Email 
Print 
Not a pretty sight: the row over Sri Lanka's camp toilets
Written by: Amjad Mohamed-Saleem
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.
Garbage mounts in Sri Lanka's camps. Photo from Muslim Aid
Ever since the final days of Sri Lanka's offensive against the Tamil Tigers sent hundreds of thousands of people fleeing, aid agencies have been struggling to cope with the needs of the displaced. Add to that the operational restrictions imposed by the authorities, and it has been a challenging environment to work in. Not helping matters is a standoff between the government and the NGO community that is manifesting itself in the local media. Every day there seems to be an article in the newspapers with regards to what the agencies are not doing. The latest issue is the state of toilets - or lack of them - in the camps in Vavuniya. The government says it is the United Nations and its humanitarian agency partners who are responsible for building the toilets. It may come as no surprise to some that the government is not happy with the quality and design of the toilets, which can best be described as open pit latrines with some wooden supports to cover the area. Once the pit is filled, you dig a new one somewhere else. For reasons I am grappling to understand, most standard post-emergency operating procedures follow a process in which the initial response to a disaster is to provide 'temporary shelters and toilets'. The next phase is the 'transitional' or 'semi-permanent shelters and toilets', and then you get to the 'permanent shelter and toilets'. The argument is that by building 'temporary' structures, people's right to return to their homes - in itself a political issue - is reinforced. In the eyes of the agencies, anything that is built of a semi-permanent nature is tantamount to encouraging people not to return. Critics say the problem is that agencies then end up spending almost double - by buying materials and paying labour costs to build a shelter, then paying to pull it down so that a permanent shelter can be built on the same piece of land. In the case of post-tsunami reconstruction, the cost of transitional shelters sometimes exceeded the repairs to people's damaged houses. POLITICISED ARGUMENT The argument falls a little bit flat when it comes to toilets and sanitation. In displacements such as this, which involve huge numbers of people, sanitation is often the weakest link and a vicious cycle of poor sanitation, hygiene and health is perpetuated. Whatever the nature or the duration of the emergency, one issue of utmost importance is the need to ensure basic human dignity with regards to sanitation. The government wants slightly better designed toilets which take into consideration local cultural values. However, the U.N. (and other humanitarian agencies) are concerned that by building anything deemed 'transitional or semi-permanent', this might 'encourage' the displaced to remain in the camps. This is where the confusion arises for me. Surely building a good toilet will ensure less disease? At the end of the day, I am certain that given the choice, people will not stay because their toilet facilities are better! These displaced deserve the best that they can get. This means that there should not be any compromise on the basic needs like their toilets. The issues have become politicised. Most agencies are quietly saying that there should not be anything done of a semi-permanent nature because this would be feeding into the government's agenda of not resettling the people and keeping them in these camps. It is interesting to note that many of the agencies protesting the need for these recently displaced people to return, are the same ones that have not considered the many hundreds of thousands who have been uprooted over the last 20 years of this conflict.
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
We welcome argument but AlertNet will not publish comments that are racist, abusive or libellous.
8 responses to “Not a pretty sight: the row over Sri Lanka's camp toilets”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content in this article, including by framing or by similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
Amjad Mohamed-Saleem classifies himself as a 'global citizen' - born in Nigeria, educated in Ethiopia and Britain, and now based in Sri Lanka. Following careers in engineering and management consultancy, he joined British relief and development agency Muslim Aid in April 2005. He was posted to Sri Lanka to work on reconstruction after the Indian Ocean tsunami and is now country director. He also oversees Muslim Aid's Bangladesh operation and coordinates its international disaster response unit. On the rare occasions when he's not globetrotting or on the road in Sri Lanka, Amjad enjoys books, music, socialising and going to the gym.
25 Jun 2009 17:58:22 GMT
Clearly Sri Lanka has "no real concern" for Tamil civilains they said they carried out a "humnitarian rescue." Sri Lanka never thought of "human costs" then and now...
This article tells why santitation is importatnt... http://transcurrents.com/tc/25 Jun 2009 17:59:49 GMT
It has been known from the beginning of the endgame of this war that the people fleeing the conflict were going to be held in camps for a long time. And only recently idp's from Mannar district have been resettled, after more than 2 years in camps, with none or limited freedom of movement. The new arrivals are looking at similar perspectives, in spite of commitments of the GoSL to resettle 80 % of them before the end of the year, while research has shown that is is more likely that only 40.000 of them will be able to return.
The GoSL has an obvious interest in "singhalising" the north and east and therefore the Tamil idp's will stay in the camps until this "singhalisation" will have taken root. The role of the international agencies in this post conflict has been arduous to say the least. With the poor leadership of the UN agencies and the GoSL pushing forward with its own agenda, without having the means to do so, these agencies have been advocating for a consistent adherence to international minimum standards. This did not only apply to shelter, water & sanitation standards but also and even more important to the adherence to the guiding principles for idp's. Unfortunately all the recommendations regarding an improvement of the living standards had been swept away when the UN agreed in their aide memoire to work on substandard conditions. The GoSL had pushed for this with the clear agenda to be able to leave the blame for poor conditions in the camps with the agencies and the UN. At the same time the gosl has always been one step ahead of the agencies by giving into demands from agencies, then later laying the full responsibility for failure with the agencies. Let me give two examples: Small camps were needed, but the GoSL provide one huge land to house well over 200.000 people. Now that this seems to be unmanageable the camps are being decongested into smaller camps for 5000 people or so. And because of enormous logistic issues and hence finances the agencies are saying that this will make work very difficult. The GoSL can now lay the blame for poor work with the agencies, without self-evaluation their initial poor decision to put people in huge camps. The second example is the promise by the GoSL to provide complementary food in addition to the WFP rations. But when the GoSL was not able to do so, the agenc! ies took over for a period of 3 months it was agreed. And now that the displacement is running well beyond this period, the funding that these agencies have is running out and the government is putting the blame yet again on the agencies. Easy to see that the responsibility of the GoSL has been taken over (in some case because of the inability of the GoSL to provide, in other case because of an unwillingness of the GoSL) by the agencies, while now the GoSL is putting the full responsibility with the agencies, while it is in fact the responsibility of the GoSL. We should stop being naive thinking that aid is non-political and that the work that NGO's are doing is neutral. In each situation where there are victims, there is only one side that the NGO's can and must take. And that is the side of the victims. By taking their side, the aid becomes by definition political. And in some countries, becoming political can be an arduous task, especially if this political position is contravening with the political agenda of a biased and militarized regime. And civil society has to be able to remain critical in a democratic system to debate, criticize and propose alternatives that are in best interest of the people for the long term, and not be blinded by short term solutions only!26 Jun 2009 08:36:51 GMT
There is no doubt that Sanitation is very important in the mass displacement camps. While the author's article is very much appreciated, his/her last para tries to draw a political opinion. He tries to compare this mass displacement ( or forced displacement) of ~350000 people, exhausted and affected by the brutal war in the last few months, to thousands people who were displaced over a long period. Definitely both are not comparable. Here govt tries to keep these 350000+ people in camps for long period. Aid agencies should not help the gov to keep the people indefinitely or for a pro long period. That is a valid argument and the author need not attack the aid agencies who are providing services under restrictions to the camped people. This seems author tries to use "sanitation problem" to attack the aid agencies.
26 Jun 2009 08:39:25 GMT
Politics of a toilet has taken over a real humanitarian issue that is affecting over 300,000 peoples caged in unhealthy security camps in northern Srilanka for the last two months. Fist time Srilanka government after the end of these conflict has made an official statement out side Srilanka yesterday, In Delhi that all the IDP will be resettled in 180 days.
It is a good news to all those peoples who are very much concern about the plight of these unfortunate peoples,that at last there is a silver line in the dark tunnel. Most of these peoples are hard working rich people,who were living in their comfortable homes, and it is a pity that for the last six months the conflict has led them in the no-fire zones, and then in the security camps that they are caged without proper food,water, toilet and health care. If promised like that in Delhi in another six months,IE after one year for many of them after being displaced, will be able to go home. Start rebuilding their homes,farms and the busy fishing industry which will in turn help the Srilanka economy which is at a very bad state. Because India has agreed to Deming all the conflict area and assist in the resettlement all the IDPs, by assisting financially. Human misery in those unhealthy camps can be reduced if the security forces who are in control of these camps can speed up their security clearance and start by sending out those families. Who have relations and friends out side where they can stay temporary till the mine clearing operations are completed and made suitable for resettlement. According many reliable sources many IDP families have been released after payments have been made to security high ups by expatriate family members and friends. Many of these released have even reached foreign countries in thousands and have even applied for asylum. Only the poor innocent civilians who are not at all involved in these conflict are continuously put to suffer in these unhealthy security camps.26 Jun 2009 08:40:36 GMT
Amjad,
1) Agreed. The issue is politicized. There are also practical challenges. The standard INGO relief strategy of transition-to-semi permanent-to-permanent is inappropriate in this context. 2) Curious to hear your suggested solution.26 Jun 2009 08:41:34 GMT
It's not that people will be encouraged not to return to their own homes but the government does not want it happen because they can go on begging loans and aid from foreign countries and institutions under the pretext of caring for them. There are Muslim IDPs in Putalam for the last 15 years and the government still use them as pawns to milk money from Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The UN does want the Tamil IDPs to be allowed to return to their huts sooner but the Sinhalese government want to keep them behind barbed wires for several years without any witness to the barbaric treatment they are subjected to. Even now if the government allows the UN and NGOs unrestricted access and permission to manage their care treatments will be better.
26 Jun 2009 08:42:19 GMT
Clearly the purpose of any aid group or any relief effort is not to judge if permanent structures will lead to long term containment.
Obviously the commenter above 'Kumaran' has not read the article above. The author in the piece above says the government wants better facilities, and the aid agencies do not. This article below explains why the return of the displaced must not be rushed. http://bailaman.blogspot.com/29 Jun 2009 08:09:39 GMT
The Tamils in Sri Lanka need not be in camps. They all have places to go, the homes they left when Govt forces overran LTTE positions. Now the war is over, let them go. No need to spend on temporary toilets. Govt. wants to collect money from the International community and pocket them for their personal use. President Carter's words come to my mind = "Taxing the poor in a rich country and giving to the rich in the poor county." Over 90% goes into the pockets of the ruling family and friends.