Decentralization and Local Development Planning in the Periphery: The Institutional Framework in the...

Sri Lanka Journal of Real Estate Issue 03, September 2009

ISSN 1800-3524

76 Department of Estate Management and Valuation

University of Sri Jayewardenepura

Decentralization and Local Development Planning in the Periphery: The Institutional Framework in the North and

East of Sri Lanka

Christoph Woiwode1

Abstract Decentralization and local development planning are two important concepts in the current development discourse. In this paper they are embedded in the specific conditions of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The armed conflict dates back to the early 1980s, but the currently dramatically changing circumstances in the North and East of the country call for a fresh investigation of the capacities in development planning in the context of government reforms particularly at the local level. Part 1 of the paper focuses on the overall institutional framework of development planning in the Northeast. In Part 2 a concrete project outlines an approach to combine forces of both the Divisional Secretariat and the Local Government authorities to enhance planning capacities at the local level by formulating a single comprehensive development plan. In many respects the findings of the institutional study and the lessons learned during the project indicate that similar obstacles and deficiencies exist in other parts of the country as well.

Keywords: decentralization, spatial planning, local development, capacity building

Introduction (Part 1)

Sri Lanka is suffering from a protracted ethno-political conflict between the Singhalese and Tamils for nearly three decades. At the core of this conflict lies the demand by the Tamil minority for more autonomy and self-determined decision making. The Northeast of the island, where the Tamil population is concentrated, is most affected by the armed conflict where development efforts are facing severe impediments. Even though during this period of conflict adequate monitoring was

almost impossible, available socio-economic indicators demonstrate critical levels.2

Past years have seen major changes in the political scene. A significant turning point was the de-merger of the hitherto Northeast Province in December 2006 into the North and East Provinces, which was followed by elections and a development agenda for reconstruction in the East. As a consequence of the military defeat of the LTTE in the North, the government will have to address

1 Christoph Woiwode (PhD), Lecturer/Researcher at the International Spatial Planning Centre, TU Dortmund University, Germany, Ph +49 231 755 4857, e-mail: christoph.woiwode@tu-dortmund.de 2 Sarvananthan, 2003, provides a good overview of the impact of the conflict on various socio-economic factors in the North and East.

ISSN 1800-3524

similar issues of decentralization, reconstruction and development in the Northern Province in the future. These evolving political conditions coincide with efforts of reforms in the public sector to promote good governance, particularly to strengthen local government institutions in all parts of the country.

Disregarding manifold interpretations of these circumstances, this crucial change of the political coordinates may provide new opportunities for local development planning in the North, which may benefit from experience gained in the East. In this paper, the underpinning assumption is that development planning is understood as an integrated approach to planning which connects socio-economic and physical (spatial) planning. In order to perform such a process successfully, the system and its actors need to fulfill certain criteria such as the ability and willingness for coordination, cooperation and communication during situational analysis, plan formulation, implementation and monitoring. Furthermore, these interactions need to take place across sectors (horizontally) and along levels of administration (vertically and diagonally).

The purpose of this paper is twofold. In Part 1 decentralization in the Sri Lankan context is briefly discussed. Subsequently some findings of a study carried out in 2006 on development planning in the Northeast are presented that reviewed and analyzed the current practices, institutions and organizational frameworks (Kruse and Woiwode, 2006). The empirical base of the study is provided by extensive interviews which were conducted across levels of administration (local, regional, national), sector departments, para-statal agencies as well as non-government organizations operating in the region. On the basis of this overall evaluation of the institutional environment, Part 2 takes up a description and assessment of subsequently implemented activities in capacity building through a pilot project in the Eastern Province to exercise the systematic step-by-step formulation of a local development plan. Significantly, many findings of the study in terms of planning framework and institutions are not solely confined to the Northeast but are as real in other regions of the country as well.

Dimensions of Decentralization in Sri Lanka

For long decentralization has been an integral part of development strategies in many developing countries (Cohen and Peterson, 1999: 1-18). As diverse as there are rationales of and strategies for decentralization are the definitions. One of the most widely cited definitions originates from Rondinelli and Nellis (quoted in Rondinelli et al., 1989: 58) who write: “[…] the transfer of the responsibility for planning, management, and the raising and allocation of resources from the central government and its agencies to field units of government agencies, subordinate units or levels of government, semi-autonomous public authorities or corporations, area-wide, regional or functional authorities, or non-governmental private or voluntary organizations”. While decentralization encompasses a wide variety of institutional restructurings, several variants may be operating at the

ISSN 1800-3524

same time within a country and within a sector (Litvack et al., 1998: 4). Generally, three broad types

of decentralization are usually identified: political, administrative and fiscal3

. These types are further distinguished in forms of decentralization, i.e. deconcentration, delegation, devolution and divestment (Rondinelli and Cheema, 1983: 18-24; Work, 2003).

It is important to note that these are theoretical distinctions, which become blurred in practice, especially as the various forms and types are often implemented simultaneously. Depending on the form of decentralization, there may be various degrees of decentralizing functions, the more extensive being devolution, followed by delegation and then deconcentration, whereas divestment is a sort of ´externalised´ decentralization - taking place outside the government. In the Sri Lankan context criticism of this form of analysis of administrative structures is brought forward by Bastian (1994). He argues, even though such analysis has a value at a certain level of policy formulation, it is inadequate:

“One of the main problems of this perspective arises because it looks at the administrative structures in isolation from the historical and societal processes of which they are a part. In fact, the very emergence of these structures are dependent on societal processes, and the latter continue to influence the manner in which these structures are able to function. As this form of analysis does not give adequate importance to these societal processes underlying ‘decentralization’, it actually lumps together very different exercises under a single term, ‘decentralization’, although all of them apparently reduce the power of the central government” (Bastian 1994: 165).

This viewpoint is corroborated by the empirical complexity of the Sri Lankan politico-administrative institutions, which demonstrate a multitude of historically evolved structures and legislation entrenched in socio-cultural processes of ethnicity, identity, social class, caste and regional

dimensions.4

This led to a dual administrative system which is both, centralized and decentralized. Nevertheless, in Sri Lanka, various forms of devolution of powers, deconcentration and delegation occur. As Bastian (1994: 167) explains, the demand for decentralization in Sri Lanka comes from two sources: first, decentralization with the objective of transferring the initiatives in the development process to local or regional levels, and second, the establishment of regional bodies with legislative powers in order to meet the grievances of minorities.

Political decentralization (devolution) to the Provinces has taken place constitutionally in form of the 13th Constitutional Amendment in 1987, and is currently further envisaged through reforms of the

3 Fiscal decentralization, which no doubt affects the extent of self-determined planning at the local level, is not touched upon in this paper in detail, since it would require a separate in-depth analysis (details are explicated in the study Kruse and Woiwode 2006). 4 See the contributions in Meyer et al. (2003) and for a discussion on the historical dimensions of the cultural-symbolic background of the Tamil and Sinhalese political traditions Roberts (2001).

ISSN 1800-3524

local governments as well. While devolution of powers to the provinces was originally designed as a response to the conflict, it is important to note “that the reason behind the reforms of the Local Government system had nothing to do with considerations of conflict resolution, but were rather based on the desires of national politicians to gain more influence at the local level. Furthermore some of the reforms also tried to encourage more development activities through local level institutions” (Bigdon, 2003: 14). However, whether decentralization is a strategy for conflict mitigation or even intensifies a conflict is a matter depending on the specific circumstances in a country (Schou and Haug, 2005: 16-19). Devolution is a more extensive form of decentralization referring to the transfer of political authority for decision making and quasi-legislative powers to territorial governments. Deconcentration, the decentralization of administrative authority to field officers of central government departments and agencies with territorially and functionally defined responsibilities is a prevalent phenomenon within the administrative structure of Sri Lanka. It is reflected in the administrative system of the District and Divisional Secretariats as well as in the Line Ministries operating in the provinces. Lastly, delegation describes the decentralization of executive authority to semi-autonomous agencies with a territorially defined remit and special tasks (Rondinelli and Cheema 1983; Smith 2002). In Sri Lanka, the Urban Development Authority, National Housing Development Authority and National Water Supply and Drainage Board, to name a few, are representative for this form of decentralization.

Decentralization takes on a spatial dimension as well. Administrative borders such as federal states, districts, and local governments also define geographical areas of responsibilities, which are delineated by a legislative framework, and usually describe the jurisdictions of the planning function:

“Spatial decentralization is a term used by regional planners involved in formulating policies and programs that aim at reducing excessive urban concentration in a few large cities by promoting regional growth poles that have potential to become centers of manufacturing and agricultural marketing” (Cohen and Peterson 1999: 22-23).

As a result, delegation has been common with regard to special regional or area-specific development authorities, semi-autonomous organizations such as public utilities, housing and transport authorities, and urban development corporations. However, in many cases the number of authorities and semi-autonomous agencies with a say within a defined planning area is overwhelmingly large, frequently adding to the confusion of vaguely defined mandates and unclear roles. This situation renders integrated development planning particularly difficult. The subsequent sections embark to illustrate how these various forms of decentralization impact on the planning organization and performance at the local level.

ISSN 1800-3524

Legal Dimensions of Local Development Planning

Local authorities derive their powers from the respective ordinances5. In general, they are “charged with the regulation, control and administration of all matters relating to public health, public utility services and public thoroughfares and generally with the protection and promotion of the comfort, convenience and welfare of the people and all amenities” within their areas of jurisdiction (Municipal Councils Ordinance, Section 4; Urban Councils Ordinance, Section 4; Pradeshiya Sabhas Act, Section 3). However, a considerable multiplicity of laws exists regarding mandates and functions of authorities relating to planning. Several supplementary acts specify functions of local authorities with respect to physical planning (and utility provision). It is intriguing to note that after independence “planning and execution of the ‘Plans’6

were entrusted to local authorities assisted by the Department of Town and Country Planning [now National Physical Planning Department]” (Mendis, 2003).

Although legislation is fuzzy in terms of defining clear planning mandates many functions of local authorities have been increasingly limited by the Central Government. A typical example is the introduction of the Urban Development Authority (UDA) law and the resulting re-centralization of planning functions. Two planning laws existed prior to the UDA law, namely the Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance, 1915 (amended 1980), and the Town and Country Planning Ordinance, 1947. The Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance is one of the laws which deal with development and planning of specific subjects, and the role of local governments in that respect. The ordinance stipulates in Section 28 the capacity of local authorities to reserve (via by-laws) special areas for specific use, and in Section 33 for management and use of land. Sections 36 to 63 refer to “improvement schemes”, the forerunners to modern urban physical development plans. Yet overall development planning is not dealt with, especially since the improvement schemes refer to specific interventions of existing infrastructure, rather than urban development.

The Town and Country Planning Ordinance can be considered the first comprehensive regulatory framework to provide a legal basis for physical planning in Sri Lanka “to make schemes for planning and development of land”. In the 2000 Amendment (Act No. 49), Section 5A(d) stipulates that “the duties and functions of the Director General of the National Physical Planning shall be (…) to prepare any regional or local plan where the regional or local planning authority fails in, or requests, the preparation of such plan”. This ordinance is therefore the first (and so far only) one to concede clear mandates to the local and provincial authorities in terms of development planning. Town and country planning is largely understood as land use planning, which – although it cuts across sectors – is still not equivalent to an overall and comprehensive planning mandate. It therefore does not

5 Pradeshiya Sabhas Act, 1987, Urban Councils Ordinance 1987 (1940) and Municipal Councils Ordinance 1987 (1947). 6 Two types of ‘plans’ existed then: a) Zoning/Housing and Town Improvement Schemes, and b) Planning Schemes to control use of land.

ISSN 1800-3524

entirely clarify the question of responsibility in terms of overall development planning. At local level, the ordinance distinguishes between larger urban areas (Municipal and Urban Councils) and other areas. Municipal and Urban Council areas are per definitionem urban development areas under UDA law, while other areas can be declared as such by the Minister of Urban Development. Significantly, planning authority in case of Municipal and Urban Councils rests with the local governments, while in the case of other areas the planning authority rests jointly with the National Physical Planning Department (Colombo) and the chairperson of the local council (Pradeshiya Sabha).

In 1978, the Urban Development Authority (UDA) was introduced by law (amendments until 1984). Unfortunately, with respect to Urban/Municipal Councils and classified urban areas it reverses the devolution of the planning mandate to the local authorities as established under the Town and Country Planning Ordinance by strengthening the central government functions. Apparently, development planning is considered a crucial function to be controlled by the centre, which is reflected in the implementation of devolved powers. While the Ministry of Local Government was completely devolved to the Provincial Councils until 1991, the Urban Development Authority was placed under a national ministry (Shastri 1998: 214). Furthermore, plans prepared in line with UDA legislation are not limited to physical aspects, but explicitly incorporate economic and social aspects. From these observations one may conclude that UDA plans still reflect an understanding similar to the one described above with respect to town and country planning. The reality on the ground is however, somewhat different than the provisions of the law may imply. As is explained below, UDA regional office is relatively weak in the Northeast, hence leaving a vacuum there which is filled by the head office in Colombo.

The jurisdiction of planning functions highlights that strategic and integral development planning is not attributed explicitly to any of the organisations that operate in this field. At the local level, the existence of a dual system of government with the Local Governments and the Divisional Secretariats renders the issue of a single planning authority currently impossible. Most of these problems, it seems, arise either because a basic principle of State building is not followed or at least could be resolved by adopting it: subsidiarity. As stated by the UNDP, subsidiarity is an inherent dimension of decentralization: “Decentralizing governance is the restructuring of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the principle of subsidiarity […]” (cited in Work 2003: 8). In a simplified manner, subsidiarity means “as low as possible, as high as necessary”. Regarding planning, the principle is usually applied as follows: whenever possible, a development plan should be formulated at the level of its jurisdiction. Thus, a Pradeshiya Sabha plan should be formulated at and by the

ISSN 1800-3524

Pradeshiya Sabha, a district development plan should be formulated at the district and a provincial plan at the province. Only if the authority at the respective level is not in a position to carry out this function, the immediate next level organisation should come in as a subsidiary to the lower level to assist in the process. That means, if the Pradeshiya Sabha cannot formulate a plan, the district provides assistance. If the District Secretariat cannot formulate a district development plan, the provincial administration assists the district. If the province is unable to formulate its integral provincial development plan, national level supports the province in formulating its plan.

In terms of planning mandate and authority, only the Town and Country Planning Ordinance provides a clear mandate to the local and provincial authorities. This relates however only to physical plans of a specific nature, i.e. those defined in the same ordinance. On the other hand, manuals and guidelines are more forthcoming in relation to the planning sovereignty of the devolved levels of government.7

The authors of these documents interpret the law such that plan formulation is attributed to the provinces and local bodies. At the same time, the Town and Country Planning Ordinance provides for direct intervention of the Central Government in provincial and local planning matters in many cases, consequently undermining the intended devolution of powers over development planning.

It remains therefore a diffuse subject where decentralized structures of government can autonomously exert planning powers only as long as central agencies/departments have no intention to interfere. This situation will be only changed if long intended local government reforms are implemented seriously. Thus far, the most recent proposal in this regard is the National Policy Declaration for Local Government, dated July 2007. This document builds on many ideas already highlighted in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Local Government Reforms from 1999, the most significant of which is to assign the local governments the role of supreme planning authority over the Divisional Secretariats at the local level.

7 Several such documents, published between 1990 to 2006, were reviewed, among these UDA and USAID (1990): Planning Manual for Local Authorities; Government of Sri Lanka and UNDP/Marga Institute (no date): Manual on Provincial and Divisional Planning; Northeast Provincial Council (1999): Divisional Annual Implementation Programme from Year 2000 under Local Level Development Planning Process; National Physical Planning Department (2001): A Manual of Regional Planning; Chief Secretary’s Office NEPC (2006): Unified Local Level Development Planning Procedure.

ISSN 1800-3524

The Conundrum of a dual Administration at the Local Level

As mentioned before, a dual administration is the salient feature at the local level with the Divisional Secretariat under the Central Government, and the Local Government under the Provincial Government. The latter comprise Municipal Councils, Urban Councils and Pradeshiya Sabhas. They are under supervision of the Department of Local Government, as one of the devolved subjects specified in the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Following the Amendment, Pradeshiya Sabhas directly under the control of the Provincial Councils were created at the level of the Divisional Secretariats, usually with the same territorial jurisdiction. However, most power at local level still rests with the Central Government administration. Even though the Pradeshiya Sabhas were established to carry out devolved functions of the Provincial Councils, the bureaucratic/administrative machinery that facilitates such functions is found in the office of the Divisional Secretary (DS). The DS was initially envisaged to function as the secretary of the Pradeshiya Sabha, but the DS offices refused to carry out functions under an elected local body, which they considered was not on par with the professional standard of the Divisional Secretariat that employs officers of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service (Development Studies Institute/University of Colombo and South Asia Institute/University of Heidelberg, 2003).8

Fundamental to the findings of the institutional study is the predominant understanding of Local Government in Sri Lanka. The common notion is based on a narrow view of Local Government as a ‘sector department’ just like any other sector (health, agriculture, etc.). It runs through all administrative levels as a branch of a line ministry - Ministry of Provincial Councils & Local

8 The Commission of Inquiry on Local Government Reforms similarly formulates: “[...] it may be desirable to combine these two agencies operative at the Divisional level to form one authority to be answerable to the Local Body of the area. [...] the institutional arrangement recommended was to obtain the services of the AGA (presently Divisional Secretary) to function as the Commissioner of the Pradeshiya Sabhas [...] (GoSL, 1999: 138).

National Government

Provincial Government

Local Government

National Ministries

Provincial Ministries

all Departments within MCs, UCs,

National Government Structure: National Line Ministries

Health Agriculture

Irrigation Industries

Transport Local Government

And more…

Figure A: LG viewed as a Sector Subject Figure B: LG as a comprehensive government level

ISSN 1800-3524

Governments – from the national to the local level. Thus it is considered only one among many other sectors and thereby degrading its status as a proper Local Government level. The Sri Lanka Institute of Local Governance corroborates this understanding and its shortcomings in defining the need for reforms: “The Local Government in Sri Lanka has not been recognized as a level of governance: What we have is only a network of local authorities. Local Government is treated as a subject like Rural Development or Co-operatives, which is now devolved to the Provincial Councils” (Sri Lanka Institute of Local Governance, no date: 32).

A divergent perspective is the recognition of a fully-fledged local government, an all-encompassing, comprehensive local government structure that integrates all sectors, and as such is the consequential complementary institution to the National and Provincial Governments. These levels permeate each other. The figures displayed serve the purpose to indicate that this difference in perspective is crucial in understanding local government and the role of local institutions, i.e. MC, UC, PS. As is visible from the two comparative figures, local government in figure A is by far not as prominent as it is in figure B. As a result, it can be easier suppressed by other actors who, according to this perspective, enjoy the same status. Whereas in figure B, local governments provide for the integrative dimension of all sector departments and the accountability to the public/electorate. Unfortunately, the narrow notion of local government is demonstrated by the fact that local authorities do not enjoy constitutional recognition as a tier of the government system in Sri Lanka.9

Planning Capacity at the Local Level: Divisional versus Local Government Planning

Measures for decentralization of planning go as far back as the early 1970s when Divisional Development Councils were established together with a decentralized budget. Following this, the

Divisional Secretariat became the focal institution for planning of divisional level programmes.10

Most of the development work is implemented by the divisional planning units, which constitute one of two main branches within the divisional administration. The centre allocates the decentralized development budget to the District Secretary in a district. The district then allocates it to the divisions which are ‘implementing’ development activities. Implementation at divisional level is understood as monitoring and supervision, which are seen as the major functions of the divisional planning unit. Even though field staff is available to inspect progress of projects, the actual

As the node between national development strategy percolating through the provincial and district levels, and the community development needs emanating from village level organizations, the divisional level constitutes a focal point in the process of decentralized planning and development. Whereas till now the divisional development planning process has been the major planning effort aiming at local level development, planning for development has been on an ad-hoc manner and unsystematic basis (Sivalingam, 2004).

9 In neighbouring India, for example, government reforms for decentralization strengthened local authorities considerably by giving them clearly outlined constitutional rights and duties in the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments. 10 See Gunaratna (2001) for details about the history of regional and local development in Sri Lanka including the resulting institutional and legislative changes.

ISSN 1800-3524

implementation is carried out mainly through local societies such as the Rural Development Societies (RDS) and Women’s RDS, and less through local NGOs.

The Divisional Secretariat formulates annual plans, so called Divisional Development Work Plans. They contain budget allocation, and include responsible agencies, targets and outputs. Such a plan resembles in most cases a simple list of activities and projects, not a comprehensive development plan. It does not include specifications on coordination, institutional arrangements, or strategic planning. In spite of this, it is especially the divisions which take on the role as collector of primary data for planning purpose in the entire planning system. It is therefore on this level that one encounters activities resembling a planning process based on data collection, analysis and decision-making. It is in support of the formulation of such Work Plans that the Divisional Secretariat collects data and information from sub-units, the Grama Niladharis (GN Divisions), regarding different sectors. There is a considerable lack of transparency in the process of plan approval, since the draft plan has to pass the entire central government hierarchy up to ministerial level. This selection process is also subject to a political component, since Members of Parliament of the respective area are also involved. They have the power to select special projects to be implemented with their own parliamentary budget (“Decentralised Budget – DCB”). In this way MPs have the power to channel their political influence through the district administration system, potentially undermining the relevance of the local democratic structures, i.e. the local authorities.

The Divisional Secretariat distributes a copy of its Work Plan to other development agents such as INGOs, provincial ministries, sector departments, etc. since eventually the Divisional Secretariat itself implements merely a very small portion of the projects contained in the plan, expecting other organizations to take care of the remaining projects. In the North and East, in case of the absence of the local councils, coordination between the Divisional Secretariat and Local Government occurs only at the level of the Special Commissioner (who may represent both Divisional Secretary and Head of the Local Council) in the committees. The divisional planning staff does not participate in these committees. Similarly, there is usually no coordination of the DS with other government planning agents, in particular UDA, Central Environment Agency, etc., as these exist in order to support local authorities and not DS offices.

Compared to Divisional Secretariats, local governments are in a very weak position to conduct any kind of planning. This is mainly due to the lack of capacity to carry out their assigned functions, and at the same time due to activities of other agencies such as the Board of Investment, Urban Development Authority, National Water Supply and Drainage Board, and other semi-autonomous sector agencies (see figure C), which encroach upon the mandates of local authorities. The planning unit within the Provincial Local Government Department is only there for the namesake, but largely dysfunctional. Similar is the situation at the lower levels. Planning units are either not part of the cadre or, if existent, not functioning.

ISSN 1800-3524

Looking at the local authorities proper we find a similarly grim picture. Many local authorities have planning units only by name. At the time of research, in the UC Trincomalee planning was combined with the civil works department due to insufficient staffing.

In Kinniya Pradeshiya Sabha a Local Government Assistant was formally in charge of the planning division since 1999. No other staff was available for this function due to a chronic shortage. A similar situation is common in all PSs in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Pradeshiya Sabhas do not have sufficient financial resources to carry out maintenance and other related works stipulated in the Pradeshiya Sabhas Act, since the revenue base and tax income are very low. Instead, funds are channelled through the Divisional Secretariat, which needs at least the consent of the PS to carry out projects in its boundaries. The only interface between Divisional Secretariat and the Pradeshiya Sabha is the Divisional Planning Committee.

The relationship between the local governments and the Provincial Council administration is defined by the former’s role as a local authority that comes under the Provincial Department of Local Government. Thus it has a functional link mainly to the Commissioner of Local Government (CLG). This vertical relationship is basically confined to formalities such as staff appointments and funds for salaries. Topic-related contacts with other departments particularly the Provincial Planning Secretariat, cutting diagonally across administrative structures, do not exist. Significantly, interviewees of Pradeshiya Sabhas pointed out that they have to follow the hierarchy of the Local Government structure to contact higher levels of the provincial administration. Direct contact to the Planning Secretariat in matters of planning seems to be impossible. This appears to be a key issue in causing not only enormous delay of activities and long bureaucratic procedures that hinder flow of direct communication, but perhaps even more serious, it even prevents government bodies to carry out their designated functions. Consequently, the question to whom they refer to when a planning issue has to be resolved remained unanswered. This is typical, for apparently there is no mechanism for such procedures and no established practice. These difficulties illustrate the weakness or absence of both vertical-diagonal as well as horizontal links across stakeholders in planning. The above outlined condition reflects the ‘narrow notion’ of local government, since the local governments follow their departmental hierarchies, which inhibits formation of meaningful inter-governmental connections based on subjects such as planning. Thus it would be the neglect of the line of command prescribed for the local government’s planning section if it contacts the Provincial Planning Secretariat directly, and not via the office of the CLG.

Politics and the Plethora of Planning Agents at the Local Level

Further complicating the conditions at the local level is the number of other planning agents that operate and intervene in local level planning. Out of those, the para-statal Central Government agencies are the most conspicuous ones since they have been given legal legitimacy for their activities. Figure C is an attempt to illustrate the existing planning framework from a local government point of view by way of depicting the relationships not as usual in an organogram but as

ISSN 1800-3524

a flow chart. Although it cannot be claimed that this shows a ‘complete’ or ‘correct’ picture, it nevertheless clearly illustrates the dynamics and demonstrates the extent to which national institutions such as ministries and special purpose agencies play the role as key planning organisations, leaving Provincial and Local Governments mostly at the receiving end. According to this illustration, the national Ministry of Urban Development is mainly responsible for spatial planning and provision of technical support. In addition, the Ministry of Nation Building (former ‘Relief, Rehabilitation and Reconciliation’)11

Policy-making however, remains fragmented across all these institutions, which is visible in poor coordination and a total lack of strategic planning. Meanwhile in 2007 the National Physical Planning Policy was approved by the National Physical Planning Council after a process of several years of negotiations. Given the circumstances, it is not clear yet as to how the content will be specified and implemented in a decentralized fashion at the local level. Another inhibiting factor is the ambiguous division of responsibilities between the centre and the provinces (especially exacerbated in the Northeast), which makes it difficult to improve administrative capacity at provincial and local levels. Local authorities generally lack capacity for land management and enforcement capacity for development control, and coordination of all relevant development actors is inadequate. Thus it is apparent that a multi-headed, hydra-like situation exists especially in the area of spatial development planning.

is of special importance to both the North and East Provinces, for it produced district development plans. Other ministries carry out sector-related programmes not shown in the figure for the sake of clarity. Several sector agencies (NWSDB, NHDA, CEA, UDA) provide for the entire set of physical and infrastructure development such as public utilities, housing, environmental and settlement planning.

Role of Urban Development Authority

An important agency in physical planning at local level is the UDA. Probably because of UDA’s existence, physical planning is totally neglected by provincial, district and local administrations. As mentioned before, their understanding of planning is mostly confined to sector, economic and investment plans without drawing a link to the spatial dimensions and impact of planned activities. UDA maintains several offices in the Northeast. The main regional office for the Eastern Region is located in Trincomalee, while two more offices were established in Batticaloa and Kalmunai in response to the tsunami. Jaffna and Vavuniya offices cover the Northern Region. Before the end of the armed conflict, UDA operated only in the so-called government-controlled areas.

According to the Town and Country Planning Amendment Act No:49 of 2000, UDA carries out physical planning activities for declared urban development areas. However, the National Physical Planning Department (NPPD) formulates guidelines and policies for UDA and is in charge of the Eastern and Northern Provincial Physical Plans. An Eastern Province Physical Plan was prepared

11 Again renamed into Ministry of Nation Building and Estate Infrastructure Development. Between 2003 and 2006, assisted by the GTZ-managed Northern Rehabilitation Project this ministry had prepared district development plans.

ISSN 1800-3524

between 2002 and 2004 by a consultant firm based in Colombo, which had been commissioned by the National Physical Planning Department. This plan is meanwhile approved and slightly adapted to the new circumstances after the de-merger of the Northeast Province, when the central government devised its own development agenda for the East as the “Sunrise Region”. Since then decisions concerning regional development have been completely administered by national ministries and agencies. Major changes in the Eastern development plan concern Trincomalee. Even shortly before the de-merger in December 2006 the government published a Draft Development Plan for Trincomalee Metro Urban Centre (basically encompassing entire Trincomalee District) mainly formulated by the UDA office in Colombo, which was prepared without much involvement of the provincial and local authorities. This is most certainly due to the fact that Trincomalee is considered a highly strategic area by the national government and thus security concerns have to be met as well, with serious implications for the local population and ethnic composition.12

According to UDA law, urban development areas comprise all Municipal and Urban Councils. However, a large number of Pradeshiya Sabhas have been included in this category. For example, almost the entire Trincomalee District was declared a UDA area in 1991. Obviously the term ‘urban’ is somewhat misleading, as it refers to a region in which plans for local authorities are formulated. Thus UDA was working in Trincomalee for tsunami resettlement in Kinniya, and on a physical plan for Kantale, among others. In 2001 a plan for Trincomalee Town and Gravets was also prepared. Usually UDA develops physical plans for Pradeshiya Sabhas on request. Its main function is to provide guidance and assistance to local governments in planning and to issue building construction permits. UDA does not have seconded staff within each local authority. Lengthy procedures for plan preparation and approval with abundant stages and authorities involved characterize the planning process. Draft plans climb up the ladder to the highest authority, i.e. the Ministry of Urban Development. This fact reflects the highly centralized administration of Sri Lanka and planning in particular, where a national ministry decides about such small places like Mutur or Kantale.

It seems that genuine, permanent cooperation between relevant sector agencies such as NWSDB, CEA and NHDA does not take place beyond the formal involvement in the above mentioned process. A formalized relationship or coordination arrangement between the Provincial Council (Planning Secretariats) and UDA is equally absent. UDA officials argue there should be a physical planning department at provincial level, but there is no such thing in the respective Planning Secretariats. Similarly, there is only a sporadic connection with the Chief Secretary. UDA attends provincial meetings during which information is exchanged, but there is no official relationship. These unspecified relationships have their roots in the contradictory legal framework at national level (e.g. devolution vs. UDA Law) that would specify procedures of coordination.

Even though the UDA is a nation-wide agency with a head office in Colombo, its Northeast offices are grossly neglected. The Trincomalee office seriously lacks basic resources (equipment and staff) to

12 See article “Saga of war and peace in the East” in Daily Mirror, Colombo, August 25, 2007.

ISSN 1800-3524

carry out its functions. Two main reasons can be identified for this condition. On the one hand there are no professionals in town and country planning available in the Northeast, so that UDA depends on recruiting people from other places. This creates the second main problem, for nobody is interested to move to Trincomalee from Colombo. Further contributing to constraints in their work is the fact that the staff is Singhalese, thus they are often unable to work in Tamil dominated areas, hence being severely limited to carry out their full function. The ethnic and language dimension is very serious in this case, as Tamil planners and staff would be crucial to build capacity of UDA. It also carries further implications. A participatory planning process is unlikely to be conducted if the planning staff does not speak Tamil, even if they wanted to conduct such a process. Apparently the ethnic divide is a huge hindrance in this respect to the planning process and indicates how important it is who prepares a plan and how it is generated. The example demonstrates the inevitability and significance of a conflict-sensitive planning approach.

Conclusion: Salient Issues of Development Planning at the Local Level

Due to the existing politico-administrative conditions, the central government line of command is the de facto preeminent planning authority at district and local level. These entities – District and Divisional Secretaries, national agencies - are viewed as the actual planning actors, which automatically makes them potential partners for governmental and non-governmental development agencies. While this appears to be current reality in the planning process, it is not entirely clear where the district and divisional administrations derive their mandates from for this role and function. Although the Transfer of Powers (Divisional Secretaries) Act of 1992 opens the possibility of transferring powers and functions to the Divisional Secretariats, there is no planning mandate backed by any Act of Parliament. Consequently, strengthening this structure would result in supporting a centralized administration that acts on a top-down approach, whereas the legally defined, democratic local authorities, namely the Municipal Councils, Urban Councils and Pradeshiya Sabhas are for the most part reduced to bystanders. The fundamental issues as to the actual planning procedures and processes may be summarized under eight points:

1. A large number of administrative institutions operate at the local level, mainly national sector agencies, the Urban Councils, Municipal Councils, and Pradeshiya Sabhas, and the Divisional Secretariats. While ideally the DSs should be united with the local authorities, they presently function as two separate institutions more or less independently of each other.

2. Inadequate transparency and accountability characterizes the planning process, whereby the main planning actors (Division/District) have no people’s representation.

3. Poor coordination, communication and frequent unwillingness to collaborate due to asymmetrical power relationships among stakeholders and even within departments. The tsunami emergency situation forced the various planning institutions and levels to better collaborate and coordinate their activities. Yet this was a temporary arrangement only,

ISSN 1800-3524

without institutionalization of such efforts. A lesson learnt is that if there is willingness and commitment, collaborative planning is possible.

4. Sector rather than integrated thinking dominates current planning practice, in part due to the understanding of local government as a ‘subject’. Spatial/physical planning is conceptually and institutionally isolated from (socio-economic) development planning and budget formulation.

5. There is no unified organizational and procedural framework in place in the various planning units, be it local authorities, divisions or districts, or even at provincial level.

6. Planning administration across all institutions is largely suffering from insufficient human resources both in terms of vacant positions and skilled professional staff. This issue is strongly connected to the ethnic conflict that limits free movement of Singhalese and Tamil staff.

7. Central Government exerts a high degree of influence regarding: (1) staffing of higher public servants in local authorities, districts and divisions, (2) planning in general through central agencies in districts, and (3) the control of funds for development.

8. The sustainability of interventions of non-governmental organizations is jeopardized because they are not based on proper local development plans, and because they take place largely uncoordinated.

If spatial development planning is to become a genuine part of the democratic local planning system in the future, emphasis must be put on the local authorities. It is imperative to reduce the distance between the two administrative structures at local level in order to improve the planning process and consequently to increase the impact of development activities. While it is recognized that strengthening both Local Governments and Divisional Secretariats is required, the focus will have to be on the first to bridge the gap between them. The task ahead is complicated, for the context in which local development planning takes place is characterized by several constraining conditions:

a) an insecure socio-political environment, b) frequently changing circumstances, c) scarce financial resources, d) limited human capacities and skills, e) limitations and availability of data and information, f) ad-hoc decision-making on various administrative levels, g) interference from from superior administration and politicians.

Nonetheless, a number of obstacles pose serious barriers for a collaborative, conflict-sensitive planning approach, including among others (Kruse and Woiwode, 2006: 77):

People are afraid to share information believing they would lose influence, thus often a certain extent of secrecy is maintained;

ISSN 1800-3524

Strengthening one player (e.g. through development intervention) is viewed as weakening others;

There is no sense of the existence of win-win situations, no feeling that well managed interventions could be for the benefit of all;

Power is largely seen as an individual asset that can be used for one’s own good and advantage to exploit others; this goes hand in hand with

Strong hierarchical relationships within departments and each administration sector, as well as between the actors (e.g. Divisional Secretaries versus Local Governments);

Power sharing is perceived as a zero-sum game;

For all the above reasons, a sense of collective action that brings stakeholders on the same table to negotiate planning decisions is very weak to non-existent.

In spite of formal efforts of policy makers and legislators to strengthen development planning at the local level in Sri Lanka, the results on the ground have been minimal. While the decades long armed conflict had a severe impact on civic life and development in the North and East, local authorities are institutionally very weak throughout the country. It was only since 2007 that the newly formed Eastern Province was politically dissociated from the North, which created new opportunities by enabling a different pace of development. While the transition from reconstruction to development is not yet concluded in the East, the North may be able to learn from the experiences. It can be expected that following the defeat of the LTTE in the North the conditions of the institutional framework of development planning face similar challenges there. The current situation of the Northern Province in terms of the transition from a war-torn area to a sufficiently functioning political and administrative entity resembles the one of the Eastern Province after the de-merger in 2006/07. However, the challenges and tasks for reconstruction and development lying ahead are probably greater due to the high numbers of displaced persons who live in camps. In addition, many remote areas of the Vanni were not accessible to the formal administration of the Sri Lankan government. Capacity building and the strengthening of the public administration in these places will take more time than in the Eastern Province. These circumstances notwithstanding, the structural issues to establish decentralized, integrated local development in a sensitive socio-political environment remain.

Part 2 of this paper will demonstrate how the above mentioned circumstances impact on a project to reduce the obstacles and introduce a comprehensive, participatory approach to local development planning that is more responsive to the critical socio-political context.

ISSN 1800-3524

Decentralization and Local Development Planning in the Periphery (Part 2) - Challenges of Introducing Integrated Development Planning in Kinniya

Joining Forces for a Unified Development Plan

As explained in Part 1, the Divisional Secretariats and the Local Governments are the two key development agents at local level. Yet even though both have planning units, none of them has the capacity to prepare integrated development plans. The weakness of these planning units is of structural nature and will not be resolved in the short term. For this reason, the attempts to strengthen planning capacities in both these organizations will not lead to the desired result. Moreover, there also seems no sufficient political support to amalgamate them (by converting the Divisional Secretariats to the professional administrative arm of the Local Governments).

Hence at present the only practical (and hopefully transitory) solution to this situation is to join forces and harmonize the work of the local planning units. Since planning processes involve many steps, it is necessary to increase cooperation and coordination of both planning units in order to improve their performance and mitigate conflict of interests. The preparation of plans is a central objective, especially since none of the two is able to prepare integrated, comprehensive development plans. In this context, capacity building could focus on skills development for plan formulation of staff from both planning units. With the objective of generating one single development plan, the planning units of both Divisional Secretariat and Local Government would build a team to lead the process of plan formulation, whereas the final decision should rest with the elected council (where existent). This idea is not new; the Commission of Inquiry on Local Government Reforms concluded with the same suggestion in 1999: “The current arrangement needs to be re-examined in order to bring about closer liaison between the Local Body and the Divisional Secretariat to formulate a synthesized Local Development plan including the proposals tabulated by both authorities operating in the area” (GoSL, 1999: 137).

A revised and jointly conducted planning process shares several benefits and characteristics. Above all, it unifies and better coordinates the whole process among the local authorities. While it is bottom-up oriented, it also responds and contributes to existing district and provincial plans. One salient focus is to include multi-stakeholder consultations and guarantee a people-centred and participatory process. Ideally, at the more advanced stage, this would be an integrated development planning process, i.e. the result consists of a socio-economic and a physical plan which identify areas for strategic intervention. Expected outcomes of such a planning process are of a twofold nature. First there will be a tangible output like the plan documents (multi-sector investment plan, mid-term integrated sector plan, physical development plan), and secondly, intangible outcomes regarding an institutionalized unified planning process, training-on-the job in planning for staff of local authorities

ISSN 1800-3524

and other agencies, and last not least an enhanced ‘institutional empathy’ due to improved mutual understanding and communication between the various stakeholders.

Another important aspect is the individual capacity of the planners in the planning units. Focusing on Local Government organizations (PS, UC, MC), it is not necessary that the staff in these units possess the knowledge and skills required to actually formulate various types of plans. What the planners at this level need to know is what kind of plans are required, why and when such plans should be prepared, who could prepare the plans, and how to make use of the plans (implementation). Specifically, urban physical development plans do not need to (and cannot) be prepared by each Local Government since there is an organization established for precisely that purpose (Urban Development Authority). In this case the role of the local planners is to link up with UDA for the preparation of a physical development plan, to oversee the process, to represent the interests of the local authorities and coordinate the content with their socio-economic development plan. Nevertheless, planners at local level need to acquire the skills to formulate projects and budgets for the implementation of devolved budgets.

Besides the professional administrative capacity, an intervention at local level cannot neglect the elected bodies. In terms of planning, the local councillors have to be taken to a level where they are able to comprehend planning processes and procedures, and to articulate the interests of the population. Moreover, they must be able to introduce planning committees when necessary and organize the operations of the council in an effective and efficient way. Transparency and participation as part of good local governance should be part of any programme to develop capacities amongst the council members.

Map: Section of the topographic map 1:250000 (not to scale)

ISSN 1800-3524

Even though there is a dire need for the ideas expressed above to be implemented in all local governments simultaneously, a pilot project in Trincomalee District was conducted to set an example and learn from the process for further replication in other parts of the country.13

Project Background14

Kinniya is one of the eleven divisions of Trincomalee District, which is the northernmost of the three districts in the Eastern Province. It is located in the southern part of the district, about 16 km south of Trincomalee Town. The division spreads over an area of 146.9 km2 and contains two Local Government jurisdiction areas: the Kinniya Urban Council (UC) area and the Kinniya Pradeshiya Sabha (PS) area.

The UC area contains about 17 Grama Niladharis (GN) in the North of the division. The remaining area falls under the jurisdiction of the PS (14 GNs). The mainly Muslim population (approx. 97%) of the division was estimated at 75,500 persons in 2005. Thus it is the second largest division of the Trincomalee district in terms of population.

The ‘Kinniya Project’ was jointly conducted by the Czech INGO People in Need (PiN) and the German technical development agency GTZ. It comprised three main objectives, the strengthening of local authorities (Divisional Secretariat, Urban Council and Pradeshiya Sabha), the improvement of coordination and cooperation between these local authorities, and the systematic documentation of ‘lessons learnt’ for replication in other divisions / local government areas of the North and East, and beyond. One of the main components of the project addressed the process of local development planning. In particular, this component attempted to utilize the various planning related manuals, guidelines, circulars and other documents prepared in Sri Lanka in the past years (refer FN5). The initial assumption of the project maintained that hitherto planning efforts have not achieved the expected results in terms of significant contributions to overall development goals such as poverty alleviation, reconstruction and rehabilitation, and conflict resolution. Therefore, the project adopted a different approach by beginning the formulation of a ‘hands-on’ development planning guideline through the stepwise preparation of an actual local development plan.

The review and assessment of planning guidelines and manuals found that they focused on the preparation of development plans either by the divisional secretariats or by the local governments,

13 Simultaneously, a training for trainers was developed and carried out to enhance the skills of local government staff at various levels of the administration in terms of spatial local development planning. This part is not presented here. 14 Information about this project is mainly derived from following (mostly unpublished) documents: Project Proposal, Kinniya Socio-economic Profile 2007, Kruse 2008. 15 This is a good example of the consequences of the dual administrative system. When the divisional secretariats were established, the idea was to form identical territorial jurisdiction with the local governments. Yet over time new local governments were created due to political reasons or population growth. So in this case we have the absurd situation that three local authorities with three differing areas of jurisdiction operate in the same place.

ISSN 1800-3524

but never on their relationship. With the National Policy Declaration for Local Government (mid 2007) the objective expressed in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Local Government Reforms was brought closer to implementation, notably the long-term perspective to amalgamate central and devolved administrative structures at divisional (i.e. local) level. The proposal identifies the local government as the single planning authority, stipulating: “The Policy also will pay special attention to bring the Divisional Administration and the Local Government Authority to a common platform of planning and coordination by developing appropriate institutional space and mechanisms for harmonious co-existence between the two. All major partners in local development will be required to integrate their activities in a coherent manner under the singular coordination of the local authority” (Ministry of LG, 2007, Sec. 4.1.5.2). The development planning component of the Kinniya Project therefore pioneered the implementation of this policy even before it was published. It thus ventured into legal ‘no-man’s land’ by identifying shortcomings and practical bottlenecks during the translation of the policy into real life processes. That novelty explains why the lessons of the Kinniya Project may have a country-wide impact.

Process and Issues of the Plan Formulation

Formulating a single integrated development plan for three local authorities was the major objective and challenge. For this to happen, a mutual agreement of all three authorities, the Divisional Secretariat, Pradeshiya Sabha and the Urban Council was pivotal. A combined group of political leaders (at least chairmen and vice-chairmen) as well as technical officers (mostly the secretaries and heads of the planning units) were called to a meeting which explained the importance of embarking in the process of plan preparation. The common agreement regarding the planning process gave the project the required initial backing. During this meeting a team constituting the Assistant Director Planning (DS) and both Secretaries (UC and PS), was established with overall responsibility for the preparation of the plan. By doing so, the DS and the local governments had agreed to work together. This set-up was crucial for the planning process.

In addition, a ‘Kinniya Planning Task Force’ (PTF) was formed which included planning staff from the three authorities. The PTF, however, faced some problems. Even though it was agreed that the PTF would consist of the heads of the planning units of each of the three organizations, it was found that these positions were vacant at both the UC and the PS. Consequently, this responsibility fell on the secretaries of the UC and PS. Although this gave the team a higher prominence, the daily work turned out to be hindered by it because of the many responsibilities of these functionaries. The main function of the PTF was to collect data from all relevant sectors and departments in order to compile a socio-economic profile of Kinniya. However, collecting information from the sector offices turned out to be complicated. While the PTF had assumed that requesting the contribution of sector offices in a formal manner via written and/or oral communication would be sufficient, the cooperation of the sector offices did not materialize as expected. The process of formulating the profile was delayed considerably owing to these difficulties. In addition, most sector offices simply do not have relevant

ISSN 1800-3524

information they can share. Their data is obsolete, poorly maintained and not organized in an adequate way for easy sharing. Yet additionally, it also appeared the main problem was the missing willingness to cooperate in the planning process.

The following anecdote possibly provides part of the answer why it was so hard to collect the data, not only from government organizations but also other stakeholders. Months after the completion of the profile, the manager of a prominent local NGO in Kinniya confessed that when they had received the invitation to contribute to the preparation of the profile he and his organization had been very reluctant to cooperate with the authorities. He had the impression that the authorities did not really want the NGO to get involved, but fulfilled a formality by inviting them. When he later saw the final draft of the profile, he was so impressed that he called the divisional secretariat to inquire “who had assisted the authorities in producing such an excellent and useful document”. The anecdote with the NGO manager reflects the ground situation well. Even though cooperation between the public and civil society sectors is not new, it is full of suspicion and animosities. On the other hand, good products are scarce and development actors very much appreciate the production of material they can use in their own development efforts. The anecdote is – in the end –encouraging (Kruse 2008).

Eventually the project succeeded in producing a draft of the profile which was distributed to all relevant stakeholders (government and non-government) for comments and corrections. But the response was poor and yielded no further improvement of the profile. Although the final document contains many shortcomings (especially in terms of gaps and reliability of data), it can still be considered one of the most comprehensive documents ever prepared by local authorities in the region. Initially, the production of the Kinniya profile was assigned to the PTF. Yet very soon in the process it became clear that the capacities to prepare such a document were not existent. The needs for further training range from English language proficiency to the critical evaluation and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data. Hence the entire process and preparation of the final document relied entirely on the assistance from external planning experts. It had to be recognized that the capacity to produce a comprehensive profile is not available at local level.16

This is a structural problem that will not be resolved in the near future. External assistance therefore, must be considered a necessary condition to prepare comprehensive documents such as a socio-economic profile.

Based on the compilation of the information and the findings of the profile, issues and potentials were identified and isolated for analysis. This and the subsequent phase of analysis were carried out through various interviews, meetings and workshops with several stakeholders. During this process, some participants from sector offices and civil society organizations, as well as staff members from

16 We can assume that Kinniya is an average example of a local administration in the North and East of the country.

ISSN 1800-3524

the three local authorities (DS, UC and PS) pointed out what they thought were errors in the profile. The question why those objections had not been raised during the preparation of the document and the consultation process (which took several months) yielded no satisfactory answer. Significantly, this behaviour accompanied the further process of formulating the plan and re-surfaced repeatedly. It can be speculated that a few individuals wanted to sabotage the production of the plan.

The final phase of plan formulation included several stages of analysis and goal formulations. Specifically, a) prioritization of issues and causes, b) clustering of prioritized issues and causes with potentials, and c) formulation of strategies, programs and program goals. These three steps brought to light the extremely low technical competence of staff at the local level. Due to the insufficient analytical capacity, the local authorities were unable to perform this part of the planning process without the external support of the project team. Evidently, to conduct such a planning process remains a challenge for other local authorities not only in the North and East, but throughout Sri Lanka.

Lessons Learnt and Recommendations for Replication

The formulation of a development plan for Kinniya turned out to be a time-consuming and tedious process that accounted for much more time and energy than initially foreseen (assumed time: approx. 9 months, real time: 18-20 months). Various reasons can be identified to explain this.

1. At launch of the planning process all relevant stakeholders have to be involved

In retrospective, all relevant stakeholders need to be involved from the very beginning of the process. The process of plan formulation has to be seen as a task of all stakeholders involved, which includes not only the authorities (divisional secretariats and local governments) but also sector offices and civil society organisations. Even though the involvement of sector offices and civil society organisations was also discussed at the initial kick-off meeting, it was then agreed that officers from other organisations would be involved only when necessary. However, the experience showed later that this agreement did eventually not work out. To secure the commitment of sector offices and civil society organizations, a similar ‘kick-off’ meeting is essential. Any replication of the Kinniya experience is advised to convene another meeting with all relevant sector offices and civil society organizations to explain the need for the preparation of a development plan and the process involved. The agreement of these stakeholders is crucial for the smooth functioning of the process. Only in this way will it be possible that stakeholders other than the local authorities feel ownership of the process.

ISSN 1800-3524

Despite these efforts, weak commitment of the leading local organisations accompanied the process throughout. The effort (especially in terms of time) required to produce a plan led to a rapid decline of interest by the representatives of the DS, UC and PS. The fact that the key persons responsible for the formulation of the plan were not sufficiently committed had very negative implications for the process. It is important that the commitment of the main actors is secured in a more formal way, possibly with the involvement of authorities at superior levels from the district and province. Although it contradicts the purpose of the entire exercise (that local governments become more autonomous), to have clear directives and signals of support from superior levels of the administration seem to be inevitable.

2. Participation and the issue of data quality

The production of the socio-economic profile for Kinniya also included the participation of the population. However, in view of the high number of participatory processes that had already taken

place with the communities17

, it was decided to include into the profile the results of the workshops and meetings previously conducted by various organisations. Therefore this planning exercise conducted an abridged participatory process by involving non-governmental actors at the stage of prioritization of issues/needs and identification of programmes and projects. An additional participatory process (for the sake of plan formulation), so the assumption, would have not achieved any new results and would have only contributed to tiring the people. When the participation of non-governmental organizations was required during the planning process, the reluctance of the authorities to involve civil society organisations was obvious. As pointed out in Part 1, officials often regard their activities as ‘secretive’ and not meant for the public domain. This grave misconception of the administration resulted in reluctance to involve organizations of the civil society such as NGOs and CBOs, and therefore to a lack of valuable information. In addition, it led to problems with the posterior acceptance of the process and its results. Obviously, at the very beginning of the process it has to be clarified that the formulation of a plan requires the active participation of all stakeholders. This might be avoidable if the willingness of the authorities to involve ‘outsiders’ in the planning process is agreed upon formally.

If the process is replicated in other divisions, an assessment of the situation might come to the conclusion that a comprehensive participatory process is required as part of the plan formulation. However, a process of public participation does not merely have the function to include the perspectives and opinions of ordinary people and citizen’s organizations. It additionally supports the development of a common understanding of the situation on the basis of data and information mutually agreed upon. So, the situation faced in the project that after the publication of the profile

17 At least in the case of Kinniya, a high number of organizations (public and private) conducted community participation exercises, mostly participatory rural appraisals (PRA) and participatory needs assessments (PNA). The main reason behind this is the relatively calm situation in Kinniya as compared to most other divisions in the district, where development work was too difficult for long periods between 2006 and 2007.

ISSN 1800-3524

different stakeholders raise complaints regarding validity and credibility of information can be avoided.

In a conflict-sensitive environment such as the Sri Lankan, any type of data can assume a critical political importance especially in terms of population, demography and resources. At the same time the data available are often of a questionable nature. Hence it is crucial to reflect about the production and use of data during the planning process. For instance, data are largely viewed by most stakeholders in a narrow perspective as ‘numbers’. Such a notion submits to a specific logic for the data to be accepted as ‘accurate’. Required criteria of statistics usually include particularly objectivity, reliability, representativeness, and replicability, which in turn are achieved by data collection methods such as census and surveys by way of prefabricated standardized questionnaires. One evident problem in the process of profile preparation and analysing the information was that most stakeholders do not (and are often unable to) critically assess the accuracy and correctness of data they were working with.

Conversely, there was hardly any notion or appreciation of the value of qualitative data. Yet many actors in a specific location have an understanding of the situation on the ground. They are able to deliver tentative data/information about local circumstances. A participatory process could be seen as generating the ‘missing data’ on local level. This would not generate a statistical database, but yield other results. Such a process which aims at including all stakeholders in a location (LG or Division jurisdiction), can easily identify the crude needs, assets and available resources of a place. It could subsequently lead to setting up small working groups on identified topics which are further detailed out and developed. Data on a specific topic, then, could be verified by comparing various viewpoints (as a sort of triangulation process). This will redefine the meaning of data to integrate opinions, perspectives, stories, experience, statistical figures, etc. As a result of such a process there would be a combination of qualitative and quantitative information about the area, such as:

1. people’s opinion and knowledge of a topic: these may be narratives and stories, their own experiences (e.g. waste disposal, agricultural practices);

2. available statistics, maps, reports from administration and government agencies; 3. experience, opinions and knowledge of fieldworkers of government/provincial departments

and NGOs, INGOs, etc.

Although this does not produce statistics and tables, no ‘exact and accurate’ numbers as a result of such a process, the outcome can be considered to provide at least a very close picture of the reality as the interest groups perceive it. Other concomitant outcomes are also supportive to such an approach. It can be expected that the information generated is more widely accepted, since it has been negotiated before and agreed upon. Hence it is much more difficult to contest and challenge the data – as occurred during the above outlined planning process. If taken seriously by responsive

ISSN 1800-3524

administrators and accountable politicians, these concomitant aspects have a high potential for an input in subsequent planning decision making and implementation.

Obviously, statistical data provided by any institution may be correct. Yet it is not only the number that counts, rather in such a politicized environment as the Northern and Eastern Provinces it is a matter of who presents it, a question of credibility and trust, and this criterion is absent with most statistics available. Many people simply do not believe in them. Data manipulation and inaccuracy is inbuilt, wittingly or unwittingly. A participatory local planning process would circumvent this problem and make planning a much more effective exercise. This, however, builds on one pivotal prerequisite: the leading stakeholders (local authorities) must be willing to carry out such a process and to perceive it as a win-win situation rather than a zero-sum game. As is obvious, this topic cuts across issues of conflict sensitive planning and more broadly seeks to enhance the entire local level planning process. As such it is not only about data collection and the use of them, but about connecting actors, negotiating understanding of the prevalent situation, admitting various opinions and perspectives, creating a high degree of acceptability and include those groups in decision making which are frequently not able to articulate themselves.

3. Physical planning: why it was not part of the exercise

At the outset of the project the decision was made not to include the formulation of a physical plan for Kinniya mainly due to time and staff constraints. The simultaneous production of a physical plan would have become very complex as it meant to engage with the UDA, whose Trincomalee office had very limited resources. Similarly, while it was possible to build at least on some capacity in terms of formulating a socio-economic plan for the area, in the local authorities was no knowledge of how to steer a process in cooperation with the UDA. Since the simultaneous formulation of a physical plan and the socio-economic plan appeared not feasible, the process would have been indefinitely prolonged and could have even ended in a failure to produce any plan. However, in this particular case, in the future the existing socio-economic plan may be used as a basis for developing a physical plan. In other locations this decision might be different, if the conditions

Conclusion

Part 1 of this paper concluded with the most critical issues derived from the analysis of the context of planning in the Eastern Province, among them an insecure and unstable political environment, scarce financial resources, limited human capacities and skills, and limitations of available data. Development planning in Kinniya was confronted with all these factors as well, which added to the low capacity to carry out a sound and comprehensive development planning process in a self-reliant manner. It has to be accepted that the local authorities do not possess the capacity required to carry out such a complex task. Assuming that the value of a sound plan is recognized, experience of the

ISSN 1800-3524

project confirms that the local authorities need external assistance to carry out the development planning function, so to say as an on-the-job training. This means by default, that any serious development planning process will have to be organized with the participation of external experts. These could be officers from higher levels of the administration (district, province or even national level), local NGOs, international organizations, and so forth. This result highlights the main reason for the failure of earlier government reforms, notably the inherent assumption that the introduction of new policies, legislation or ministerial directives can bring about changes. These legal provisions are necessary to establish a decentralized framework, but in order to induce changes in behaviour, attitude and approach to planning they need to be complemented by a solemn endeavour of continuous institutional transformation and organizational development.

In this sense the conditions in Kinniya are symptomatic for the situation of local development planning in Sri Lanka, where the capacities especially in spatial development planning are very low. It is particularly essential for the North and East Provinces to introduce the notion of spatial planning. There is a dire need of physical planning expertise within the planning units at various levels of the provincial administration and the Provincial Planning Secretariats. Looking at the capacities of town and country planning in the North and East, we have to keep in mind the whole country. Town planning as a profession is a fairly young practice in Sri Lanka. Even in Colombo the first master plan was formulated in the 1970s, and implementation has proved to be difficult. This raises the question as to how it could be functioning as a devolved subject in the provinces. Overall there are approximately 200 professional town and country planners in the entire country, of which only a handful are Tamils. Most of these town planners work in national government departments or agencies, leaving a vacuum at the local and regional administration.

The current situation of town and country planning in Sri Lanka is a combination of a young history of this subject as a profession combined with a long history of a centralized State administration that concentrates much of the professional manpower. Scarcity of human resources in town and country planning at provincial and local level occurs all over the country, not only in the Northeast. However, as with many issues, several factors aggravate the conditions in the Northeast. One aspect is the fact that till the intended establishment of a Master Program at Jaffna University in 2006 no course was available in Tamil in that field in the entire country.18

Thus the chances to find Tamil speaking professionals who are qualified and willing to work in the North and East have been very low in the past. Besides, only a few years ago the Department of Town and Country Planning at the University of Moratuwa launched a four-year BSc. program which focuses on local level planning. It, however, remains doubtful whether the graduates see incentives of working in remote areas.

In order to elevate local authorities to competent forces of policy making for development planning, the identical ideas of the Commission of Inquiry on Local Government Reforms and the National

18 It is not known to the author whether this program was eventually launched, since it could not begin due to the flare up of the conflict at the time.

ISSN 1800-3524

Policy Declaration for Local Government need to be accompanied by systematic training of public servants and professionals. While this is a mid- to long-term task of national scope, if successfully implemented, the difference will be felt by the citizens at the local level, with potential positive repercussions for a peaceful future of the country.

References Bastian, Sunil, 1994, Liberalised Policies and Regional Autonomy, in Bastian (ed.), Devolution and

Development in Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Centre for Ethnic Studies and Konark Publishers, pp. 143-197.

Bigdon, Christine, Decentralisation, Federalism and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka, South Asia Institute, Department of Political Science, University of Heidelberg, Working Paper No. 14, May 2003.

Cohen, John M. and Stephen B. Peterson, 1999, Administrative Decentralisation: strategies for developing countries, published for and on behalf of the United Nations, West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian Press.

Development Studies Institute (University of Colombo) / South Asia Institute (University of Heidelberg), Local Governance and Conflict Management in Sri Lanka, Final Report, February 2003

Government of Sri Lanka, 1999, Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Local Government Reforms, Colombo.

Gunaratna, Locana, 2001, Impact of Past & Present Regional Development on the Proposed Future Physical Development of Sri Lanka, Background Information for Preparation of National Physical Planning Policy – 2001. Report No. 01, Centre for National Physical Planning/ Urban Development Authority/National Physical Planning Department, Colombo, available at www.nppd.gov.lk

Kinniya Divisional Secretariat, Kinniya Urban Council, Kinniya Pradeshiya Sabha, 2007, Kinniya Socio-economic Profile 2007 - 1st Draft, August.

Kruse, Claus, 2008, Final Report on Kinniya Project and Course in Spatial Planning, GTZ-Performance Improvement Project (PIP), April, Trincomalee and Lima.

Kruse, Claus and Christoph Woiwode, 2006, Institutional Analysis: Development Planning in North-East Province, Final Report, North-East Provincial Council and Centre for International Migration and Development.

Litvack, Jennie, Junaid Ahmad and Richard Bird, 1998, Rethinking decentralization in developing countries, World Bank -Sector Studies Series, Report No: 21491, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/

Mendis, Willie, 2003, Contrast of Post-Independence Economic and Physical Planning at a Glance, De-partment of Town and Country Planning, University of Moratuwa.

Meyer, Markus, Darini Rajasingham-Senanayake and Yuvi Thangarajah (eds.), 2003, Building Local Capacities for Peace: Rethinking Conflict and Development in Sri Lanka. Delhi: McMillan India .

Ministry of Local Government and Provincial Councils, 2007, National Policy Declaration for Local Government, 17th July.

Roberts, Michael, 2001, Burden of History: Obstacles to Power Sharing in Sri Lanka, Marga Institute Monograph Series on Ethnic Reconciliation No. 21, Colombo.

Rondinelli, Dennis A., James S. McCullough and Ronald W. Johnson, 1989, Analysing Decentralization in Developing Countries: a Political-Economy Framework,in Development and Change, Vol. 20, pages 57-87.

Sarvananthan, Mutukrishna, 2003, An Introduction to the Conflict Time Economy of the North & East Province of Sri Lanka, Point Pedro Institute of Development, Working Paper 1, Sri Lanka: Point Pedro.

ISSN 1800-3524

Schou, Arild and Marit Haug, 2005, Decentralisation in Conflict and Post-Conflict Situations, Working Paper 2005: 139, Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, Oslo.

Shastri, Amita, 1998, The Provincial Council System in Sri Lanka: A Solution to the Ethnic Problem?, in: Bastian, Sunil (ed.), Sri Lanka: The Devolution Debate, 1998, pp. 198-227.

Sivalingam, K., 2004, Participatory Planning and Monitoring at Divisional/Local Level under Democratic Decentralisation, Research Training Course Peace and Development Studies: Local Development in Global Context, Department of Geography, University of Jaffna, 15th-19th

November. Smith, Brian, 2002, Decentralization, in Kirkpatrik, Colin, Ron Clarke and Charles Polidano (eds.),

Handbook on Development policy and management, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 389-399.

Sri Lanka Institute of Local Governance, no date, Local Government System in Sri Lanka, No. 87, Colombo.

Urban Development Authority, Ministry of Water Supply and Urban Development, 2006, Draft Development Plan for Trincomalee Metro Urban Centre, September.

Work, Robertson, 2003, Overview of Decentralization worldwide: a stepping stone to improved governance and human development, in Brillantes, Alex B. et al. (eds.), Decentralization and Power Shift: an imperative for good governance, Asian Resource Centre for Decentralization, University of the Phillipines.

Figure C: Local Government Bodies and (Physical) Development Planning Institutions

Source: based on Kruse and Woiwode, 2006

Ministry of Provincial Councils & Local

Government

National Water Supply & Drainage Board

Semi-autonomous Responsibility: water supply & sanitation in SL, 75% of piped water supply schemes, rest LGs

Central Environmental Agency

Semi-autonomous Environmental Assessments, Pollution Control, Waste Management, Conservation; assists LGs in control & regulation

Urban Development Authority

Semi-autonomous, MUDHC implementing agency Designation of urban areas, their planning & dev. (incl. capital investment), assistance to LGs in dev. control, urban infrastructure & services

Ministry of Urban Development

Technical support for local governments

Divisional/District Secretariats GoSL administrative structure

LGs PS, UC, MC Elected local authorities responsible for enforcement & implementation

Northern/Eastern Provincial

Council

Ministry of Nation Building

Reconstruction in North and East

Eastern/ Northern Region Physical Plan

District Plans for North/East

guidelines, policies for UDA

National Housing Development Authority

Semi-autonomous Countrywide housing projects; helps ULAs in slum upgrading; low cost sanitation, resettlement planning support for non-UDA

Weak coordination

Conflictive relationship

Functional link

National Physical Planning Department

TCP Amendment Act No: 49, 2000:preparation of Provincial & Local Physical Plans National physical planning policy

Decentralization and Local Development Planning in the Periphery: The Institutional Framework in the...

Documents

Transcript of Decentralization and Local Development Planning in the Periphery: The Institutional Framework in the...

SRI LANKA - Maritime Gateway

Decentralization, Forests and Rural Communities

Sri Lanka Buddhism short history

ITTS Final Conference - Northern Periphery Programme

Ministry of Health – Sri Lanka

Decentralization and the Quality of Government

Students' Guide - AAT Sri Lanka

DECENTRALIZATION AND DEVOLUTION:DEVELOPMENT CONDUITS

International Seminar On Administrative Decentralization

Untitled - Eco Astronomy Sri Lanka

Decentralization and Service Delivery - World Bank Documents

SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS - CA Sri Lanka

Decentralization of forest administration in Indonesia - CIFOR

Defining and Measuring Decentralization: A Global Perspective

Local Government and Decentralization in Colombia

Libya Decentralization

THE PILLARS OF FISCAL DECENTRALIZATION

Psychology in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka - PDF Server

Center-Periphery Relations and Creolization in Contemporary ...