Reviving the poorest hit hardest by tsunami
The poorer sections of the population have been hit hardest by the tsunami destruction. This is so not only in Sri Lanka but in all countries affected by it. Ifsal Ali, the chief economist of the Asian Development Bank has said: "The poverty impact of the tsunami will be enormous. Poverty is potentially the most important effect of the national disaster".

The ADB report said that the tsunami has set back poverty reduction programmes in the region and could thrust an additional two million people in the region below the poverty line. What is true of the region is applicable to Sri Lanka too. The rehabilitation and resuscitation of livelihoods of the poor would be the most difficult task.

Although it is often said that all classes of people and all cultural groups were affected, in fact it has hit predominantly the poor. Most of those who lost lives and houses were the poor. Most important is the fact that it was mainly the poor who lost their livelihoods. About 80 per cent of fishermen lost their boats besides their houses. And they are poor people. The reconstruction of the houses may not be that difficult. Foreign assistance, generous commitments of community organisations and people appear to make the task of building their houses manageable.

Sorting out where to build, who is to build and what type of houses to construct appear to be the bottlenecks. These can be overcome with a dose of commonsense and better organisational arrangements. The larger task of enabling these people to recommence their livelihoods is a more complex issue. In the case of fishermen their fishing craft have to be repaired or new boats provided.

Most of the fishing harbours have been destroyed. These have to be rebuilt. The problem of housing that has just been discussed has to be resolved. Above all there are the traumatic conditions with the loss of members of their households that have to be taken care of adroitly. The fishermen have to no doubt overcome the trauma of going back to the sea from where they faced the wrath that destroyed their livelihoods. In many cases the active person in the household may be dead and the remaining members would have to begin new livelihoods. This would not be easy in a location where life has been torn asunder. It is now widely recognised that small and micro enterprises suffered most in the affected regions. Together with them was the financial sustainability of some of the microfinance institutions on which they depended. Records are destroyed, workers in many of these are missing or traumatised and these have to begin afresh.

Many foreign donors are willing to help but they have not sorted out their strategy, as this is a very unusual situation to cope with. Do they give grants and if so to whom, individuals or organisations? What about those microfinance operations that have been totally wiped out? Does one begin on a new slate or try to reconstitute records?

Should one commence new microfinance organisations? The implementation of programmes to assist micro enterprises and microfinance organisations must be on a basis of recognition that you are dealing with a community that has been traumatised and in disarray.

Therefore data on past activities may be difficult to obtain. It is also likely that some of the past activities and livelihoods may not be economically feasible owing to the change in situation and demand. For instance a bicycle repair shop may not be feasible as still there may be new bicycles. Therefore the emphasis should be on potential new enterprises. There are likely to be new opportunities created by the reconstruction itself.

There is a merit in looking at micro enterprises and beneficiaries as a cluster. Finance for capital needed for commencing new enterprises would be a good investment, as they would generate incomes. Sewing machines, bicycles for vegetable vendors, tools for masonry are examples. It is also essential that skills possessed already by recipients would be key criteria for lending.

Many micro enterprises fail owing to the lack of marketing facilities for the products made. This mistake must be avoided. Priority should be given for micro enterprises where the goods they produce have a demand and there are marketing possibilities. Efforts to link these enterprises with existing marketing channels would be useful. A "Galle Tsunami Product Shop" in Colombo and other cities may be useful to sell products like coir mats, woven bags etc. May be some of the affected persons could be absorbed into such activities as well.

Can the more established microfinance organisations like SEEDS of Sarvodaya and SANASA take a leadership in adopting other smaller ones besides reviving their own units of microfinance in the devastated areas?

Maybe the new assistance for microfinance could be operated through proven NGOs such as SEEDS and SANASA and the projects made special projects of theirs. The restoration of physical infrastructure like railways, roads, telecommunications schools and hospitals is the uncomplicated task. The revival of livelihoods remains the biggest challenge.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.