Some leaders of the government began talking about the 100-meter coastal restriction of construction soon after the tsunami. At that time, even the burial of all the victims had not been completed. The 100-meter policy announced soon after a major tragedy had led to surprise and doubt on the part of some. Many thought the govern- ment was preparing for a great land grab in the midst of this disaster.
A Coast Conservation Department existed prior to the tsunami and it had a coast conservation policy as well as a systematic road map (Coastal Zone Management Plan). This road map had been drawn up by a combination of specialists in the subject. According to that road map too, there was a coast conservation zone. However, it was very different to the one that has been demarcated now. The width of the coast conservation zone now demarcated is uniform but that of the previous coast conservation zone was not uniform. It was 20 meters wide in some places and wider than 100 meters in others.
Before introducing the 100-meter rule, the government did not discuss the matter with the Coast Conservation Department or with respective specialists on the subject. Nor were the creators of the 100-meter policy even aware that there had been a coast conservation zone previously, nor its dimen- sions.
Furthermore, that road map had included an analysis of the impact of disasters that might occur and it even mentioned the possibility of a tsunami.
Although the specialists of the Coast Conservation Department are surprised by the 100-meter policy, they are not prepared to clash with TAFREN. It is unlikely that they are unaware whose idea the 100-meter policy is. Yet the specialists are unable to quarrel with those who have ab- solute power.
The cat which had been hiding in the bag jumped out on March 2. A commercial advertisement published by TA- FREN on February 27 told the country that construction within the 100-meter zone was banned. It stated clearly that the houses damaged or destroyed within that zone cannot be rebuilt. It assured that the government would build 500- square-foot houses for all those affected by the tsunami.
That rule of 100 meters does not apply to those who are outside that zone. They can rebuild their houses if they want. The government will pay a sum of Rs250,000 each for the houses which are completely damaged and a sum of Rs100,000 for those that are partially damaged.
However, it was four days after the publication of the first advertisement that the country learned clearly that this strict policy of 100 meters applies only to the ordinary peo- ple living within that limit.
Another advertisement published on March 2 stated that the buildings that exist in the coast conservation zone and have been built with permission obtained before December 26, 2004 from the Sri Lanka Tourist Board and other authorities can continue to exist within the coastal zone. The buildings in that zone which have been partly destroyed. excluding those that have been completely destroyed, too can be rebuilt. In addition, the institutions which had obtained permission before December 26 and had started construction, too, can complete those buildings.
What the true purpose of the 100-meter rule, which came about immediately after the tsunami, has been is quite clear now. The government’s intention is to remove all those who had been living within the 100-meter limit and to hand that zone over to tourist industrialists. The govern- ment’s purpose appears to be to rid that zone of ordinary people with their unattractive homes, and to turn it into a tourist zone for foreigners and beautiful properties.
The highest land prices are fetched by coastal land. There was a suspicion in some quarters from the outset that the government was preparing for a great land grab. That suspicion appears to have become a reality now.
The conduct of the ordinary people living on the coast had not been an obstacle to Sri Lanka’s tourism industry before Both these groups conducted themselves with mutual under- standing and the fruits of the tourism industry went to both the groups. While the large hotels in the zone were popular haunts of some tourists, another group of travelers preferred guest houses maintained in ordinary residences by individuals.
Hereafter the friendship that had existed between the ordinary people of this zone and the tourist industrialists will disappear, and the ordinary people will look at the tourist industrialists, not with a friendly eye, but with hostility. Those people will see the tourism sector personnel as a group of invaders who grabbed their properties. Such a situation will not benefit the tourism industry.
The tourism industry is one that should be protected. At the same time the people of the country too must be protected. Expulsion of people who had traditionally lived in the coastal areas from those areas by force will only create new problems which had not existed earlier, and is unlikely to benefit the tourism industry or the country as a whole.