Persistent Deprivation of Jaffna Peninsula's Fishing Communities:
Need for Sensitive and Creative Solutions
-- N. Shanmugaratnam
I read Champika Liyanaarachchi's report captioned 'Sri Lankan
Army on Collision Course With Fishermen' with concern. Indeed
the damage caused to coral reefs due to the construction of landing
sites has to be taken seriously. However, it is not fair at all
to stop at the most proximate cause of the problem and impose
a quick fix in the name of saving the environment. That may not
be a solution and it could well become yet another problem aggravating
an already complicated situation. The fishermen of Jaffna, like
their counterparts elsewhere, are quite aware of the importance
of conserving the coral reefs in their fishing grounds. The construction
of landing sites in prohibited areas by the fishermen is a reflection
of the desperate situation of a community, which is among the
worst hit civilian victims of the protracted war in Lanka. Their
right to livelihood and personal security has been continuously
violated. However, their plight did not draw the attention of
human rights activists for a long time. These fishermen have not
only been denied access to their traditional fishing grounds and
landing sites because of the High Security Zones but are also
being subject to a host of spatial and temporal restrictions on
their mobility in the sea around the peninsula and in its lagoons.
In the more restricted areas, they have to use fixed points of
entry and exit. The coastline in these areas is fenced with barbed
wire. Moreover, the pass system enforced by the Lankan Navy restricts
their movement to particular areas while not permitting them to
return to the coast with their catch before six in the morning.
With such restrictions, it is not so easy for hundreds of fishermen
to share existing landing sites or to choose environmentally safe
areas to construct new ones. In the light of this, I would like
to pose two simple questions. What does the Ministry of Defence
expect the fishermen to do when it is unable to handle a problem
that is causally linked to its own policies and practices in the
name of security? Is it wrong on the part of the fishermen to
expect the Ministry to adopt a more enlightened approach that
enables reconciliation and livelihood construction?
The situation calls for more sensitive, more creative and more
humane ways of enabling the fishing communities to rebuild their
lives and livelihoods. The Ceasefire Agreement (CFA), the opening
up of the A9 highway and the improved communication links between
Jaffna and the rest of the country provide a favourable environment
for interventions that facilitate individual and collective initiatives
by fishermen to rebuild their lives and revive fishery in Jaffna.
However, the government has not been able to frame a creative
and sensitive policy to enable the fishing communities to take
advantage of the favourable environment. By failing to do this,
the government is also missing an opportunity to win the confidence
of these communities. I have been to various parts of the coastal
regions of Jaffna and have had discussions with many fishermen
and office bearers of Fishermen's Cooperatives. Everywhere, the
main grievance aired was the denial of the fishermen's fundamental
right to fish without harassment. They told me that the pass system,
restrictions on mobility and harassment in the name of security
checks by Navy personnel make them feel like aliens and poachers
in their own fishing areas. Is this an acceptable state of affairs
in the North today, more than 20 months after the CFA?
Years of ban and restrictions on fishing in the Northern waters
have helped a progressive expansion of the resource stock and
hence a significant growth in harvestable surpluses. This should
provide a favourable situation for a quicker recovery of the livelihoods
of the fishing families (while benefiting the regional and national
economies). Indeed the accumulated harvestable surpluses are rightfully
theirs. However, the much-needed interventions, which include
more socially sensitive and development-oriented policies and
material support, have yet to be made. Fishing by local fishermen
seems to be one activity that remains more or less completely
subordinated to the security considerations and priorities of
the government in the North. The security concerns are understandable
but the policies and practices should not be counterproductive
at a time when rehabilitation of the war-torn communities is an
absolutely necessary condition for peace building. More unfortunately,
foreign fishermen, including big companies using capital intensive
technology, are illegally capturing the benefits of the large
stocks of high value resources available in our northern sea at
the expense of the local fishing communities and the Lankan economy.
Moreover, the danger of the resource stock being depleted due
to over fishing by these big time poachers looms large.
It was reported (Sunday Times, 17 August 2003) that 34-36 foot
Indian trawlers with 90-120 horsepower (hp) engines were illegally
operating in Sri Lankan waters off Jaffna regularly and the Sri
Lankan navy had turned a blind eye to poaching by Indians while
strictly enforcing the pass system on Jaffna's fishermen. The
fishermen of Jaffna are not permitted to use larger than 15 hp
engines. In fact, most of them use small second hand boats with
8 hp engines. Obviously these small-scale fishermen are not capable
of competing with the poachers who use powerful trawlers, which
have on occasions toppled the small boats of the former and also
cut through the fishing nets laid by them. We have also heard
from local fishermen that the trawlers caused damage to corals
and breeding grounds.
Currently, fishing remains banned along some 81 km of the 379
km of the northern coastline. In the early 1980s, around 22,500
families depended on fishing for their livelihood in the peninsula.
The majority of these families were displaced during the war.
Many of them were displaced more than once and a considerable
number sought refuge in India. Displaced fisher families began
to return to Jaffna since mid-1996 and by 1998 some 8600 families
had returned. This trend accelerated after the CFA. Today, more
than 60% of the peninsula's displaced fishing families are back
although not all of them are living in their own original homes
or villages. Many of the displaced families are still living in
welfare camps 'like fish out of water' as an elderly displaced
woman in a camp in Uduvil told me in August 2003. The same woman
also said that for her peace meant being able to return with her
family and others to their native village of Myliddy and revive
their lives as a fishing community. The vast majority of Jaffna's
fishermen lack the means to rebuild their basic capital stock.
A considerable number (probably about a quarter of the total number
of fishermen) is unable to do any fishing at all as they are displaced
and pauperised. This group also includes female-headed households.
The recently concluded Needs Assessment Survey reported that more
than 90% of the boats, engines and gear might have been lost or
rendered unusable in Jaffna.
A Summary of the main problems and some possible measures to
enable livelihood and regional economic revival in Jaffna's fishery
sector
The North, which once produced over 25% of the country's fresh
fish and 57% of the dry fish output and was an exporter of high
value sea food to East Asia, continues to face serious constraints
to the revival of its fisheries even 20 months after the signing
of the CFA. The deprivations and violations suffered by the fishing
communities in Jaffna call for urgent action to enable these victims
of the war to rebuild their livelihoods and regain their human
dignity.
The matrix below gives an overview of the main problems and some
ideas regarding short and medium term solutions. It should be
evident that there are some choices for the government in the
current phase if it is really keen to ease the hardships of the
fishing communities. The government may choose a combination of
measures without seriously compromising its security priorities.
A deeper exploration of the possibilities may help find more innovative
alternatives. The LTTE also has a role to play. It should not
tax the small fishermen and fish vendors. It should encourage
its development agencies to play a more active role in assisting
the fishermen to rebuild their livelihoods.
_______________________________________________
N.
Shanmugaratnam is a Professor of Development Studies at the Center
for International Environment and Development Studies, Agricultural
University of Norway. He is currently engaged in studies of the
political economy of development of war-torn areas in Sri Lanka
and Sudan.
HOME
