation and review process involving in-house researchers, external interested persons, and UNICEF personnel. The regional field survey co-ordinators were trained in Colombo during November 2005. The regional field survey co-ordinators in turn, trained their respective interviewers/enumerators in the field. Further, a pilot survey of 5-10 household interviews was conducted in each of the three regions during November 2005.
The field survey was undertaken during December 2005 to April 2006. Although it was originally planned to complete the field survey in two months, it eventually took about four months because of the deteriorating security situation in the cast and the north, since early-December 2005. Field survey in all three regions began at the same time in early-December 2005, but was completed at different times. Ficlal survey in the south Was completed by end-February 2006, in the cast it was completed by end-March 2006, and in the north by Illid-April 2006, These different time periods officlad survey may have biased the results
() a certain extent.
A database was construct col using Microsoft Access and the data were fed in, as and when filled-up questionnaires were returned from the field. Once data entry was completed, the data were transferred and processed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Dalta entry, editing. and processing continued till July 31, 2006. Finally, August-October 2006 was occupied by the write-up of thc study. The first draft of the study
II

Page 20
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
underwent external and internal review processes and the study was finalised in March 2007, after addressing criticisms, comments and suggestions from the reviewers.
1.5 Organisation of the study
This study is divided into six chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 sets out the background to the study, lays out the objectives, identifies the rationale, elaborates the research process and methodologies adopted, and outlines the organisation of the Study.
Chapter 2 will present and analyse the impact of the tsunami on Asia by sub-region and country. The impact would also be discussed by sectors and Sub-sectors.
Chapter 3 will present and analyse the impact of the tsunami on Sri Lanka by region/province and district. The impact would also be discussed by sectors and Sub-sectors.
Chapter 4 will outline and analyse the nature and extent of the local/provincial economies affected by the tsunami in Sri Lanka, which would be very useful for the recovery policy formulation.
Chapter 5 will present and analyse the field survey results, and compare and contrast the results of other studies undertaken in Sri Lanka as well as other tsunami-affected countries in Asia. This is the core chapter of the study.
Chapter 6 will summarise the key findings of the study, identify the strength and weaknesses in the recovery process, and make suggestions to policy makers regarding implementation of projects and programmes for the remaining tsunami recovery work to be done.
A list of references is provided at the end. Further, the entire statistical tables are catalogued in the appendix.
12

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
It has to be remembered that there were many non-affected households as well seeking relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (housing) assistance throughout the country. The author's hunch is that at least 10% of the officially registered displaced families throughout the country may not have been directly affected by the tsunami. This could have biased the results of the survey to a
certain extent.
See Auditor General's Report. http://www.auditorgeneral.lk/reports/ and Sarvananthan (2005a).
13

Page 21
CHAPTER 2
Impact of the Tsunami on Asia
2. l Introduction
The tsunami wreaked havoc in two continents, three sub-regions, and in many countries situated in the Indian Ocean. India, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Seychelles, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand were the countries directly affected by the tsunami of 2004. However, Indonesia (Aceh province), India (Tamil madu state and Andainan and Nicobar islands), Sri Lanka, and Thailand (6 provinces in the west coast) were the worst affected countries in terms of the Inuill ber of deaths causcd by the tsunami.
2.2. Deaths, Displacement & Destruction
We have compiled data for three countries each, in Africa (Kenya, Madagascar, and Somalia), South Asia (India, Maldives, and Sri Lanka), and South East Asia (Indonesia, Myanmar, and Thailand), Accordingly, altogether nearly 300,000 died. In early 1.85 million people were displaced, and nearly 440,000 houses were fully or partially damaged (cannot be used) due to the tsunami. By subregion, South East Asia accounted for almost 82% of the deaths, South Asia for 18%, and Africa for just 0.1%. In contrast, South Asia accounted for 66% of the total displaced population, followed by South East Asia 33.7%, and Africa just 0.4%. Further, in terms of fully or partially damaged houses, 59% were in South Asia, 30% were in South East Asia, and II* in Africa (Table 4).
Indonesia accounted for almost 238,000 or 80% of the total deaths due to the tsunami. Sri Lanka accounted for almost 37.000 (including the missing) or 12.4% of the total deaths, India accounted
4

Pei ple's Werldic in Tsunami Recovery MLL I Likrishna Sarwilninthiin
LL LLaL La 0S LLLLL HtHH HHS0Y GLLL LLLL LLLLLS LLLLLL L LLaLLLLLLL were more than 5,000 or 1.8% of the total. The foregoing four countries accounted for 99.85% of the Lotal deaths due to the tsu na ini (Table 4).
Share of Deaths, Displaced People & Danaged Houses
ցII (18: B1% E[] []:
F[] []:
8[] []: 5Ա.ԱՀ: -
գԱ.ՍՀ:
3O.O.,
2O.O.
O.O.
[] []°mሩ
_18០។
A Ti South Asia St East 5i
Deaths E. Houses DaTagExd D Displa:Cid Peopleם
Source: Table 4
In contrast, India accounted for the highest in Limber of the displaced population due to the tsunami. That is, almost 648,000 were displaced in India, which was 35% of the total. In Indonesia, 67.000 were displaced which a mounted to 33.4% of the total. Further, almost 30% or 55 (), ()()() of the total displaced were in Sri Lanka. Hence, India, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka accounted for over 98% of the total displaced population due to the tsunami (Table 4).
Similarly, the highest number of houses fully or partially damaged due to the tsunami was in India, followed by Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Solalia; 36% of the total or 154,000 houses were damaged in India; 29% of the total or 127,300 houses were damaged in Indonesia: 22.4% of the total or almost 98,000 houses were damaged in Sri Lanka; 11.4% of the total or 50,000 houses were damaged in Somalia. Thus, India, Indonesia, Somalia, and Sri Lanka accounted for over 98% of the total number of houses da magcd due to the (sunami (Table 4),
5

Page 22
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
In addition to deaths, displacement, and damage to houses, there were destruction of economic infrastructure (power Supply, telecommunications and roads), social infrastructure (schools and hospitals), fishing boats and equipments, hotels and tourism infrastructure, small and medium enterprises, and the environment.
2.3 Economic Impact
The direct and indirect economic impacts of the tsunami differ from country to country depending on the extent of physical damage caused, size of the economy at the national and local levels, and the economic activities that were affected and its contribution to the national and local economies. Besides, the economic impact of the tsunami may differ at the national level and the local level.
Although the destruction and displacement caused by the tsunami in the Maldives was the lowest compared to all other affected countries (barring Myanmar), the total financial loss in the Maldives was 53% of its GDP. On the other hand, in the worst affected Indonesia, the total financial loss was equivalent to only 2.3% of its GDP (Athukorala and Resosudarmo, 2005: 14). In Sri Lanka, the second worst affected country, the total financial loss was equal to 5.2% of its GDP. In India and Thailand, the total financial loss was 0.3% and 0.8% of GDP respectively (Sugiyarto and Hagiwara, 2005: 6).
Further, damage caused to the tourism sector in Sri Lanka did not affect the overall economy because tourism contributes only 0.7% to the GDP, whereas in the Maldives the damage to the tourism Sector had severe impact on the economy, because it contributes almost one-third to the GDP (Munasinghe, 2006: 23). In the same way, Aceh contributes only 2% to the GDP of Indonesia and half the provincial GDP of Aceh is derived from oil and natural gas, which were not affected by the tsunami. Besides, tourism is not a significant sub-sector in Aceh (Sugiyarto and Hagiwara, 2005: 7). Therefore, despite severe destruction, the tsunami did not have much effect on the Indonesian economy or the macro economy of the Aceh province.
16

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
On the other hand, while the hotels and restaurants sub-sector contributed only 3.8% to the national economy, it contributed 44.3% to the economy of the Phuket province in Thailand in 2002 (Munasinghe, 2006: 23). Hence, though the tsunami did not affect the national economy of Thailand it did severely affect the local economy of Phuket province, one of the six provinces affected by the tsunami. However, the tourism industry in the Maldives and Thailand recovered quicker than in Sri Lanka because they are linked to large international chains of hotels and tour operators, and were insured with large international insurance companies.
In addition to the direct costs of destruction, there are indirect costs such as foregone productive activities such as fishing, tourism, etc, loss of fiscal revenue to the national and local governments, loss of backward and forward linkages to the rest of the economy (for example, loss of tourism also results in losses in food and beverages, handicraft, air travel markets, etc), and losses incurred by the insurance industry (albeit limited). However, these indirect costs would be partly compensated by relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction activities, boost to the construction industry, rise in new insurance cover against natural calamities, and rise in insurance premium on natural calamities. Insurance cover in the affected regions of the countries was very minimal because of low penetration of the insurance market and poverty of those places.
Except in the tourism industry, life insurance and private property insurance cover among the affected communities in all the countries were very low. Non-life insurance premium was only USD 4 in India, USD 8 in Indonesia, USD 7 in Sri Lanka, and USD 27.6 in Thailand. As a corollary, the non-life insurance premium as a percentage of the GDP was only 0.62% in India, 0.83% in Indonesia, 0.74% in Sri Lanka, and 1.19% in Thailand (Munasinghe, 2006: 33). Hence, the tsunami would have had very little impact on the insurance industry of the respective countries. The tsunami also elicited unprecedented support from the international community by way of monetary contributions. The total estimated needs were around USD 10 billion (Indonesia $5 billion, Sri Lanka and India $2 billion each, Maldives $0.4 billion),
17

Page 23
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
which the donors pledged to fund. Perhaps for the first time, pledges were followed by actual disbursements. According to the office of the UN special envoy for tsunami recovery, almost 80% or USD 8 billion was disbursed by the end of 2005 (cited in Munasinghe 2006: 25). By September 2006, the total pledges amounted to USD 13 billion (Indonesia S8 billion, Sri Lanka $2.4 billion, India $0.8 billion, Maldives $0.4 billion). Out of the total pledges made thus far, 45% (USD 6 billion) was from bilateral donors including the EU, 38% (USD5 billion) was from private companies and individuals, and 16% was from international financial institutions such as the ADB and WB'.
Although Munasinghe (2006: 189, 192) claimed that the number of women who died was four times higher than that of male deaths due to the tsunami, in India, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka there is no data available on this score.
2.4 Conclusion
The impact of the tsunami on different countries has been different under different criteria. While the worst affected countries had the least impact on their national economies, the least affected countries (like the Maldives) had the greatest impact on their national economies. Even within countries, the worst affected regions had the least impact on their local economies, while the least affected regions had the greatest impact on their local economies. For example, while the worst affected Tamilnadu state experienced the least impact on its regional economy, the less affected Andaman and Nicobar Islands had the greatest impact on its island economy.
This is due to a variety of factors in different countries and regions within countries; topography of the affected region, population concentration in affected areas, the nature and extent of the local economy, the contribution of the local economy to the regional and national economy, etc.
4. http://WWW. tsunamispecialenvoy.org/financial
18

CHAPTER 3
Impact of the Tsunami on Sri Lanka
3.1 Introduction
The tsunami hit the eastern, northern, southern, and western coasts of Sri Lanka. However, the impact in the western coast was only marginal. Altogether 4 coastal provinces out of the total 9 provinces, and 12 out of the total 25 districts in the country were affected by the tsunami. Although the impact of the tsunami on the macro economy of Sri Lanka was only marginal, it did considerably hurt the local economies of the eastern, northern, and southern coastal areas. The fisheries sub-sector was the worst affected, followed by tourism, micro and small enterprises, and crop agriculture sub-sectors.
The impact of the tsunami on economic activities had similarities as well as differences in various regions of the country. Along the eastern coast, the worst affected economic activities were fishing, micro and small enterprises, and tourism. Along the northern coast, the worst affected economic activities were fishing and crop agriculture (due to the intruding salty seawater contaminating the soil). There was no tourism along the northern coastal areas. Along the Southern coast, fishing, tourism, and micro and small enterprises were the worst affected economic activities.
3.2. Deaths, Displacement & Destruction
As we noted in the previous chapter, after Indonesia, Sri Lanka was the second worst affected country by the tsunami. In Sri Lanka, almost 37,000 people were presumed dead (including the missing persons), over half a million people were displaced (143,500 families), and nearly 98,000 houses were fully or partially damaged (that cannot be used) due to the tsunami.
The worst affected region in Sri Lanka due to the tsunami was the eastern coastline, followed by the southern, northern, and
19

Page 24
People's Werdict on Tsunami Recovery Muluk Tish Ina Sarwal|| || || 1:IIN
Western coastlines. Out of the total accounted deaths (circa 32, ()()()), almost 5,000 or 46% were in the cast, 10,000 or almost 32% were in the south, (3,500 or 20.5% were in the Iloth, and 554 or almost 2% were in the west. Out of the total displaced families (143,500), 57% or almost 82,000 families were in the east, 20% or almost 29, ()()() families were in the south, 12% or over 7, ()()() families were in the north, and almost 11% or li,500 families were in the west (Table 5).
Further, the Ampara district accounted for the largest, i.e. almost 33% or 14,70), recorded deaths due to the tsunami. The second largest number of recorded deaths was in the Hamban tota district with 14% of the total or 4.5 ()() in number. The third largest was in the Gallic district with 4.248 or 13.3% of the total. The Mullaitivu district accounted for the fourth largest number of deaths of 3.323 or 10.4% of the total. The Batticaloa district had the fifth highest number of deaths of 3,177 or 10% of the total. The sixth highest number of deaths was in the Jaffna district with 2,64() deaths or 8.3% of the total (Table 5). The foregoing six districts (out of the twelve affected districts) accounted for almost 90% of the total deaths due to the tsunami.
Sharc of Deaths, Displaced Fartilics & Damaged Houscs in Sri Lanka
LLLLLLLLaLLL LaLLLLL LLLLLLLL00 LLLaLLLLLLLL LCL0LaLLLLLLLL
DDeaths Damaged Houses ODisplaced Familias
Source: Table 5
The Ampara district again topped the share of the displaced families with 27% of the total or almost 38,900 displaced families.
2
 

I'eople's Werdict on Isinaiini Ricciryery Mutt Likrishin: Sa Tv.II.1:41 ilhill
The second largest number of displaced families was in the Trinconalec district with little over 30,500 or 2% of the total. The Galle district had nearly 23,300 displaced families or 6% of the total. The Batticaloa district had almost 12,500 displaced families or almost 9% of the total. The fifth largest number of displaced families was in the Jaffna district with little over 10,800 fallilies or 7.5% of the total (Table 5). The foregoing five districts (out of the twelve affected districts) accounted for 80% of the total displaced families due to the tsunami.
The highest number of houses fully or partially damaged (that cannot be used) was again in the Ampara district with 27.562 damaged houses or 28% of the total, followed by the Batticaloa district with 17,708 damaged houses or 18% of the total. The third highest number of daillaged houses was in the Galle district accounting for almost 12,500 or 13% of the total. The Matara district accouncil for 9% of the total or all lost 8,900 daillaged houses. The fifth largest number of damaged houses was in the Trincollalee district with 8, (165 or almost 9% of the total (Table 5). Altogether, 7.7% of the darnaged houses were in the foregoing five districts (out of the twelve affected districts).
3 Economic Impact
The total direct cost of physical destruction caused by the tsuna Illi was estimated to be USD 1 billion, out of which private assets LLLLLLLL LLL 000LS LaL LLLLLL 0LL LLLLLLaGS LaaSLLLaLLLL LLL LLLLLLLaaLLa of houses cost USD 300-350 million. Physical losses to the tourism infrastructure and equip Ilent were worth USD 250 Ithillion. The fishcrics infrastructure and equipillent losses cost USD 100 million (ADB/JBICJICA/WB, 2005),
The replace Inc.nl cost of the physical destruction was estimated to be around USD 1.5 billion. Out of the estimated total rehabilitation and reconstruction cost, 41% is for the Easte.In Province, 29% for the Souther Il Province, 17% for the Northern Province, and 13% for the Western Province. By sectors, Housing is expected to cost 33% of the total, followed by Roads (15%), Tourism (10%), Railways (10%), Fisheries (9%), Water and
1

Page 25
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvanamthan
Sanitation (9%), Health (7%), Power (5%), and Education (3%) (ADB/JBIC/JICA/WB, 2005: 22). However, the government's effort to “build-back better' was estimated to cost almost USD 2 billion at 2005 prices (TAFREN, 2005).
Strangely, the economic growth of Sri Lanka was not affected by the impact of the tsunami. Sri Lanka recorded 6% growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) in real terms during 2005, which was the same as the forecast made prior to the tsunami. This was in spite of the early-2005 forecast of 0.5% drop in GDP growth for the fiscal year 2005, due to the effects of the tsunami. The non-reduction in the economic growth rate was because the worst affected provinces and affected sectors/sub-sectors make only a small contribution to the national economy. Besides, losses incurred by the fisheries and tourism sub-sectors were largely offset by rise in construction sub-sector, and some services. Furthermore, donor fund flows and debt moratorium had substantially offset the negative impacts.
The impact of the tsunami on coastal populations also differed from district to district. While less than 20% of the coastal population in the Galle, Hambantota, and Matara districts were affected, in the Kilinochchi district 35%, and in the Ampara and Mullaitivu districts 80% of the coastal population were affected (Munasinghe, 2006: 103). Island-wide, almost two-thirds of the fisheries sub-sector has been affected, including six out of twelve fisheries harbours in the country made unusable. Moreover, twothirds of the total fishing fleet of about 30,000 was destroyed or damaged. The fisheries sub-sector employs about 250,000 people and about one million people depend on the sector for their livelihood. Besides, fish consumption provides 65% of the animal protein of the people in Sri Lanka (TAFREN, 2005). There was a 45% drop in the fish catch in 2005 compared to the previous year (Central Bank Annual Report 2005).
In addition, according to a survey undertaken by the FCCI, over 5,000 micro and small enterprises have been affected along the eastern, northern (Jaffna district), and southern coasts. It was also reported that over 10,000 jobs in the tourism sub-sector were lost due to the tsunami along the eastern, southern, and western COaStS.
22

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
In the Ampara and Batticaloa districts in the eastern coast, around 5,000 farming families were affected (i.e. 55% of the total farming families affected throughout the country) and their crops destroyed. In the Ampara and Mullaitivu districts, the paddy crop was the worst affected in terms of land extent, along with cashew and other field crops in the Batticaloa district. In addition, 7,500 cattle, 63,000 birds, and nearly 150,000 poultry were reported to be killed by the tsunami (Munasinghe, 2006: 105).
Losses in the tourism sector were estimated to be about USD 250 million, which is little less than the annual earnings from tourism in Sri Lanka in recent years. Roughly, one-third of the hotels along the southern and eastern coasts (i.e. 84 out of 242) were fully or partially damaged by the tsunami. In addition, twothirds of the 2,800 unregistered hotels and guesthouses were damaged. About 30,000 tourism-related jobs were reported to be lost (Munasinghe, 2006: 109). The total tourist arrivals dropped by a quarter in 2005, in comparison to the previous year (Central Bank Annual Report 2005).
Although no hard data is available, anecdotal evidence suggests that more women than men died due to the tsunami in Sri Lanka. Besides, a higher proportion of women and children were affected than men in terms of displacement, vulnerability, etc. The tsunami struck Sri Lanka on a Sunday morning between 08.20 and 10.00 hours. Firstly, men were mostly out of their homes and perhaps could escape. Secondly, men were able to run faster, climb up trees or other high elevations, than women and children. Thirdly, traditional dresses worn by women as well as their long hair were hindrances to escaping the rampaging sea. Deaths of a large number of women have left many homes with men caring for their children, which they are not used to. Many orphaned children (loss of at least one parent) were handed over to faithbased and other childcare institutions. Evidence from other tsunami
5 National Council on Women (2005), Tsunami affected households in Sri Lanka: analysis of impact including gender disaggregated data, Colombo.
23

Page 26
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
affected countries also suggests that the majority of the victims of tsunami were women and children (Human Rights Center of the University of California and East-West Center, 2005: 13; Oxfam, 2005a:3).
3.4 Conclusion
Though the eastern and southern provinces were the worst hit regions by the tsunami, the economic impact was severest in the northern province because of lowest extent of the local economy (see the following chapter). Besides, the tsunami was a double blow to the northern economy, which was already severely run down by a quarter century of civil war.
24

CHAPTER 4
Local Economies of the Affected Provinces
4.1 Introduction
As noted in the previous chapter, at the macro level, Sri Lankan economy was hardly affected by the tsunami. That is, the net impact of the tsunami on the macro economy was nil.
This is because the sectors/sub-sectors contributing most to the national economy, i.e. garments and textiles, food and beverages, plantation agriculture (coconut, tea, and rubber), crop agriculture including livestock, construction, transport and communication, wholesale and retail trade, and the financial sector, were not much affected by the tsunami. The fishing sub-sector was the worst affected due to the tsunami. Although tourism, micro and small enterprises, and crop agriculture were affected to some extent in certain coastal areas, diversion of demand to the rest of the respective sub-sectors in the interior parts of the country compensated for the losses incurred in the coastal areas.
This chapter analyses the extent and nature of the local economies of coastal provinces affected by the tsunami.
4.2 Extent of the Local Economies
As mentioned in the previous chapter, four coastal provinces were affected by the tsunami. The worst affected eastern province is one of the low contributors to the national economy along with the northern, north central, and uva provinces. The second worst affected southern province is one of the medium contributors to the national economy along with the central, north western, and sabaragamuwa provinces. The third worst affected northern province is the lowest contributor to the national economy between
6 Less than 6% contribution to the national GDP. 7 6% - 12% contribution to the GDP
25

Page 27
F'e plc's Werlict III Is Lili IIII Recovery MILILELLk.Tix,li I1.i S:LI W;II1;LI ıltı;LI h
1991 and 2004. The least affected western province is the highest contributor to the national economy contributing 40%-51% during the period 1990-2004 (Table 6).
- - - - - Contribution to GDP by Province 1990-2004
- ニ富ニ蓄二ーニーニニ ---TH -- 1-ܡܗ
ଛ୍ଯୁ է բ3- ლქჭ- 1 తో ఖో ఖో ్యణ్ قی * *ჯ„ "تمي ఫ్రో لادين چايي --Eastern Province - Northern Province | South Price West Pric
i un - -
Source: Tıble (;
The foregoing figures demonstrate thic reason for the non-reduction in the growth rate of the national GDP in 2005, due to the impact of the tsunami. The worst affected three provinces contributed the most 18.7% to the national GDP in 2003 during the period 1990-2004 (Table 6). Besides, even in these three provinces only the coastal areas were affected, which do not contribute much to the respective PGDPs,
Although the proportion of households under the official poverty linc in the country (as a whole) declined to 23% in 2002 (from 26% in 1995 (), in the tsunami affected caster, northern, and southern provinces it was higher but lower in the western province. In the southern province, households under the official poverty line were 23.6% and in the combined eastern and northern provinces it was almost 31.8% (DCS, Household Income and
E. (C) y cr | 2*. contribution to hic national GDP.
2
 
 

People's Werlict II i Tsui III ni Riccc owcry Mutukrishna Sarwainal Inthan
Expenditure Survey 2002). However, poverty data of the eastern and northern provinces is not very reliable. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the eastern and northern provinces are both among the poorest provinces (along with north central and uwa provinces) in the country (see also Sarvananthan, 2005).
4.3 Nature of the Local Economies
The single largest sectoral contribution to the local economics of the affected provinces is by the services' sector, which is the same as at the national level. The second largest sectoral contribution to the local econollies of the three worst affected provinces is by the agriculture" sector, and in the least affected western province it is the industrial' sector (same as at the national level). -
In the worst affected eastern province, the services sector contributed almost 40% to the PGDP, followed by the agriculture sector with nearly 35% contribution to the PGDP during the period 2000-2004. The industrial sector contributed only about 26% to the PGDP during the same period (Table 7). During the time of the ceasefire (2002-2004) the contributions of the agriculture and industrial sectors haud increased while the contribution of the services sector had declined in the eastern province.
In the second worst affected southern province, the services sector contributed almost 45% to the provincial economy, followed by the agriculture sector with 36.5% contribution during 20002()()4. On the other hand, the industrial sector contributed
Services sector includes wholesale and retail tradic (domestic and external), transport, storage and Lommunication (posts and telecommunications), financial services, real estate and business services, and public administration, defence and other government services, and private social, community and personal scrvices.
" Agriculture scictor includes food and cash crops, forestry, livestock,
and fishing.
Industrial sector includes manufacturing, mining and quarrying, construction, and utilities (electricity and water),
27

Page 28
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
only 18.5% to the provincial economy during the same period (Table 7).
In the third worst affected northern province, the services sector contributed almost 70% to the PGDP during 2000-2004 (the highest in the country). Further, the agriculture sector contributed only about 24% and the industrial sector a paltry 7% to the provincial economy (Table 7). During the time of the ceasefire (2002-2004), while the agriculture sector's contribution increased, contributions of the services and industrial sectors declined in the northern economy.
In the least affected western province, the services sector accounted for 63% of the provincial economy, followed by the industrial sector with 33% during 2000-2004. On the other hand, the agriculture sector accounted for a paltry 4% of the provincial economy during the same period (Table 7).
The foregoing figures indicate the differences in the nature and composition of the local economies in the affected provinces. As a result, the intensity of the impact of the tsunami is also bound to be different in different provinces. Moreover, although agriculture's contribution to the local economies in the three worst affected provinces is lower than the services sector, a larger proportion of the employed population is in the agriculture sector. This is a paradox of these affected local economies, and perhaps the national economy as well.
For example, while the agriculture sector contributed 33% to the PGDP of the eastern province in 2004, when it accommodated 38% of the employed population in the same year; it was 36% and 41% respectively in the southern province; it was 28% and 38% respectively in the north; and it was 3% and 6% respectively in the western province'. That is, the share of the labour force in the agriculture sector is higher than agriculture sector's contribution to the provincial economies. This means that the agriculture Sector has underemployment or disguised unemployment with low productivity.
2 Department of Census and Statistics, Labour Force and Socio
Economic Survey 2004, Colombo.
28

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
As noted in the previous chapter, fisheries, tourism, and micro and small enterprises were the worst affected sub-sectors due to the tsunami in Sri Lanka. There is a false perception that the fisheries sub-sector plays a prominent role in the economy of Sri Lanka, because it is an island state. However, the fisheries subsector contributed only 2.3% to the national GDP in 2004, which was 4% in 1980 and 2.8% in 1990. Hotels and restaurants contributed only a paltry 0.7% to the national GDP in 2004. Micro and small industries contributed only 1.2% to the national GDP in 2004 (Central Bank Annual Report 2004). Hence, altogether the worst affected sub-sectors contributed less than 5% to the national GDP.
Nevertheless, the foregoing national level data hide variations in different provinces. For example, although the fishing Sub-sector contributed only 0.8% to the local economy of the western province, it contributed 5.3% to the local economy of the southern province, and 12% to the local economies of the eastern as well as the northern provinces in 2003 (Table 8). Further, while the hotels and restaurant sub-sector in the southern province contributed higher share to the local economy than the same subSector's contribution to the national economy, it contributed a lower share (compared to national level contribution) to the local economy in the eastern and northern provinces (derived from the Central Bank Annual Report 2004).
Moreover, while in the southern province, the fisheries subsector is only the sixth largest contributor to the local economy (after crop agriculture, wholesale and retail trade, transport, storage and communication, manufacturing, and public administration and defence sub-sectors), in the eastern province the fisheries subsector is the third largest contributor to the local economy (after crop agriculture and manufacturing sub-sectors). In the northern province also the fisheries sub-sector is the third largest contributor to the local economy (after public administration and defence and crop agriculture) (see Table 8).
The foregoing data indicate that though the tsunami may not have affected the macro- economy of Sri Lanka, it would have certainly affected the local economies of the three worst affected
29

Page 29
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
coastal provinces, namely the eastern, northern, and southern provinces. This is because the worst affected sub-sectors contribute a much higher proportion to the local provincial economies than to the national economy. Moreover, a negative impact of the tsunami on the local economies would be more pronounced in the eastern and northern provinces than in the southern province, because the worst affected sub-sectors contribute twice as much in the eastern and northern provinces than in the southern province. However, the 2005 provincial economic data is not available yet
4.4 Conclusion
The northern economy is the lowest among all the provinces in Sri Lanka. Further, the eastern economy is one of the lowest and the southern economy is somewhere in the middle, out of all the provincial economies. As a corollary, apart from the western provincial economy, the southern provincial economy is expected to rebound quicker than the other two provincial economies (eastern and northern). Moreover, the northern economy would take the longest time to recover from the impact of the tsunami, because of its low economic base at the time of the tsunami.
30

5.1
CHAPTERS
People's Experiences and Expectations
Introduction
The government, donor agencies, and the civil society agreed from the outset, that the tsunami reconstruction and recovery process should be guided by five cardinal principles as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii) (iv)
(v)
Resource allocations based on identified needs and local priorities. Subsidiarity, i.e. designing and implementation of projects/ programmes by the do west le vel of the government administrative structure, with the central government setting broad policy framework and standards. Consultation with affected communities and stakeholders. Communication and transparency in decision-making and implementation. Reduction of vulnerabilities to future disasters (Donor/Civil Society Post-Tsunami Steering Committee, 2005). This empirical study was aimed at, interalia, testing the fulfillment of (or lack thereof) these cardinal principles by all the stakeholders.
This chapter outlines and analyses the results of the empirical Study undertaken among the tsunami-affected communities in the east, north, and South of the country, to determine the effectiveness of the recovery process and see whether the expectations of the affected communities have been fulfilled. This empirical study is based on a questionnaire-based random sample survey of 1,000 households in each of the three regions. However, for data analysis, the following numbers of samples were taken onboard - east 1,000, north999, and south989. The distribution of the sample by region, district, gender, ethnicity, and religion was provided in Chapter 1.
31

Page 30
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
5.2 Household Characteristics
This section analyses the essential characteristics of the households both before and after the tsunami, which would help devising appropriate policies for the recovery. That is, household size, household income, employment (of both the self and the spouse), children, and education and employment of children before and after the tsunami, are compared and contrasted.
Size of households
Before the tsunami, 21.6% (644) of the total respondents had fivemember household, which marginally declined to 20.6% (616) after the tsunami. Before the tsunami, 21.3% (635) of respondents had four-member household, which increased to 23.1% (691) after the tsunami. Before the tsunami, 17.7% (530) of respondents had three-member household, which increased to 19.3% (577) after the tsunami. However, before the tsunami, 14.0% (418) of respondents had six-member household, which declined to 12.6% (377) after the tsunami. On the other hand, 12.3% (369) of respondents had one/two-member household before the tsunami, which increased to 13.3% (397) after the tsunami. But, 10.8% (323) of respondents had seven/eight-member household before the tsunami, which declined to 9.2% (275) after the tsunami (Tables 9 & 10). The foregoing data reveal that the size of households has declined after the tsunami compared to before it; while households with five-members and above have declined, four-member (and less) households have increased after the tsunami.
There are positive and negative implications of the reduction of the household size in the aftermath of the tsunami. One of the reasons for the reduction in the household size could be the uniform size of the transitory shelters provided to all affected households, irrespective of the size of household. The author has witnessed, during field visits, one or two person households living in the same size transitory shelter, as six or eight person households. The reduction in household size could be also due to splitting up of
32

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
extended families, in order to qualify for a donor-given permanent house for each family. Each nuclear family receiving a permanent house could have positive implications for healthy living.
However, the negative implication of the reduction in the household size is, that it tears apart social capital in terms of family and clan networks and solidarity at times of crisis. During times of human-made and natural disasters, community and family networks play a significant role in coping mechanisms and mitigating the impact of such disasters.
Employment
Unemployment, and thereby poverty was rife among the tsunami affected communities in the east, north, and South, both before and after the tsunami, as revealed by the employment data of the joint heads of households (respondent plus the spouse) who were surveyed for this empirical study.
More than 63% of the respondents were employed prior to the tsunami, but was only 45.6% at the time of the survey. Thus, even 12-15 months after the tsunami, a significant proportion (17.7%) of the respondents were unemployed as a result of the tsunami. It is also important to note that among the Surveyed population, more than one-third (i.e. 36.7%) was unemployed even before the tsunami (Table ll). This is an indication that poverty was rife among the affected people, even prior to the tsunami, which was naturally accentuated after the tsunami. Moreover, even 12-15 months after the tsunami, a majority of the respondents (i.e. 54.4%) were unemployed (Table 11).
According to the survey results, fishing was the occupation of the highest proportion of the respondents prior to the tsunami, followed by self-employment, labourer, and micro and small entrepreneur. That is, 39.7% of the respondents were involved in fishing, 23.0% in self-employment, 12.8% as labourers, and 5.3% in micro& small entrepreneurship before the tsunami. A similar pattern of occupation was observed after the tsunami as well. Thus, 51.8% of the respondents were involved in fishing, 12.7% were labourers, 11.7% were self-employed, and 8.4% were
33

Page 31
People's WerdicL corn Tsurnal III Receivcry MILII I Lik. Ti sila Surviin:l.nl hı:III
involved in micro and small cntrepreneurship after the tsunami. These results indicate that fishing was the worst affected subsector, followed by self-employment, home gardening, micro and small enterprises (the latter may also include tourism-related enterprises). While the proportion of the respondents involved in fishing increased after the tsunami (from 40% to 52%), the proportion of those involved in self-employment cum nicro and small entrepreneurship declined (from 28% to 20%).
Occupation of Respondents. Before and After the Tsunami
Sall Brpkygd
Edixation =
Trari:; port
| Si GallBusings
F'ħila ka: ETpillo yoga
Labolitir
Mkanufacturing *
Ligslick.
lČ. U 5.
SS Source: Survey Results
d lo Tsunarri BA'lar Tsunaml L- - - -
By region, prior to the tsunami, the largest proportion of cInployed people was in the south (67.0%), closely followed by the east (65.1%). The least number of employed was in the north (57.7%) (Table ll). As a corollary, unemployinent was greatest in the north prior to the tsunami. However, 12-15 months after the tsunami, the largest share of the employed population was in the north
34
 

People's Werlici on Tsunami Recovcry MILLLLLukrishnal Sarwa anıth:1
(47.7%) followed by the east (46.0%) and the south (43.0%) (Table 11). Hence, unemployment was greatest in the south 12-15 months after the tsunami. This may also indicate that ciployment generation during the reconstruction process has been relatively greater in the north than in the south or east. Thus, we could claim that post-tsunani reconstruction has been relatively more employinent-intensive in the north, than in the other two regions, which could be partly due to labour intensive construction Work. It is also important to note that almost 58.4% of the spouses of respondents were employed prior to the tsunami, and 41.6% were unemployed (Table 11), But, at the time of the survey, only 46.6% of the spouses of respondents were employed while 53.4% were unemployed. Hence, while a majority (58.4%) of the spouses were employed before the tsunami, only a minority (46.6) were in employment 12-15 months after the tsunami (Table ll). In other words, unemployment has increased among the spouses of respondents, as a result of the tsLi nami,
Occupatlon of Spouse Before & After Tsunani
SE Err:'3d طبقة .
Educallion
Trari.
Srl Busi:
Public Eirplayes
LBBCurter
Fishing
Farming
. 10 2O, 3.1.D O. 5, . oro o Tsunam Alia Tsunam.
Source: Survey Results

Page 32
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Further, according to the survey results, fishing was the occupation of the majority of the spouses of respondents prior to and after the tsunami. That is, 54.8% of the spouses of respondents before the tsunami and 53.6% after the tsunami were fisherpersons. The second largest occupational category was that of a labourer, which accounted for 21.5% and 21.9% of the occupation of the spouses of respondents before and after the tsunami respectively. The foregoing figures indicate that there has not been much change in the type of occupation among the spouses of respondents before and after the tsunami. However, before the tsunami 12.6% of the spouses of respondents were involved in micro and small entrepreneurship and another 11.5% were involved in self-employment, which declined to 8.7% and 4.7% respectively after the tsunami. Hence, there was almost a 10.7% drop in micro and Small enterprise, home gardening, and selfemployment occupations among the spouses of respondents after the tsunami.
The largest proportion of the spouses of respondents in employment prior to the tsunami was in the east (60.1%), closely followed by the south (59.4%) and the north (55.3%). Similarly, the largest proportion of the spouses of respondents in employment after the tsunami was also in the east (50.8%), followed by the north (44.7%) and the south (43.8%) (Table 11). However, while the south experienced the highest drop in the employment of spouses of respondents (-15.6%) after the tsunami, the north experienced a drop of (-) 10.6% and the east (-) 9.3%.
Income
The household income data from the survey reveal that a majority of the tsunami-affected households live in absolute poverty. Moreover, the income of households has dropped significantly, and remains so even 12-15 months after the tsunami. According to the survey results, on average each respondent household had 2.4 children before the tsunami and 2.3 children after the tsunami. Hence, the average size of the households (interviewed for the
36

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
survey) was at least' 4.4 before the tsunami and at least 4.3 after the tsunami. Therefore, households having an income lower than LKR.5,000 per month (i.e. LKR. 1, 136 or 1,163 per person per month before and after the tsunami respectively) is deemed absolutely poor for the purpose of this study.
However, the official national poverty line of Sri Lanka was LKR. 1,928 per person per month in January 2006. The official poverty line for each district is available except the eight districts of the eastern and northern provinces. Accordingly, the poverty line for Galle was LKR. 1,986, Matara LKR. 1,889, and LKR. 1,812 for Hambantota'. According to the latest (2002) Household Income and Expenditure Survey undertaken by the Department; of Census and Statistics, 23.6% of the households in the southern province were deemed poor; a district-wise breakdown was - Galle 21.7%, Matara 23.2%, and Hambantota 27.8%. Although no official poverty data exists for the eastern and northern provinces it is estimated to be over 30% (see also Sarvananthan, 2005b).
The share of tsunami-affected households earning LKR.3,000 or less per month increased from 35.2% prior to the tsunami, to 57.0% after the tsunami (it would have been even higher immediately after the tsunami). Further, the share of tsunami-affected households earning Rs.3,001 to 5,000 per month dropped from 28.9% before, to 23.1% after the tsunami (Table 12). Hence, while 64% of the tsunami-affected households were earning less than LKR.5,000 per month before the tsunami, it increased to 80% after the tsunami. That is, even prior to the tsunami, almost two-thirds of the households were in absolute poverty, which naturally increased to four-fifths after the tsunami (i.e. 12-15 months after). Thus, even 12-15 months after the
13 Because households may have more members than children and their
parents (for example, grandparents, grandchildren, etc).
14 http://www.statistics.gov.lk/index.asp w
15 The post-tsunami household income of survey respondents does not include relief and livelihood assistance payments provided by the government/donors, because by the time of the survey all these have virtually stopped (see section 5.3 below).
37

Page 33
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
tsunami, a higher proportion of affected households were in absolute poverty than before the tsunami. If we apply the official national poverty line, households receiving less than Rs.8,483 before the tsunami and Rs.8,290 after the tsunami are deemed poor. Accordingly, nearly 87% of the households prior to the tsunami and nearly 93% of the households after the tsunami were absolutely poor.
Further, the share of the higher income-earning households has dropped after the tsunami. For instance, households earning between LKR.5,001 and 10,000 per month were 23% of the total respondents before the tsunami, that dropped to 13% after the tsunami. Similarly, households earning LKR.10,001-15,000 per month were almost 9% before the tsunami, which dropped to 4.8% after the tsunami. Further, 3% of the respondents had an household income of LKR. 15,001-20,000 per month prior to the tsunami, which declined to 1.5% after the tsunami. Moreover, 0.8% of the respondents had an household income of LKR.20,000 or over per month before the tsunami, that declined by half, to 0.5% after the tsunami (Table 12).
In summary, before the tsunami 64% of the households had an income of LKR.5,000 or less per month and the remaining 36% had an income greater than LKR.5,000 per month. However, after the tsunami, the share of households having an income of LKR.5,000 or less per month increased to 80% and the remaining 20% had an income greater than Rs.5,000 per month. Besides, it can be observed that, while the share of households earning an income of LKR.3,000 or less per month had increased (from 35.2% to 57.0%), the share of households earning an income over LKR.3,000 (in all the income groups) had declined (from 64.8% to 43%) after the tsunami, in comparison to pre-tsunami household incomes. ܓ
The survey also revealed that, before the tsunami, the northern province had the largest share of households earning LKR.5,000 or less per month, i.e. 82.5%. The eastern province had the second largest share of households earning LKR.5,000 or less per month before the tsunami, i.e. 64.1%. The share of households earning LKR.5,000 or less per month in the southern
38

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
province before the tsunami was 45.6% (Table 12). Further, it is also important to note that in terms of severity of poverty, while a bulk of the households (67.7% out of 82.5%) earning LKR.5,000 or less in the north was actually earning LKR.3,000 or less, the bulk of the households earning LKR.5,000 or less in the east (40.4% out of 64.1%) and the south (31.5% out of 45.6%) was earning LKR.3,001-LKR.5,000 per month (Table 12). Hence, it is clearly evident from the survey result that the north was the poorest region prior to the tsunami (out of the three provinces under consideration in this study), followed by the east, which is consistent with an earlier study on poverty in the east and the north (Sarvananthan, 2005b). Thus, not only in terms of headcount poverty, but in terms of severity of poverty as well, the north was the poorest prior to the tsunami.
Similarly, after the tsunami the north had the largest share of households earning LKR.5,000 or less per month, i.e. 94.0%. However, the south had the second largest share of households earning LKR.5,000 or less after the tsunami, i.e. 76.3%. The east had 69.9% of the households earning LKR.5,000 or less per month after the tsunami (Table 12). As before the tsunami, the bulk of the households in the north earning LKR.5,000 or less per month was actually earning LKR.3,000 or less (i.e. 81% out of 94%) after the tsunami as well. Further, in the east (42.7% out of 69.9%) and in the south (47.1% out of 76.3%) as well the majority of the households earning LKR.5,000 or less, was in fact earning LKR.3,000 or less after the tsunami (Table 12), which is the reverse of the pre-tsunami situation. Hence, after the tsunami also the north is the poorest region (out of the three provinces under consideration in this study), and followed by the south. These figures also indicate the rise in severity of poverty after the tsunami, in all three regions under consideration.
Poverty in the north, prior to as well as after the tsunami, would have been even greater, had we included the Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu districts in the survey, because, although no official data exists, anecdotal evidence suggests higher levels of poverty in those districts compared to the Jaffna district.
39

Page 34
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
By district, Jaffna had the highest proportion of households living in poverty (i.e. Rs.5,000 or less) both before (82.5%) and after (94.0%) the tsunami. While the Batticaloa district had the second highest proportion of households living in poverty before the tsunami (79.8%), the Hambantota district had the second highest after the tsunami (92.2%). Similarly, while the Trincomalee district had the third highest proportion of households living in poverty before the tsunami (61.2%), it was the Batticaloa district after the tsunami (80.4%) (Table 12).
Children
Households that were surveyed for this study had a total of 7,173 children before the tsunami, which decreased to 6,956 after the tsunami. Hence, 217 children were missing 12-15 months after the tsunami. There could be several reasons for these missing children. It could be that their lives have been taken away by the tsunami, or have been given to an orphanage having lost one of the parents, or in the care of a relative, or have left home for further/higher education or employment, or have been abducted for trafficking or combat (Human Rights Center of the University of California & East-West Center, 2005: 66). Unfortunately, the survey questionnaire did not probe the reason for missing children from the respondents. However, from our field observations we conclude that a bulk of the missing children were indeed casualties of the tsunami. On average, there were 2.4 children per household prior to the tsunami, which dropped negligibly to 2.3 in the aftermath of the tsunami.
The highest number of children in the respondent households was in the east, followed by the south and the north before, as well as, after the tsunami. That is, 2,481 (34.6%) children were in the east, 2,427 (33.8%) were in the south, and 2,265 (3.6%) were in the north before the tsunami. Similarly, 2,420 (34.8%) children were in the east, 2,286 (32.9%) children were in the south, and 2,250 (32.3%) children were in the north after the tsunami. Further, the highest drop in the number of children after the tsunami was
40

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
in the south (-141), followed by in the east (-61) and in the north (-15). Thus, 65% of the 'missing children were in the south, 28% in the east, and 7% in the north.
By gender, the largest number of children after the tsunami was male. That is, 3,559 or 51.2% of the total were male children and the rest 3,397 or 48.8% were female children. Male children outnumbered female children in all three regions - by 104 in the east, by 40 in the north, and by 18 in the south.
According to the Commissioner for Probation and Child Care Services, there were 4,819 tsunami orphans in Sri Lanka (3,739 lost one parent and 1,080 lost both parents) (Human Rights Center of the University of California and East-West Center, 2005: 66), but very little welfare programmes have been launched for them either by the government or the donors. In India, the Tamilnadu state government has opened a bank account with a deposit of INR.500,000 (USD. 11,500) in the name of each and every orphan due to the tsunami. The beneficiary can withdraw this money only when s/he reaches the age of eighteen (Human Rights Center of the University of California and East-West Center, 2005: 22).
Education of children
The majority of the children of tsunami-affected households were neither school going, nor in further/higher education, nor in employment, prior to, as well as, after the tsunami. That is, 50.0% (3,588 out of 7,173) and 52.0% (3,616 out of 6,956) of the children prior to and after the tsunami respectively were neither studying nor in employment (derived from Tables 13 & 15). That is, either they were under the age of school going children (<5 years old) or they were staying at home after completing or dropping out of School. Also note that the share of homebound children has increased by 2% (28 in number) after the tsunami.
The second largest number of children was school going at the time of the tsunami, as well as afterwards. That is, 2,672 or 37.3% were school going prior to the tsunami and 2,443 or 35.1% were school going after the tsunami. By region, the largest number of children attending school prior to and after the tsunami was in
41

Page 35
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
the east (1,014 and 973), followed by the north (848 and 745) and the south (810 and 725) (Table 13). Besides, there were more school going girls than boys both before and after the tsunami. That is, before the tsunami there were 1,371 girls and 1,301 boys, and after the tsunami there were 1,229 girls and 1,214 boys attending school. Further, girls outnumbered boys in the north and south (while it was equal in the east) before the tsunami, and boys outnumbered girls in the east and south (while it was the reverse in the north) after the tsunami (Table 13). Also note that the number of school going children has dropped by 2% (229 in number) after the tsunami (see also Human Rights Commission and CUCEC, 2005:4).
The third largest number of children was working at the time of the tsunami as well as afterwards (see the following section for details). Only a small proportion of children were into further/ higher education at the time of the tsunami, as well as afterwards. That is, only 253 or 3.5% of the total children were in further/ higher education before the tsunami, which declined to 213 or 3.1% after the tsunami. The number of children in further/higher education was highest in the south (87 & 84 respectively), closely followed by in the east (86 & 79 respectively) both before and after the tsunami. The least number of children in further/higher education was in the north; i.e. 80 before and 50 after the tsunami (Table 13). Hence, the greatest drop in the number of children in further/higher education was in the north, accounting for 75% (30 out of 40) of the total drop.
Furthermore, girls outnumbered boys in further/higher education before and after the tsunami. That is, 133 and 108 girls were in further/higher education before and after the tsunami respectively, against 120 and 105 boys respectively (Table 13). By region, girls outnumbered boys in the north as well as the south, but it was the reverse in the east, before, as well as after the tsunami, (see Table 13). Also note that the drop in the number of children in further/higher education was greater among girls (-25) than boys (-15). Thus, the gender gap in further/higher education has greatly narrowed after the tsunami, despite girls still outnumbering boys marginally.
42

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
In total, in our sample households, 229 children appear to have stopped going to school and 40 children appear to have dropped out of further/higher education after the tsunami (altogether 269). On the other hand, 28 more children were homebound and 24 more children were in employment (see the following section) after the tsunami. Besides, 217 children were missing after the tsunami, as noted above. Hence, the missing children, as well as the increase in homebound and employed children, adds up to 269, which tallies with the total of presumed dropouts from school as well as from further/higher education.
Among the households having children dropped out of school after the tsunami, an overwhelming majority cited financial hardship as the reason for their children not attending school. That is, almost 74% of the households mentioned financial hardship as the reason for their children not attending school after the tsunami, which was noted under the 'other' category. Further, another 10.6% of the households cited unavailability of books, 7.6% cited nonavailability of transport to school, 6.6% cited non-availability of school uniform, and only 1.3% cited unavailability of school nearby their new abode (Table 14). One qualitative study undertaken through focus group meetings in 13 affected districts revealed that there is high rate of absenteeism at school even 7-9 months after the tsunami, among the tsunami-affected children possibly due to trauma (Human Rights Commission and CUCEC, 2005:4).
Among the households having children discontinued further/ higher education after the tsunami (37), again a vast majority cited financial hardship as the reason for discontinuation of further/ higher education. That is, 73.0% of tsunami-affected households mentioned financial difficulties as the reason, followed by 10.8% due to lack of clothing and stationery, 8.1% due to lack of transport, and another 8.1% due to lack of safety. Further, among the households having children who were made unemployed due to the tsunami (36), 91.7% of the households mentioned loss of equipment/implements, 5.6% mentioned disability, and 2.8% mentioned non-availability of transport, as the cause of their unemployment.
43

Page 36
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Employment of children
Out of the total number of children in the respondent households, 9.2% (660 out of 7,173) were in employment prior to the tsunami, which increased marginally to 9.8% (684 out of 6,956) after the tsunami. By region, the largest number of employed children was in the south (310 before and 295 after) followed by the east (176 before and 196 after) both before and after the tsunami. The north had the least number of children employed, i.e. 174 before and 193 after the tsunami (Table 15). However, there was only a negligible difference between the east and north as regards the number of employed children of respondent households. On the other hand, the gap between the south and the east and north was significant.
Further, boys outnumbered girls among the employed children of tsunami-affected households both before (498 boys vs. 162 girls) and after the tsunami (527 boys vs. 157 girls). Besides, while the number of boys in employment increased, the number of girls in employment dropped after the tsunami. Moreover, the gender gap among employed children was greatest in the east and the north, compared to the south both before and after the tsunami (Table 15).
5.3 Relief
The government and various donor agencies offered a series of relief and welfare assistance to the tsunami-affected people, immediately from the tragedy onwards, which perhaps goes on to date. Overseas governments, inter-governmental organisations, multilateral organisations, global corporate sector, local and international non-profit organisations, domestic private sector, and individual philanthropists both at home and abroad generously funded these relief and welfare programmes. In fact, the total pledges made for reconstruction and recovery activities were in excess of the identified needs. Furthermore, perhaps for the first time (at times of disaster), pledges and commitments were followed up with actual payments'.
l6 http://www.tsunamispecialenvoy.org/
44

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
In the history of disasters to hit developing countries, donations from the private corporate sector for tsunami relief and rehabilitation was unprecedented. In a trans-national comparative analysis of corporate giving for the three major disasters in 2005, viz. tsunami (Asia), hurricane Katrina (United States), and earthquake (Pakistan), Munir and Jamal (2005: 5) found that Katrina attracted USD.331, tsunami USD.91, and earthquake just USD.6 per displaced person. This analysis was based on data from 23 trans-national corporations, 70 percent of which were American and the rest European. Accordingly, these 23 transnational corporations" donated USD. 142 million to the tsunami, USD.99 million to the hurricane, and USD.20 million to the earthquake (Munir and Jamla, 2005: 4).
This section tries to find out people's travails in receiving relief and welfare assistance from various benefactors. Equity, fairness, and timeliness in relief disbursement are analysed.
Funeral allowance
Soon after the tsunami, the government offered LKR. 15,000 (USD 150) per household which had lost at least one person as a result of the tsunami, for funeral expenses. Accordingly, 334 respondent households had received LKR. 15,000 towards funeral expenses, which was 84.1% of the total number of households that was eligible in our sample (397). However, 40 households (10.1%) received a lesser amount than LKR. 15,000, and 23 households (5.8%) did not receive any money at all (Table 16). Despite few households not receiving any money at all and few more receiving lesser amounts (most probably due to siphoning off by someone down the delivery line) it was good to know that bulk of the deserving people have received the relief money.
17 Alcatel, American Express, BASF,Bayer, Chevron-Caltex, Citigroup, Coca Cola, GSK, Intel, Johnson and Johnson, Kodak, MERK, Microsoft, Monsanto, Motorola, Nokia, Pepsi Cola, Pfizer, Procter and Gamble, Shell, Siemens, Unilever, and Wyeth.
45

Page 37
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
In addition to the government, some charitable and/or religious organisations also did help out some households to meet their funeral expenses. Accordingly, 64 households in our sample did receive some help from a non-government source to meet the funeral expenses, which was only 17.2% of the total respondents to this question (373). Thus, 82.8% of the respondent households did not receive any financial help from a second source. The organisations identified by the respondents were Samurdhi Bank (21), TRO (19), EHED (8), FORUT (2), Sewa Lanka (2), and World Vision (l).
By region, the largest proportion of households receiving the full amount of funeral allowance was in the south (89.2%), followed by the east (80.1%). Northern households accounted for the least share of recipients of the full amount of funeral allowance (78.5%). Among the households that received lesser amounts, the highest proportion was in the north (12.3%), followed by the south (9.7%) and the east (9.6%). The highest proportion of households having received nothing at all was in the east (10.3%), closely followed by the north (9.2%) (Table 16). Therefore, despite highest number of deaths due to the tsunami was reported in the east and second highest in the south (Table 5), the highest proportion of recipients of funeral allowances was in the south and the second highest in the east.
By district, the highest share of recipients of funeral allowances was in the Hambantota district (100%) followed by in the Trincomalee district (90%), and Galle district (81.3%) (Table 16). This was despite the fact that the Ampara district (10,436) had more than double the number of deaths than the Hambantota district (4,500) (Table 5).
Cooking utensils allowance
The government also gave an immediate grant of LKR 2,500 (USD 25) per displaced household to purchase cooking utensils to be used in relief tents. Again it was good to know that the bulk of the tsunami-affected households had received this grant. That is, survey results reveal that 85.2% of the households (2,498) have received LKR 2,500 for the purchase of cooking utensils. Another
46

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
12.4% of the households (364) received no money at all for the purchase of cooking utensils. Further, 71 households (2.4%) received lesser than the stipulated amount (Table 17). Hence, almost 15% of the tsunami-affected households have experienced part or full siphoning off of their entitlement or have been simply overlooked. In addition to the government, several donor agencies and I/NGOs provided cooking utensils (in kind) to affected households, in Various parts of the country. Accordingly, 66.6% of the affected households have received cooking utensils in kind, but the remaining 33.4% have not received from any other party (Table 17). The survey respondents identified 23 donor organisations that provided cooking utensils to them; out of which the Red Cross (731), UNHCR (634), World Vision (306), Sewa Lanka (179), UNICEF (133), Oxfam (115), Care International (108), and Sarvodaya (94) had the highest frequency.
Again, affected households in the south received the highest share of cooking utensils allowance of LKR 2,500 given by the government (91.4% or 901), closely followed by the east (89.6% or 892), and the lowest being the north (74.1% or 705). As a corollary, the highest share of households not receiving any money at all was in the north (18.7% or 178), followed by the east (10.1% or 101), and the least being the south (8.6% or 85). Further, households receiving lesser amounts were totally in the north (68 out of 71) and the east (3 out f 71) (Table 17). The foregoing figures demonstrate that the bulk of the non-payment and underpayment of cooking utensils allowance was in the north, followed by the east, which could also indicate that malpractices and/or administrative lapses were greater in the north and the east than in the south. This result corroborates with an earlier study (Sarvananthan, 2005a).
In contrast, the highest share of affected households receiving cooking utensils in kind from various donor agencies was in the north (77.9% or 767), followed by the south (72.5% or 713), and the least being the east (49.4% or 489). By district, the highest share of recipients of government allowances for cooking
47

Page 38
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
utensils was in the Matara district (95.5%), closely followed by the Batticaloa district (94.9%) and the Galle district (94.0%). On the other hand, the highest share of non-recipients of cooking utensils allowance was in the Trincomalee district (22.3%), but the highest share of under-payment of cooking utensils allowance was in the Jaffna district (7.2%) (Table 17).
Relief coupons
The government provided relief coupons to the affected people to the value of LKR.375 (USD.3.75) per person per week for 32 weeks (8 months). This was split into LKR. 175 (USD. 1.75) worth of essential food items in kind and LKR.200 (USD.2) was paid in cash towards non-food items (to be chosen by the recipients). The World Food Programme sponsored this relief effort.
Accordingly, a vast majority of the affected households, i.e. 97.2% (2,905), did receive the relief coupons and only 2.8% (83) did not. In the south 98.8% (977) received the relief coupons, while it was 96.8% (967) in the north and 96.1% (961) in the east. Further, Galle (99.3%), Matara (99.3%), and Hambantota (97.7%) districts had the highest shares of recipients of relief coupons. However, the share of non-recipient households (albeit very low) was highest in the east (3.9%) and closely followed by in the north (3.2%). Besides, by district, the highest shares of nonrecipients were in Trincomalee (5.8%), Ampara (4.0%), and Jaffna (3.2%) (Table 18). Thus, whatever little malpractices and/or administrative lapses existed in the distribution of relief coupons, it was greatest in the east and north, particularly in Trincomalee, Ampara and Jaffna districts.
Further, each and every member of the household was entitled to the LKR.375 worth relief coupons. However, only 89% (2,615) of the affected households have received relief coupons for all the members in the household, and only some members of
Rice or Wheat flour 2,800 grammes perperson per week, Dhal (lentils) 420 grammes per person per week, Sugar 140 grammes per person per week, & Cooking oil 140 grammes perperson per week.
48

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
the rest 11% (327) of the households have received relief coupons. The highest share of recipients for all the members in the household was in the south (96.7%), followed by in the east (88.2%). The least share of recipients for all the members was in the north (81.6%). By district, the highest shares of recipients for all the members were in Hambantota (99.0%), followed by Ampara (96.9%) and Matara (96.0%). As a corollary, 18.4% of the households in the north and 11.8% of the households in the east did not receive relief coupons for all the members, which was only 3.3% in the south. By district, 27.8% of the households in Batticaloa, 18.4% of the households in Jaffna, and 15.4% in Trincomalee did not receive relief coupons for all the members (Table 18). This again demonstrates that malpractices and/or administrative lapses in relief disbursement were highest in the east and north, particularly in the Batticaloa and the Jaffna districts. Moreover, each member of the household was entitled to get relief coupons for a period of 32 weeks or 8 months. However, a majority of affected households did not receive so. That is, only 37.7% (1,081) of the households received for the full 32 weeks and the rest 62.3% (1,785) received for a lesser number of weeks. Ironically, not a single household in the east received relief coupons for 32 weeks. The highest share of households that received for 32 weeks was in the south (82.5%), followed by the north (30.1%). By district, the highest shares of households that received relief coupons for the full period were in Matara (99.0%), followed by Galle (94.2%). On the other hand, the highest share of households receiving relief coupons for lesser than the stipulated period was in the east (100.0%), followed by the north (69.9%). In the south, only 17.5% of the households received for a shorter period. By district, the highest shares of recipients of relief coupons for a shorter period were in Ampara, Batticaloa, and Trincomalee (100.0% each), followed by Jaffna (69.9%) (Table 18). Once again malpractices and/or administrative lapses in relief distribution were greatest in the east and north.
The distribution of relief coupons commenced at different times in different districts. In some districts it commenced only in April, i.e. three months after the tsunami. Hence, 31.1% of the
49

Page 39
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
affected households were still getting relief items and cash payments at the time of the survey. The highest shares of such late recipients were in the north (42.4%), followed by the south (31.9%). By district, the highest shares of households still getting relief coupons were in Galle (49.4%), Jaffna (42.4%), Ampara (27.0%), and Matara (26.3%) (Table 18). This result indicates that the distribution of relief coupons commenced late in the Galle, Jaffna, Ampara, and Matara districts.
In sum, malpractices and/or administrative lapses in the distribution of relief coupons were greatest in the north and east, particularly in the Jaffna, Ampara, and Batticaloa districts. These results tally with a previous study (albeit a smaller scale one) highlighting specific modalities of siphoning off tsunami relief in the north' based on fieldwork in the LTTE-controlled areas (see Sarvananthan, 2005a). Jaffna and Batticaloa districts, despite largely under the control of the government, also have significant indirect control by the LTTE. The Auditor General of Sri Lanka also highlighted specific modalities of corruption in relief disbursements' in Kalmunai and Sainthamaruthu DS areas (Ampara district), Hikkaduwa DS area (Galle district), Tangalle DS area (Hambantota district), and the Mannar district in an interim report dated June 30, 2005.
Corruption in tsunami relief came to surface in late-2006 in the Jaffna peninsula. Since the closure of the A9 highway from August 12, 2006 there is an acute shortage of food items in the peninsula. Some of the tsunami relief items siphoned off last year (2005) have come to the market through the Multi Purpose Cooperative Societies (MPCSs) recently. There were imported
19 Underpayment of due entitlements, undeserving claimants, pilferage
of relief goods, and non-payment of cash grants.
' Relief coupons given to unaffected people in Ampara district, unauthorised payments made in Ampara district, though Mannar district (north) was not affected by the tsunami over LKR.1 million has been spent for the supply of cooked meals to displaced people, overpayment for damaged houses in Tangalle, etc.
21 http://WWW, auditorgeneral.lk/reportSl
50

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
canned fish with the label “not for sale” and packets of wheat flour with "donated by World Food Programme' sticker for sale in the MPCSS in the peninsula recently. These were part of the loot of tsunami relief that took place in the north as revealed in Sarvananthan (2005a).
Livelihood allowance
In addition to the relief coupons (cash and in kind), the government also provided a cash grant of LKR.5,000 (USD.50) per household per month towards livelihood restoration, which was sponsored by the World Bank. The rationale behind this livelihood allowance was that, while the relief coupons were essential for basic survival of the affected people, additional cash grant was necessary for re-starting their livelihood activities such as fishing, micro and small enterprises, etc. However, tsunami-affected public sector employees were not given the grant. The livelihood grant was originally planned to be given for a period of six months. Please note that this was for the entire household, whereas the relief coupons were for each member of the household.
Once again, an overwhelming majority of the affected households did receive the. livelihood allowance. That is, 92.5% (2,765) of the households received the allowance at least for a few months. The highest share of recipients was in the south (93.6%) and very closely followed by in the east (92.9%). The least share was in the north (91.1%). Hence, the shares of recipients were not much different between regions. Trincomalee (97.1%), Matara (96.2%), and Galle (95.5%) districts had the largest shares of recipients (Table 19). However, 3.8% (115) of the households did not receive the livelihood grant at all and 3.6% (108) of the households received less than the stipulated amount. The highest share of non-recipient households was in the east (5.2%) followed by the south (3.3%) and the north (2.9%). Further, Ampara (6.7%), Hambantota (4.3%), and Batticaloa (4.1%) districts had the largest shares of non-recipient households. Moreover, the highest shares of households that received lesser amounts were in the north (6.0%), followed by the south (3.0%). Hambantota (7.0%) and Jaffna
51

Page 40
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
(6.0%) districts had the largest shares of households that received lesser amounts (Table 19).
Besides, a bulk of the affected households received the livelihood grant for only 3 or 4 months. That is, 92.5% (2,608) of the affected households received for 3 or 4 months only, and another 5.9% (167) received only for 1 or 2 months. Further, only 43 households (1.6%) received for 5 or 6 months (Table 19). Thus, 98.4% of the affected households received monthly livelihood allowances for less than 5 months. Shares of households that received livelihood allowances for 3 or 4 months were highest in the north (95.4%) and the east (93.1%), and closely followed by the south (89.2%). Jaffna (95.4%), Batticaloa (95.1%), and Ampara (94.8%) districts had the highest shares of households that received livelihood allowances for 3 or 4 months. On the other hand, the highest share of households that received livelihood allowances for 1 or 2 months was in the south (10.3%), followed by the east (5.2%). Besides, Trincomalee (21.6%), Matara (15.2%), and Hambantota (10.6%) districts had the highest shares of households that received livelihood allowances for 1 or 2 months. The north topped the share of households that received livelihood allowances for 5 or 6 months (2.4%), followed by the east (1.7%). Ampara (2.7%) and Jaffna (2.4%) districts topped the share of households that received livelihood allowances for 5 or 6 months (Table 19). The foregoing data reveal that the duration of livelihood grant has been erratic among different tsunami-affected regions. However, the north (97.8%) and the east (94.8%) topped the regions that received livelihood grant for 3-6 months, closely followed by the south (89.7%).
Commencement of the payment of livelihood grant also differed from place to place. However, only 5.4% of the households (155) were still getting the livelihood grant at the time of the survey. The south had the highest share of households receiving livelihood allowance at the time of the survey (6.4%), closely followed by the north (5.8%). Galle (15.2%), Batticaloa (6.2%), and Jaffna (5.8%) districts had the highest shares of households that were still getting the livelihood allowance at the time of the survey (Table 19).
52

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
In addition to the foregoing cash and in-kind relief assistance provided by the government (largely sponsored by donors), several I/NGOs and bilateral/multilateral donor agencies provided in-kind livelihood restoration assistance to affected communities. Several donors donated fishing boats, fishing nets, agricultural implements, self-employment equipment, etc, to affected fisherpersons, farmers, and micro entrepreneurs. These donations had distorted the markets for these items in areas where they were distributed. In fact, according to anecdotal evidence, there was over Supply of these in-kind donations whereby fisherpersons got more than one boat or more than required fishing nets from multiple donors, which resulted in recipients selling the excess stock at below market price, thereby distorting the markets for these items.
Moreover, there were leakages and pilferages of in-kind livelihood restoration assistance provided by various donors. For example, several non-affected people got in-kind livelihood restoration assistance from various donors. Besides, such donations were leaked or pilfered by people in-charge of distribution. When the Sri Lankan security forces captured several LTTE military camps in the Eastern Province in December 2006 and January 2007, several tsunami donation items were in the possession of the rebels, including fishing boats donated by Save the Children Fund (British INGO) and medicine donated by Zoa Refugee Care (Dutch INGO). There would be many more such items in the possession of the LTTE when the security forces eventually enter the LTTE-stronghold of Vanni region in the Northern Province, which could further confirm the findings of Sarvananthan (2005a).
Source of relief immediately after the tsunami
The government's response to the tsunami tragedy was very slow and lukewarm, partly because the administrative mechanism of the government has never experienced a calamity of such proportion. Besides, tsunami struck the day after Christmas and the last week of the year is traditionally a go-slow period in public administration. In this circumstance, the survey wanted to find
53

Page 41
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
out how the affected people coped in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami. The survey found that the local communities and neighbouring villages were the ones to offer immediate help (in terms of food and clothing) to the displaced households.
Thus, 45.3% of the affected households received food from local communities, 17.7% received from neighbouring villages (noted in the other category), 17.1% received from relatives, and only 11.2% received from the NGOs (Table 20). Hence, about 80% of the affected households received food immediately after the disaster from local and neighbouring communities and relatives. Further, 28.7% of the affected households received clothing from local communities, 25.4% from NGOs, 18.6% from relatives, and 17.3% from neighbouring villages (noted in the 'other' category) (Table 20). Hence, 64.6% of the affected households received clothing immediately after the tsunami from local and neighbouring communities and relatives.
Moreover, only a tiny proportion of the affected people did not receive any food (0.5%) or clothing (2.1%) from outsiders immediately after the tsunami, and only a tiny proportion did receive food (1.3%) or clothing (0.3%) from the local government (see Table 20). The foregoing results reveal enormous spontaneous compassion shown by local communities, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, caste, or class, in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, towards the affected people. Nonetheless, there is some concern that such spontaneous compassion, immediately after the tsunami, has given way to envy and resentment due to the influx of un precedented aid and attention to the tsunami-affected communities (Human Rights Commission and CUCEC, 2005: 6).
Favouritism in disbursement of relief
Usually, in Sri Lanka, welfare programmes are plagued by political patronage and favouritism. In this context, it is quite heartening to note that 71.4% of the affected households did not experience or witness any favouritism in the distribution of relief after the tsunami. Nevertheless, considerable proportion, i.e. 28.6%, did experience or witness patronage and favouritism. The highest share of
54

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
households experiencing or witnessing favouritism in tsunami relief was in the south (61.5%), followed by the east (18.3%). The survey also revealed that the single largest share of households (i.e. 44.2%) identified bribery and corruption (noted in the "other” category) as the basis of favouritism, closely followed by political patronage (43.0%). The highest share of households citing bribery and corruption as the cause for favouritism, was in the south (53.3%), followed by the east (24.9%), and the highest share citing political patronage as the cause for favouritism was in the east (53.6%), followed by the south (44.0%). Gladly, ethnic, religious, or caste-based favouritism was quite marginal in the distribution of tsunami relief in Sri Lanka. Only 5.6% of the households identified ethnic favouritism, 5.0% identified religious favouritism’, and 2.2% identified caste favouritism in tsunami relief (Table 21). The north had the highest shares of households that experienced or witnessed ethnic (31.1%), religious (32.8%), or caste (23.0%) favouritism in tsunami relief.
However, a village level qualitative study has identified some instances of ethnic discrimination in certain districts of Sri Lanka (Human Rights Commission and CUCEC, 2005: 5). Further, in Tamilnadu (India), tsunami-affected Dalits and Adivasis were said to be discriminated in relief and rehabilitation assistance (Mohan and Narrain, 2005; Human Rights Center of the University of California and East-West Center, 2005: 17-18). For an island undergoing a protracted ethnic conflict for the past quarter century, the foregoing results are encouraging. Nevertheless, bribery and corruption and political patronage are scourges of modern Societies. Appropriate measures should be taken to eradicate such blatant undermining of sound governance in the country.
In conclusion of this sub-section, it is fair to claim that various relief and welfare programmes undertaken after the tsunami have reached significant majority of the affected households in all three
* However, in India religious favouritism in disbursement of relief by faith-based NGOs was identified in some districts in Tamilnadu state (Human Rights Center of the University of California and East-West Center, 2005:24).
55

Page 42
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
regions surveyed. Hence, the government and the donor agencies have performed reasonably well in reaching out to the affected people. Whatever small-scale malpractices and/or administrative lapses existed in the distribution of relief and welfare assistance have been relatively higher in the north and east than in the south, presumably due to dual authority (GoSL and the LTTE) in these conflict areas. It is also important to highlight that discrimination in the disbursement of relief and welfare assistance has been quite low.
However, relief and rehabilitation package provided to the tsunami-affected people in neighbouring India was much more generous than in Sri Lanka, particularly because the affected people were provided relief by both the central and state governments'. The Tamilnadu state government made a payment of INR. 100,000 (USD.2,300) to the next of kin of each deceased person. On top of it, the Prime Minister's office also made a oneoff payment of INR. 100,000 to the next of kin of each person who died in the tsunami. Further, the central government offered an immediate relief package that included INR.4,000 (USD.92) cash plus rice, fuel, cooking stove, and vessel for water. Additionally, for three months (February–April 2005) the state government offered a relief package consisting of INR. 1,000 (USD.23) in cash and goods worth INR.526 (USD. 12) per month to every member of the affected households. Moreover, owners of fishing boats were compensated in cash between INR.25,000 (catamarans USD.575) to INR.500,000 (mechanised boats USD. 11,500) depending on the extent of damage caused by the tsunami. In addition, various NGOs provided variety of relief packages (Human Rights Center of the University of California and East-West Center, 2005: 16).
23 This could be a potential marketing tool for advocacy groups promoting a federal system of governance in Sri Lanka to resolve the long running ethnic conflict.
56

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Comparison of Tsunami Relief in India & Sri Lanka
Type of Relief India Sri Lanka
by the government (Tamilnadu State)
Compensation to the USD.4,600 USD.150
next of kin of the
deceased
Cooking utensils Cooking stove & USD.25 per
utensils per household household
Relief-in-kind USD. 12 per person USD. 15 per
per month + rice, person per fuel, etc. month
Livelihood allowance USD. 5 USD50
Fishing boats USD.575-USD. New boats
11,500
Housing grant USD.3,450 (see USD2,500
section 5.4 below) (see section 5.4
below)
Grant to orphans USD. 11,500 None
per orphan
There is an endless debate on the best or most appropriate way of providence of relief in the aftermath of natural or human-made disasters. Some prefer food or relief-in-kind and others prefer cash grants. The advocates of the former argue that basic needs of the affected/displaced people have to be met in order to prevent starvation and death, while advocates of cash grants argue that providing food or relief-in-kind would make the affected people dependent on relief for a longer period; instead, if cash grant (for
57

Page 43
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
a limited period) is provided, it will enable the recipients to get onto their feet sooner and empower the affected people through freedom of choice. The World Food Programme (WFP) is an advocate of the former while the ILO and various INGOs are advocates of the latter. This debate between cash transfers and transfers-in-kind is not only confined to poverty alleviation in the context of emergencies such as natural or human-made disasters, but in longer-term development discourse as well. Recent interest in this perennial debate was rekindled by the publication of a series of articles in the special issues of Development Policy Review (2006) and Disasters (2006). Whilst the articles in the former journal debate the pros and cons of cash transfers as means of poverty alleviation in normal development discourse, articles in the latter journal debate the pros and cons of cash transfers as a means of poverty alleviation in emergencies such as natural or human-made disasters.
In the aftermath of the tsunami in Sri Lanka, the WFP implemented food-for-work programmes, while INGOs such as Oxfam and CARE International implemented cash-for-work programmes among selected tsunami-affected communities, though ehese were not widespread. The ILO was in the forefront of promoting the idea of providing livelihood grants to tsunamiaffected households (for a limited period of course) in Sri Lanka, in addition to food aid. The rationale was that, while food aid was necessary for Sustenance of life, cash grant was necessary to revive the livelihoods of the affected people. Despite opposition from some development partners like the World Bank the government accepted the proposal of the ILO on livelihood grant. There is evidence from various parts of the developing world that food aid distorts local agriculture markets and cash grants (usually given to the head of the household who would be mostly male) lead to growing alcoholism and tobacco usage (wasteful expenditure in general) among male members of the households. However, a growing body of literature provides empirical evidence that cash grants are utilised sensibly by recipients, women in the households do share such grants, and cash grant is the most costeffective way of disbursement of relief (for a literature review
58

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
see Harvey, 2006; Harvey, 2005, and references therein; Skoufias, 2003). Recent investigation of a cash-for-work programme implemented by Mercy Corps (INGO) in Aceh (Indonesia) has arrived at the conclusion that cash-for-work programmes by infusing liquid cash into a depleted monetary economy and thereby boosting the local economies are superior to food-for-work programmes, because they are easier to implement (lesser transaction costs) and does less harm to local agricultural markets (Doocy, Shannon, et al., 2006).
However, the foregoing study does not investigate the flip side of the cash-for-work programmes; i.e. because most of the participants in cash-for-work programmes would be males, women and children in the households may not get their due share even for their basic needs. Alcoholism, tobacco and drug usage among male members of the affected households have created lot of problems for females and children in tsunami-affected communities in India and the Maldives (see Human Rights Center of the University of California and East-West Center, 2005), and conflictaffected communities in Sri Lanka (Sarvananthan, et al., 1995). Therefore, further investigations into the merits and demerits of various forms of relief in the aftermath of natural and humanmade disasters are required.
In Indonesia, given the circumstance that no cash grant was offered to tsunami-affected households in Aceh, cash-for-work programme was a great boon to the affected communities and hence its popularity. In the same way, cash grant (LKR.5,000 per month per household) provided to tsunami-affected households in Sri Lanka has ameliorated the post-tsunami economic desolation of families and communities.
5.4 Housing
As noted in Chapter 3, out of the total tsunami reconstruction expenditures anticipated in Sri Lanka, one-third was destined for housing reconstruction. Not only in monetary terms, but also in terms of buffer zone stipulation, land availability and identification, other logistical matters, and customer preferences, the housing
59

Page 44
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthar
reconstruction programme for the tsunami-affected households has been the most arduous of all the recovery activities. Even two years after the tsunami, housing reconstruction efforts continue to be the most commented and criticised part of the entire posttsunami recovery efforts in the country.
However, build-back better means infrastructure facilities need to be upgraded along with housing reconstruction. Lack of building materials such as sand, brick, wood, skilled labour, etc, has contributed to the delay. Replenishing this stock, partly lost in the tsunami, takes time. This ground reality needs to be appreciated by all concerned.
Type of current residence
More than a year after the tsunami, almost half (46.7%) the tsunami-affected households were in transitory or temporary shelters. Further 22.4% of the tsunami-affected households were in their pre-tsunami homes, and another 21.2% of the households have been provided with new permanent homes. Thus, only 43.6% of the tsunami-affected households were living in permanent residences more than twelve months after the tsunami. Moreover, 5.3% of the affected households were living in the home of a friend or relative, 3.8% of the households were still languishing in relief tents, and 0.6% of the households were living in rented homes (Table 22). The foregoing data reveal the slow progress of construction of permanent homes for tsunami-affected people in Sri Lanka.
The highest share of households having received permanent
homes built by a donor was in the north (36.5%), followed by the south (21.0%) and the east (6.2%). By district, highest shares of recipients of permanent homes were in Jaffna (36.5%), Galle, (28.5%), Hambantota (21.3%), and Batticaloa (14.9%) (Table 22). Households living in transitory shelter were highest in the east (62.0%), followed by the south (42.3%) and the north (35.9%). The Ampara district had the highest share of households living in transitory shelters (72.0%), followed by Hambantota (55.3%), Matara (50.2%), Batticaloa (47.3%), and Trincomalee (46.2%) -
60

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
districts (Table 22). At the same time, the highest share of affected households living in their pre-tsunami homes was in the south (32.0%), followed by the east (21.9%) and the north (13.4%). Galle (38.3%), Matara (35.3%), and Trincomalee (27.9%) districts had the largest share of households living in their pre-tsunami homes (Table 22). t
Ampara, the worst affected district, had the highest share of households living in transitory shelter. Further, the Ampara district had the lowest share of households that have received permanent houses (2.2%) among the seven districts surveyed. The Ampara district, despite accounting for 28% (27.562) of the total number of houses damaged in the country (97,865), had only 2.2% of the respondent households living in a permanent houses (built by donors), and 72.0% of the respondent households living in transitory shelter by the time of the survey. On the other hand, the Batticaloa district, which accounted for the second highest number of houses damaged in the tsunami (i.e. 18% or 17,708), had 14.9% of the respondent households living in permanent houses (built by donors) (see Tables 5 & 22). Hence, the Ampara district seems to be lagging far behind other tsunami-affected districts in terms of housing reconstruction. Coastal areas in the Ampara district are densely populated and therefore lack of suitable land has been a major constraint to housing reconstruction there, whilst the need has been the greatest.
Type of pre-tsunami residence
It is also important to note that a significant majority of the tsunamiaffected households, i.e. 74.4% (2,222), were living in concrete houses before the tsunami. This is in contrast to India and Indonesia where the majority of the tsunami-affected households were reported to be living in wooden or tin shack or cadjun hut. The second highest share of the affected households was living in cadjun hut (14.2% or 423) followed by in tin shed (11.1% or 333). Only 10 affected households did not have a house to live prior to the tsunami, 9 of which were in Jaffna (Table 23).
61

Page 45
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
By region, the share of affected households living in concrete houses prior to the tsunami was greatest in the south (91.4%), followed by the east (83.7%). The least share of households living in concrete houses was in the north (48.1%). On the other hand, the highest shares of affected households living in cadjun hut and tin shed (before the tsunami) were in the north, i.e. 31.3% and 19.6% respectively. The corresponding shares in the east were 7.5% and 8.7% respectively, and in the south 3.5% and 5.1% respectively (Table 23). By district, Hambantota (95.0%), Galle (91.3%), and Ampara (86.2%) districts had the highest shares of households living in concrete houses before the tsunami. On the other hand, the highest proportions of households living in cadjun hut and tin shed were in Jaffna (31.3% and 19.6% respectively), followed by Batticaloa (10.1% in cadjun hut) and Trincomalee (14.4% in tin shed).
Moreover, it is striking that 81.3% (2,429) of the tsunamiaffected households owned their residence prior to the tsunami; second highest share lived in relatives' home (9.3% or 278). followed by in rented property (3.3% or 99) (Table 23). Share of households living in own houses was highest in the east (93.8%), followed by the south (83.8%) and the north (66.3%). On the other hand, the highest share living in relatives' home and rented home was in the north (13.2% and 4.6% respectively), followed by the south (11.6% and 3.3% respectively) (Table 23). The Ampara district topped the districts in terms of having the highest share of owned houses prior to the tsunami (96.5%), followed by Batticaloa (90.5%) and Trincomalee (87.5%) (Table 23).
Extent of damage and repair
The homes of a majority of the affected households were fully damaged and a significant proportion of homes were partly damaged. Only a tiny proportion of the affected households did not have any damage to their home. Thus, 60.9% (1,820) of the households had their home fully damaged and another 35.6% (1,064) had their home partly damaged. Only 3.5% of the households (104) did not have any damage to their home (Table
62

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
24). The largest proportion of fully damaged houses was in the east (67.0%), followed by the north (58.7%) and the south (57.0%). The highest proportion of partly damaged houses was in the south (41.4%), followed by the north (34.0%) and the east (31.5%). On the other hand, the highest proportion of no damage was reported in the north (7.3%), followed by the south (1.6%) and the east (1.5%) (Table 24). The highest proportions of fully damaged houses were in Batticaloa (79.1%), Hamban tota (68.7%), and Ampara (62.8%) districts. Similarly, the highest proportions of partly damaged houses were in Matara (49.5%), Galle (44.8%) and Trincomalee (42.3%) districts (Table 24).
A vast majority of the partly or fully damaged houses have not been repaired or rebuilt at the time of the survey (12-15 months after the tsunami). That is, 69.8% (1,928) of the damaged houses have not been repaired nor rebuilt. The largest shares of nonrepaired or un-built houses were in the east (80.3%), followed by the north (71.6%). Ampara (88.0%), Hambantota (86.4%), and Jaffna (71.6%) districts had the highest shares of non-repaired or un-built houses. Out of the repaired or rebuilt houses, the highest proportion was built by affected households themselves (8.4%) or by personal/private benefactors’ (8.3%). The INGOs accounted for 7.8% of the houses and NGOs for 5.8% of the houses repaired/rebuilt (Table 24). These figures demonstrate the individual enterprise of tsunami-affected population. The highest proportions of self-repaired/built and by personal/private benefactors were in the south (20.1% and 13.7% respectively), particularly in the Galle district (21.1% & 22.4% respectively). In contrast, the highest proportion of houses repaired/rebuilt by the INGOs and NGOs was in the north (9.5% & 10.5% respectively). Batticaloa district had the highest share of houses repaired/rebuilt by the INGOs (20.7%) and Trincomalee (10.9%) and Jaffna (10.5%) districts had the highest shares of houses repaired/rebuilt by the NGOs (Table 24).
24 Noted by the other category.
63

Page 46
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Housing reconstruction grant
The GoSL signed Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) with several INGOs, NGOs, and private corporations for the building of new permanent houses for the tsunami-affected families. Those families, not offered a readymade home, were provided with a cash grant of LKR.250,000 (USD. 2,500). This grant is made in two installments; first being LKR. 100,000 (USD. 1,000) and upon satisfactory completion of the first stage of building, the balance LKR. 150,000 (USD. 1,500) is disbursed. For partially damaged houses, a grant of LKR. 100,000 (USD. 1,000) was provided for repair in two installments. The World Bank is the major sponsor of this housing reconstruction grant. In contrast, in neighbouring India, every fully damaged house was compensated with a new house worth INR. 150,000 (USD.3,450) (Human Rights Center of the University of California and East-West Center, 2005:19). This is not withstanding the fact that most of the affected households in India were living in cadjun huts or tin sheds prior to the tsunami, and construction materials and labour are much cheaper than in Sri Lanka.
By the time of the survey, a significant majority of the affected households had not received any housing grant at all. That is, 73.2% (2,020) of the affected households had not received any money at all for the reconstruction of permanent houses'. The highest share of affected households that had not received any housing grant at the time of the survey was in the north (82.0%), followed by the east (71.6%) and the south (65.6%). Trincomalee (94.3%), Hambantota (85%), Jaffna (82%), and Ampara (81.5%) districts had the highest shares of households not receiving the housing reconstruction grant by the time of the survey (Table 25).
The next highest share of the affected households, i.e. 10.8%, received an amount lesser than mentioned above. By region, the south (18.2%) and the east (11.7%) had the highest shares of
25 This may include ineligible households as well.
64

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
households receiving less than the stipulated amounts, while only 2.9% of the households in the north received lesser amounts. By district, Galle (32.3%), Batticaloa (17.6%), and Ampara (9.5%) had the largest shares of households receiving lesser amounts. Only 10.2% (279) of the affected households had received the first instalment of LKR. 100,000 and another 4.9% (138) had received the full amount of LKR. 250,000. The highest share of households receiving the first instalment was in the south (14.3%), followed by the north (9.2%) and the east (7.0%). Besides, only 25 households (0.8%) have received LKR.25,000 for repair of their partially damaged houses, out of which 17 (1.8%) were in the north (Table 25).
Further, an overwhelming majority of the affected households opined that the cash grant offered by the government for repair or rebuilding of their homes was not adequate. That is, 92.9% (2,224) of the households opined that the housing grant was inadequate and only 7.1% (171) said it was adequate. The highest share of households that felt housing repair/reconstruction grant inadequate, was in the east (96.4%), followed by the south (93.0%) and the north (89.7%). As a corollary, the highest share of households that felt the grant adequate was in the north (10.3%), followed by the south (7.0%).
Given the fact that almost 75% of the affected households were living in concrete houses before the tsunami (Table 23), it is understandable that the vast majority of affected households felt that the housing grant was inadequate. There are several I/NGOs that have spent more than LKR.600,000 to build a new house for the affected families in various parts of the country. Perhaps the government also feels that LKR.250,000 is totally inadequate, however, due to resource constraints the government has not hiked the amount to date. There is also anecdotal evidence of families demanding new houses or housing grants, without being affected by the tsunami. The government has a flexible attitude towards such undeserving claimants keeping in view of their poverty and/ or conflict situation. However, such undeserving claimants raise the total demand for housing grants and thereby limit the amount paid.
65

Page 47
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Buffer zone
The majority of the houses fully or partly damaged due to the tsunami were illegal settlements along the coast. The coast conservation department of the government owns the land in which these houses were built. Even several tourist hotels along the southern and eastern coast have encroached on state-owned land. These illegal settlements increased the deaths and destruction to property, in the tsunami.
Keeping in view of this human-made hazard, the government stipulated in January 2005 that no new building should be constructed within 100 metres from the coast in the Southern province and within 200 metres from the coast in the eastern and northern provinces. However, this stipulation was reported to be unpopular with the affected people (especially fisherpersons) as well as hoteliers, because it would negatively affect their respective trade. Just before the Presidential election in November 2005 this buffer Zone was reduced to 50 metres in the south and 100 metres in the eastern and northern provinces. It has been further reduced in early 2006 after the election of the new President. In India too there was stiff opposition to relocation from existing properties. A survey undertaken by coalition of NGOs in early 2005 in 61 villages throughout 8 districts affected by the tsunami in Tamilnadu state revealed that 95% of the affected people did not want to move from their pre-tsunami habitats (cited in Human Rights Center of the University of California and East-West Center, 2005: 20).
In this background, the present survey asked the affected households about their opinion on the buffer zone. Strangely, a majority of the affected households, i.e. 61.0% (1,796), were in agreement with the buffer zone stipulation by the government. Further, the largest proportion of households agreeing with the buffer zone stipulation was in the east (65.4%), followed by the south (60.2%) and the north (57.5%). Ampara (68.6%), Trincomalee (66.3%), Galle (62.8%), and Matara (60.5%) districts had the largest shares of households in agreement with the buffer zone (Table 26). It is important to remember that Ampara had the largest and Galle the third largest number of deaths due to the tsunami (Table 5).
66

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Nevertheless, a significant proportion of the affected households, i.e. 39.0% (1,147), did not agree with the buffer zone stipulation. The largest proportion of households not agreeing with the buffer zone was in the north (42.5%), followed by the south (39.8%) and the east (34.6%). The highest shares of households in disagreement were in Hambantota (43.6%), Jaffna (42.5%), and Batticaloa (41.6%) districts (Table 26).
It is important to remember that by the time most of the interviews were conducted (i.e. first quarter 2006) the original buffer zone stipulation has been drastically reduced, which may have elicited positive response from the respondents.
Multiple displacements
The displaced people due to tsunami in the north and the east may have been displaced before as well, due to the conflict. The Survey wanted to identify such multiple displacements. A simple majority of the respondent households have been displaced earlier as well due to the civil war, particularly in the north. Altogether 1,034 (52.6%) respondent households have been displaced before, due to the civil war, out of which 857 (87.0%) households were in the north (i.e. Jaffna), 176 (18.9%%) were in the east, and only one household (16.7%) was in the south (Galle). Jaffna (87.0%), Trincomalee (57.3%), Batticaloa (23.4%), Galle (16.7%), and Ampara (10.0%) districts have experienced multiple displacements (Table 27). Although the Galle district was not directly affected by the conflict, it could be an internally displaced household from the east.
However, a significant proportion, i.e. 47.4% (932), of respondent households have not been displaced before due to the civil war; the south (98.0%) and the east (81.1%) accounting for the highest shares of households not experiencing displacement due to the civil war. By district, the highest shares of households not experiencing displacement due to the civil war were in Ampara (90.0%), Galle (83.3%), and Batticaloa (76.6%) districts (Table 27). It is important to note that one-third of the total sample households (1,022 out of 2,988) did not answer this question,
67

Page 48
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
presumably because it was not applicable to them. The bulk of the non-respondents were understandably in the south.
During the time of civil war people could have been displaced more than once in different time periods. Accordingly, 20.4% of the respondent households have been displaced once before, due to the civil war, 12.3% have been displaced twice, and 28.2% (highest proportion) of the households have been displaced more than twice due to the civil war (Table 27). Please note that a significant proportion, i.e. 39.1%, did not answer this part of the question.
Benefactor and satisfaction of temporary shelter
The majority of the tsunami-affected households were dissatisfied with temporary shelters. That is, 68.3% (1,524) of the households were dissatisfied and only 31.7% (708) were satisfied (Table 28). This is understandable, given the fact that almost 75% of the affected households were living in concrete houses before the tsunami, whereas temporary/transitory shelters had a concrete floor but covered by tin sheets (including the roof). Further, temporary shelters do not have a kitchen, and the common bathrooms and toilets were at a distance. Moreover, all the temporary shelters were uniform in size irrespective of the household size. A qualitative study undertaken through focus group meetings in 13 tsunami-affected districts also concluded that people felt the temporary/transitory shelters to be "uncomfortable, unsanitary, and unsafe. ......... Women in particular feel that these shelters provide little privacy and security' (Human Rights Commission and CUCEC, 2005:3).
The greatest dissatisfaction of the temporary shelters was in the east where 83.8% was dissatisfied, followed by the south (62.7%) and the north (54.0%). Ampara (91.7%), Batticaloa (77.5%), Hambantota (76.2%), and Matara (69.9%) districts had the largest shares of dissatisfied households (Table 28). The highest proportion of satisfied households about the temporary shelters was in the north (46%), followed by the south (37.3%). Galle (53.2%), Jaffna (46.0%), and Trincomalee (41.7%) districts had the largest proportions of satisfied households (Table 28).
68.

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
The majority of the temporary shelters for affected families have been built by non-governmental organisations (international, national & local). Temporary shelters for single largest proportion of the affected households (34.5% or 863) have been built by INGOs. The second highest proportion of the affected households, i.e. 22.3% or 557, have been provided temporary shelter by private philanthropists (businesses as well as individuals). The third largest proportion of the affected households, i.e. 21.4% or 535, have received temporary shelters from national NGOs. Further, 84 (3.4%) households have been provided by local NGOs (based in the district/province). Only 75 households (3% of the total respondents) have received from the government (Table 28). Hence, almost 60% of the temporary shelters have been provided by non-governmental organisations and a further 22% have been provided by the private sector. The foregoing figures indicate the dominant role played by the private and non-governmental sectors in the construction of temporary shelter for tsunami-affected households.
However, due to the urgency of the task ahead, a significant majority of affected households, i.e. 71.3% (1,390), have not been consulted or their preferences taken into account in the construction of temporary shelters. For example, household size was not taken into consideration in determining the space of temporary shelters. The highest share of households not consulted was in the east (80.9%), followed by the south (77.7%). In the north, 48.7% of the households were not consulted. Hambantota (92.1%), Ampara (82.5%), Batticaloa (79.1%), and Trincomalee (76.7%) districts had the largest shares of households that have not been consulted. Nonetheless, preferences of 28.7% of the affected households have been taken into account. The highest share of consulted households were in the north (51.3%), followed by the south (22.3%) and the east (19.1%) (Table 28).
Denoted by "other' category.
69

Page 49
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Benefactor and satisfaction of permanent shelter
In contrast to temporary shelters, a significant majority of affected households were in fact satisfied with the permanent shelters provided by various donors (albeit very limited numbers so far). That is, 69.7% (689) of households were satisfied with the permanent shelters and 30.3% (300) were dissatisfied’. The highest proportion of satisfied households were in the north (93.1%), followed by the south (59.9%) and the east (38.7%). Jaffna (93.1%), Galle (69.7%), and Matara (64.0%) districts topped the number of satisfied households (Table 29). High satisfaction rate in the north is understandable given the fact that only less than half the affected households in the north had a concrete house prior to the tsunami (Table 23), whereas all the permanent houses are made of concrete. Among the dissatisfied households, highest share was in the east (61.3%) followed by in the south (40.1%). Trincomalee (76.3%), Hambantota (67.8%), and Ampara (60.5%) districts topped the number of dissatisfied households (see Table 29).
A majority of the permanent houses have been built by nongovernmental organisations-international, national, and local (i.e. 488 out of the total 826 or 59%). Again INGOs accounted for the single largest share of permanent shelters built by the time of the survey (albeit a smaller share than in the case of temporary shelters). That is, 19.7% (377) of the permanent homes have been built by the INGOs. The second largest share of 12.0% (229) has been built by private philanthropists (individuals and businesses)’.
27 Note that more households than the ones living in permanent shelters (635 according to Table 22) have answered this question. Perhaps the households whose permanent shelters are in the making have also answered this question.
28 While according to Table 22 only 635 households were living in permanent shelters, 826 households seem to have received permanent shelters according to Table 29. Perhaps the households whose permanent shelters are in the making have also answered this question.
' Denoted by 'other' category.
70

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
The next highest share was accounted for by the government, i.e. 5.7% or 109. National NGOs accounted for 4.2% or 81 permanent houses built. Only 30 permanent houses have been built by the local NGOs (based in the district/province) (Table 29). By region, the north has been the largest recipient of permanent homes at the time of the survey (i.e. 390 out of the total 826 or 47.2%), followed by the south (293 or 35.5%) and the east (143 or 17.3%). The north's higher share could be due to the longer time period taken to complete the survey. While the highest share of permanent houses built by non-governmental organisations was in the north (41.6%), the highest share built by private philanthropists (26.3%) and the government (9.3%) was in the south (Table 29).
One of the cardinal principles proposed to be followed in the construction of permanent houses was consultation with the affected families as to their needs and preferences. In contrast to the case of temporary shelters, a majority of the recipients of permanent houses have been consulted and their preferences taken into account. That is, 57.0% of the affected households have been consulted prior to building their permanent homes. The highest share of those consulted was in the north (82.8%), followed by the south (43.9%) and the east (30.5%). Jaffna (82.8%), Galle (61.3%), and Batticaloa (58.7%) districts topped in terms of consultation (see Table 30). However, 43.0% of the affected households have not been consulted or their preferences taken into account. The largest share not consulted was in the east (69.5%), followed by the south (56.1%).
Recipients’ contribution to permanent shelter
Further, many recipients of permanent shelters also made (or expect to make) some contribution in kind and/or cash for building their permanent homes. Accordingly, 41.4% (526) of the respondent households have provided their labour, 37.2% (472) have provided land, and 19.3% (245) have provided "other' contributions. Only 2% (26) made cash contributions towards their permanent homes. While labour contribution was highest in the north (49.1%) and the east (45.8%), land contribution was highest in the south (53.4%) and the north (37.5%) (Table 30).
71

Page 50
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Ownership of land
There was/is some controversy about the ownership of permanent shelters, because the ownership of permanent houses was vested in the name of male heads of household. However, many tsunamiaffected houses were reported to have been owned by the female head of household prior to the tsunami. Therefore, it is natural for those females to expect the ownership of new permanent homes to be vested in their name. But, many affected households have lost the title deeds to their land and home in the tsunami (Human Rights Commission and CUCEC, 2005:3). Therefore, the survey probed the ownership of property prior to the tsunami and the ownership of permanent homes if delivered. This question was asked from the female members of the households interviewed.
Accordingly, before the tsunami, female heads of households owned 45.4% (1,326) of the affected land and property. The 'other' party owned the second largest share, i.e. 26.8% or 782. This other means state-owned land. As pointed out earlier, most houses along the coasts are illegal settlements on state-owned lands. Another 14.5% of the respondents (424) reported that their husband owned the property before the tsunami. Both wife and husband jointly owned the remaining 13.3% (390) of the properties before the tsunami (Table 31).
However, the single largest share of respondent households, i.e. 38.1% or 690, opined that the state would own the land and/or the permanent house built for them after the tsunami. The second largest share of respondent households, i.e. 35.6% or 644, reported that female heads own (or would own) the land/permanent house distributed or about to be distributed after the tsunami. Another 13.8% (249) is or would be owned by the husband and 12.5% (227) is or would be owned by both (Table 31).
The foregoing results indicate that higher proportion of stateowned and lower proportion of female-owned land and property is envisaged, if the current trend continues in the tsunami reconstruction. Besides, dual ownership and male-ownership is also expected to drop, albeit marginally. Therefore, it is essential that ownership ambiguities of permanent houses are resolved
72

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
equitably sooner than later. While the pre-tsunami ownership pattern within households should not be altered, the state should alienate its ownership to beneficiaries (i.e. joint heads of households). Land rights and ownership disputes (sometimes violent) have cropped up in other countries affected by the tsunami (Human Rights Center of the University of California and EastWest Center, 2005:4).
Housing continues to be the most challenging of all reconstruction and recovery efforts in Sri Lanka. Only a small proportion of the required permanent houses seems to have been completed nearly two years after the tsunami. That is, only 20% (circa 10,000) out of the total requirement of houses (circa 50,000) has been built almost two years after the tsunami (i.e. by September 2006). Although, according to the present survey, the highest share of permanent shelters completed was in the north (57.4%) (Table 22), according to the Tsunami Housing Reconstruction Unit (THRU), the highest share of permanent shelters completed was in the south (67.2%). Hambantota district itself accounted for 43.4% of the total number of permanent shelters completed in the country by January 31, 2006 (Alailima, 2006: 26). This inequity in permanent shelter building was due to political patronage, because Hambantota is the home district of the present President of Sri Lanka, who was the Prime Minister at the time of the tsunami, until November 2005.
At the time of the survey, almost three-fourths of the affected households seem to have not received housing reconstruction grant provided by the government. The north and the south seem to have got most of the permanent houses completed thus far despite about 55% of the damaged houses were in the east, particularly in the Ampara district (see Table 5). This anomaly is due to the fact that, while the government had looked after the interests of the affected households in the south, and the donor-LTTE combine had looked after the interests of the north, the east was left in the lurch. The author hopes that the government and the donor community would take this situation seriously and urgently and rectify the past mistakes and shortcomings in the remaining work to be completed.
73

Page 51
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
5.5 Gender and Children
Immediately after the tsunami, there were some disturbing media reports about harassment, abuse, and even rape of women. Later, there were some reports of harassment and abuse of women in the relief camps. There were also reports of abduction of children immediately after the tsunami, and later from the relief camps, for trafficking to foreign countries, as well as for combat purpose. However, the present survey did not find these issues to be of any significance. All the questions under this section were asked from female heads of households. Besides, to be sensitive to the respondents, instead of asking whether they have personally experienced any harassment/abuse, the survey asked whether the respondents were aware of such harassment/abuse.
Harassment of women
Accordingly, 97.1% (2,899) of the households were unaware of any physical abuse of women, and just 2.9% of the households were aware of such incidences. While all three regions strongly denied any abuse (> 95%), out of the small number of abuses known, the highest share was in the east (5.1%) followed by the south (3.1%). Only 5 households (0.5%) were aware of abuse of women in the north. Batticaloa (12.5% or 37) and Matara (7.6% or 22) districts had the largest shares of households that were aware of physical abuse of women after the tsunami (Table 32).
However, a slightly higher proportion of the affected households (i.e. 5.9% or 175) were aware of verbal abuse of women after the tsunami. Again the east (12.3%) topped, and the south (3.5%) followed. In the north, only 1.7% of the households were aware of verbal abuse of women. Ampara (13.7%), Batticaloa (13.3%), and Matara (8.0%) topped the districts (Table 32). Further, a vast majority of the physical and verbal abuse took place in the relief camps (77.9% or 134) and another 14.0% (24) took place in the temporary shelters. Moreover, 4.7% (8) of the abuse took place in a public space, and 2.9% (5) in the home of a relative or friend (Table 32).
74

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Harassment of children
The survey detected very little physical or verbal abuse of children either. Only 68 respondent households (2.3%) were aware of any physical abuse of children in the aftermath of the tsunami. By region, again the east (4.2%) topped followed by the south (2.1%). Only 5 households (0.5%) in the north were aware of child abuse. Batticaloa (13.2%) and Matara (6.6%) topped the districts (Table 33).
Similarly, only 147 households (4.9%) were aware of verbal abuse of children. The east (10.9%) and the south (3.1%) accounted for most of the known cases of verbal abuse of children. Batticaloa (12.9%), Ampara (10.7%), Trincomalee (6.8%), and Matara (6.6%) topped the districts (Table 33).
Moreover, relief camps were the places where a bulk of the child abuse seems to have taken place, followed by in the temporary shelters. Thus, 75.7% (109) of the known child abuses took place in relief camps and another 13.9% (20) took place in temporary shelters. Further, an equal share of abuses took place in open spaces (4.2%) as well as at own homes (4.2%). The rest, i.e. 2.1%, took place in the homes of a relative or a friend (Table 33).
In sum, harassments or abuses of women and children have been very minimal contrary to media hype. However, whatever little that has taken place, was largely in the east and the south, particularly in Ampara, Batticaloa, and Matara districts. In India too, violence against or abuse of women and children and human trafficking in the aftermath of the tsunami were very minimal, though verbal and physical harassment did exist to a limited extent (Human Rights Center of the University of California and EastWest Center, 2005: 21,22).
Nevertheless, women have been almost entirely excluded from decision-making processes of relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction/recovery efforts. Cash grants for the restoration of livelihoods and housing reconstruction were given to the heads of household who are mostly male. Involvement of or consultations with women in the designing and layout of transitory and permanent
75

Page 52
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
houses have been absent. Overall, women's fundamental rights have been breached with impunity by the government, donor agencies, I/NGOs, and individual philanthropists. This has been the case in all the tsunami-affected countries as well, according to more than 50,000 tsunami-affected people interviewed in 95 villages and urban areas in India, Indonesia, Maldives, Sri Lanka, and Thailand during November 2005 (Action Aid, 2006:41-48).
5.6 Health
Many countries experience health problems soon after any disaster, be it human-made or natural. Especially, natural disasters are accompanied with spread of diseases due to lack of safe water and sanitation facilities. Remarkably, there was hardly any health problem in any of the regions affected by the tsunami in Sri Lanka or in any other country. Unlike in the displacements due to the conflict, the tsunami displaced half a million people within just a few hours, which was unprecedented in Sri Lanka. Despite the enormity of the catastrophe, health care services of the country along with the Red Cross, coped with the situation well.
Sanitation and water
Coastal populations usually have little safe sanitary facilities at their habitats. In this context, it was remarkable that 77.5% of the affected households (2,040) had adequate sanitary facilities in the relief camps. The availability of sanitary facilities was greatest in the north (94.8%), followed by the south (73.1%) and the east (63.9%). Jaffna (94.8% or 902), Matara (79.8%), Hambantota (76.6%), and Batticaloa (72.0%) districts had the highest shares of households with sanitary facilities in relief camps (Table 34). Nevertheless, a considerable proportion, i.e. 22.5% (591), did not have sanitary facilities in the relief camps. The non-availability of sanitary facilities was greatest in the east (36.1%) and the south (26.9%). Trincomalee (48.5%), Ampara (38.2%) and Galle (34.8%) districts had the highest shares of non-availability of sanitary facilities (Table 34).
76

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
The availability of sanitary facilities in the temporary shelters were marginally higher than in the relief camps. Thus, 78.4% of the affected households (1,952) had sanitary facilities in their temporary shelters. The south (83.7%) accounted for the largest share of availability of sanitary facilities in temporary shelters, followed by the north (78.9%) and the east (73.5%). Matara (94.5%), Hambantota (87.5%), and Batticaloa (80.0%) had the highest shares, by district (Table 34). However, 21.6% (538) of the households did not have sanitary facilities in the temporary shelters; the highest shares being in the east (26.5%) and the north (21.1%). Trincomalee (35.1%), Ampara (28.5%), and Galle (26.3%) districts had the highest shares of non-availability of sanitary facilities in the temporary shelters (Table 34).
The availability of safe water for drinking and washing in the relief camps was also quite high, with 76.0% (2,003) of the affected households having access. It was highest in the north (94.1%), followed by the south (73.2%) and the east (60.4%). Jaffna (94. 1%) Matara (85.4%), and Galle (73. 1%) districts had the largest shares of households with access to safe water in the relief camps (Table 34). Nonetheless, 24.0% of the households did not have safe water in the relief camps; highest shares being in the east (39.6%) and the south (26.8%). Trincomalee (62.6%), Batticaloa (38.2%), Hambantota (38.2%), and Ampara (36.4%) districts had the highest shares with no safe water availability in the relief camps (Table 34).
Ironically, a lesser share of households did have access to Safe water for drinking and washing in the temporary shelters than in the relief camps, soon after the tsunami. That is, only 70.2% (1,754) of households did have safe water in their temporary shelters. The north (82.5%) and the south (81.0%) had roughly the same proportion of households with safe water availability, followed by the east (50.9%). By district Matara (95.0%), Jaffna (82.5%), and Galle (80.3%) had the largest shares (Table 34). Unfortunately, 29.8% of the affected households did not have safe water in their temporary shelters; the east accounting for the highest share (49.1%), followed by the south (19.0%) and the north (17.5%). Ampara (54.7%), Trincomalee (46.9%), and
77

Page 53
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Batticaloa (39.5%) districts had the largest shares of households without safe water in their temporary shelters (Table 34).
Given the fact that a vast majority of the tsunami-affected households are still in temporary shelters, both the government and the donors should ensure availability of safe water and sanitary facilities to all of them, even at this late stage of two years after the tsunami. Since this survey was conducted 12-15 months after the tsunami, services may have improved afterwards.
Privacy and safety
There was little privacy in the relief camps but has improved in the temporary shelters. That is, 62.6% (1,632) of the affected households had inadequate privacy in the relief camps. The highest share of households lacking adequate privacy in the relief camps was in the south (81.0%), followed by the east (77.8%) and the north (33.0%). Hambantota (90.9%) Ampara (90.1%), and Matara (84.2%) topped the districts on the issue of inadequate privacy in the relief camps. However, 37.4% (977) of the affected households had adequate privacy in the relief camps, the north (67.0%) accounting for the highest share (Table 35).
On the other hand, 52.3% (1,300) of the affected households had adequate privacy in the temporary shelters, but 47.7% (1, 188) do not. The highest share of households having adequate privacy in their temporary shelters was in the north (68.5%), followed by the east (47.8%) and the south (41.3%). Jaffna (68.5%), Galle (58.0%), Ampara (49.4%), and Batticaloa (48.6%) districts had the largest shares of households with adequate privacy (Table 35). Out of the households with inadequate privacy in the temporary shelters, the highest share was in the south (58.7%) followed by the east (52.2%). Matara (71.9%), Hambantota (68.9%), and Trincomalee (63.5%) topped the districts.
Women were very much concerned about lack of privacy and security both in the relief tents as well as the temporary shelters, which was a serious issue in India as well (Human Rights Center of the University of California and East-West Center, 2005: 21). The reason why the affected households in the north (Jaffna)
78

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
were relatively more satisfied with the issue of privacy in the relief camps and the temporary shelters could be that, lesser share of them were living in concrete houses prior to the tsunami than other regions (see Table 23). Thus, the living conditions in the north (Jaffna), prior to the tsunami, were not much different from the relief tents or the temporary shelters.
Further, an overwhelming majority of the affected households felt that safety of children was adequate both in the relief camps as well as in the temporary shelters. Thus, 83.9% (1,985) of the affected households opined that their children were safe in the relief camps; largest share being in the north (99.1%), followed by the south (76.3%) and the east (76.1%). Jaffna (99.1%), Galle (97.8%), and Batticaloa (86.4%) topped the districts in terms of safety of children in the relief camps. A slightly higher proportion, i.e. 86.3% (1,873), of the affected households were satisfied with safety of their children in the temporary shelters. Again, the north had the highest share of satisfied households, i.e. 99.1%, followed by the south (80.9%) and the east (80.6%). Jaffna (99.1%), Galle (98.2%), and Batticaloa (86.8%) districts had the highest shares of satisfied households in terms of safety of children in the temporary shelters (Table 35).
Sickness and treatment
It was monsoon season in the eastern and northern regions of the country at the time of the tsunami. Therefore, displacement from their homes due to the tsunami and taking refuge in open spaces and public buildings did bring about minor sicknesses like influenza, nausea, and colds among the displaced, especially among children and elderly.
According to the survey, 39.7% (1,183) of the affected households had at least one member who was ill, immediately after the tsunami in the relief camps. The highest proportion of people falling ill was in the north (41.7%) and the east (41.1%). Hambantota (48.7%), Ampara (44.2%), and Jaffna (41.7%) districts had the highest shares of households falling ill in the relief camps (Table 36). However, the vast majority of the people who
79

Page 54
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
fell ill did get prompt medical care in the relief camps. Thus, 83.6% of those fell ill, got prompt medical attention in the relief camps. Again the share of affected households getting prompt medical attention was highest in the north (85.1%), followed by the south (83.7%) and the east (82.2%) (Table 36).
A lower share of the affected people got ill in their temporary shelters. That is, only 19.3% of the affected households (533) had at least one member who got ill in the temporary shelters. Once again, the north (29.3%) had the highest share of affected households having at least one member falling ill in the temporary shelters, followed by the east (15.9%) and the south (11.9%) (Table 36). Moreover, a lower share of households received prompt medical care in the temporary shelters, than in the relief camps. Thus, 78.2% (435) of the affected households received prompt medical attention in the temporary shelters. The north had the highest share of households receiving prompt medical attention (89.3%), followed by the east (72.2%) and the south (58.9%) (Table 36).
The Red Cross from several countries provided voluntary health care services immediately after the tsunami in the relief camps. However, in temporary shelters, such services were less, because of the long duration of temporary shelters. Overall, Sri Lanka has coped well in preventing diseases in the aftermath of the tsunami disaster. The government, donor agencies, INGOs, NGOs, and local communities, played valuable roles in preventing or mitigating the health hazards.
5.7 Employment
We noted in section 5.2, that a majority of the respondents and their spouses were involved in fishing, both prior to and after the tsunami. Fishing is a generational occupation. The survey wanted to find out whether the affected people would be interested in changing their occupation due to the traumatic experience caused by the tsunami. The answer was an emphatic 'no'. That is, 89.5% (2,003) of the respondents wished to continue the same job they
80

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
did prior to the tsunami. The highest share wanting to continue in the same job was in the north (94.3%), followed by the south (87.5) and the east (85.7%). Jaffna (94.3%), Batticaloa (91.6%), and Hambantota (90.1%) districts had the highest shares wanting to continue in the same job (Table 37). The highest share not wanting to do the same job as before was in the east (14.3%), followed by the south (12.5%) (Table 37).
Further, only 33.1% of the respondents (866) were interested in undergoing skills training, in order to change their occupation. The greatest interest in skills training was in the east (48.3%) and the south (34.3%). Only 14.3% of the respondents in the north were interested in skills training. Batticaloa (58.9%), Ampara (47.8%), Galle (37.1%), and Hambantota (36.7%) districts had the highest shares interested in skills training (Table 37).
To the question whether their children would like to continue the same job as before the tsunami, a considerable majority said “yes”, i.e. 68.6% or 383. The highest share of children wanting to do the same job by region was in the south (90.8%), followed by the east (67.8%) and the north (59.7%). Hence, a greater share of children were willing to change occupation (31.4%), than their parents (10.5%). The highest shares of children willing to change jobs were in the north (40.3%) and the east (32.2%) (Table 37). This result corroborates with a survey undertaken in the north prior to the tsunami (Sarvananthan, 2006)
5.8 Satisfaction and Concerns
This section presents and analyses the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the affected households, on service provision by various institutions (including the government) in the aftermath of the tsunami, till the time of the survey. It also gauges how people have coped with the post-tsunami situation until the time of the survey. Besides, it also clears some misunderstandings about the role of certain international organisations involved in posttsunami work in Sri Lanka.
81

Page 55
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Educational and health facilities at the current place of residence
Educational (school) and health (hospital/dispensary) facilities were available for 61.2% of the affected households (1,826) in their new habitats (temporary or permanent) at the time of the Survey. The highest share of households having educational and health facilities near their new places of residence was in the south (71.2%), followed by the north (57.9%) and the east (54.5%). Matara (94.1%), Galle (87.8%), and Trincomalee (70.2%) districts had the highest shares of households with educational and health facilities in their new areas of residence (Table 38).
However, a considerable proportion of the affected households, i.e. 38.8% (1,160), did not have educational and health facilities near their present place of residence. The east (45.5%) and the north (42.1%) had the highest shares of affected households not having educational and health facilities near their new habitats. Hambantota (73.0%), Batticaloa (57.8%), Ampara (42.2%), and Jaffna (42.1%) districts had the largest shares of households without educational and health facilities closer to their temporary or permanent homes (Table 38).
Therefore, the government and the donors need to improve educational and health facilities near temporary shelters of the affected communities and in their new permanent habitats.
Satisfaction with domestic relief organisations
There were many criticisms against the government as well as non-governmental organisations on their response to recovery from the tsunami, in the popular media. So the survey wanted to find out from the affected people what their opinion was about the services of the government and the domestic non-governmental organisations in the aftermath of the tsunami. An overwhelming majority of the tsunami-affected households were dissatisfied with the services provided by the government to affected people. A majority were dissatisfied with the services of the local (district/ province based) NGOs, but a majority of the affected households
82

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
were indeed satisfied with the services provided by the national NGOS.
That is, 77.0% (2,298) of the affected households were dissatisfied with the services provided by the government. The highest share of dissatisfied households were in the south (81.3%), closely followed by the east (76.3%) and the north (73.4%). The highest dissatisfaction with the government was in the Hambantota (93.7%), Batticaloa (93.2%), Matara (85.1%), and Trincomalee (83.7) districts (Table 39).
Similarly, 56.2% (1,675) of the affected households were not satisfied with the services provided by the local NGOs. Again, the highest share of households not satisfied with the services of local NGOs was in the south (67.3%), followed by the east (55.9%) and the north (45.3%). The Hambantota (89.3%), Batticaloa (86.5%), and Trincomalee (63.5%) districts had the highest shares of households not satisfied with the local NGOs (Table 39).
However, 55% (1,644) of the affected households were atisfied with the services provided by the national NGOs in the ftermath of the tsunami. Such satisfaction was highest in the north (59.4%), followed by the east (56.1%) and the south (49.5%). Ampara (73.8%), Galle (69.0%), Jaffna (59.4%), and Trincomalee (51.4%) topped the districts as regards satisfaction with the services of the national NGOs (Table 39). Nonetheless, dissatisfaction with the national NGOs was also high; i.e. 45.0% (1,344) of the affected households were dissatisfied. Dissatisfaction was highest in the south (50.5%), followed by the east (43.9%) and the north (40.6%). By districts, Batticaloa. (78.3%), Hambantota (69.3%), and Matara (57.8%) had the highest dissatisfaction with the national NGOs (Table 39).
Satisfaction with external relief organisations
There were also severe criticisms of the INGOs and foreign donor agencies in the media, regarding their contribution to recovery from the tsunami tragedy. However, a majority of the affected households were satisfied with the services of the INGOs in the
83

Page 56
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
aftermath of the tsunami, though the majority were not satisfied with bilateral and multilateral donor agencies.
Thus, 55% (1,644) of the affected households were satisfied with the services provided by the INGOs. As in the case of the national NGOs, the satisfaction rate was highest in the north (59.4%), followed by the east (56.1%) and the south (49.5%). However, dissatisfaction with INGOs was also quite high; i.e. 45.0% or 1,344. Dissatisfaction with INGOs by region was in the reverse order of that with satisfaction (Table 40).
However, 64.5% (1,915) of the affected households were not satisfied with the services provided by the bilateral donor agencies after the tsunami, and 52.5% (1,569) were not satisfied with the services provided by the multilateral donor agencies. The south had the largest share of households not satisfied with the bilateral donors (71.0%), closely followed by the north (68.8%) and the east (53.7%) (Table 40). Similarly, dissatisfaction with the multilateral donor agencies was greatest in the south (64.5%), followed by the north (49.6%) and the east (43.6%). By districts, dissatisfaction with multilateral donor agencies was greatest in Hambantota, (96.0%), Batticaloa (79.4%), and Matara (66.1%) (Table 40).
We cannot take the opinion of the affected households, regarding the services provided by the bilateral donors, on face value, because, though the bulk of the programmes/projects of the INGOs were sponsored by bilateral donor agencies, the recipients hardly knew that fact. Therefore, the INGOs usually get the credit that is also due to the bilateral donors. Thus, when the affected households said they were satisfied with the services provided by the INGOs, it would indirectly mean the bilateral donors as well.
Religious conversions
There was a bit of noise made about suspected religious conversions taking place after the tsunami, by some faith-based I/NGOs in certain parts of the country. Thus, one study noted “In many places, people also express concern about organizations
84

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvanantham
carrying-out relief work with the explicit mandates or implicit agendas for religious conversions' (Human Rights Commission and CUCEC, 2005:5). Therefore, this survey consciously wanted to find out the truth about this hearsay.
The tsunami-affected households throughout the country emphatically denied such alleged religious conversions taking place. That is, 85.9% of the affected households (2,568) denied such allegations. The denial of religious conversions taking place was greatest in the north (95.0%), followed by the east (82.8%) and the south (80.0%). Hambantota (99.3%), Jaffna (95.0%), Matara (90.3%), and Batticaloa (88.2%) districts had the highest proportions of households denying religious conversions in the pretext of tsunami relief work (Table 41).
Nevertheless, 14.1% of the affected households (420) confirmed that they were indeed aware of religious conversions taking place in the pretext of tsunami relief. The highest share of households aware of religious conversions was in the south followed by the east. Thus, 20.0% of the affected households in the south and 17.2% households in the east were aware of religious conversions after the tsunami. Only 5.0% of the households were aware of religious conversions in the north. Galle (42.0%), Trincomalee (25.0%), Ampara (18.5%), and Batticaloa (11.8%) districts had the highest shares of households knowing of religious conversions in the aftermath of the tsunami (Table 41).
Coping post-tsunami situation and expectation of permanent house
The majority of the affected households opined that they have coped with the tsunami tragedy "reasonably' and another small proportion coped “well". That is, 65.0% (1,943) of the affected households have coped reasonably and 5.2% (156) have coped well. However, a significant proportion of the affected households, i.e. 29.8% or 889, have not coped well. The highest share of households that have not coped well was in the south (52.3%), followed by the north (20.9%) and the east (16.3%). Besides, while the highest share of households having coped "reasonably'
85

Page 57
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
was in the east (80.1%), the highest share having coped "well' was in the north (9.7%) (Table 42). This result indicates lack of psycho-social support to the victims of tsunami in Sri Lanka.
Over 95% (2,069) of the affected households were looking forward to their due permanent house. The highest proportion looking forward to permanent houses was in the south (98.2%), followed by the east (94.3%) and the north (94.0%). Matara (99.5%), Hambantota (99. 1%), Ampara (96.9%), and Galle (96.4%) districts had the highest proportions of households looking forward to permanent houses (Table 42).
The majority of the respondents were expecting the government to build their permanent houses, notwithstanding the fact that government has hardly built any permanent house directly for the tsunami victims. Thus, 52.7% of the respondents (759) were expecting the government to build their permanent houses, while 31.9% (460) was expecting an INGO to build their permanent houses. Further 10.7% of the respondents (154) were expecting a NGO to build their permanent houses, and 4.7% of the respondents (67) were expecting to build themselves (Table 42). But, according to the survey, over two-thirds of the respondents did not know when they would get their permanent houses.
5.9 Conclusion
At the beginning of this chapter we alluded to five cardinal principles, jointly laid down by the government, donor agencies, and the civil society, for tsunami reconstruction and recovery process in Sri Lanka. However, none of these principles seem to have been followed by almost all the institutions and individuals involved in post-tsunami recovery programmes in Sri Lanka. There have been discrepancies in resource allocation according to the needs of local communities. Particularly the eastern province seems to have been marginalised. Designing and implementation of recovery programmes have been by and large centralised at the TAFREN/RADA, donor offices based in Colombo, and I/NGO offices based in Colombo with little participation of the periphery.
86

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
There was hardly any consultation with the affected communities. Decision-making processes and implementation mechanisms have been hardly transparent and consultative. It is premature to pass judgment on the fifth principle of reducing vulnerabilities to future disasters.
In spite of the foregoing shortcomings, the outreach of relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance have been good and leakages and corruption in distribution appear to be limited. Nonetheless, construction of houses is very slow and the satisfaction rate of completed houses is low. At this rate of housing reconstruction, it would take at least 5 years to complete the housing reconstruction programme. Parity of status among genders in relief disbursement has not been met. Children who have lost at least one parent appear to have been overlooked.
87

Page 58
CHAPTER 6
Conclusions
The tsunami of 2004 struck a number of countries in the Indian Ocean in Asia and Africa. However, the degree of human, physical, socio-economic, and environmental impacts of the tsunami has been different in different sub-regions, countries, and geographical regions within countries. While the heaviest human, physical, and social destructions have been on Indonesia, followed by on Sri Lanka and India, the heaviest economic and environmental impacts have been on the Maldives. Besides, only certain parts of the affected countries and certain economic sub-sectors bore the brunt of the tsunami, and therefore the impacts on the population have been lopsided.
Similarly, within Sri Lanka, the tsunami struck different geographical areas, sub-sectors, and peoples differently. Thus, though the human, physical, social, and environmental destructions have been heaviest in the east and the south, the heaviest economic impact has been on the north, because of its meagre local economy. Further, because of the tsunami's geographical concentration, and the nature of the northern economy, the fisheries sub-sector and the fishing community bore the brunt of the natural catastrophe, which were already severely affected by a quarter century of civil war.
The empirical results of the household survey undertaken for this study reveal the following:
Household characteristics
On household characteristics, there has been a marginal reduction in the size of households in the post-tsunami period, compared to the pre-tsunami period. While the reduction in the household size could enhance the living conditions and environment, it also depletes the social capital of extended family networks that help
88

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
enormously in terms of coping strategies during times of crisis, within households and communities.
There was a significant rise in unemployment among the tsunami-affected households, i.e. among both heads of households (respondents as well as spouses). Unemployment was very high even at the time the tsunami struck, i.e. 37% among the respondents and 42% among the spouses of respondents. Unemployment rate among the respondents increased after the tsunami to 54%, and to 53% among the spouses of respondents. Unemployment (among both the respondents and their spouses) was greatest in the north prior to the tsunami (42% and 47% respectively), but was greatest (among both the respondents and their spouses) in the south after the tsunami (57% & 56% respectively). However, the occupational patterns of both the respondents and their spouses. have hardly changed in the posttsunami period.
Poverty, in terms of both headcount and severity, has increased after the tsunami, in comparison to before, in all the three regions under consideration. Overall, while 64% of the households were deemed poor before the tsunami (severity-35%), it increased to 80% after the tsunami (severity-57%). The headcount and severity of poverty was greatest in the north both pre- and post-tsunami. Thus, while 82.5% of the households were deemed poor in the north before the tsunami (severity-68%), it increased to 94% after the tsunami (severity-81%). However, while the east had the second highest poverty level (headcount64% as well as severity-24%) prior to the tsunami, the south had the second highest poverty level (headcount-76% as well as severity-47%) after the tsunami.
The total number of children among the surveyed households has dropped by 217 after the tsunami; most of them would have been killed by the tsunami. The survey results indicate that the highest loss of children was in the south (-141), followed by the east (-61). Although nearly 5,000 children were reported to be orphaned (lost at least one parent) by the tsunami in Sri Lanka, very little welfare programmes have been launched for them by the government or the donors. The majority of the children in the
89

Page 59
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
households surveyed were either of non-school-going age or were at home after completing schooling, both prior to and after the tsunami. The second highest share of children were attending school before as well as after the tsunami. The number of children who had stopped going to school after the tsunami was marginal (28). Financial hardship was the primary reason for children dropping out of school, as well as further/higher education, after the tsunami. Employed children in the surveyed households increased marginally after the tsunami; while the number of male children in employment increased, employment among female children dropped after the tsunami.
Relief
On distribution of relief, a vast majority (>80%) of affected people have received various relief payments in cash or in kind, such as funeral allowance, cooking utensils allowance, and relief coupons. However, a majority of the affected people (62%) did not get relief for the stipulated period of 32 weeks. Whatever little corruption existed in the tsunami relief was largely confined to the north, followed by the east. Over 90% of the affected households have received the monthly livelihood allowance (cash grant) as well, but only for three or four months (92.5%) as against the stipulated six months. Again, the north had the highest share of affected households (95%) receiving livelihood allowance for a shorter period. The highest shares of the households received relief in terms of food (63%) and clothing (46%) in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami from the local communities and neighbouring villages.
Besides, a significant majority (>70%) of the affected households did not experience any discrimination in the distribution of relief. However, a considerable number of households, who experienced discrimination, cited bribery and corruption (44%) as the primary reason, followed by political patronage (43%), for such discrimination. Racial, religious, or caste-based discrimination in relief disbursement was very marginal in Sri Lanka in the aftermath of the tsunami, in contrast to Tamilnadu, India.
90

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvamanthan
Shelter
A vast majority of the tsunami-affected households in Sri Lanka have been living in concrete houses (almost 75%) at the time of the tsunami and owned by them (>80%). The south had the highest share of affected households living in concrete houses prior to the tsunami (91%), followed by the east (84%). On the other hand, the east had a higher share of owner occupied houses prior to the tsunami (94%), followed by the south (84%). On both counts the north had the least (48% and 66% respectively).
Construction of houses for the affected households (whose houses have been completely damaged/destroyed by the tsunami) has been the most difficult and slowest in the entire reconstruction/ recovery phase. Almost half the tsunami-affected households (47%) were still languishing in transitory/temporary shelters at the time of the survey. Latest data indicate that only 20% of the total housing requirement (circa 10,000 out of circa$0,000) has been fulfilled, almost two years after the tsunami (i.e. by September 2006).
There seems to be inequity in the distribution of permanent houses thus far. The highest share of recipients of permanent houses among the surveyed households was in the north (36.5%), followed by the south (21%), despite a majority of the houses damaged by the tsunami was in the east (67%). Those who are not provided with a newly constructed house were to receive a housing reconstruction grant (paid in two installments) from the government, sponsored mainly by the World Bank. A vast majority (73%) of the affected households have not received this grant at the time of the survey. The highest share of households who have not received the housing reconstruction grant was in the north (82%), followed by the east (72%). Further, an overwhelming majority (93%) of the affected households felt that the housing reconstruction and repair grants were inadequate for their needs. Surprisingly, the majority (61%) of the households were in agreement with the original buffer zone stipulation for reconstruction of houses along the coast, which was highest in the east (65%), followed by the south (60%). Nevertheless, a
91

Page 60
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
significant proportion of households (39%) were against the buffer zone stipulation, which was highest in the north (42.5%), followed by the south (40%). Moreover, a majority (53%) of the households have experienced displacement due to the civil war (in the north and east) prior to the tsunami, which was overwhelmingly in the north (87%) and a small proportion in the east (19%).
An overwhelming majority of the temporary shelters (82%) were built by international, national, and local NGOs (60%), and individual philanthropists (22%). However, a significant majority of the households (68%) were not satisfied with the temporary shelters. Dissatisfaction with temporary shelters was highest in the east (84%), followed by the south (63%). Further, a significant majority of the households (71%) have not been consulted or their preferences taken into account in the construction of their temporary shelters. Moreover, the majority of the permanent houses (almost 60%) were built by the I/NGOs. In contrast to temporary shelters, a significant majority of the households (70%) were satisfied with their permanent homes; the highest shares being in the north (93%) and the south (60%). Nevertheless, only a simple majority (57%) of households have been consulted and their preferences taken into account prior to building their permanent houses, again the highest shares being in the north (83%) and the south (44%).
Gender and children
Large majority of the affected households were unaware of any physical or verbal abuse/harassment of women (97% and 94% respectively) or children (98% and 95% respectively), either in the relief camps or the temporary shelters. Whatever little abuse/ harassment took place was mostly in the east, followed by the south. Nonetheless, women have been largely excluded from relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction/recovery processes.
Health
There were hardly any health problems in the aftermath of the tsunami in any of the affected countries including Sri Lanka, in
92

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
contrast to popular expectation. The vast majority of the affected households (>70%) had safe sanitary facilities and clean water supply, both in the relief camps as well as the temporary shelters. There was a serious lack of privacy in the relief camps (63% said so). Though it has improved a bit, a significant proportion of the households (48%) still lacked adequate privacy in their temporary shelters. On the other hand, a vast majority of the households felt secure both in the relief camps (84%) as well as in the temporary shelters (86%). The majority who fell ill either in the relief camps (84%) or the temporary shelters (78%) received prompt medical attention.
Employment
In terms of employment, the vast majority (90%) wished to continue the same vocation as before the tsunami. As a corollary, only about a third of the respondents wished to undergo skills training, in order to switch occupation. However, only a smaller majority of children of the respondent households (69%) wanted to continue their pre-tsunami vocation. While a majority of the households (61%) do have educational and health services near their temporary shelters or permanent abodes, a significant share (nearly 39%) do not have such services nearby.
Satisfaction with service providers
The vast majority of the affected households were not satisfied with the services provided by the government (77%) or the local (district/provincial based) NGOs (56%), in the aftermath of the tsunami. However, a majority of the households were satisfied with the services of the national NGOs (55%), the highest share being in the north (59%), followed by the east (56%). Similarly, while the majority of the households were satisfied with the services provided by the INGOs (55%) (again the highest share being in the north-59%, followed by the east-56%), a considerable majority was dissatisfied with the services of bilateral (64.5%) and multilateral (52.5%) organisations. An overwhelming majority
93

Page 61
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
of the households (86%) denied religious conversions taking place in the guise of tsunami relief work. However, the small number who admitted such conversions were largely in the south (20%) and the east (17%).
Coping efforts
Nearly two-thirds of the tsunami-affected households (65%) have coped with the post-tsunami situation "reasonably' and another 5% “well'. Nonetheless, a considerable proportion (30%) has not done well in terms of coping with the tragedy. This result indicates lack of psycho-social support to the victims of the tsunami. A majority of the households expecting permanent houses (53%) are expecting the government to build the same, which is contrary to the experience thus far.
Cross-country performance
Overall, out of the three worst affected countries by the tsunami, viz. Indonesia, Sri Lanka and India, it appears that India has done the most to the affected people, not only in terms of the quantity and quality of relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance provided (monetary as well as non-monetary), but also in terms of the timely delivery of such assistance. The relative efficacy of the Indian administrative system has been lauded by many independent evaluators (Action Aid International, 2006; Forced Migration Review, 2005: 42–47; Human Rights Center of the University of California and East-West Center, 2005: 13-26; Oxfam, 2005a and 2005b). It has to be remembered that the Indian administrative system is quite used to such natural calamities, which are almost yearly occurrences, though may not be to the extent of the tsunami. India spurned foreign grants offered by various bilateral and multilateral organisations, and the debt moratorium offered by the G7 countries. Though India spurned foreign assistance for relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the affected people and private property, it did accept concessionary loans from multilateral organisations (ADB & WB) for the
94

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
reconstruction of the damaged economic and social infrastructure such as roads and bridges, telecommunications, transport system, schools, and hospitals.
Although Sri Lanka seems to have fallen behind India in terms of the extent of relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance provided to the affected people and communities, and timely delivery of such assistance, it appears to have done relatively better than Indonesia. Both in terms of the quantum of relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance and in terms of the timely delivery of temporary and permanent housing needs, Sri Lanka lags far behind India. This is in spite of the fact that almost the entire tsunami recovery assistance in Sri Lanka was provided by donors and INGOs, plus the USD.500 million worth of debt moratorium for one year (2005). Sri Lanka's own expenditure on tsunami relief and reconstruction was limited to duty waivers provided for the import of tsunami-relief and reconstruction goods from abroad for six months after the tsunami, and allocation of state lands for building of permanent houses for the affected population. Furthermore, Sri Lanka's per capita GDP of USD. 1,100 in 2005 was more than double that of India's. Moreover, India had 100,000 more displaced people (650,000) to look after than Sri Lanka (550,000).
The foregoing figures demonstrate the lacuna in the political and administrative systems in Sri Lanka, despite having greater external financial assistance. However, it has to be mentioned that more than half the tsunami-affected areas in Sri Lanka is affected by an ongoing conflict as well, whereas tsunami-affected areas in India are not afflicted by conflict. The tsunami experience again reinforces the argument that pumping greater financial resources into developing countries would not necessarily improve the living conditions of the people.
Indonesia seems to be the worst performing country in terms of tsunami recovery out of the three worst affected countries in Asia, despite the fact that the total displaced population in Indonesia is slightly lower than in India and it's per capita income is marginally higher than that of India's (Action Aid International, 2006; Forced Migration Review, 2005: 19-29; Human Rights
95

Page 62
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Center of the University of California and East-West Center, 2005). Besides, though Indonesia did not accept the debt moratorium offered by the G7 countries, external donors including INGOs fund the bulk of the tsunami recovery activities.
Suggestions for improvements and bridging the gaps
The following suggestions are made to improve the delivery,
responsiveness, participation of the affected people, and
communication and transparency in decision-making and
implementation of the remaining tsunami reconstruction/recovery
work to be done in Sri Lanka. As things stand today, it would take
at least five years (i.e. end 2009) for the full recovery from the devastation of the tsunami in Sri Lanka. Two years have passed
and there are three more years to go. Therefore, it is still not too
late to make amends.
1. While maintaining equity in the delivery of assistance to different regions/districts, not only the impact of the tsunami on different regions/districts, but also the extent and nature of the respective local economies should be taken into consideration.
2. Even at this late stage, the GoSL and the donor community should launch a dedicated assistance programme for the tsunami orphans throughout the country in order to secure their future, and incentive package for those who have dropped-out to return to school.
3. All reconstruction and recovery assistance (monetary or inkind) should be given in the joint names of the heads of households (wife and husband). Currently, only permanent houses or housing reconstruction grants are due to the affected people. Therefore, the principle of joint ownership should be adhered to in the housing giveaways or grants.
4. The government should constitute ombudsman offices in all affected Divisional Secretariat (DS) areas, to receive
96

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
complaints from the affected people regarding any discrimination, unfair treatment, violation of fundamental rights, lack of consultation, etc, experienced during the course of recovery, and each ombudsman office should adjudicate on the complaints received. This is urgently required because of inordinate delay in the construction of permanent houses. The idea of establishment of ombudsman offices was originally mooted by the Human Rights Center of the University of California and East-West Center (2005: 3).
A rolling survey of tsunami-affected households should be undertaken periodically (e.g. every six months) to track changes in living conditions, livelihood restoration, and recovery of tsunami-affected households. That is, the same households should be surveyed periodically (say every six months) to monitor the progress until five years after the tsunami. This rolling survey should have an in-built poverty tracking system as well.
Case studies on the merits and demerits of different relief
programmes such as food-for-work programmes, cash-for
work programmes, livelihood allowance (cash grants), and housing reconstruction grants by different donors should be undertaken to ascertain the efficacy of such programmes. Lessons learned would be of use in the future.
A cost-benefit analysis of the entire relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction activities should be undertaken to find out the costs and benefits of recovery strategies adopted in Sri Lanka by different governmental, non-governmental, and donor agencies. This is all the more important in the context of post-tsunami reconstruction, because for the first time in history, the financial pledges and commitments exceeded the needs of many countries (including Sri Lanka), and the actual disbursement was very high compared to most other postdisaster situations'. Internationally, there is a growing
30
://WWW,t i V
97

Page 63
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
disquiet about the humanitarian aid industry spurred by natural and human-made calamities such as the tsunami (see Rajasingham-Senanayake, 2006; Action Aid International, 2005). This author feels that, in lieu of several types of relief assistance provided by several benefactors, it would have been cost-effective to provide an all-inclusive one-off grant of LKR.1-2 million (USD. 10,000-20,000) per affected family (depending on the size of families and the extent of losses incurred by each family), and allow the recipients to choose their appropriate needs and priorities. Given that there were nearly 150,000 tsunami-displaced families in Sri Lanka, this proposal would have cost between USD. 1.5-3 billion, which was affordable given the generosity of the global community towards the tsunami victims. This all-inclusive one-off cash grant (perhaps in instalments) could have greatly reduced transaction costs and multiplicity of overhead costs of the government, non-governmental organisations, and donor agencies
98

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
References:
Abbott, Patrick L. (2004), Natural Disasters, fourth edition, New York: McGraw Hill.
Action Aid International, (2006), Tsunami Response: A Human Rights Assessment, January, Johannesburg.
ActionAid International, (2005), Real Aid: An Agenda for Making AidWork,
June Johannesburg. http://www.actionaid.org.uk/ content/documents/ real aid.pdf
ADB/JBIC/JICA/WB, (2005), Sri Lanka 2005 Post-Tsunami Recovery Program. Preliminary Damage and Needs Assessment, January, Colombo.
ADB/OECD/TI, (2005), Curbinig Corruption in Tsunami Relief Operations, Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Alailima, Patricia J. (2006), The Tsunami Reconstruction Response: Sri Lanka, Colombo: Transparency International.
Athukorala, Prema-chandra and Budy PResosudarmo, (2005), "The Indian Ocean Tsunami: Economic Impact, Disaster Management and Lessons', Asian Economic Papers, forthcoming.
Auditor General, Department of, (2005), Interim report of the Auditor General on the rehabilitation of the losses and damages caused to Sri Lanka by the tsunami disaster on 26 December 2004, Colombo http://
WWW.auditorgeneral.lk/reports/
Bull, Ross, (1994), Disaster Economics, 2 Edition, New York: Disaster Management Training Programme, Department of Humanitarian Affairs, UNDP
Cosgrave, John, (2005), Initial Findings of the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition
(TEC), WWW,alnap.org/tec/
Couldrey, Marion and Tim Morris, (ed), (2005), Tsunami: learning from the humanitarian response, Forced Migration Review, special issue, July, passim.
99

Page 64
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Development Policy Review, (2006), special issue on cash transfers, Vol.24. No.5, passim.
Disasters, (2006), mini special issue on cash transfers, Vol.30. No.3, passim.
Domroes, Manfred (ed), (2006), After the Tsunami Relief and Rehabilitation in Sri Lanka, New Delhi: Mosaic Books.
Donor/Civil Society Post-Tsunami Steering Committee, (2005), Rebuilding Sri Lanka.: Assessment of Tsunami Recovery Implementation, April, Colombo.
Doocy, Shannon, et al., (2006), "Implementing cash for work programmes in post-tsunami Aceh: experiences and lessons learned”, Disasters, Vol.30. No.3, pp277-296.
Embassy of Japan, (2005), Japan's Assistance for Tsunami Relief, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction in Sri Lanka, December, Colombo.
Farrington, John and Rachel Slater, (2006), "Introduction: Cash Transfers: Panacea for Poverty Reduction or Money Down the Drain?” Development Policy Review, Vol.24. No.5, pp499-511.
Fernando, Udan and Dorothea Hillhorst, (2006), "Everyday practices of humanitarian aid: tsunami response in Sri Lanka', Development in Practice, Vol. 16. No.3&4, June.
Forced Migration Review, (2005), Tsunami: learning from the humanitarian response, special issue, July, passim. http://www.fmreview.org/FMR.pdfs/ Tsunami/full.pdf
GoSL, (2005), Sri Lanka. Post Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction: progress, challenges, and way forward, joint report of the GoSL and development partners, December, Colombo.
Harvey, Paul, (2006), "Editorial: mini special issue on cash transfers' Disasters, Vol.30. No.3, pp273-276.
Harvey, Paul,(2005), Cash and Vouchers in Emergencies, Humanitarian Policy Group Discussion Paper, London: Overseas Development Institute.
100

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Human Rights Center of the University of California (Berkeley) and EastWest Center, (2005), After the Tsunami. Human Rights of Vulnerable Populations, October, Berkeley and Washington D.C.
Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka and Colombo University Community Extension Centre, (2005), The Report on People's Consultation on Post Tsunami Relief, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation in Sri Lanka, JulySeptember, Colombo.
Inderfurth, Karl F. David Fabrycky, and Stephen Cohen, (2005), The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami: Six Month Report, June, Washington D.C.: The Sigur Center for Asian Studies.
Institute of Policy Studies, (2006), Post-Tsunami Reconstruction and Rehabilitation. Household Views on Progress and Process, December, Colombo. http://www.ips.lk/news/newsarchive/2006/0 122006 | ptr/
full report.pdf
IOM, (2005), Settlement and Livelihood Needs and Aspirations Assessment of Disaster-Affected and Host Communities in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, March, Jakarta: International Organization for Migration.
Jayasekara, Bandula, (2005), “TRO and Tsunami”, South Asia Intelligence Review, Vol.3 No.37, March 28. WWW.Satp.org
Jayasuriya, Sisira, et al., (2005), Post-Tsunami Recovery: Issues and Challenges in Sri Lanka, Colombo: Institute of Policy Studies and Asian Development Bank Institute (Tokyo).
Mel, Neloufer de and Kanchana N.Ruwanpura, (2006), Gendering the Tsunami: A Report of Women's Experiences from Sri Lanka, Colombo: International Center for Ethnic Studies.
Mohan, Nirujand Arvind Narrain, et al., (2005), “Relief and Rehabilitation: Ensuring Inclusion’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.40. No. 15, April 09, pp 1493-1495.
Moonesinghe, Sonali, (2006), Politics, Power Dynamics & Disaster in the Districts: Sri Lanka Study, Colombo: International Centre for Ethnic Studies.
101

Page 65
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Munasinghe, Mohan, et al., (2006), Macro and Micro Impact of the 2004 Tsunami on Affected Countries and Peoples: A Comparative Study of India, Indonesia, Maldives, Thailand, and Sri Lanka, Colombo: Munasinghe Institute for Development and UNDPAsia Pacific Regional Centre.
Munir, M.Daud and Kashif Jamal, (2005), Corporate Contributions in Three Recent Natural Disasters: A Comparative Analysis of the Tsunami, Katrina, and the Earthquake in Pakistan, December, Islamabad: The Network for
Consumer Protection. http://www.thenetwork.org.pk/cdd.pdf
Overseas Development Institute, (2005), Aftershocks: Natural Disaster Risk and Economic Development Policy, ODI Briefing Paper, November, London.
Oxfam International, (2005b), Back to work: How people are recovering their livelihoods 12 months after the tsunami, Oxfam Briefing Paper, December, Oxford.
Oxfam International, (2005a), A place to stay, a place to live. Challenges in providing shelter in India, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka after the tsunami, Oxfam Briefing Note, December, Oxford.
Planning and Development Secretariat, (2005), Post Tsunami Reconstruction: Needs Assessment for the North East, January, Kilinochchi (Sri Lanka): Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
Rajasingham-Senanayake, Darini, (2006), "Disaster capitalism, neo-liberal peace and a return to war', Himal Southasian, July, pp. 29-34.
Rigg, Jonathan, Lisa Law, et al., (2005), "The Indian Ocean tsunami: Socioeconomic impacts in Thailand', The Geographical Journal, Vol. 171. No.4, December, pp374-9.
Said, S, et al, (2005), Rebuilding a Better Aceh and Nias: Stocktaking of the Reconstruction Effort: Brief for the Coordination Forum Aceh and Nias (CFAN), October, Jakarta: BPPand World Bank.
Sarvananthan, Muttukrishna, (2006), Children of War: Aspirations and Opportunities, Point Pedro (Sri Lanka): Point Pedro Institute of
Development.
102.

People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthar1
Sarvananthan, Muttukrishna, (2005b), Poverty in the Conflict-Affected Region of Sri Lanka. An Assessment, Working Paper No.5, December, Point Pedro (Sri Lanka): Point Pedro Institute of Development. http://
pointpedro.Org/category/Working-paperSl
Sarvananthan, Muttukrishna, (2005a), “Post-Tsunami Sri Lanka: Swindlers Hold Sway', Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.40 No. 17, April 23-29, pp 1683-7.
Sarvananthan, Muttukrishna, et al., (1995), Women, Transition and Change: A Study of the Impact of Conflict and Displacement on Women in Traditional Tamil Society, Jointly published by the Institute of Agriculture and Women-in-Development (IAWID), Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and Gala Academic Press, Colombo.
Shanmugaratnam, N, (2005b), "Ghallenges of Post-disaster Development of Coastal Areas in Sri Lanka', November, paper presented at the consultative workshop on post-tsunami reconstruction experiences of local NGOs in Colombo.
Shanmugaratnam, N, (2005a), “The spectre of a 'Second Tsunami' in Sri Lanka: What can we do to prevent a human-made disaster?' Polity, Vol.2. No.3, pp 12-14.
Skoufias, Emmanuel, (ed), (2003), "Economic Crises, Natural Disasters, and Poverty', World Development, special issue, Vol.31. No.7, passim.
Skoufias, Emmanuel, (2003), "Economic Crises and Natural Disasters: Coping Strategies and Policy Implications', World Development, Vol.31. No.7, pp 1087-1102.
Steele, Paul, (2005), Phoenix from the Ashes? Economic Policy Challenges and Opportunities for Post-Tsunami Sri Lanka, Research Studies: Working Paper No.7, Colombo: Institute of Policy Studies. ܫ
Steele, Paul, (ed), (2006), Livelihoods in Post-Tsunami Sri Lanka: “Building Back Better'? Research Studies: Working Paper No. 10, Colombo: Institute of Policy Studies.
Stokke, Kristian and N.Shanmugaratnam, (2005), “From relief and rehabilitation to peace in Sri Lanka?" Polity, Vol.2, No.3, pp 10-11.
103

Page 66
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
Sugiyarto, Guntur and A.T.Hagiwara, (2005), Poverty Impact ofthe Tsunami: An Initial Assessment and Scenario Analysis, paper presented at the 4th Poverty and Economic Policy (PEP) Research Network General Meeting, Colombo.
TAFREN, (2005), Rebuilding Sri Lanka: Post-Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction Strategy, May, Colombo: Department of National Planning, Ministry of Finance and Planning.
Tsunami Evaluation Coalition, (2006), Links between relief, rehabilitation
and development in the tsunami response, July. http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/
ubs/Updates/tec-lirrd-report.pdf
Uyangoda, Jayadeva, (2005), Ethnic Conflict, the State and Tsunami Disaster in Sri Lanka, Colombo: Social Scientists' Association.
World Food Programme, (2005), Tsunami Recovery Programming and Needs Assessment Follow-Up Mission: Sri Lanka, May, Colombo.
Web sources
http://cippad.usc.edu/ai/tsunami/tsunami links.cfm http://WWW, adb.org/documents/reports/tsunamil http://www.reliefWeb.int/ http://www.tsunamispecialenvoy.org/ http://WWW. Worldbank.org/tsunami/ http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/
http://ocha, unog.ch/ http://topics.developmentgateway. Org/special/tsunami
104

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·s][nsəYH KəA InS:əɔunoS
LLLL 000L 00000 S 00 S 00L YLL00Y 0L 000YLL 000 LcL 000 LL L00 L00 00L LS0L 000 LLL 000LTWLOJ, 9"6 | 682Ꮓ | 9Ꮙ6 | 68Ꮓ9o6 | 68,ự sự, ɛsɔŋ lɛŋ01, qns § €Lť§, | slS“, Į LŁūtī5Ā 守娘19,一对岭9† 9. || 19 i19 luo-s eubjew ; : !£ €1 ( 1 + £ €i · 1£ €bị3a^X3ịGI 9,0819,0 || 319’0 || 81biexanusaoq 6款 K院suwnew6°600磅66 (MKquťII Isojos, qnS 9'#' + 8€:9'*8£ 19* | 8£{의뒤헌리RT ! # | NolZ,等LOEIŹo s tā ieļojuhquæH 1 , !§ €I ' iSɛso I9€.uļoņubsequy p'ዩ..፤ | ህፀክ;effusuɛqueii s oss # 00+ s pos I į 00#ɔɲɛɔ lɛŋol qns 히어TT의히FT—#'$ | 093 | y'ç | 091awanpes:4; H. 9’0§ 19°0 || 9 || || 9,0 | ÇiexampwieqeH 6.’sŁ867 | 18 s 6,Ł8abip uog olIw9 l’I§§{ ' +§ €so IÇowņojųog £?.69£"Ꮗ | 69 ↑ £*?Ꮿ69引 so į浮心I’s寺内I'Iț¢읽司副司되헌 f7*ᎦᏋ | 666ɔɲɛɔis.lin0sfᎭ*Ꮛ$ | 666 | Ꭽ*£Ꮛ | 666Euļķes leņos. qns 978 s į sig ş9,81 i Ł99 | 9,81 | tggN ļųɔbubuuopo A 8'# | | Ț ț †8’; I || Čțŷ i goțo! | Cysy3 sqɔbuɖuppe A sos: | soglBugetH.E. HONᎦ"Ꭷክ01§-s | f(){wɔusa I. Irgo, qns 0’lŹs0° iC80° iZsshɔAbus)?uwo Ł 8′0寸Z8′0ÞÆ8′0ț¢sumųjnyw + , !£ €1 ( 1£ €( o ;£ €II3a3ųɔųɔmx 9,0§ 19,0§ 19,0§ 1tĀīīīīī5. s’01 || 96Zəəlwulo3uļu L | Ioui | 96zI‛ፁ፤ | 96፭ŋŋɛg leņo L Qns § €9t.|-979ł이에TT이Znos suuntuu ryw 内科99£ €99£,99mysbeisuuruuue w too.96ț¢’s96甘E96JoN ựumuubw 6° i896° i896 l89pnxiuejlex) i“(), | 009eixit:3ļ}}′{{ | l°0′Z || 0:09 ] Ios): || 0:09T司制T희TT링利 # !1寸才:1T才一寸:1##nų nusaribųıuțes 守[艾守¿ † | fool1寸Isan]]od 9f9 || 801§ € | 801 || 9,8 || 801inabiņuļN GTO}0’0io’o1司制공리 Ở {{}s0° igae ! o’l��naņsb.tux goto | ±± 18等一寸寸 8t #1seuntuỊex 寸:1子ș’ı叶†” IIstwa引 6 z886′′. No 88 || 6.’s88 9,8 | 9019 g | 90( | 9 g | 901seuəųɔɖeț¢ppy %�N% 1 ወN%0N%onų%onų%ön%oN%0N%dae心toN.%0N (IV)O).buongwejoļuequr HəllupIII.I mosbuļļupHIJL±IONəəļauIoousulbỢ[b34ııøg리라티헌T디패강의해83.1 y S(I
ēəJV jesīɛɲələəSIĘuossỊAICI Kq sjūəpūõdsƏs:TGITIŴL
105

Page 67
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·sųnsəYI KəaunS:əɔunoS
— 0'00s | t’6Z6°6′Z8*ᏋᏞ6°9′Z0°00′I£”LZᏚ"ᏋᎭ['670'00s | So€țzS'99TV LOJ, 0′00 I9’ LI0’0†”Z£'080'00 IL’Z80′0o’LI0′00 I9,99寸9寸e JesɛW 0′00 ||£'^o0′09 " I£ 990′00 ILo L90,0£ € £0'00!0 #790,99euoluequueH 0′00 {Ç’ZI0′00' [Ç’980'00 I9’ L80’0Ç’ZĂ0′00 || || 0'970’ț7ŁƏ[[es) 0’001 | 6°6'I0’0S’I9°810*001I'080°06°6'I0'00 I || 9°S;Ꭽ*ᎭsHJL£T OS 0′00 I0′0Ç’ Ç9Ç’ț7€0'00'00I0′00’00I0’00'00sÇ’Zț7S'LSeuJJef 0*0010°0SoS9Ꮥ*ᎭᏋ0′00°00's0°00‛00፤0′00'00s | S’Zț7S” LSHJL HON 0'001I o Lț78,878寸Z'6 s0′00 IZ'6 iL'$$I o Lț70'00 [寸6E9'09əəỊeUuopuļu L 0′00 ||8' ÇoÇ’09L'ɛ0’00′00 I£’0Zoț99,9€.0′00 I€ Șț7L’ț79Boļeoņeg 0’00) {0’L88° SL’9Ç’00'00||L’09, I8'980'00sE:1寸L'89Eīēdūy 0°00′IL'L9†'tሯ9'S£'Z0°00′IS“Z0^0\,S” L90′00 I || Cozț7L'LSJLSVGI L00L S LLLS LLL LLLLLLL LLLLLLL LL00LS LLLLL LLLS LLLLL L00SLS LLLLL LLLL}ɔĻI) SIGI
NOIÐITIGHŶHĀJLIOINHALGHRIGHOINCHO/ uos33 YI
(əềenuạolo, I)
uoțossəH pueoĀŋɔquipos ouəpuəÐ Áq ssuɔpuodsəYI :Z GITIĶIVL
106

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
osuinsəYI KəAunS:ɔɔInoS
EE0L000SL L00 S 00L EEL 00L SLL 00Y S YL S 000 S LL S L0L 0LL S 00L S LS0L S 000TỶ LOL ELSKLLSL S 0S L S 0L S LSL S L0L S 0L S 0L cLL S 000 Yc S L0L 0LL S 00L S LS0L S 000 S LLLLL LLLL £’0 || 0 ||£°0 || 0 ||-eindūrēųēAW †7’0 | £1['0ț79,06JexueS Ç’9 | 901 || || '0Z#’0 | Z | | 0,9 || Z6ēūēẩēsēs ['0#7I°0#7esseffe`i Ç’0 | 9 || || 0:0|Ç’0 | 9 ||euepueaaeN ț7°Z ị {Lț7°Z | €LīēKēīēși #o | I || 9 pg | Z’Z | 19 | L'#7 | 07 I || 9’y | 99 {eaae Ieys Z°09I’0寸{^{} | . Zep ['0£['08.euuỊH I’09I’0 || || Z.0IBūē3ēlēH Ķ’06£’06nunɔsɛH †”ț7 || || 9 || || 8°0 | ÞZ | Ç’0 || 9 ||£06['0Z!Aos) £? || 6ZI | I’y | #7ZI | ['0£I’0Z eaae InGI % || 0:N | % || 0 N | % || 0 N | % || oN | % | ON | % | ON | % || oN | % | ON
Ieņ0 Leu eye/Aeņoqueque HƏshƐƐ)eugesəəlɛu0ɔupu L | Boļesņļegseueduuyəŋsɛ Ɔ
əŋsɛO Kq shuəpuodsəYI :ɛ ɔITIĶIVL
107

Page 68
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
Snoquea :əɔunoS
Z8L‘9£tvZ9ț%6#8‘ISS0‘L6ZTV LOJ,
% L’6Z% Loss% 6” 18[b404 øıų, go ɔueųS ɛ sɛ yɔIS
0L6000*9.Ɛ6€“ÇpueĻĻĽĽŁŁ
009“ i00Z"$[9īēūūēKW
009’ LZI000'LI 9I L6‘LoŻessəuopus
0LS‘6ZI00Z‘EZ9SZłostozessy 1seos qņnoS
% 6,8S%6"99% 0°8’IĻeņos, əų). Jo ɔueųs e se VS
Ç98° 16000‘0çç898‘9€.exue:I LIS
Lț7€“ŞÇ99‘ IZZ8SƏAsp[eVN
000*Þ ÇI66Ç’Lț79688 ’9Iespus
ZIZ‘LSZz9z‘6 Iz“I6ZĘ“€Sessy upno:S
% Þo II% Þ’0% Ir() || Ieļos, əų). Jo əueųS ɛ sɛ ɛɔĮJĮy
000'0ç000‘g00£eļļpuuos
V’N000" |0IeoseầepeW
V’N000’İ|ēKūāși
000‘0S000‘LI0€.ɛɔļuJy (pɔsin ɔq soữueo) pəĝɛūlēp
KIIeņued Jo ẤIIng səSnoq Jo uəquinNəĮdoəd pəəeỊdsỊp Jo uəquunNpeəp Jo Jøquun.NẤuļu noɔ / uosãøYI
KusunoƆ pue uoỊ3əYI KQ suubunsL əų). Jo gɔeduuI : † GITIĶIVL
108

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
'NȚĂ-IVL ? sɔŋsinenS puɛ snsuɔɔ Jo suɔuņuedəGI:əɔunos
šūISSILI 000'Z9ť6IS98‘L600S“€ţI000‘ç eɔŋɔ + 8S8‘IĘVYHNV IIHS %守8Z% I’6ዓ68‛0I% L’I || Ieļ0} 3\!? Jo ɔueųS ɛ sɛ ɑAA 000’980’I009“Z690'L6LZBIEmm|ex| 000'660°ZZ69809Çț7Ieqedưē5 000'Zț¢°ZLZL’S()ț [‘309. Ioquuosoɔ 000*9ZS’S6168LOS“Sīț7SSəɔuļA0JA UIJðļSəAA % I’ZI% Þoțoz% I’0Z% L’IĘ | 1830] 31|} }0 əIBUIS E SE IS 000‘88||868'8gɛZ’ZZț7€‘seueỊesw 000’8€Ç80Ş‘Z#79ɛ'ɛ00ç‘syeloquequueH 000‘OZO‘l66ț“ZI8.LZ“ɛZ8țZ“†Ə[[es) 000*95șozSÕ6'ozLĒĢoz060'0sɔɔuỊA0JA UJəųļnoS %8’S% £”II·%0'ZI%S'0Z | [ť10} ^t{! J0 əJeųS 8 SB (IN 000‘寸寸TZgoog['00' 9o zoonA!!! E[InW 000'Eţi I9ț7ZL0寸099ĮųɔųɔOuĮĮĮXI 000*96980ţoşLZ8’OI0ț79°Zeusjef 000“ZZI‘I90I“ IITozoli5759əɔuļA0J.H. uJouļļJON % 6° s.% I°SS% I’LS% I’9Þ | [e]o) ou!! Jo əueųS ɛ sɛ ɖIGI 000*9.89Ç99*8ț6ţ'z I8ŁO'Iəə[eu]ÓJuĮJĮ, 000‘ffyg80L’LIÇț7Ç'09LLI’ɛeoļeɔŋŋɛɛI 000*9 | 9Z99’ LZ998°329€ţ'Ostieduuy 000‘0ťS“ISÈ6'ÈSS06* 18I69‘t’IəɔuļAouă uuəŋsɛGH (pəsn əq nouupɔ)
Þ00Zpə3euIep ĶĪĻeņued sosəțIsuue)
uoŋɛIndo-IÁIsny səsnot| Jo uəquun.NpəɔɛIdsụp jo uəquinNpɛəp J0 JɔquinN13ļu]ss(I / ɔɔuỊA0J)I
ɔɔļiņsỊCI pue əɔuļAOJA KQ suubunsL əų). Jo sobduII :S GITIĶIVI,
109

Page 69
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
'Ieuoţssaoud əlɛ yooz Jos səunổĻI (3) *sɔɔĻId quəlinɔ L LL LLLLL L00S000L 0LLLLL S0000S LLLL LLLLLL LL LLL LLLLlL L00LS000L SLS LLL LLLLLL LLLLLL LL LLLLLLL LL LLLLLLLLL LL LLLLLLLSLS SLLLL '# 31qe L XipuɔddV seɔŋsŋɛIS ‘ç00Z y gOOZ uodəw ppmuusy 'exsupT IJS Jo Xueg IeusuɔO - †00Z-966B '(±8Z :ZOOZ) IsounoƆ IesouỊAoJq ,seos quoN uỊ pƏŋɔ ‘oquoIoO oầuỊutiesā IeuoụeNJo JuəunuedəGI - Ç661-066|| :ŝuļAoIsoj əų, uo pɔseq. SuoņeỊnɔɖeɔ s, Joq:ny:əɔunoS
L00LS000LS00LLS00LLSLLLS000SLL0S000S000S000SLLLSLLLS000SLLLS00LS
0'00s | 0'00s | 0'00 I || 0:00 I || 0:00 I || 0:00 I || 0'00 I || 0'00 I || 0:00 I || 0:00 I || 0:00 I || 0:00 I || 0:00 I || 0:00 I || 0:00Iexque I sus (8H6) | (LLL) İ (ÇL9) | (109) | (899) | (ç8ỹ) | (£I ț) | (9ço) | (†09) | ([91) | (LÇI) | (9; I) | (99 I) | (LZI) | (IZI)ƏɔuỊAOIả 0 0L S LS0L S S00 S S0Y S 00L S S0Y S LSLL S SYY SLc S SLL S 0 Y LSLY Y Y Y0Y L0Yu 131S3AA (891) | (ÇÇI) | (voI.) | (IZI) | (901) | ($6) | (98) | (IL) | (Z9) | (L$) | (99) | (#9) | (Z$) | ([$) | (8Z)ɔɔuỊAOIă £’66"6S’6L’6寸69’6£’68°80’69o6 | 9’6L’6 | 9’68’6S’6uuəųnnoS SLLSLLSLLS0LSL0SLLS00SLLSLLSLLSLLSLLSLLSLLSLLSƏɔuțAOI I 6°ZL’Z9'zÞoz['ZŞoz6°Z8° Z.†”ZI’9 | ZooZoo9′ {8‘E 才寸u səųļJON (86) | (96) | (69) | (Z9) | ([ç) | (09) | (09) | (0ț7) | (yɛ) | (3H) Í (LI) I (LI) | (ç I) | (†7 I) i (ÇI)ƏɔUIA.Oleh Ꭽ* ᏭI’96’ț70' 9Ç’ț70' 9979 | 0,98';9'#7 | Ç’ț7L’ț7L寸Ç'fy | Z'#7uuƏ|Seos L00L S L00L S L00L L00L 000L 000L 000L S L00L S 000L L00L L00L S L00L L00L L00L 000LəɔuļA0-1Bs
Þ00Z – 066 I ɔɔuỊAouă Áq qonpouă oņsəuIOCI Ss015):9 ĢITIĶIVL
110

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
“ItuossỊAOId ɔJe ť00z Joj səInấų (p) sɔɔỊAjos Įpuosiad ? Kisumutuoɔ sɛsɔos əlɛAȚId put ‘səɔỊAIɔs LLLLLLLL LL KLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL LLL LLL L0LLL LLLLLLL K LLLL LLL L0LLL LLLLLL SLLLLLLLLL K LLLS LLLLLLLLLLLL K LLLLLL SLLLLL SLLLLLL K LLLLLLS LLLL LLLL K LLLLLL LLLLLL LLLL LLLL SLLLLL K LLLLLLLS LLLLL LLL LLLLLLLL SLLLLLL K LLLLLL SLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLL LLL LLLLLLL SL SLLLL LLL SLLLLL SLLLLL LLLL LLLL LL LLL LLLLL LLLL LLLLLLL SLS LLL LLLL S LLLL LLLLLL LLLLLLL L0L LLLL LLLLLLL SLLLLLL L LLLLL LLLLLLL LL LLLLL LLLLLLLLL LSLLLLL SLLLLLL
YSLL S 0SJ0 S LLL S LLL S LSLL S 0S00 S Y0L S LS0L S 0S0L S LS0L S 0S0L SS 00S0L S LS0L S LS0L S S0LexsueI ĮuS
-ɔɔuļAOJA
L’ț79 | Çoç9 | ZoÇ9 | £'Z9 | 0°09 | €“Zɛ | Z | 9 | Ç’Zɛ | 6′Zɛ | € 98 || 6′Z£ €守寸8寸9'ᎭULIɔļSƏAA
-ɔɔUȚAOJA
LSYY S L Y 0S0LS S 0LL S LLL S 00L YS0L S LLL S 0LL S 0LL S 0LL S LLL S LS00 S S0 S LS00uJạųnoS
·ɔɔusAO), I
£” Ç9 i Loț79 || I o L9 || 0:2 | | | “†” AL8,96°9Ç`90‘ s.ț7° 1 s 0,82 | † `87 | Ç’9Z || 0 | Z | Ç’8 IULIɔųLION
əɔuỊAOJA
0S0L S 0S0L S 0S00 S LS00 S 0LL S LS0L S 0S0L S LLL S LSLL S 0SLL S S00 S S00 S LS0L S 0SLL S 0S00ULIɔmseo+ L00L L000 S L000 S L000 S 00000 S L000 S L00L S L00L S L00L 0000 S L00L L000 S L00L L0000 S 000L
sɔɔỊAJəSKuļsnpuIəunļļnɔļuổyəɔuļA0IJI
Þ00z - 000z (əĝɛŋuɔɔuəd) əɔuỊAoua Áo, nonpouă opsəuIOCI Ss015) Jo uoņssoduI0O seu0333S : L GITIĶIVL
111

Page 70
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
'Ipuosssaoud sỊ ɔļqeų sių uļ ejep AGIÐ sesouļaouă :ɔŋoN rzędd ‘çOOZ byutra sus fo sɔŋsimpis proos pup ɔnuouoɔ3 obxuen sus Jo Xueq se nuoƆ uo pƏseq suoụesnɔseo suolpny:əɔInoS
6°Ø.!才寸86’89°ZSəɔįAJɔS JəųJO ZoÇZoZ9,98’ LoŞ’I IəɔuəgəCI pue uoŋɛŋssuțupy ɔIȚqna 9" |6'0['Z寸Eo'zsốusIIạAAGI Jo diųSuƏuAO 6’6L’9||920’I€” IƏsensos seəYH ? əɔue InsuĮ ‘ōupsu.eg ['020's,L'8 s9’66'8əpe II. Isæı38 puɛ əỊesəIOųNA 8°Ø I0'91Ç’ZI6’88°8uoņeɔỊunuuuuoƆ ? əĝejoļS ‘quodsueu L 9*ᏤSክ” ̇tz98‛pክ”Soț9foo$$SəɔļAJəS 8' 18" |9" |0°ZÇ’IKīāīūēS?īāīēWA "SES"Kīsɔɲɔāsā Zo LZ°0||0寸L’H6’IUoņɔn ŋSUOO 9” ÇIÇ’6 sL’0IZ’0Ꭽ*8I$usunɔejnueW 8' 1L’0L’IL'Z8’I3usÁ Llenò ? 3uiu, W ክ” ̇9፭zozÇ6°LIL’99'$ZKuysmpus ZoZ8′0€’S0°ZI6' [ ]3ūTūsī), 9" |I'09°Z寸00'8ÁnsəJOH Zo $ !97†”.67£^9 IL’9ZəunuȚnɔļuầy 0"6ᎠᎭ°Ꮛ£”LoL'8Z9’0#ouļųss H ? KussəJo Hoəun)Inɔļuầy ɛyɩueT susɔɔuļAouă uuəŋsƏM | ɔɔuỊAouă uuəųņnoS | əəuỊAoua uuəųnuoN | ɔɔuỊA0Jä uuəŋsɛ ɑJ0ļɔəS
Ç00Z ,HOHO IBỊɔuỊA0Já o! Su0ņnqļJļu0Ɔ [BIO100S J0uoņssodulooəCI;8 GH|ToIVJL
112

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
*sisnsəYI Kəauns :əɔunos
c00L 000L S 00 S 0L S LSL S LL 00SL LLL SLL S 0LL S 0SLLLLS0 LLL L0 LLL 0LL LLL 00LTV LOL 0’001 || 68Z00寸ț7 || 0:0 || || 6Z || 0:0 || || 67 | 8′ZZ || 99 || £” ÇZ | EL ị sy'6I Į 99 || I o II | Z9e Jenew 0'00 || || 00£ || L’IS£" |Y 00L S 00 S 0LL S LL S LLL S LL 0000 0S 0S0L S L S LSL S 0L S LLLLLLLLLL 0′00 || || 00ț7 | £°0IS’Z | 0 || || 9°01 || Zț7 | 9“SH || 19 || 8° IZ | L8 | 0° çZ || 00s | £'8 I | £1 || ç’9 | 9ZəIIɛ0 0°00’I || 686 || 9°090SL S 0L LEL S L0L YSLL S LLL S 0LL L YL S LLL S L0L S L0L S LSL S LLSHJL[]OS 0′00 { | 666 || If II ILL S L S LSLL S 0LL LLLL S LLL S L0L S L0L 0LL S 0LL S SLL S LY S LS0 S L0LeuJJef 0°00 || || 666 | [‘ILL S L S L YSLL S LL LL S LLL SLS0L S L0L 0LL 0LL S LSLL S SLL S LS0L S L0LHJL HON 0'00s | #70||006’IZ || 9" | I | Z || || S’ZI | € | | 0° SZ || 9Z | 0'97 || | Z | Z'6 I || 0Z | 3's#7 | ɔɔ[buoɔusu L. 0'00 I || 96Z00L’I9I’6 || LZ || So I i Oț7 | 9"92 || 0 || || 6'8 I || 99 || 6'6 I || 69 | Zog I || 6€Boļeoŋŋeg 0'00 I || 009 | Z’0|L’0L 0000 S 00 S 0LL S 00 S L SL S 0LL SLL S LLS LS0L S 0LL S 000 S L0ējēdūāv 0°00 I || 000 I | I°0II'III || 6'6 | 66 || I’ŒI || IĘI || SoZZ || SZZ || SoZZ || SZZ || 0'02 || 00Z | 8’01 || 80IJE SVIH
%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON1ɔŋŋSICI
TIVJELOJ,0 ITM0I?68?&9SÞz? I/ uosãəYŁ
quieuns L ɔų, əIOJəo spỊoqəsnoH Jo əzỊS : 6 CI^I{IVL
113

Page 71
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·sųnsəYI KɔAins:əəumos
S00L 000L YE cL Yc S LL S LS0 SLLL S 0LL S LLL S 0S00 S 0L0 LL L00 LS0L LLLSLL S L0JTIWALO), 0′00 || || 68Z | € 0I(), I£0,8 | £Z | € 8 | ÞZ | H(0Z || 89 | 0,82 || || 8 | ț7'6 || || 99 || 6"#7 I | €ț7ɛJenew 0'00s ! 00£ | £’0I0" |90L S LL 0SLL S LL 00 S LL 000 Y0 SLL LS0 S LSLL S LS S LLLLLLLLLLLLL 0′00 I || 00ț7 | € 0I9°C || 0 ||8o8 | 99 | 0° ZI | 8ț7 | 8° IZ Í L8 | Ç‘SZ || Z0 I || 8 || Z | L8So [ | 09ə[[BO 0'00s į 686 # $’0£0c S 0L S LS S L S 0EL S L0L YEL L0L 0LL 00L 0EL S L0L S LSLL S 0LLH.LÍTOS 0′00 I || 666 | 0° {0 I0L S 0L S SLL S LLL S LSLL S LL 000L 00L S LS0 LS0 S LS00 L0L S SLL S LSLeuger 0S00L 000 0SL S 0L S 0L S 0L LSLL S LLL S LScL LLL E0L 000 LS0L 00L LS0L L0L LSL SLLLHJL HON 0'00s | y0 | | 0:00(), I|L’9{ | Goo | | #7 I || 0'97 || LZ || 6' LZ || 6Z || Z’0Z | [Z i 8° soÇ | əəlɛUuoɔuĻIL 0'00 || || 96Z | 0,00寸:Tț78’8 | 9Z | Ç’ZH | Lo [ L’ț7Z | €L || Z. 8 I || #9 | 9°07 | I 9 Í 6°Ø. I | Hț7Boļesņeg 0'00 I || 009 || 0:000′0ILSL S 0L S LLL S 0L S0S0L S LLL S0S0L S 0LL SLS0L S LL0 S L0L S 00ēīēđūry 0'00Į Į 000 I | 0'009’096°L | 6L | L'ZI | LZI | Þ’IZ | ÞIZ | Zo9Z , Z9Z | S’OZ | S0Z || L’OI Í LOIJLSWCH
%ÓN%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON1ɔŋŋSIGI
* IW LOJ,0 ITM0I?68%A9S寸Z? {/ uos33H
queuns I, əų, Jo! Je spĮoqəsnoH Jo əzĮS:0I GITIĶIVI,
114

əsnods e ɔAeų ļou psp squapuodsəI əūIOS:əyon
·sųnsəYI Kəa InS:əɔunoS
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
JSLL S LLLL S 0S0E 000L S 0cL LLLLL Y0L LLLL YcL 000L S 0LL S L0LL S LS0L S 000L Lc0 000L*IWLOJ, 0LL S LLL S YSYY 00L S 0 LL S LLL YSLLS LLL LSLS0 S LLL S LSLL S SLL S LS0L989°01 || #70Ze renew So LL | 9 || I || S’ZZ! 9†”.8ç į Ķ ķ Ļ ļ 9” I ss | Z0 I | Loț7Ç | ț79 I | € Șț7 | 99 || || € †7ZƐLL'çL Í LZZ | e\o(\uequeH Ç’0ț7 || ZZ | | Ç’69 | 61 | | Ç’ZZ69Ç’LL | 8£Z ị (), L9 || 89Z | 0,99 || ZɛI || 0,7 || 89 I || 0'89 || ZɛZə||es) LS0L S LLLS 0SLE S 00L S 0EY S LLL SYS0L S LLL S 0S0L S L0L 0Ec S LLL S 0EL S 00L S 0S00 L00HLÍNOS SLL S 00Y S SYY S 000 S LS0Y S LLL S LSLL S LLL S SLL S LLL S LLL S LLL S LLL S LLL S LLL S 0LLeuỊJef LSL S 00L S LSLL S LLL S LS0L S LLL S YL S L S LSLL S L S LLL S LLL S LSLL S LLL S L0L0 S 0LLH.L. HON Ç’09Lț7Ç’6ț79寸6 Itz6€.[ '89ț790'09ZS0′09.Z99,9€.LƐ†”#9L9 | əəlɛULIOõus.JL S0L S LLL S 0LL S 000 S 00Y SS LLL Y0L JL0 S L0L S 0LL S LS0L S LLL S LLL S L0L S LL0 S L0LBoļeoņeg LSLL S 0LL S LSL S 0LL S 0S00 S 00 S LS00SK LL0 S LS0L S 00L S LSLL S 00L S LL0 S L0L S LL0 S 000ēsēđūĪy LS0L S LLL S 0S0L S LLE S 0S0L S LLL S LS00 LLL 0SL S 0YL S E0Y S 00Y S 0Scc S 0LL S LL0 S LL0J.SVGs %ON9%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON 0NSəĀ0NSəĀ0NSəA0NSəĀ
Įueuns L uəụyĮubuns L 3 IoJəgļueuns,L.131JysuubunsJ, əJoJə9I1ɔŋŋsỊCI {{S00ASJLNGIGINO AISGHRI/ uos33H
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
suuseuns L ɔų, 13).JV pub əJoJəos quəuuẤoIduu@ : IL GITAIVL
115

Page 72
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
'sıīnsəŋ Kaauns :əəunos
|+---子;***-
0’001 || 0'00s | So()8°0S'I | | 0°C8‛ክ 6*8I^{(II'ɛZ s s’EZ || 6'8"Z | 0' LS || Z’S$"TIWLOL 0'00 I || 0'00ł寸:1['Zț”ZZoț7Zoț7Lol,£ € IZ' LZ || Z’9Z | 8"#79 || #7°Zç | 0'#7eueheW 0'00 I || 0:00 I0′00° I寸:1['8†” I0's,I’S6,99 || 9,9 sZ-99 || 9° CL || L’OI || enOļueque H 0′00 || || 0:00 I£" |0' £8' [S’SS'L0'7 || || 9,97 | pozț7 | 9’0; || 9 ŞZ | €? ZÇ’6Ə[[es) 0'00s | 0°00 I || 6'0Loz8" |6°SL"#7['0I | Zo9I | £'9€ | Z'6Z | S’IỆ | I’Lţ | I’þIHALQOS 0'00 || || 0'00s0′0['0Zo()[‘]6′09” Ç6"ᎭL’0||0'9 I8:寸一一0:18| L‘L9BUJJef 0’001 | 0°00 I || 0:0I°0Z’0I'I6°09°S6°łyL’0 I || 0"$ I || 8°ț [ | 0°18 : Lo L9HJL HON 0'00ł | 0'00||0′ {0° I0′06’I6,88' Ç£"#7['0£ | ZoÇZ['0€ i 9° Çț7I: I g | ɔɔlɛUuoɔuĻIL 0'00 I || 0:00 IL’0£’00°ZL’0ț7’9守So [ IZ’9 s9'S !Zo LỆ | 6"#79 || 9°Zț7Boļe3]]]es} 0'00s | 0'00||L’0Z'06°ZL’Z†” I I9’S IÇ’0Z | Loț7Z | †” £ € | 8o 8p | Zo I £ | 0°Ø I공헌 0‛00[ | 0 ̇00፤ | L‛0€°0阮:Z()'z8°8Io II | Z'8 I || SoZZ , Z’LZ | Þ°0ţ | L'Zť | L'ÈZJLSVGI JƏļJVƏJOJƏ8JƏŋVƏJOJƏ{{IƏļJVƏJOjɔ8IƏJVƏJOJə{{lƏ}}\,ƏJojɔɛ1ƏụyƏJoJƏ{HJƏļļVƏIOJƏ{H1ɔțJĮSIGI
TV LOJ,ī00°0'7 < -10 = 000o0o – 100‘SI 1 000“SI - 100'0ī£ 000‘01 – 100‘s || 000°S - I00$000'E = uo>/ uosẽ3?!
(ə3ɛŋuɔɔJə I)
ĮuIeuns-Loup, Jo!JV pue əJoJəgəuuoɔu I p[oqəsnoH KIųņuoIN : ZI CHIAVL
116

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·s]{nsəYI KəAuns :əɔInoS
00L LL YS0E S L0L S LS00 0LL 00L L SL 0LL 00LL LLL 00L S LLLSLS0L S LLLLLSLL0LL 0LL LL00LS0YL0LL SLS LLLLTV LOL 000 S LL 0000 S LL 000 LL S000 0L S 0LL S 00 000 S LL 00L LLL 00SL S L0L S LLLS LLL 000 LLL SLS LLL 0LL LLLelemew 000 S LL 00L S 0 0S00 0 000 00 S 0 S 000 S 000 S LL 000 LLL 00L S 0L 00L S 0SL S 00Y S LLL S00 LLS LLLLLLLL 000 S LL LLL S 00 0LL S 00 S 000 S LL LLLS 0L S 0LL S 00 S 000 S LSL SLL LL0 LS0Y 000 00L 00L S0S0L 0LL S0L S 0YəIIep 000 L0 0SL 00 LLL 0Y 00L L0 0S0L S LLSLL0 LL 00L SLLL SLL 0LL 0S0L S LL 00L S LL00 0S0L 00L LLL LLLHLÍTOS 000 S 0L 000 S 0L 000 S 00 S 00 S 00 00Y LL S0S00 S 0L 00 S LLS LSL S LLL S 0S0L L00 S 000 S 000 S 00Y S 000 LLLS 00LeuJJET 00L S SLL S S00 S 0L 0E0 LL 00LL 00 Y0Y S 0L 0SE0 0L 00L S LLS LSL S L S 0S0L L0L 00L S 0LS0 0S0YS 000 LLL SLYHAL?ION 00L S 0 LL0 S L S LSLL S SS 00 S L S 0S00 S S00 S S 00L L0L S0L S 0L LLLS LLS 00L 00L 0LL S 00 S 0LS S 0L S LLLLLLLLLS 00L 00 0S0L L LS00 LL S000 S LL S 0S0L S L0 SLS S S 000 S 00L S0S0L S LLL S 0LL S 0LL 00L S L0L LS0L S 0YL S0L S 0LLeospoļņe{H 000 S LL SLL S 0L S LS0L S LL 00L S 0L S S00 S 00 S 0LL S 00 S 000 S 00L LS0L S L0L S 0S0L SS 00L 000 L00 S S00 S 000 S LS0L S 00L공덕리적 00L S 0L Yc0 0L L00 0L 00L S 00 LL0 0L 0cL S 0L 00L S LL0 LS0L L0L LS0E L0L 00L LL0L E0L L0L 0EL LLLJ.SVGH % | ON | % | ON | % || ON | % | ON | % | ON | % || 0 N | % || ON%ON%ON | % į ON%0N%0N Ieņ0J,SĀGĀsĻIȚ5)Ieņ0LSKöşIsĻIỊ5)IB30 LSA04IsĻuļ5)Ieņ0LSÁ0{IsĻiļ5) Įuutsuns I, Jasų.ysuubums I, əlojəgpuuseums I, JøựyĮulbuns I, əJoJəosșosnss (I NOI LWƆŋCIGH (HGHH5OIHT0OHOS/ uos33H
queuns,L əų, 131J y puɛ əJoJəg uəupĮĮųO Jo uoŋbɔnpĜI :ÇI ĢITIĶIVL
117

Page 73
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
“sựmsəYI KəAms:əɔmos
0°00'sZ0€8’ŒL£ZZ9°0IZɛ9°90Z9°L£Z£’IÞ(IVLOL 0'00 IZ0′000'09I0′000′000'09IeJeļeW 0'00s9.0,00L'99Z0′000′00£ € £!enoluequuæH 0′00 IZ0′000'09I0′000’000′0çIƏIIes) 0′00 Il.0°00Į’ALSÞ0′000°006:Z子£HJLÍTOS 0'00!Ç88° 19'LZ6, 9,ZZ9’ LIÇIL’ț7ZIZ0'00euJes 0'00IS88*ᎠᏋLZ6°SZZZ9'LISIL’ţszIZ0°00HJL HON 0′00 I69” ÇÇ90′00子守寸†0′000′00əəletuosuu L. 0'00s0寸0°069€0' 9ZS’ZI9,I0'00Boļeosmeg 0′00II 9 I£’96ŞÇIÇ’Z†0’009'0I9’0Iēīēđūsī 0’00I() IZ£”€696 I6°Z9ÞozS0*Ꭰo zSo()IJLSVGI %ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON1ɔĮJĮSIGI ^IVJLOJ,JəųẠOSĄ00Q 0N3ūļīņosā ONJūõāSūāīūNÄqueəu sõõųās õN/ uosốəYI
queuns L æq, 13).JV IoolỊ3S ouỊpuəŋy ļoN uəupIsųO JOJ suoseəH :ţI SITIĶIVL
118

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
əỊqɛɔŋddy son :əļoN
·s][nsəYI KəA InS:ɔɔInoS
0‛00፤#890’LŁLZS0’s,LSI0°00I099S”SŁ86ț7soţ,Z9ĮTVLOL 0'00||9LÇ’ț796ț7S'99LZ0'00 I£8Ç’ L999Ç’Z€.LZeJesɛW 0′00 IÇ98' 8' L8寸Z 9ŽLI0'00I£9ț7' + LÇț79'828Ieļojueque H 0'00sț7Ç IZ'89Ç018’ I Ø6ț70′00 ||寸91Zo $9Ł0s8"#7€.L9Ə[[E!) 0’00IS6ZŞ'89Ź0ZS”Is£60°00′I0IĘso s 980Z6°Z£Z0IHLÍTOS 0′00 I£6||6'98Z9||| ‘91| 90′00 I†7.s. Į9” Ç86ț7 I†† ISZeuJJef 0°00′I£6I6*ᏋᏕZ9II’9Į{{E0°00′Iț71 I9'986ț7||Þop ISZHJL HON 0'0018ZL’98†ZE寸ț70′00 [ZZ8' 188IZo 8I#əəIculoɔuȚIL 0'00||8寸£ €80寸L’9 I || ' 30'00||£ț7L'9899£’9 ILBoļesņieg 0'00 [0ZIÇ’Z866Ç' s. ÍIZ0'00 I[ [ {寸‘8AŁ89′ {Z#Zēīēdūỹ 0*00Ꭼ96IZoÇ8£9L8o9I£ €0°00′I9 LII'08I#I6°6'IS£JLSVGI %ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON
Jego LSKOŘISLJĮ5)[b40_LSKõssiSIIR)nɔŋŋsỊCI suubuns L uəụyqueuns I, 3JoJəg/ UosổəH
queuns L æq) Jo!JV pub əJoJəg u9upIsųƆ yo quətuÁoldu.GI:ŞI ÇIZIĶIVL
119

Page 74
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
·sųnsəYI KəA InS:ɔɔunoS
0'00IƐLƐ8°zo60€.ZoLI守90'00sL6€I’OI0寸8°S£ZI‛ክ8ᎭᏋᏕ”IVJLOJ, 0'00IZỳZo S60寸8' ᎭZ0′00 IÇț7##ZI I0′009” ÇLț7€.elemeW 0'00sL80′00 IL80′000'00s£60′000′000′00 I£6enosueque H 0'001寸寸L'L6£#7£ €H0′00 I8寸9寸TLZ'yZ£” [86€əIIeg) 0'001£LI依‘860LIL’I£0′00 I98.IL’68II'IZZ°6899 IHALĤOS 0′00 I990′09£900寸ZZ0'00sÇ9ØoŽI8Z'69Ç’8LI.9euJJef 0°00′ISS0′09£ɛ0′0pZz0’00IS9€”ZI8Z°69S”.8LISHLYHON 0'0010Ż0'9%)L0'99£[0′00||0Z0′000^0 {Z0'068IəəIɛluoɔuȚIL 0'00s9IS'L8† IÇ’ZIZ0′00 I9 I€” I {90′008' 89I IBoļesņeg 0'00 I60H0'8L980°ZZ#Z0'00||0I IZ'868’I Į£{0'0888ēTēđūW 0‛00፤Sț» I["ÇL9016'976€.0°00′I9#I9’6ÞI£"0ᎠSII’08LIIJLSVOH %ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON [e]o L0NsəA[810],qunouie uəųJOBūsīūōN000“SI”SH
列리위헌리和國司회1ɔŋŋsỊCI Jəų30 uuous pəAsɔɔəH səsuədxGI IBJaunsquəuuuuəA05) øų, uolų pəAsəəəH səsuədxQ seuəunĂ/ uos33 YI
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
səsuədxGI Ieuəuns 10J suɔtuẤea Jo çdsøoạYI :9I GITIĶIVL
120

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·s][nsəYI KəaunS:əɔrnos
0°00′I || 996Z | foo$$L869°99 || 696 s s 0°00′I | € £6ZÞozILÞozIክ9£ZoS8 || 8617%TIVJELOJIL 0′00 I98ZI°0s6Z6°68L9Z | 0'00s88Z0′00Çoț7£IÇ’96SLZelemew 0′00 I66ZZ°0909 I8°6176ț7 s0'00s00£0′000'918寸0:寸8ZSZenosuequre H 0'00186€6′ZZI6I'llL0€.0'00186€.0′000-9fyz0’ț76f7 19əIIæ9 0°00′I£86Sosz0,1%So? L$IL0°00`s9860°009°898Ꭽ*Ꭰ6[06HŒLÍTOS 0′00 I寸86I `ZZLIZ6. LLL9L0'00 I196Zo L89L'8 s8Ł IIof; s.SOŁeuJJef 0°00 I寸86IozzLIZ6’LLŁ9s,0°00′IIS6ZoŁ89L’8 s8.LI[ ̊{ZዚS0LHJL HON 0'00 Lț70 I8'9989Z寸寸9寸0'001£0 I6’IZƐozZ£ZL'SL8Ləəseuoɔusu L 0°00′I96Z6' 19107I’Zo96.0′00 IS6%0′00I’S9 I6"#7608Zeoqɛɔŋŋeg 0'00s6896:0寸IsozI'698寸90'00||869Z’0IÇ’0||£99,68ț799ērēdūy 0°00′I6869°0900Sከፖ6768寸0°00′I966£°0£I’OII0 I9°68Z68JLSWCH %ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON Iɛɲ0J,ONIeņo Lsunoue uəųO3ūpīṇON00Sozos? I 콩리의된찌되判司의1ɔŋŋSIGT uəųņo uolų pəAļaoɔu əəueẠAoIIe susuɔŋn sup1000quəuuuuɔA09 ɔų, uolų pəațəəəu əəue Molie sIssuəņn supŁooo/ uos3əYI
sIssuəŋn oup100O JOJ ɔɔue Molly Jo įdsøoɔɔI : LI GHIAVI,
121

Page 75
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on 1sualil Kecovery
·s][nsəYI KəAunS:ɔɔunoS
00L S 0L0L 0S00 L00 LLL 000 000 S 000LYS00L0LL LLL L00L00LLL0L S LLL SLL 0S00LL00 00L 000L 0S L0 LS0L00L*IWLOL 001 || 68Z | L'ɛt ! ÇIZ | £9Ż | 9L || 001 || 182 | 0" |$ | 0'66 | † 87 || 00Į | 86Z | Oss | Z | | 0'96 | 98Z 1 00 I || 68Z | l°0 | Z | €'66 | [87trenew 00L 000 SL0 LLL LSY LL 000 S L0L S0L YY S0L S 0Y 000 S 000 S 0S£ | 0,66 | 18Ż | 001 || 00£ | €? Í í Ì L'16 | £6Z || 810] usquIBH 00Į į Ł6£ | 9'0$ | HOZ | #7'6ț¢ | 961 || 001 || $69 || 8‘9LL SL0 LLL 000 00L S LS S 0 SL0 L00 000 S 00Y S 00 S S00 S L00ə[[es) 00L 000 L00 L00 0SLL LLL 00L S L0 LLL S 0LL SLSL0 L00 00 S 000 S YE S LL S00 LL0 00L 000 LSL S LL 0000 LL0HJ,00S 00L 000 0SL S 0LL SYSLLS0LLS00L S LL0 0S00 LY0 S00 S LLLS00L S 0SL0 YS0 S 0SL S 0S00 L0S S 000 S 000 S L0 000 000Bugges 00L S 000 S 00LL 0LL YSLL 0LL 00L S L0L0 S 0S00 LL0 LS0L LLL 00L S SL0 YEL 0LL 0SL0 L0L 000L 000 L0 LL S0S00 000HJL HON 001 || #0Į | Ç’88 || Z.6 | Ç’I I | Z | | 001 s 001 || 001 || 001 || 0:00 000 S L0L YSLL S 0 0SL0 00 00L S L0L 0L S 0 SL0 00 LLLLLLLS 001 || 96Z | € † 6 || 6űZ ! L'$ | LI || 001 | 06Z 1 001 | 06Z || 0:00 ! 00l s 96Z || 8' LZ || Z.8 || Z’ZŁ | £1Z || 001 | 96Z || {}, { | 6 || 0’l6 | 187eoleonitog 001 || 009 | 0′{L + 8€ţ | O’LZ || 29 I || 001 || {8$ | 00H || 189 || 0:00 ! 00] | Ç89 || || '$ | 8 || || 6'96 | 199 || 001 || 009 | 0's | † ? || 0'96 | 9L&ūēđūỹ 001 || 000H || 6'08 || 608 | I’6H | IóI || 001 || IL6 || 00! ! IL6 || 0:00 || 001 || #86 | 8‘II || 9II | Z'88 || 898 || 001 || 000! | 6'$ | 6£ | I’96 | {96JLSWEI
%ON%ON% | ON | %ON%ON%ON%0N% | ON | %ON% | O N | % || ON | %0N
TV LOL0NSəATỶ LOLJɔų)OSxa34a zçTỶ LOL0NsəATỶ LOL0NSƏAļos nsỊCI
ĀēsĀīāīūȚJō'ēūīīīīīīīīēsīīīīīīīīīīīSpəațàɔəu sysəəða Jo Jaquin NpĮoqəsnoq əų). Jo sườquuəuu II yūāpūōōsō/ uos33 YI
JəIIɔXI pooĂ-uoN pub pooẠI ÁI>{ɔɔAA Jo įdỊ3038 :8I GITAHVL
122
 
 
 

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·s]InsəYI KəaunS:əɔInoS
S00L 0000 0SE0ELLL LL LLL 0S00L 0L0L Ec S Lc LSL0 0000 0L 00L EELL 000L 0c 00L 0SL LLL L0L0L0LLTỶ LOL 0S000 00L S S00 S 00S S LS0 S 0S000 S 000 S 00 S 0 S 0S00 0LL LLL LL 0000 S 000 YYS# | sy'Z | l | Zo96 | 8.LZɛlɛɲɛyN 0'00s | 88Z | L'66 | 187 | € 0 S 0S000 S L0L YL S S LL00 0LL 0S00 00 000L 000 0L S 0L S LL S00 S 000 S LLLLLL 0000 S 000 S 0S0 S 00L S LLLS 00 0000 00L LS0 S S00 S 000 S 000 S LL 0000 00Y SS L0$ | £T£ | £1 | Ç’96 || Z8€.əlses) cS00L L00 0c0 L00 S S0 S 00 S0S00L S LL0 S L0 S L LS00 L0 YEL 00 cE0L 000 LL S 00 LL LL S 0E0 000HJLQOS 0S000 S 000 S LL0 S L00 S 0L S 00 S 0S00L S LL0 SLS S LL SL0 0L0 SLS S 0L 000 S 000 S 00 S 00 S 00 S 00 S0000Buļļes cS00L 000 S LL0 S LL0 S 0L S 00 E000 LL0 YL S L SL00L0 LL S 0L 000L 000 LS0 SS 00 0L S 0L LSL0000H.L (ON 0S000 L00 S 0S000 S L00 S 00 S 0 0S000 S L0 S 00 S 0 YS00 S 00 S 0S0L S LL 0000 S L0L S 0SZ | 0" |I ] [ '16 | IOL | ɔɔIBUuoɔuĻĻI. 0000 S L0L S 0S00 S LLL S L0 S 00 S 0S00L S L0L S LS0 S L LL0 LLL S LS S LL 0000 00L S 0L S 0 LS LL 0SL0 LLLeospoụeg 0S00L S 00L S S00 S 00L S S0 S 0 0S000 S L0L S LSL S LLS 0SL0 S L0L S LS S LL 0000 S 000 S SL | 1'9 | 0ỳ į ZoZ6 | £ŞŞūīēđūỹ c00L L00 L00 S LL0 S 0L S 0L 0S00L S LL0 S LSL S 0L S LL0 S LL0 S LL S 00 E00L 000L 0c S 0L LL LL 0L00L0JLSVAI %,ON%ON% | ON%oN | % | ON | % || ON% | ON%ON% | ON | % | ON | %ON “Iylol,0NsəXTỶ LOL9?§寸必EZ??ITIWALO).000'ş-SH»0NsəA1ɔỊnsỊCI WɔsĀŋƏjūsjö ætūpīṇīēsīļūṇṇāstīņspəAĻ333.1 sqquoui Jo uəquumN000'ş-SHJo ɔɔũeẢOTTēūsē5 ploīsāsno H/ uoț3əYI
əɔueẠOIIV qSeO pIOųəsnoH ÁIų\u0W. Jo \d|30əYH:6I GITIĶIVL
123

Page 76
Muttukrishna Sarvanantham
Peonle's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·s][nsəYŁ KƏA InS:ɔɔInoS
0′001 | £'LIHoz£°0 | Þ‘SZ | L'8Z | Þ'L || 9°8I | 0'00s | L'LI | S’0£’I | Zo II | €“SŴ | 6,9 || I’LITVJLOJ, 0'00 | | Ç’Œz | #7 IL’0L.0 寸8寸I ogI’ZZ || 0,00] | 6’ÉZ | L'OL’00′0 | Ç’6ț7 | 8o9 | Ç’ IZelemeW 0’001 | 0°Z£’00′00,2 || LoŞ Ş | € Ș | L'#7ɛ | 0°00 I || 0'8£10£’0L’I(), L9 | € † # gogoz | eloqueque H 0′001 | € 0£ | 0°Z0,0Ç’I8o9 ; † Ç'$ | 0,6 I || 0,00ł | 0'08 | 8°00′00^0 { £'0Ç | € £ | 8° ŞIə[[es) 0′00 I | L°6'I | E'IZ°0Þ“I Í L’8ț7 | 6oo | Lotz | 0°00 I | 070€ i 9°0£°0S’0 || I’SS | Los į Lo6HH.LQOS 0′00 || || I - L寸寸ț7’0 || 6 || 9 | 8,0 s£'LI `Z || 0:00 I | L' LZo Iİ’I8’82 i 8° { Ş | #7' Q()'seuJJef 0'00s | I’LÞopț¢°0 | 6° so | 8’0 I | £”LI’Z | 0°00′I | Lo/.Z’II’I || 8°8′Z | 8° IS Í Þ’S0';HLÈHON 0′00 I | I o Lŷ | 8"#70’0 | € £ I || ț79 I8’S9o6 | 0'00 I || I o Lț7 | 6′Z0′0 | Ç" | I | £'LI3'$ | £9 || || əəȚELLIOɔuĻIL 0′00 || || 678 I£’00,0 | Ç’ț7 I ! Ç’99['6 | 9’07 || 0:00 I || 6,6 || || 0:0†”98o9 | 6'69 | 8′ZI | Ž’ț7 IBoļe3]]]es 0′00 || || £^{7Z | 8°0$’0Zo IÇ’ț7Z || Z’ZI | L‘9€ | 0'00s | Zoț¢Ć | Ç’00" |Zo !£” ÇZ | 8 || I | Zo99pieduly 0′00 I ; [‘SZ || I’IZo08o9 | I’LZ || 9°0] | [oóZ | 0°001 | £”SZ || So()S”Z6'$ | 8°8′Z | Þ’s I || 9'LZJLSVGI
►CZ | E QYZ湖地江工QZ Í E QYZ江江
田娜? || 州况逻? || 꽃
13įIļsłCI SCHHALOTIO(IOO)H/ uosầɔYI
(3ổeiūɔɔɲɔā)
Įuseuns Loup IɔŋJV Ásəŋespəuiuus JøssəYH Jo əɔunoS:0Z GITIĶIVL
124

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·sųnsəYI KəAunS:əɔInoS
E00L 000 LSYE S LLL S L0L S 0L S 0SL S LLS S 0L S LL 0EcSJ00 S 0S00L S LL0L YSLLS0LLL S 0S0L S LL0*IV. LOL 0'00s ! Çț7 I || 9°99 | £9 | 0700寸ES0′00 | 0°09 | 18 | 0'00 || || 68Z | 8′6ț7 || ț7ț7 I | Z’0Ç | Şț71ɛJeļeW 0′00 I | €ZZ | 0° 19 | 99 || || ț¢’0I0′000'00 | 9,8€ | 98 || 0:00 || || 00£ | L'#7Z | ț7Ł | € ÇŁ | 9ZZ Í BIOĮuequuBH 0'00 || || 99Z | 7,99 | € £ I || 8°0ZL’I†L’sț7 || #7'6€ | £6 || 0:00 I || #769 | 9’0;" | 091 || #6Ç | #79 ZƏsses) 0′00 I | Þ09 | £*$9 | ZZɛ | S’0€S* I6L°0† | 0’sso | 99Z | 0°00'E | €86 || So8£ | 81€ ! So I 9 | S09HJL[10S 0′00 || || || 9 | Ç’s IL | 0°{Z | ț7 I || 8′Zɛ | 02 || I || 9 || 6 || || 9° {| | 0'00 [ | I 66 | Ç’96 || LZ6 | Ç’9 || ț79Buļļes 0’001 || I 9 || So II | L | 0°{Z | ps || 8°Z$ | 02 || Iolo | 6 || || 9° {| | 0°001 || I 66 || SoĘ6 || LZ6 || So9 | #79H.LXION 0'001 || 0ț7 | Ç’ZÍ90′000’000' 9 I9Ç’ZL | 6Z | 0'00 || ț70s | 9,09 | £9 | ț7°6€ | | #7 | əƏlƐULIOɔUĻIL 0'00! # | 9 | Ç’9Z0′00Ç’9Z | "sy’6 I || 9 || Lo L9 || I Z | 0'00s | 96Z || 6'68 | 99Z [ I’0 I || 0£eo[eos]) esÐ 0'00 I || 0 | | | Ç’ț79 || 89 || 8 ||Z || 0:0 || || || I || 6'0 I | Z | | | 'Zț7 || s þ || 0:00 I | L69 | ț7" | 8 | 98ț7 | 9,8 | | | | |eueduuy 0′001 || I8I | 6’soz | Sț | I’IZZoŁ | €I | Noos I | ÞZ || 9°{S | L6 | 0°00’I | L66 i Lo 18 | SI8 | £”8 I | Z8IJLSVGI %ON% ) ON | % | ON | % | ON% | ON | % | ON%ON% | ON | %ON TV, LOLJəųļOəŋsɛOuoỊāļņasHɔļuĻĢH[bɔŋỊIoas^IVILOJ,0NSəA1ɔŋSICI ¿tusļļļu noABJ 30 SISeq əų) są jeųIAAŹūsų sūīõĀēj Kue JoɔJēĀe nõĀ əūy/ UO13əYI
JəIIɔYI JO quəuI3S-InqsỊCI uĮ Įus!!!...InoABA : IZ GITIĶIVL
125

Page 77
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·s]] nsəYH Kəa InS:ɔɔInoS
0'00I | 886°Z9’00Z戊*S9SIÞozz6998"ᏟIIIL’9$ | L6€“I | Z’IZSɛ9TV LOL 0′00 I68Z0° I£8°Z8£'99Z0I£'0IZ°09Şț7 s†”OI0£e IeņeW 0′00 I009£'0I0°Z9£'0ZI 9L’0Z£'99991£” IZț79eļojuequueH 0′00 I00寸£’0HÇ’ €† I£8€£ÇI3°ZI I3'97L0IÇ’8Z† [ [Ə[[es) 0 ̇00፤ ! 686S’0S8°Z8Z0 ̇ሯ፰9IÇÞ’IÞIE:Z寸8I£70′IZ80ZHALĤOS 0'00||666Z'{}Z9’I Į9Į Iț7' Ø Iț79 I£ €£Z6'9969€.Ç’9£Ç9€.euJJep 0°00 I || 666Z’0Z9’II9IIÞ’ŒIț7£I£"Ꮓ£Z6."So69€.9°9£S9€.HJLÈHON 0'001ț7010" ||0’I|6’ LZ6ZZ'6||0ZZ9寸8寸8"#7SəəŋɛUUoɔuĻIL 0'00196Z£’0|L’0Z€” IZ£99’S I9寸£” Lț70ỳI6"#7 I寸寸poleonness 0'0010098° II IÇ’I6Z IZLZI£” I80°ZŁZ$ț7ZoZƐ Iēūēdūy 0’001 || 000‘I阮:T£Ꭰzo IZI6’IZ6IZ守Lț7L0 ̇፭90Z9z°9Z9JLSVOH %ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON
əuuou s.puəțJJəunoqəuolųəuoq1ɔĮJĮSIGI
“IVALOJ,əuu0ų pəŋuɔYI/ s,əAņɛsɔYIqueuns]-3-1){quɔļ JəĮIɔYIÁu0ļļSue II,QuoueuuJoài/ uosão}}
squɔpuodsəYI JO JəŋIəųS suɔ.I.Inɔ :ZZ GITAV,L
126

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
“sụnsəYI ÁəaunS:əɔunoS
00L 000L S 0L 000 S LS0 S LL S YS0 0L S LSL S 00 SL00LL00L 0000 YS LLL YEL LLLLLLLL LSLLLLYTry (LO), 0{}{ | 68Z | € 0I0′00 | 9'9 i | 8ţ | Ç’$ | 0 || || 9’60 || 0£Z || 00 I || 682 || 0:00 i 6” 18 || ț7ĝo | 9,9 || 6 IÇ’9 | 9 ||putņpsw 00H || 00£ | € 0I0’s)0 | £’0 || || I £ | 0° {6£'98 | 6Ç? || 00H || 00£ į Ū’00 | 0° §6 | 98Z | 0*860′Z9ejoļuæquæH 00Į Į 00ţ | Ç’Z || {} {0′000,6 || 99 || $’s || ? || || 0'$8 || 0ț¢ £ | 00 || || 00ţ | 0'00 $ €” [6 | 998 || So9 | Z Ż£ €£ IəIIęs) 00 H | 686 || Z'I | Zł0°00 || 9°{I | SIĘ | soo | £§ | 8os:8 || 6,8 || 60s || 686 || {}^0© į sools | #706 || I’S | 09 i . Soo | §§HLÍTOS 00666 &t &寸[ Z:TZI | Zog I | ZĶI || 9's # 9ỷ | £99 || Z99 || 00 || || 666 || 6'06I'$$ | [3$ | 9’6 || || 963 | £’s $ | £{ £euJJET 00 S 000 S SLL S LLL S KSL S LL LSLL S LLL S 0E S 0Y S S00 S L00 S0000 S 000 S 0E{$ | I’8ţ | Igț | 9’6 I || 96 I | €"IŞ | ÇIĘH.I.(HON 001 || ±0 || || 8°;90°008’s#8’s† || 9 || 8 || || 6 || 00 || || ț70 I | 0° i{ó‘9 f. | 08 || ??? I | S sL'L3 | əəlɛuoɔusu L 00į | 96Z || 0 00£ 0{89 0Z 等ペí$’06 || 89Z || 004 || 962 | 0'0{}jo 18 || 0țZ | 8289Z || I ’0 I || 0£Boļesņeg 00 || || 009 || 9°0££ 0ZZ" IŁSo I6$’96 || 6Ł9 || 00 || || 009 | 0°{}0 | Z'98 || LIÇ | Lot | 9ỹ | Zo9 | 19ūīēđūs 00:1 || 900 I || 8°08£"0£I'$_|_Is_|_0,z_1_07_, |_8o 6 || 8£6_|_001_|_0001 || I’0I | L'$8 || LỆ8 || L'8 | 18 || S’L | SŁJLᏚᏙᏆᎻ
%ON%ON% | ON%ON% || ON%0N%ON% | ON%ON%�N%ÖN
əSnoqəsnouəsnoqynų Ļeņo LJɔų)OS.p.II31.I.H.S,ɔAĻĽĮ3}}pəŋuɔɔHpəuẠAO[b30J,əuoNənə ŋɔuoɔpəqs uȚI,unspeɔ
nɔŋŋsiq pueuns, əuojəq Áɔuednɔɔo jo əďÁL!ubuns, əuojaq əsnoq Jo ɔdẤs,/ uol3ɔɔs
queuns L auņ əuoJəg əɔuəpssəH Jo ødÅL :£z GITIĶIVL
127

Page 78
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·s][nsƏYI KƏA InS:əɔInoS
LE0LL0LL 0S0000LL YS0 0LL S0 LL 0S S 0LL S 0L 0LL 0S00L 000L LSLL0L 0LL Y00L 0S00 S 000LTVLOL 0000 S LLL S 0LL S000 LLLS 0L 000 S 00 S 00 S LLSSLS000LS00LSLS0L S LLL LLL S LLLB.JesɛWN 000L00L YS00LLL S 0S S L 00L S 0L S 0L S L S 00 S 0 S 0000000 S LL S 0 0L L0 S00 00L L00LLLLLLLL 0000 S 00L LS00 LLS LLL L0 LLLL 00 S L0 S 00 S 0S00 0000 00L LSL L 0SLL 0LL 0SLL 00LƏ[[es) 0E0L LL0 YS0L L0L LLL 0LLLS0L S LLL LS0 L S 0c S LL 000L 000 0L S 0L YSLL 00L S0S0L S L0LHLÍNOS 0000 S LL0 S 0 LS LL0SY0 00 0L S 0L LS0 S 00 L00 S 00 S 0S000 S 000 S LL 0SLL S 0LL S0L 00LeuJJef 0EEL LL00 LLS L00 S S0 S 00S0L S 0L LS0 S 00 S LS0L 00 S0000 S 000 S LL 0SLL S 0LL 0S0L 00LHL?ION 0000 000 YSLL 0L S 00 S 0 LS0L 0L 0L S L 000 L S0S000 L0L 0S L S LLL S LL 0S0LS 0L S LLLLLLLLL 0000 S 000 0LS 000 LS0 S L S LS0 S LS0L S 0L S 0S LL 0000 00L 00 S 0 S 0S0L S L0 SLS0L S LLLBoļeoŋŋɛɛI 0000 S 00L 0S00 00L S LS0 S LL Y 0 0S0 00 S L0 S L S 0S000 S 000 S LL 0SLL 00L 0SL0 LLLūēđūĪy 0E0L0L0 YE0 S L0L S LL0L S 0E S 0L S LS LL S 0L S 0L 0S00L 000L LL LL LSLL LLL 0S00 000JLSVGI %oN | % | ON | % | ON | % | ON | % | ON | % | ON | %ON !! % ! ON | % | ON | % | ON 의해필리퍼되TT되의해필리피되TT되의해되리되된 [840 Ləu0NJəų)OJĮ3SOÐNIOÐN[840 LONÅŋueqKlinae1ɔĻI, SICI :øsnoq əų, jųnqəJ / pəuỊedəu oŲAAəsnou o, ɔầeuuep Jo quəŋxQ/ uosãɔYŁ
əsno H og usedəH pue ə3euIeOI Jo suɔɔxɔI :țz GITIĶIVL
128

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·sųnsəYI KəAunS:əɔjnoS
0S00L S L0L 0SL0 LLL S LS0 S LLL 0SE0L00L 000L 00L SLS 0L0L S 0E 0LL SLS0LL S 0LL S 0E S LTV LOJL 0'00s į †7ÇZ | 1' szó | 6€Z | 6'S | Ş | | 0'001 || 80Z | £9 | € I || I '8ț7 s 00 I | €"#76 | 6'0ț7 | Ç8 | Ç’0IBIBỊeW 0′00 I || 89Z | 8°86 # ŞÇZ į Zo I9 | 0'00s | † 67 | 8° L | £Z | 0'98 || 0ÇZ { †” I††” Ç | 9 || || £T0I | e\o(\uequipH 000L LLL LS00 00L S LLL S LL S0S00L S L0L 0LL S LLL S S00 S L0L S 0006,9 || LZ || 9°0ZƏIses) 0S00L L0 SL0 S L0L S 0S S 00 S00L L00 S LS0L S L0L S 0S00S L00 S LSL S LL Y LL S 0LL S cSșHLÍTOS 0000 LL0 S LS00 LLL LS00 S L0 S 0S000 S 000 S 0S S LSL S 0SL0 00S LS S 00 S LS0 S 00 S 0S S LLeuJJer 0S00L S LL0 S LS00 LLL S LS0L S L0 S 0S00L 000 S 0S S LSL S 0S00 S 00S LSY S 0L S LS0 S 00 S 0 L S LL H.L RION 0'00" | €6 | 6'86 i Z6I'I| || 0:00 I || 18 | 9“†”ț7 | € †76 || Z8{ ' [I0′000'00 | əəIɛUuoɔuĻIL 000 0L S 0SL0 LLL S JL S LL 00000 S L0L S 0SL S LSL S 0S0Y S 00L S S00 S 00 S LS S 0L S LS0|Boļeosneg 0′00 I || 189 | 6'96 | ÇLƐ | Log | Z | | 0'00s | Çț79 | Ç’6 | Zç | Ç’I 8 | #7f7f7 | 7’0ZT8 一寸寸 90{ēīēdūy E00L 0LL S LS00 L00 S 0c S 0L S S0S00L S 0L0S LSLL S 00L S 0SLS Y00 S LS0 S 00 S 0S S L0 c0†JLSVGI %ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON% | ON%ON%ON
sunoue000‛0gሯZ000’001000‘SZ
[b10J,ONSəĀIɛŋ0LJəųļo Áuyəu0NXIXITYIXITYIXIT :øsnoq1ɔŋŋSIGI pỊnqəu JO JĮedəu os suəļoŲJns jų sɛAAuoņɔnuņSu0ɔɔu suļsnou Joy quəuuuuəA03 əų, Kq əpeu quəuuẤeq/ uosãɔYŁ
uoŋɔn ŋsuoɔəYH ouĮsnoH JOJ KəuoIN Jo qd|333}H :SZ GIT£IVL
129

Page 79
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
·s]] nsəYH KəAInS:əɔInoS
130
0'001€y6Z0Ꮫ6ᏋLț7II0’I 996 LITV LOL 0'00s98ZS’6€.£I IÇ’09ĶŁ łɛJesɛW 0'00196Z9* £Ꭽ6ZI†’9çL9||BļoļuequeH 0'001Ș6€Zo sɛLț718° Z98țZəIIes) 0 ̇00፤LL68°6€.68€፳Z‛0988SH.LÍNOS 0'00||916Ç’Zț7Ç I #7Ş" LS[9ÇeuJes 0'00I916S“Zț7SI!?S” LSI9SHALNION 0'00Iț70 IL'$9Çɛ£'9969əəț¢ULIOɔuĻIL 0'00s96Z9:[才£ZIț7'8ç9 LIeoỊe3Illess 0'001069寸,[EÇ819"89Ç0ț7æJeduuy 0*0010669*i7ᏋƐsɛÞoS9LÞ9JLSVGH %ON%ON9%ON TVJLOJ,ONSOEHA ŹjūāūūūāĀ5īsāūTKūpāņēIndụs àūozīəJūq 3ų. ĮJĮĀrēāūāēūōĀ OOI1ɔŋŋsỊCI / uos3əYI
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
əuoZ JoJJng əų, uo uoỊuqdO:9z GITIĶIVL

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
‘swinsəYI Kəauns :ɔɔunos
ZogzZ6ZșozILZIክነ‛0ሯIIZ0°00′I996||#"LÞZ€69°ZS£7€0ITVLOL 0'00I寸寸0’00||寸寸0’00erene W. 0'00||00’000′00eļoņuequies+ 0'00 I9£'98S['9'IIƏ[[es) 0°00′I0S0°866#70°ZIHULÍNOS 0′00 {9860'Ø I8ZI0’ L8Ł98euJJer 0*001S860’s I8ZI0°L8LS8HJL HON 0′00 I£0||['Zț7守守o L969əəseuoɔusu L 0°00′I9çZ9°9'L96 Iț7’9209eoỊeomeg 0'00 IZŁS0'06§ 190′0 ILSeueduuy 0‛00፤Iɛ6[* I3SSL6*8I9 LIJLSVGI %ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON ɔɔįAAL <ɔɔįAALəɔuOTIWALOJ,ONSCHLÄ1ɔŋŋsỊCI Źsəūŋ Kubu Moq,səX, JI결되I화되의되지회위원회늬회의복편히회되최된회되知的y uos3əYI
queuns I, əų, og Josud IeM HAIO əų, o, ɔnp quatuoseIds[CI : LZ GITAVL
131

Page 80
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
£” is,
L'19 l.
%0N
TV LOJ,ON
sunoɔɔɛ oņus uɔxɛ, sɔɔuələgəud unoẢ ələAA
06€Ľ-£“ZZ I ESS 0 I
0 I
iţł
Jøų30
:Jəųøųs Ấue sodulɔ, əlp noẢ pəpỊAoud olỊAA
£98 || ț¢”IZ # Soos 9
% | ON ĮeuopæN
Ấue ioduə, əlp
JəŋIəųS ÁIe-Iodurɔ L. Jo uoŋɔɛJsņes pue Iompejəuəg :gz GITAVL
“sıļnsəYI KəA InS:ɔɔunoS L'Is(IV)O),
I
enosti equipH
£8 %
SoHÅ
pəgsņes noẢ a sy
132
 

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
“SựnsəN Á3AInS:əɔunoS
0′00 I | SH61 | 6,99 | 680 I | 0°ZI | 6ZZ || L'6I || LLỆ | Zoț7|is9°I || 0£ | L°S | 601 | 0°001 || 686 | £’0€ [ 00£ | L°69 | 689TVJLOJ, ()'00 | | | 6 || LoŻQ || 8ț7 || 6'02 || 6 ||††#0’0 || 0 || 0,0 || 0 | 0°ZZ || 0Ż | 0'00 I || 00 || || 0'99 || 99 || 0"#79 ; †79eJeļeW 0′00 I || Z.ÇI | L'8ț7 | ț7Ł | Zo9€ | Ç Ç | 97#Ɛ I | Z | 9,8 | 9 || || 9° Z | ? || 0'00s | 06 | 8' L9 | 19 | Z’Z9 | 6Z | BẢOļuequ¿IBH 0′00 I || LI £ | LI Çț7 | Çț7 I | 0° oz | £L | Ç’ ŞI6ț7 | 9f9 || || Z | € 0 || I || 8‘8 | 8Z | 0,001 || I | Z | € 0£ | p9 || L’69 || Lț7||Əsses) 0'00s | 099 || Lo Lț7 || L9Z | £’97 || Lț» I | Z’0 ILS_| I’o | oz || Soz | ÞI || o6 || ZS || 0:00 I || 10ť || I’0; || 191 || 66S | 0ÞzHIJL[nOS 00LS0LS0LY000KJKYYLLS0LYS000LLSYYKKKKKKSLLLLLLYS00SYKKYY0LLBuJJET 0000 S 000S0LL S 0LL S 0L S LL S0 LLS LLL S 00 S 00 S L0L S LL S 00 S 00 S 0S000 S L0L SS 00S0L S LL0 S 0LLHAL RION ()'00 || Z.6 || 8′69 | Ç Ç | Z’Z | Z | 0° çZ£Z | †” Ş | 9 | € £ | € | €'y | ff | 0'00s | 08 | £9L | 19 | 8′{Z || 6 || || ɔɔsɛUuoɔuțIL L0o001 || SCZ || 9 SL || 0L I || || 8 || L | †0Ć9ț7 || 0:0 || 0 || #7’0 || I | ț7’0 || I || 0,00 I || 99 # 6 (Zț7 || LZ || I’LÇ | 9€.eospoļiļeg 0′00 I || 6 || 9 | 0^{28 | 89Z | Lo6 || I £ į f7f7寸T6′0 || 9 || 0:0 || 0 | 670 || 9 || ()(()() { | 8£ | Ç’09 | £Z ị Ç’69 | ŞIBjeduuy 0'00 I || 9€9 || S’LL | £6ţ | Ç’9 | 0ţ | I’ŒI£8 | €” I || 8 | 9,0 | Þ | £” I || 8 || 0‘001 || I8I ] ©’I9 || III || L'8£ | 0LJLSVOH %ON%ON% | ON%ON9% | ON | % | ON | % | ON%ON | % | ON ị % | ON OÐNOfONOÐNJuồuu Ieņ0J,əu0NJəųJO Į IeuoụeuJəņu I l seu oņeN s seəoTuuəA05)TIVALOJ,ONSCHA -:JəŋsƏŋs jūəueuilòd1ɔŋŋsỊCI :JəŋsƏqs juəueuuədəų, noẢ pəpỊAoud oụAAəų, ĻļAA pəŋsụes noÁ əuy/ uos3əYH
uəŋIəųS ĵuəubuı10ā Jo uoŋɔejsņes pue Josoejəuəg :6z TMII,IVL
133

Page 81
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
“sıĮmsəYI KəAmS:ɔɔInoS
0′001 || 69ZI | €°6'I | Sț72 | 0°Z9Z | Þ’Iț7 | 9ZS | Z’LE | ZLț7 || 0,001 || 600H || 0'Œy | #os | 0° LS | SLG*IV. LOL 0’001 || 6Z9° 1280′00寸‘E|0'690Z | 0'00s99I'LSZ£6′Zț7#ZɛIBỊeW 0'001LZ6'97L寸&Z寸、AZƐ'699 I0′00 I | £9 I || 9's L | 0Z I || #7’92Çy | eļojuequeH 00010寸[寸9寸Ç90′00E寸9£(6ț769 | 0'00 I || 89 I | L'8€.Ç9£' I9 | 90 Iə[[20 0'00 I || 961 | 8°0ły080’IZ9'Ꭽ6ț7°9'S | S0s | 0°00 I || 18£ | I’99 || LIZ | 6°sso | 01IH.L0IOS 0′00 I || #7 L1 s 9’ [ I068‘ I# I['6ț7 | 08£ | Ç’Lo # 06Z || 0'00 I | Z | 17 | Zo s. II L8′Z8[才9euger 0'00 L | ț7LL | 9*II068’IᎭL1°6ţ | 08£ | S*LÊ | 06Z | 0°00T Í ZIto | Z’LIIL8"Z8 | IyɛHL HON 0'00sLZ0'99LI0′00寸:ZZ9’6780′00 [6Łț7' £1899'97IZ | 33Ieuuoous II. 0′00 I | ÇOI | Zo9||LI6′Z£ț7" | 9 || 899’6ț7Z$ | 0'00||£9£'Issy9ZL'89LƐeo[eos]]eg 0'00 || || 19 I | 9' s.z.[才ZoțLIf I 9 | ZOIZ’0ILI0'00189Zo [6Z98,89ēIedūỹ 0'00s || 66Z | I” SZ || S.L.£"Ꮛ0[ | 8‘SW || LOEI | 8°SZ || LL | 0°00’I || 0 IZ | S’69 | 9ỷI | S’0£ | #79„LSVGI %ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON [b10 LJəųļOĮSBOunoqeqpuer I(IV) LOL* ONSOEHA 협의회의되어T되화되화되회의의되T해리된리회T리피리리회의和nɔŋŋsựCI Łosnoụ quəubuuuədəų, suspỊnq 0ų uoụnqļuqu0ɔ s, suɔỊdpəu əų) sew jeųWAoņus uəx{e} S/əəuələgəld s, juosdų3əu əų) se AA/ uos3ɔN
JəŋsƏųS quəubuuio, os sjuaņdpəYI ɔŋ Jo uopnqļņuoƆ:0ç ĢITẠIVL
134

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
opɔwɔỊAIɔļus spĮoqəsnoq əų. Jo Jəquəuu ɔIesuɔ, əų; uolų pəx{se sɛA uoŋsƏnb sț¢LL:əJON
’sı[nsəYI KøaunS:ƏɔInoS
0E0L0L0L LS0L 000 LLL LLL 00LL 0LL 0SLL LS0S0S00L S L0L 00L 00L S LSLL 00L S LSLL SLLL LSLL S 00LL*IV. LOL 000L 00L S0S0L S 00 S 0LS S 0LL LL 0SLLL00 0000 0LL SLL S S00 S SL S L S LSLL S 00 L0L S 00e IeņeyN 0000 0LL LS0L 00 LL L LSLL 0L LSLL S 00 S 0000 00L S LLLS 00 S 00 S 0 00L S 0L 000 000 S L00LLLLLLL 0S00L S L0L S 0SLL S LS S LSL S LL 0SL S LS0 S LSL S L0L 0S000 S 000 00L L0 S SL SLL LSLL L0 S LL00 00Lə[[es) E00L 0S0 YS0L0LL 0L S 0L 0SY0SLLL 0cL LLL 000L 000 LS0L J0L S LSL S 0L LLL LLL 00LL LLLHALO OS 0000 S 000 S 000L 00YS0 LL L0L LS0 00 0 0L 00L S0S00L S LL0 0SLL LLY LLLL 00L S 0L S L S 0LL LLLeuỊJef 0E0L 000 S 000L00Y 0SLL L0L LS0 S 00S0 LL S L0L S0S00L S LL0 S 0LYLLY LSLL 0000 00 S LL 0LL LLLHJL HON 0S00 S 0S LS0L S SLL S LSLL S 0 LL0L S 0L S S00 S 00 S 0S00L S L0L 0S00 S 00 S 00 S 0L S 0SLLLL 00L 00 LLLLLLLLS 0′00 || || E9 | 6'8 I || 0 || || ț7'6 | 9 | 6 |||8°69 ! LE | 0'00s | #76Z || 6′ { { | [†7 | 0° I £ | 16 | 9’s. I || 0ț7 | Ç’I ț7 || ZZIeoțeoụleg 0S00L S S00 0SLS 0L 00 S L S LS0S S S LS0L S 0L S 0S000 S L0L YSLL S 00 S S0 S LL LLL S LL LS00 000e reduīv LE0L 0LL 0LL 00LL YS0 LL YcL S LY S 000 S 00 S 0S00L L00 S SLL0LL S 0LL LLL S 0LL 0LL LLL LLLJLSVGI %ON | % | ON | % | ON | % | ON | %ON%ON | % | ON | % || ON | % | ON | %ON TV LOJ,JəųJOUĮ108||pūēqsī£TTTūəpūōdsəYITIŴLOLJəųJOĮ,08||pueqsnH ! quəpuodsəYI1ɔĮJĮSIGI quieuns, uəŋɛ•1 +uiuod/pueĮ Jo dįųsuəuẠOȚūīēūūSTāīūjāqīpūēījõ đȚūŠīēūĀÕ/ uos39 YI
ĮųIeuns, L 3ų, 19).JV puɛ əJoJəos pubTI Jo dyųSuou.AAO:IÇ QITIĶIVL
135

Page 82
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
'pɔAəța Ianus sp[oqəsnoq əų; go loquuəuu ɔsɛulog Əų uJouy pəx se sexa uoņsənb sỊųL:əyon
·sıļnsəYH Kəa InS:əɔunoS
00H | ZLI | L'$ | 8 || 0'WI || ??6ᏉᏃS0E L 0SLLLL 00 S L00L LSc 0000 0SL LLL 00L 000SLLL0000L 0SL S L0*IWLO). 00.1 # oz || 0:0 || 00′000:0000 S 0 S 000 S LL 000 S 000 000 000 S 00 S LL 0000 00L S00 00L S 0S S LLɛlɛɲɛW 00:1 || 9 || 0:0 | 00'000′000:0 || 0 || 00ł$ | 001 s 00£ | £86 || 96Z ] [‘IŞ | 001 || 00£ | L'66 | 66Z | € 0 || I || 8}O\uequ¿EH 001 || 6 || I - I l | I0′000′000'0 || 0 || 6'88 || 8 || 001 || 00ţ | £86 || £69 | 8" |[ | 001 || 00ţ | 0'86 || Z69 || 0 ? || 8əIIep 001 || Łę i Loz || 10’000′000'0 || 0 | £'L6 | 9£ | 0{)I || 686 || So96 | #$6 || Soɛ | Sɛ | 001 || 686 | 6'96 || 896 || Hoo | IoH.LfiOS 001 || 9 || || 0:0 || 0 | € osoɛS0'07£0'0 || 0 || L’9ỹ | L | 001 || 666 | €'86 || Z86 || L’I | LI || 001 | 666 | Ç’66 | #66 | Ç’0 || $sugger 001 || GI || 0:0 || 0 | £“Çs | $0'0፲£0’0 || 0 || L’9ỷ | L | 001 || 666 | £86 || Z86 || L’I || LI | 001 || 666 || So66 || #66 || S’0 || S.HaeoN. 001 || Z | 0:0 | 00'000’000'0Ç | I | 0°09 | I || 001 | €01 || 1:36 | 101 || 6 ||Z || 001 | ÇOI ! I'86 | 101 || 6 | | Z | əə|Euro3uȚIL 00 || || 69 || 0:0 || 0 || 6'Ç£ | ff |0′000'0 || 0 || I’ț79 || SZ || 001 || #6Z | L'98 || 99Z | € £ I || 69 || 001 || 96Z | Ç’L8 || 69Z | Ç’ZI | LƐeosæ3ụjeg 001 | 61 | 6,8 || L.£'9SŞ’ZZ00 S 0 LL0 S L0 000 S 000 LS00 0LL SLLS 00 00 S 00L 0S00 L0L 0L L0Eīēdūy 001 || 0ŻI || 8’S | L | 8’SH || 61L’IL S 0S0 S L S 0LL S L0 00L L00 SLL0 L0 YSLLSLL00L 000 0E0 LL0 S LL0 S LLJLSVIĶI % | ON | % | ON | %ÔN%ON% | ON | % || ON | % | ON%0N% | ON | % || ON%ON% | ON JəŋsƏqspuəļJJ/əAņɛsɔu.əuoqdittae Isso LJɔq) O | ÁueuoduæI.Jo ɔuu0HuẢOJəŋƏHTV LOLONSOEHÅTỶ LOLONSOEHA taessoalanɔŋŋsỊCI Ấue JĮ æsnqe qɔns go ɔɔɛsɑuəuuosa yo ɔsnqɛ sɛquəA Áue Jo aieĄayJo əsnqe sɛ ɔysẤqd Áue go ɔueĄay/ usoț3əYŁ
uəuIOAA JO Quousse IBH ::Zç ĢITĀVI,
136

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
oponaosarayuq spíotsɔsnoq əų. Jo 1oquioui ofeuog əų, uoug pəysse sea uoŋsƏmb sqq.s. :ənon ’sıļnsəYI KəaunS:əɔInoS
00I || ?? I | Zoţ | 9 | 6°ss | [],I’Z险LS S 0 LL0LL 00LL00LLL0000L S LLLS00L 000L LL0 0L0L S L S 00Tylo), 001 || 6 || || 0:0 || 00:000,000:0 || 0 || 001 || 6 || || 001 || 68Z | #7'96 | OLZ || 9,9 || 6 || || 001 || 68Z || o'96 | 017 | 9,9 || 6 ||ťIBỊ BỊA 00[ | ]0′0 || 00,000'000,0 || 0 || 001| | 00 I || 66Z | L'66 || 86Z į o'0| || 001 || 00£ | L'66 || 66Z | € 0 || I | ĐỊoļuequIBH 001 || s.0 0 1 00'00E寸I0:0 || 0 || Loç8 | 9 || 003 || 00ț7 | £'L6 | 68£ | 8′Z || I || || 001 || 668 || L'66 || 86€ / £ 0 || ||ə||89 受 LZ 0:000’s)0L’oI0′0 || 0 || $’96 | 9Z | 001 || 886 || 696 || LS6 | soo | Io || 001 || 886 || 6°L6 || Ł96 || I“Z | IZHaeff0s 00 || || 6 || || ' | I || I | Z’ZZZ0'80£ € £ ¥ $ ¢ £ € £ | € | 001 || 666 | £66 | Z66 || L’0 || L | 00 I || 666 | 9’66 | 766 || S’0 || S.Buġer 00I | 6 || I-II || I | ZoZZ || Z.0′00ƐrƐƐ | € | £”€£ | € £ 00 I || 666 | €66 || Z.66 || L’0 || L | 00H || 666 || So66 | Þ66 || S’0 || S.(HJ)(ION 001 || 1 || 0:0 || 0 || 9°8′ZZ0′00£(; I || I || I’LÇ | ff || 001 || £OI I Z’96 | 968o9 | [ | 00H || $0 || || 0'66 Í ZOÏ | 0' [| || 3ɔɲɛɑsoous I L 001 || 6£ || 9°Z[|6‘SE 对T()'0000 S 0 LS00 S LL 00 S L0L LS0 LLL S 0LL S 00 S 000 S 00L 0S00 LLL LLL S 00eoleonneg 00Į į Z9 | Ç’9 || ?ZosZZosZLSL S S S0SL0 LL 000 000 S00 00L S0L S L0 000 S 000 LS00 000 S LS0 S Sēīēdūĩ 001 || 301 || 9'; # S # L’9Į | 8I6"IZgoz | & | I’ț71 | 08 || 00 I || 866 || I’68 | 688 || 6'0E || 60 I || 0:0 I | 666 | 8’S6 || LS6 | Zoo | ZoJLᏚᎳᏆᏩI % | ON | % | ỞN ị %ON%ỌN% | ÔN | % || ON | % || ON%ON% | ON | % | ON%ON&&, || ON: JøssøqspuəțıyɔAųɛIəJəuoqdia: [ɛŋ0),JƏIĻOKie Iodula I.J0 3MII0HuẠAOJəŋɔɔITV LOJ,0NSoix.*T* LOLON:SOEHA uəupIsqɔuəupiųɔ13susțCI Ấue JĮ sosnąe qɔns Jo ɔɔɛIGHJo osnąe sequəa Áue jo əueảayJo əsuqe seoţsẤqd Kue Jo ə nɛAay/ uoț3ɔɔH
uəIpĻUIO JO QuouISSBIBH :ɛɛ ĢITIĶIVJL
137

Page 83
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·s][nsəYI KəAunS:əɔunoS
0LL 0000 0S0L LLLSLS0L S LLLL 00L JL00 SL00 E00 L00L 00L 00LL 0LL 00LYS0S S 0L0L00L LL0L LLL L0L LLSYY0LTỶ LOL 000 S 000 S 0L S 0L S 0L0 000 000 S 00L S 0SJ0 00 YL0 0LL S 000 S 000 S LL S LL SL0 000 000 00L LS0L S LL 0000 000euenew 000 S L0L S0L S 0L SLS S 000 S 000 S 0LL SLS00 Y0 0S00 00L 000 S L0L S LSLL S 00 LS0 S LLL S 000 S LLL SYS0L S L S 0S0S S 0LL S LLLLLLLLLLL 00 S 00L S00 S 00 S S00 S 0LL 00L LLL 00L S SLL LSLL S L0L 000 S 00L S00 00 SLL S 0LL S 000 S 0LL 0SYL S L0 SLL0 L0əIsť0 00L S S00S00L S LLLSL00SLL0 S 000 S L0S S000 S 000 SLSLL S 000S000 S LS0L S LLSLL0 S 000 S 000 S 000 S 000 S L0L S LLS0LLHLÍTOS 월정TTT헌T的ZTT7헌TT헌TT的T위TTT헌TT헌TT헌TT헌TT헌TT공TTT회77T공T공의TT헌TT헌의회TT월TTT헌TT헌에TT헌T헌TT예원회puļģer Y0L L0S LLL LLL LS00 000 000 S LL0 S 0L S 0L S LSL0 000 00L S 0LL SLLL Y0L 0S00 LL0 SS 000 S LL0 S L0L S 0L 0SL0 000HLYHON 001 || 96 || 6'9ț ! Çf | I’$$ || 19 || 001 | 66Z9 s svo slo | tɛ | 001L6 || I’SĖ Į į Ķ ķ 6’f9 || 29 | 00||L6 | ç’8ț | Lț ! Ç’IÇ | 09 | 33ļbūIOɔuĻĻL 001 || #6Z | Ç’6ɛ | 9 || I || 9°09 | 9 || I || 00 || || 96ZLLL 000 000 000 00L S0S0L S 00 S 0S00 LLL 000 S 00L S0S0L S L0 S 0LS L0Lpopɔŋmɛą 001 || 9 ț79 | soț¢ $ | 86Z , or Sto s s fyz | 00 || || 289L0L 0S00 LLL 00 S LLLSLS0L S LLLSLS 000 000 0SL S0LSS0LL 0S00 SL0ēĒđūō 001 || Z$6 || I’6ţ | 8Sţ | 6'0$ | FLF || 00H || 816L88 || o'09 | 16S 1 001 || Isó į S'97 || Loz || Sol. i #89 _|_001_|_IL6 || I’9£ | ISƐ || 6'99 | 029J.SVGH %0N% | ON | %ON%ỌNON | %ON%ON% | O N | %ON%0N% | ON | %0N TỷLOJ,ONSOEHATỶ LOLSGĦATV LOJ,ONSCIAty LOJ,0NSoĦA „13)|ạųssūtīt:5 Ấueuoduto, əqŋ uļ Șusųsexa » ous, susipJə səu əųų uỊ ŝuqqsew xy s3uqYusupuəŋɔqs Kue Ioduuə)duge) Jøssəu13! IssỊCI uos uøye sa può solųns Jo ĀŋŋqeųæAyLL LLLLL LLLLLLL LL LLLLLL LLLL LL LLLLL LLLLLL LL LLLLLLLLLL LLL L LLLLL LLLLLLL LL LLLLLLLLLLL/ uoỊ3əXI
səņ!!!3 e às 1318AA pub Kubhgues :ț¢ GITIĶIVL
138
 

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan,
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
ossinsəYI Kəa InS:əɔunoS
00L LLLL LLL LL 000 LL0L 0LL 00LLL0LL0L 0L0L00LL00 000LL LLLLY00LLYLLL 00LL 0LL 000L 00L0LL0L cS0LLL0TŷLOJ, 00L S LLL SL00 LL S000 L0L 000 S 00L LS0 S 00 S 0S00 0LL 00L S 000 S 00LLS LLL LS0L S 0L 000 S 000 LS0 0LL 0SL0 LLɛlɛɲɛW 000 S L0L 0LL S 0L S SLL S LLS 000 S L00 0L S S00 S S00 LLL 00 S L0L 0S00 J0L LSLL S 00 S 000 S 00S 0S00 000 S L0 S 00 S LLLLLLLLL 000 S 0LL S 0 S S S00 LLL 00L S LLL S LS S L S 0S0 S 0L 000 S 000 S 0LL LLL 00L L0 00L S 0LL S0L S L0L S S00 S 003IIep 00L 00L LLLLLL 0S00 LLL 00L S LL0 LLL S LLLLS0L S 000 00L L0L 0S00 L0L LSLL LLL 000 LLL LLL LL 0SLLLLH.I.00S 000 S 000 S 00 S 0 LS00 L00 S 000 S L0L S 0S0 S S LS00 S 000 S 000 S L0L S LSLL S 00SL LS00 L0L 00L S LL0 000 000 000 0L0euges LLL S 000 S 0E S 0 LS00 J00S00L S L0L 00 S L S LS00 000 00L S L0L LSLL S 0EL LS00 LLL 00L S L0 SLL000 000 000HL HON 000 00 LLL S 0L S LLL S 00 000 L0 S00 LL S00 00 00L 00 LS00 00 L00 S LL 000 00 0SLS S 00 S00 LL LLLLLLLLS 000 00L LLL S 00 S 000 S 0L 000 S L0L S 0LLS LL S00 LLL S 000 S L0L Y000LL 0S0L LLL 000 00L SLL L0L SYY LLLeoqɛɔŋŋɛg 00L S LLL S LLL S 0LL S 0LL S 0LL S 000 S LLL LLL LLLLLL S LLL 00L S LLL S 0S0L S 0LL S0L S L0L 000 S 0LL LS00 S 000 S 00 S LLējēđūỹ Y0L S L0 YS0L 0LL 0S00 LL YL S 000 S 0EL L L0S LLL L0L LL0 LLL L00 0LL LLL LLL S 000YSSLL LLL LLLLLL...syon %ØN% į ON | %ON9%ON% | ON | %ỌN%ON%ON%0N%ON%ON% | ON Ty LOI,ONS'HATỶ LOLONS@ATIWALOLONSALĀTỶ LOLONSCHA uəmsøųS Ķī£1odulojđūīē5 jāīsā1əŋsƏqs]3s.nsỊCI əų) usualpųųɔ nog Áųæges øjenbəpyəų, uĮ uoupųųɔ nog Áņəges øyenbəpyÁJewoduuə, əq, ug Koeasid əņembəpydumɛɔ JəIIəI əq) uį Áoea! Id openbæpy/ uoț8əN
uəupIȚųO JO ĀŋəJeS pub KoɛAĻĻI :Sg GIYIsIVL
139

Page 84
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·s][nsəYI KəAunS:əɔunoS
LL0L S 0LS0L S LLLSLS0 S LLLS 0LL 00LL S LS0S S L S LSL S LLS LLL LLLLS0L S SLL S 0SL0 S LLLL S 0LL S 0LL SY00S00LLS L0LS00LTV LOL 00L JL S 0S0 SL0 0L 000 JLL S 0S0 S 00 YLL LL 00L S 0LL SLL 0L SH6 || 001 || Ł8Z | soț79 || ț81 | 6'9$ | €0IɛlɛɲɛW 000 S LL JSL0 LL 0SLL S 0L 000 S 00L S00 LLL S S00 S LL 00L S LYL SLL LL S0 LLS 00L S 000 SLSLS LLL S0YS 0LLS LLLLLLLL 000 S LL SLL S S S00 Y 000 LLL LSL0 000 S LSLS S 00 S00L S 0LL S0 S 00 000 000 00L S00L S 0SLL S L0L SLS S 00LəIỊrs) 00L S L0L LLLL YY 0S0L L0 00L S 0L0 S LS00 LLL 0ELL L0L 00L S LLLSLS0L S L0 S LL0 LLL 00L L00 LE0 000 S LS0L S 0LLHJ,00S 00 00L S00 S 00 S00 0LL 00 S LL0 S0S S LS0 LS0L 0LL 00L 00L 0S L0 YL0 LL0 00 S L00 0S0LS 00L LSLY L0YeuJJet 00L 00L S0LL S 0L S S00 LLL 00L S LL0 S LS0L S LLS0 S LS0L 0LL 00L S 00c 0cL S L0 SLL0 LLL S00L S L00 YS0L 00L S SLL S LLSHJL HON 000 S LL 0S0 00 00L S 0 S 000 S 00 S LS00 LL LLL LL 00 S LLS LLLS 0L LSJL LL 000 L00 L00 S LL 0S00 00 LLLLLLLLLLS 000 S LL SLL S S00 S 0LS S 0L 000 S L0L S0 LLL SLLL S L0L 000 S 0L0 S LSL S LLS 0S00 00 00L S L0L S S00 S 00 S 0S00 LLpospoļņpg 000 L00 LS0L S 0L S 0S0L S L0 S000 LLL LL0 LLLS 0SLLL00 000 S 000 S 0LL S 00 S00 LLL 000 00L 0LLS JLL SYY L00īēdūy 00L 00L0LL LL LLL LLL 00L S LL0 S LS0 L00 0LL LLL 00L S LLLS 0LL S 00 LL0 0LL 00L S 000 0S0LS 00L S LLLS LLLJLSWĠI % | ON | % || ON | % || ON | %ON3%ỞN% | ON | %ON% | ON | %ON%0N%ON%ON TỶ LOLONSchaelTV LOLONSGHATo L0)ONSoiATy LOJ,0NSOEHA ĀŋsƏīss Kīāīõdūīāīāīīīīē ē5īAÏāsĀŋɔɲəīss Āīvīõdūəī āņiūỊ ĐỊs여정되리히학회회의회F리퍼회헌ŋɔỊnsỊG Heyspəu įduoud 133 Kəų, psq0LL LLLLLLL LL L LLLLLLL LL LLL 00LL LLLLLLL LLL LLL LLLL LLLL S 0LL LLLLLLLL LLLL L0 LLLL LLL LLLL/ uoỊ3əYI
quieuns, L ous, 13).Je suɔuŋeəJJL pub ssəuss34S:9Ç QITIĶIVL
140

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
*sisnsəYI ÁɔAunS:ɔɔunoS
EE0L 0LLLSLL LLL 0S00L0L 0E0L0000 S00 LLL LLL S 000 00S00L S 0LL SLS0L S 0L LS00 L00L”IVJLOJ, 0'00 || || I |['6|0000 S 0L S0S00L S L0L YSLS S 0LL S 0LL S LL S 0S00 0LL S 0LL S LL LS00 L0eueh.es/N 0′00 | | £ €[‘6L 0S00 00 0000 L0L S S00 S 00L S00S00L S0S00L S LLL S 00 S L S LS00 00L S LLLLLL 0′00 || || #79 | £6L L00 0Y S 000 S 000 S 0S00 LL S00 LLL 000 L0 0YL S LL LL0 LLLƏ[[eg) 0′001 || 86 || Z°66 | 8°06 | 68 | 0°00 I || 998 || Lo99 || 69S | £osoɛ | 167 | 0°00′I Í ÞIS | SozI Í Þ9 || SoŁ8 || 0Sț7|HLÍNOS 0S000 LL S0S00 S 00 S00 LLL S0000S0S0 S LL0 S L0L YLSL S LLL S 00000 S LL0 S LSL S 0L 0SL0 S LL0euJJef SELL LL LSY S 00 S00 LLL 0E0L0L0 SL0 S L0L YSEL LLL 000 L00 S LL S 0L S SL0 LL0HJL HON 0000 00 LS00 0L 0S00 LL S0000 S 00 0S0L S 0S LS0L S 0L S 0S000 000 000 S LL 0000 00 LLLLLLL 0′00 || || ZÇ | 976L Y00 S LL 0000 L0L LSY S 0LL 00LL 0S00L S LLL S LS0 S L S 000S LLLpopeosmeg 0S000 LS0 S LS0L S SLL S LS0S Y0 000L YYL LLL S L0L 0LL 00L S0S00L 0LL 0S0 S 00 S 0S0 L0Leueduuy 0E0L0L LSLL L S 000S00L S0S00L S L0 SLL Y0Y Y0Y S LLL S00L LL0 LSYL SLL LS00 LLSJLSVGI %ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON9%ON%ON TV LOJLONS'HAZIVJLOJ,ONS'HATWOLOJI,ONSOEHA EīīīīīīīīīīSTāīūōījāārsū qõȚ&qoȚĂ3ū ē dū ēsējos ūāpīõūȚăuțūļēji¿queuns, əų, əuojəq1ɔsusțGI əuues əų, op og guesa uəupųųɔ unoẢ oq | slipss ouļoầuəpun uį pəŋsƏuəŋuļ noẢ ɔuyse qoȚ əuues əų, op oq queda noÁ oq/ uos3əYI
əɔuələJəuq qofs : L9 GITIĶIVL
141

Page 85
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·s][nsəYI KəAunS:əɔmoS.
0’00I986Z8’8€.09 IIzo 199Z8ITHVJLOJ, 0'00s68Z6’SLI{"#76ZLZɛJeļeW 0'00s00£0’os.6 IZ0’LZI8eposuequueH 0'00100寸£‘ZI6寸8’ L8! 98Ə[[es) 0′00 I6868°8′Z982Z’ILÞ0LHLÍTOS 0°00'İ866['Zț70Z y6‘ LS8Ł9euJJef 0'00s866Iozo0Zỹ6°LS,8LSHJL HON 0′00 Iț70 I8:67I £Zo0liƐLəəlɛUuoɔuĻIL 0'00||96Z8' LSI LIZoZț7ÇZIeoļesņeg 0′00 I669Z’Zț7ƐSZ8' LS9寸Eeueduuỹ 0'001666S”StoSSț7S、MSÞþSJLSVGI %ON%ON%ON
TV LOL
ON
SOEHA
əɔuəpssəu jõ3ɔēsď juəuunɔ əųj je səŋŋŋɔēj qyteạų puē seưõņēɔnpē jõá¡¡¡qëī£ēĀỹ
1ɔŋŋsIGI / uosốəH
əɔuəpssəYI JO əɔbʊʊ ŋuɔJ.Inɔ əų, 18 səŋŋŋɔe ɖ uĮJĮeəH ? [euoņbɔnpŢ:8Ç QITIĶIVI,
142

Muttukrishna Sarvananthaun
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
'shinsəYI KəA InS:əɔInoS
EE0L 0000SLL SLLLL SLL SYY0L S0S00L L000 S LS0L LL0L 0SYY00LL SE0L 000L 0LL 00LL 0LL 000”IVJLOJ, 0000 S 000 S 0SLL 00 LLS LLL 0000 00L S0S0L S LLL S L0L S 0L 0000 00L S 0SL0 0LL S 0LL S LLťJesɛW 0000 S 000 S LS00 S 000 LS0L S L0 0000 000 LS00 00L S L0L S LL 0000 S 000 SL0 S 000 S 00 S 00 S LLLLLLLL 0000 S 00Y0LLL S LLL S 0S00 S 0LL 0S00L 000 SLS0L S LLL S 0LLS LLL 000L 000 SLS00 LLL S 0S00 LLLəIIæ9 E00L 000 LS0L 00L LS0E S 00L S0S00L 000 SLSL0 000 LSL S L0L S S0S00L S 000 YSL0 L00 S LS0L S L0LHJL£TOS 000L 000 S 000 S 00Y YS00 L0L 0S000 S 000 S 0LL S 0LL LSLL S 0LL S0000 S 000 SLSLL S 0LL S 0S00 S 00LeuJJef E00L 000 S 00Y S 00Y YS00 L0L 0E0L 000 SLSLL LL LSLL 0LL 0E0L 000 SLSLS LLL 000 00LH.L RHON 0000 S L0L SLS0Y S 0L 00L S LL 0000 L00 LS00 00 L 00 S 00 0000 L00 L00 L0 S LS0L S LL LLLLL00LLLLS 0000 S 00L LS0S S LLL S 0S0L S S00 0000 00L S LS00 0LL S LLL S 0L 0S000 S 000 S00 0LL S 000Zpopɔŋmeg 0000 S 000 LS0L S SLL 0S0S LYY 0S00L L00 S S00 S L0L S L00 000 000 S 000 S 000 S 000 YS0000Lcueduuy EE0L 000L 0Ec S 00SE S L0L S L0L 0S00L L00 0SLL 0L S LSLL S 0LL S 0E0L 000 YS0S S 000 S LEL LLLJLSVGH %ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON “IVJLOJ,ONSCHÄ*IV. LOLONSCHĂ"TIWLOLONSCHĂ ¿SOÐNȚēūōēū3ų. Ką pƏpȚĂoud¿SOÐN Tē5õI 3ıp Kq pəpȚAoud:JūəūülòĀ05āų. Ką pəpȚĂoud1ɔĮJĮSIGI əɔue|s|sse əų, qųw pəụsņes noÁ əuyəɔue|sssse əų) ugļAA pəŲsụes noÁ əuyəɔueysssse əų, qųẠa pəụsņes noĀ əuy/ uosãəH
suoŋesque3.IO JəIIəYI ɔŋsƏuIOCI ĮJĮAA uoŋɔɛJsỊjes :6Ç QITIĶIVL
143

Page 86
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
oss InsəYI Kəa InS:əɔrnos
EE0L L00LLSLL000L LSLL 0LLLEE0L000L LSY0LL0L LSL JL0LEE0L000L 0SLL SYYLLS0LYY0LTV LOJ, 0000 S 00L 000 S L0L S 0S00 S 00 S 0000 00L S00 S L0L 0S00 L0 000L 00L S0S0L 00 LLL S LLLeJeļeW . 000 S 000 S 000 S 000 S 0SY S LL S 000 S 00L 000 S 000 S 0SY S LL 00000 S 000 LS00 00L S S00 S L0 LLLLLLLL 000L 000 000 0LL LS00 LLL 0000 S 000 YSL LLL 0 LL S L0 0000 00Y 0S00 LLL 000 00LəIIep 0E0L S 000 LSY0 000 LSL S LLL S0E0L 000 0SLS S 000 S 0S0L S 000 S 0S00L 000 SLS0L 000 S LS0L S 00EHJL[rOS 000 S 000 S 00L S L0L S LS0L S L0L S 0S00 L00 0S00 L00 S S00 S 0LL 0S000 S 000 S 000Y S 00L S0L S L0LeuJJef E00L S 000 S 0S0L S L0L YS0L L0L EE0L L00 0S00 L00 LSLL 0LL 0E0L 000 S 0S0L SS 00E YS0L L0LH.H. RION 0000 S L00 LS0L S 0Y S 0S0L S 0L 000L S L0L S 0SLL S 0L S SLL S LL 0000 S L0L 0S0YS 0L 0S0L LL LLLLLLLLLS 0000 S 00L LS0L S LLL 00L 00 0000 00L LL0 LLL S 0LL S LL 0000 S 000 Y00S LLL 00L S0Boļeɔŋŋeg 000 000SLLL S 0LL S LSLS S LLY S 000 S 00L S00 S LLL S 0S00 0L0 000 000 000 S L0L S 0SLL S LSYYāīāīūō 0S000 S 000L 0Ec 00L Y0L S L0L 0S00L 000 LLL LLL YS0Y S 0LL 0S00L 000L 0SE S 0LE S LS0L S L0LJLSVGI %ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%ON%%ON
VJLOJ,ONSCHA*IV. LOLSCHATIV LOLOSCHA :səŋɔuəĝɛ uouop Ieuaļť]{}|nuu əų). Ką pəpỊAoud || Nosopuə3ư Jouop sɛ lɔŋɛļļq Kq əų pəpļAoudESO 5NTāūTĂȚpāpīĀõīdsļos IĮSIGI
ɔɔue|s|ssɛ əų). ĮJĮM pəIJsņes noÁ ɔuyəɔueņsỊssɛ əų, qųw pəIJsņes noÁ əuyəɔue|s|sse əų, qųw pəụsņes noÁ əuy/ uosổɔYI
suoņesque3.IO JəŋƏH IeuuəŋxĞI qųwa uoņɔɛJsņeS:0ţ ȚIAVI,
144
 
 
 

Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
'suļnsəYH Á3AInS:ɔɔinoS
0’00I88676°9889şZIsop I0፭፻ን* IW LOJI, 0'00168Z9’06| 92L’68Zerenew 0'00100£o’66867['0Zeņogueque H 0′00 I00寸0,89ŹɛZ0:Z寸89 IəIsæ9 0°00′I6860°08[6L0‛0ሯC86||HJLÍTOS 0′00||6660'966ț760' 909euJes 0°00′I6660°S66ț760°S09HJORION 0'00s†70I0'918€.0'979Zəə[etuoousu L. 0′00 I96ZZ’88| 928' | [9€eoseoụneg 0'00s009Ş" | 8’68寸9,8 sII Ieredūy 0 ̇00፤000 I8°Z8878Zo LIZLIJLSVGI %ON%ON%ON TV LOLONSOEHA Būēūtīs, āṇJõīņēūūājē āų ūȚsūōsīəĀūō5 snõầīsā Āūē jõāīēĀēūõĀ āīyɔɔŋŋsiGI / uos3ə`I
suossuəAuOO snosēslo(I : Is; GITIĶIVL
145

Page 87
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan
People's Verdict on Tsunami Recovery
·s][nsəH KəaunS:əɔinos
00L LLLL 0SLL 00Y S 0S00 LL S LSL S 0LL S LS S 00 S00L 000L 0c 00SYL00000 00L 000L0S0L 000 0SL0 LEcLLL KLL*TỶ LO). 000 S 000 S LS0 SLL S LSL S 0 S 0SL0 S LLL S LS SS S 000 S 000 S LS0 S LS00 L0L 000 S 00L 0LL 0LLLLL S LLL S 0L S 0ejenew 001 | p31 | £81 | soț I || 0's. I || #7Ç’9LL LL S S 000 LLL 00 S L LS00 0L 000 S 000 LS00 000SLLL S 000 S LS0 SLLLLLLLL 000 S 0LL S 0S00 S 00 SLL S 0L S 0S00 S 000 YSLLLL 000 LLL S 0S S 0 S00 LLL 00 S 00L LLLL000S0L S LLL S LL LLəIIep 00L LLL LLL S 000 S 0c L 0S0L S 0L S L0 LL 00L S LL0 0SL SLL LS00 000 00L 000 LLLLLLLSLL S 0LL LL LLH.L00S 000 S 0LL S 0S0L S 000 S 000 S LL S 0S00 S LLL S 0S S 00 S 000 S 000 S 00 S 00 S 0SL0 000 000 000 0S0L 00L S00 L00 S LS0 SS 00euỊJær 00L L S 0S0L 0LL 00L S L S LS00 S LLL S 0L S LL 00L S 000 S 00 S 0L 0SE0 00L 00LL 0000S0L 00L S00 L00 S LS0 LS0H.L RHON 001 || Z.8 || #7'$$ || 6? || 9'97 | IZ || Z’ZI0L 0S00 S LL 000 L00 0SL S L SL0 00 000 L00 KS00 00 LS00 0L LLL LL LLLLLLLLS 001 || 0ț¢ I || 6' LL || 604 || 0 $ | | | Z | #96LS0 S S 000 S 0LL S LS0L S 0L SLS00 LLL 000 00L S0S0L 00 S S00 S L0L S LSLSeo[eos]]eg 000 S 00L S 0SL S L S LSL S L S LS0S S 000 S 00 S 0 S 000 S L0L S LL LL S0S00 00Y S 000 S 000 S LS0 S 0L S LL0 00L 0L S 00ūēđūỹ 00L S 0LL SLL 00L LLL LL S LLL S 0LL S Y0 L 00L S 000 S LL 0L LSL0 L00 00L EE0L YS0L L0LLS00 L00 0SL S 0LJLSVAI % | ON% į ON | % | ON%ON% | ON | % || ON% | ON | %ON | % || ON% | ON | %ON% | ON *IWLOLOÐNIOÐNquəuruuəA05)J[9STỶ L0LONSGĦATỶ L0),HæAA yoN | ÅsqɛuoseəntoAA əsnoq]3s.nsłGI :əsnoq juðu euu uod æq; pųnq IIĻw oqAAsuɔuttuaad oq; 0) puɛAAJOJ 3upTooTuoņenųs puupunsi-Isod əų, qųw pədoɔ/ uos33}}
əsnoH quoueuIJəa Jo uoņɛɲɔədx@I pue uoņenųS Įueuns L-4 soa əų, qųẠA 3uţdoƆ :zo GITgy L
146

Page 88


Page 89
ABOUT THE BOOK
This is an empirical research study based One affected hOUSeholds in the East, North, a households in each region, and secondary dat
The Objectives of this study are: (i) to provide tsunami and the reCOVery process, (ii) to a affected people in different parts of the COuntry the Services rendered and the disbursement Of Of the COuntry, (iv) to assess the prOVisiOn Ofte people in different regions of the COuntry, ( pertaining to Women and children, (vi) to find ( regard to their future employment, and (vii) t abOut Various aspects of the reCOVery process
Some suggestions are made to improve the affected people, and COmmunication and trans of the remaining tsunamireConstruction/recov
MW MW Mi
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Muttukrishna Sarvananthan hails from Point Researcher Of the Point Pedro Institute Of DeV
He has authored/CO-authored/edited bOOKS
Sri Lanka, Children of War, Smuggling betwe Conflict in Sri Lanka, and ECOnomic Reforms
On Indo-Sri Lanka Trade, POverty and Income Sri Lanka in Contemporary South Asia (Oxfo Faultlines. Writings On Conflict and Resolul Science (Kolkata), Journal of Contemporary As Delhi), Sri Lanka ECOnomic Journal (Color (Colombo), and Third World Quarterly (Oxford
He has obtained a Doctorate in Developme Studies, University Of Wales, Swansea, Mas AdministratiOn at the Department Of SOCia Bristol, Master of Science (ECOnomics) in E ECOnomics, University Of Salford, and Bac KirOri Mal College, University of Delhi.
PRINTED BY UNE 488, BLOEMENDHALROAD,
 

questionnaire-based Survey of 3,000 tsunamind South of Sri Lanka, incorporating 1,000 a and literature.
a COmparative perspective of the impact of the
SSess the SOcio-economic background of the prior to and after the tsunami, (iii) to evaluate relief to the affected people in different regions mporary and permanent housing to the affected V) to identify particular issues and COncerns )ut the expectations Of the affected pe0ple With O find Out the Opinions Of the people affected,
delivery, responsiveness, participation of the parency in decision-making and implementation tery WorktobedOne in Sri Lanka.
WANAw Aw Aw
t PedrO (Northern Sri Lanka) and is the Principal elopment, Point Pedr0, Sri Lanka.
On the ECOnomy of the Conflict Region in 2n India and Sri Lanka, Gender Implications of in Sri Lanka. Further, he has published articles : Inequality, and Civil War and the ECOnomy in. rd), ECOnomic and Political Weekly (Mumbai), tion (New Delhi), Indian Journal Of Regional sia (Manila), SOUth Asia ECOnOmicJOUrnal (New nb0), Sri Lanka Journal Of SOCial Sciences ).
nt ECOnomics at the Centre for Development ster of Science in Development Planning and al Policy and Social Planning, University of :COnomic Development at the Department of helor of Arts (Honours) in ECOnomics at the
ISBN 978-955-580-114-0
EARTS (PVT) LTD.,
COLOMBO 13 TEL: 2330195.