STATE STRUCTURE IN SRI LANKA

CLAUS KRUSE
CIM – CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL
MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT
NPC - NORTHERN PROVINCIAL COUNCIL
EPC - EASTERN PROVINCIAL COUNCIL

Trincomalee / Colombo
March 2007
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

1 “STANDARD” LEVELS OF STATE

National Government
National level Head Elected Represen- Sectors
(President) tatives (Parlia- (Ministries)
ment/Congress)

Provincial/State/Regional Government
Intermediate level Head Elected Represen- Sectors
tatives (Parlia- (Ministries)
ment/Council)

(Intermediate
level)

Local Government
Local level Head Elected Represen- Departments
(Mayor) tatives (Assem- (Sectors)
bly/Council)

(Community level)
(Villages/neigh-
bourhoods)

1
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

2 LEVELS OF STATE IN SRI LANKA

National Government
National level Head (President) Elected Representatives (Parliament)

Sectors (Ministries)

Provincial “Council”
Provincial level Elected Representatives (Council) Sectors
(Central Ministries)
Devolved sectors (Prov. Ministries)

District level (Provincial Gov. Agent Sectors

(Central Minis-
structures) District Secretariat
tries)

Local Government
Local level Head + Coun- (Provincial DS + Sectors
(Central
cil + Depart- structures) Secre- Ministries)
ments tariat

(Community level) CDOs GN divisions Extension

workers /
(Villages/neigh-
front line
bourhoods) officers

2
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

3 SUMMARY OF PROVINCIAL (I.E. DEVOLVED), RESERVED (I.E. CENTRAL GOVERN-

MENT) AND CONCURRENT (I.E. JOINT) FUNCTIONS AS STIPULATED IN THE
NINTH SCHEDULE TO THE 13TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION (“LIST I”,
“LIST II” AND “LIST III”)

List I Provincial Council List

(Functions to be devolved to and carried out by the Provincial Councils)

Police and public order (unless in the Reserved List)

Planning (implementation of provincial economic plans)

Education and educational services (unless in List II or III)

Local Government (except for constitution, form and structure)

Provincial housing and construction (other than National Housing Development Authority)

Roads, bridges and ferries (other than national highways and bridges and ferries on national
highways)

(Certain) Social services and rehabilitation

Transport (certain aspects)

Agriculture and agrarian services (mainly extension work)

Rural development (no further explanations)

Health (unless in List II or III)

Indigenous medicine

Resthouses under Local Government and circuit bungalows under “devolved departments”

Pawnbrokers (other than provided by banks)

Market fairs

Food supply and distribution

Cooperatives (also appears in List III)

Land (other than in List II or III)

Irrigation (other than in List II or III)

Animal husbandry (certain aspects)

Promotion, establishment and engagement in income-generating projects (unless contrary to
Central Government interests)

Reformatories, borstal institutions, etc.

Possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquor

Burials, burial grounds, cremations and cremation grounds other than national memorial
cemeteries

Libraries, museums, etc. controlled or financed by the Provincial Council

Ancient and historical monuments and records other than those of national importance

Regulation of mines and mineral development as defined by an Act of Parliament

(Certain) Corporations

Regulation of unincorporated societies and associations

Theatres, dramatic performances, music, cinema

Sports (other than national sports associations)

Betting and gambling (excluding taxation)

Provincial debt

Offences against statutes (in the context of this list)

Fees (in the context of this list)

Electrical energy other than power generated to feed the national grid

Borrowing of money as determined by an Act of Parliament

Taxation:
o Turnover taxes as determined by an Act of Parliament
o Betting taxes, taxes on prize competitions and lotteries (other than national lot-
teries)
o License taxes, liquor
o Motor vehicle license fees as determined by an Act of Parliament
o Dealership license taxes on drugs and other chemicals
o Stamp duties on transfer of properties such as land and motor cars
o Toll collections

3
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

o Court fines
o Fees charged under the Medical Ordinance
o Fees charge under the Motor traffic Act
o Departmental fees in the context of this list
o Fees under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance
o Fees on lands alienated under the Land Development Ordinance and Crown Lands
Ordinance
o Court fees
o Regulatory charges under the Weights and Measures Ordinance
o Land revenue (e.g. for valuation)
o Taxes on lands and buildings
o Taxes on mineral rights as determined by an Act of Parliament
o Other taxation as determined by an Act of Parliament

Protection of the environment as determined by an Act of Parliament

List II Reserved List

(Functions to be carried out by Central Government)

National policy on all subjects and functions

Defence and national security; internal security; law and order

Foreign affaires

Posts and telecommunication; broadcasting; television

Justice in so far as it relates to the judiciary and the courts structure

Finance in relation to national revenue, monetary policy and external resources; customs

Foreign trade; inter-province trade and commerce

Ports and harbours

Aviation and airports

National transport (e.g. railways, national highways, etc.)

Rivers and waterways; shipping and navigation; maritime zones; State lands and foreshore

Minerals and mines

Immigration, emigration and citizenship

Elections (presidential, parliamentary, provincial councils, local authorities)

Census and statistics

Professional occupations and trainings

National archives; archaeological activities and sites and antiquities declared to be of national
importance

All subjects and functions not specified in List I or List III

List III Concurrent List

(Functions to be carried out jointly by Central Government and Provincial Council)

Planning:
o Formulation and appraisal of plan implementation strategies at the provincial
level
o Progress control
o Monitoring progress of public and private sector investment programmes
o The evaluation of the performance of institutions and enterprises engaged in eco-
nomic activities
o The presentation of relevant data in the achievement of plan targets
o The dissemination of information concerning achievement of plan targets
o Publicity of implementation programmes
o Manpower planning and employment databank
o Nutritional planning and programmes

Education and education services (basically schools and personnel other than national schools
and personnel of such schools)

Higher education

National housing and construction: the promotion of integrated planning and implementation
of economic, social and physical development of urban development areas

4
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

Social services and rehabilitation (relief, rehabilitation and resettlement)

Agricultural and agrarian services (agro-linked industries, farms, soil conservation, plant
pests)

Health (schools for training auxiliary medical personnel; supervision of private medical care,
control of nursing homes and diagnostic facilities; population control and family planning)

Registration of births, marriages and deaths

Renaming of towns and villages

Private lotteries

Festivals and exhibitions

Rationing of food and maintenance of food stocks

Cooperatives (also appears in List I)

Surveys (in the context of Lists I or III)

Irrigation (larger schemes)

Social forestry and protection of wild animals and birds

Fisheries other than beyond territorial waters

Animal husbandry (certain aspects)

Employment

Tourism

Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of products with need of
national control

Newspapers, books and periodical printing presses

Offences against statutes in the context of this list

Fees in the context of this list

Charity; religious institutions

Price control

Inquiries and statistics in the context of this list

Adulteration of foodstuffs and other goods

Drugs and poisons

Extension of electrification and regulation of use of electricity

Protection of the environment

Archaeological sites and remains other than national

Prevention of the extension of diseases between provinces

Pilgrimages

5
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

4 EXTRACT FROM “INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS – DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN

NORTH-EAST PROVINCE” (KRUSE/WOIWODE, 2006)

(…)

5.4 MAIN DEVELOPMENT AGENTS AT PROVINCIAL LEVEL

At provincial level, there are basically three groups of organisations which have significant impact in development and
development planning:

• Provincial Government (with its provincial ministries, departments and other units)
• Offices of national ministries at provincial level
• Donor-funded projects

Other development agents usually have smaller areas of intervention, rarely the entire province.

5.4.1 Provincial Government

“North-East Provincial Council (NEPC) is the government at provincial level.” This would be the understanding under
“normal” circumstances, but, as mentioned earlier, Central Government structures undermine the real devolution of
powers to sub-national levels. In addition, due to the ethnic conflict, the President, in line with powers granted to him in
the Constitution, dissolved the council in NEP in 1989. Elections to establish a new council have been postponed since
then.

The term North-East Provincial Council is still used to refer to the Provincial Government, although what we have at
provincial level is the secretariat to the council, i.e. the administrative arm of the Provincial Government, and the Gov-
ernor, who adopts the role of the council in its absence. To avoid confusion, we will use NEPC as is the common prac-
tice.

NEPC, like all other Provincial Governments in Sri Lanka, is allowed to establish a maximum of five provincial minis-
tries. This is a further indication of the double standards applied by the centre. In a devolved system the province
should have similar flexibility to determine the number of provincial ministries needed as is the case at national level.
In view of the devolved functions, NEPC has established ministries that combine very different sectors which usually
would form individual ministries. Furthermore, some key units do not have the rank of a ministry for the same reason,
as is the case with the Provincial Planning Secretariat.

The five provincial ministries in NEP are:

• Agriculture, Lands, Livestock Development, Irrigation and Fisheries

• Education, Cultural Affaires, Sports and Youth Affaires
• Health and Indigenous Medicine
• Rehabilitation, Reconstruction, Social Welfare and Buildings
• Provincial Public Administration, Local Government, Co-operative Development, Road Development, Rural
Development, Industries, and Management Development & Training

Some units are incorporated under the Chief Secretary’s Office:

• Treasury (including Motor Traffic)

• Planning Secretariat (including the Centre for Information Resources Management)
• Engineering Services and Infrastructure
• Legal Unit

Finally, at the top of the provincial administration set-up are the Governor and his secretariat, which includes the pro-
vincial audit department and a legal unit, among others.

It must be mentioned that the five provincial ministries do not necessarily represent sectors that have been entirely de-
volved to the provinces. The reason behind this is twofold: many functions fall under the concurrent functions, as de-
fined in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, i.e. functions that are the responsibility of both national and
provincial level. At the same time, many functions have not been allocated entirely to either national or provincial
6
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

level, but have been divided between them. So, certain areas of a sector might have been allocated to the national level,
and other areas of the same sector to the provincial level (reserved and provincial lists), or some areas of a sector to the
provincial level and other areas of the same sector to the concurrent functions (provincial and concurrent lists). We can
conclude that in addition to the inherit difficulties that the presence of a concurrent list carries with it, the lack of rules
and mechanisms to regulate the exercise of powers of the list (the “rules of the game”) aggravates the situation. An ex-
ample of such an institutional arrangement would be a second chamber in Parliament.

The partly artificial combination of sectors into one single ministry (most notably in the Ministry of Public Administra-
tion, Local Government, Co-operative Development, Road Development, Rural Development, Industries, and Man-
agement Development & Training) is made easier by the division into provincial departments. We would therefore
rather refer to the departments for reasons of clarity.

Each department has a planning section to formulate sectoral plans. All sectoral plans are collected at the Planning Se-
cretariat, where provincial plans of varied nature are compiled (e.g. Five Year Investment Programme, Medium Term
Rolling Plan, Annual Implementation Programme, etc.). Unfortunately, the planning sections are too often very weak,
which results in delayed or sub-standard plans, which eventually results in sub-standard (compiled) provincial plans.

The problem has to be tackled if comprehensive provincial planning is to be achieved. The planning units in the de-
partments have to be strengthened through capacity building of the human resources and improvement of the data and
information systems within the departments, as well as between the departments and the Planning Secretariat (standard-
ised formats, information flow, etc.). The Provincial Planning Committee (which meets quarterly for a period of time
which is definitely insufficient) could be reorganised to improve coordination mechanisms between departments and
Planning Secretariat, as well as among the departments. The lack of adequate coordination and discussions between all
these development agents is one of the main obstacles to the formulation of comprehensive provincial development
plans. A similar approach should be attempted to improve coordination between levels of government (province, dis-
trict, local).

In general, the role of the Planning Secretariat has to be strengthened to transform it into the main agent for coordina-
tion and communication between departments and between levels. Simultaneously, processes have to be institutional-
ised. Both the Planning Secretariat and departments complain about the information flow, although in different ways.
While the departments complain that the Planning Secretariat burdens their work through frequent but irregular re-
quests for data and information, the Planning Secretariat criticises the poor level of cooperation they receive from the
departments.

In summary, we see three main areas that need to be addressed within the Provincial Government (and at sub-provincial
level) to improve planning processes:

• Institutionalisation, standardisation and automation of processes

• Capacity building in planning units of departments
• Establishment of more and qualitatively improved spaces for discussion of various issues related to planning

A fourth main area of intervention is the Planning Secretariat itself. Owing to the importance of the Planning Secre-
tariat in the context and focus of attention of this analysis, we deal with it in a separate section below.

5.4.2 Offices of national ministries at provincial level

As explained earlier, the Provincial Government does not include all sectors of government but only those specified in
the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. As a consequence, sectors that do not fall under the area of competency
of the Provincial Government have separate offices at provincial level or by-pass the provincial level completely and
have their branches at district level. Further, functions that are jointly carried out by national and provincial level
(based on the list of concurrent functions) are split between these two levels in different ways. In some cases there are
two completely separated ministries, in other cases there are ministries with internal separations into national and pro-
vincial functions. The diversity of arrangements among the various ministries makes it very difficult for outsiders to the
system (and in many cases insiders as well) to orient themselves.

This is however not specific to the NEP: “There is neither mandate nor authority that requires these offices of the line
departments operating in the province to report to Southern Provincial Council”. “Each central government line de-
partment and its branch offices in the province is controlled by their Colombo headquarters with direct upwards and
downwards reporting function” (ADB, 1998).

7
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

In the context of planning, we would like to highlight one central department present at provincial level which is of
special importance: the Surveys Department. NEPC does not have any role in surveying matters and consequently de-
pends on this department. For planning purposes, the role of the department and the services it can provide (surveying
and mapping) are fundamental. Close relations with Provincial Planning Secretariat would be desirable.

5.4.3 Selected donor-funded projects

Donor-funded projects play a predominant role in development activities in the province owing to their financial
strength. Being donor-funded, all projects are initially discussed and agreed on at national level. Various ministries act
as counterparts to the donor agencies (e.g. UNDP, ADB, World Bank, etc.) and other development partners (e.g. GTZ,
JICA, etc.). The Provincial Government comes in as executing agent of the projects. Within the Provincial Govern-
ment, the Planning Secretariat has the role of monitoring the progress of the projects and reporting to the national min-
istries.

Most donor-funded projects do not have the entire province as their area of intervention. For instance, tsunami-related
projects focus on coastal areas. Nevertheless, they work across districts and therefore have a provincial dimension.

It is not possible to analyse all the projects in the context of this report. However, it is important to understand the role
they play and the structures they usually establish to operate, as well as their linkage to the formal government structure
(national and provincial). Mostly, a project has its head office at provincial level and several offices at district level.
Beyond district level, the projects work through the Divisional Secretariats or directly through other governmental,
non-governmental or even community based organisations.

• North-East Irrigated Agriculture Project (NEIAP)

• North-East Community Restoration and Development (NECORD)
• North-East Emergency Reconstruction Programme (NEERP)
• North-East Coastal Community Development Project (NECCDEP)
• North-East Housing Reconstruction Programme (NEHRP)
• Sri Lanka Affected Areas Recovery and Take-off Project (STAART)
• Community Water Supply and Sanitation Project (CWSSP)
• Conflict Affected Area Rehabilitation Project (CAARP)
• Tsunami Affected Area Rebuilding Project (TAARP)

(…)

5.6 MAIN DEVELOPMENT AGENTS AT DISTRICT LEVEL

5.6.1 District administration

The Central Government structure of the district and Grama Niladhari system is a carry-over from British colonial
times into the modern Sri Lankan State. The divisional level was integrated in this structure only after independence.
From a legal point of view, the districts have a fairly weak position, being only mentioned in the Constitution (Article
5) and named in the First Schedule, as well as in the Administrative Districts Act (1955), where the areas of jurisdiction
of Government Agents are specified. Their function and mandate, however, is not detailed therein. “The District Secre-
tary represents smaller line departments with non-devolved responsibilities in the district” (ADB, 1998). The District
Secretariat has therefore limited responsibilities, which not only exclude devolved functions but also some of the cen-
tral functions. In reality, however, the power of the head of the district administration (District Secretary / Government
Agent) goes far beyond this legal responsibility.

The districts comprise an intermediate level in the Sri Lankan administrative system. Administration at this level per-
forms reserved subjects and coordinates national programmes and projects. A powerful District Secretary, commonly
still referred to as Government Agent, heads the District Secretariat – also called Kachcheri. District Secretaries thus
derive their power directly from the Central Government.

The provincial administration does not have a proper equivalent at district level. At this level, eight (Regional) Assis-
tant Commissioners of Local Government (R/ACLG) have the function of guiding and assisting the relationship be-
tween NEPC and local authorities. Currently, the provincial administration is strengthening the ACLG offices in an
attempt to offer better support to the Local Governments.

8
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

5.6.2 Planning at district level

In principle, the district administrations carry out functions as a sub-provincial but inter-divisional planning office,
across Divisional Secretariat and Local Government areas. Planning activities at district level are largely confined to
coordination and monitoring of all projects and programmes in the area. Actual planning processes and implementation
were decentralised to the Divisional Secretariats. Thus the planning branch in Vavuniya, for example, has three Assis-
tant Directors Planning who come directly under the Deputy Director Planning, while there is a cadre of four Assistant
Directors Planning, one for each division (see figure below). The linkage between district and division is very strong, at
least regarding planning.

The Central Government appears to maintain a direct link to the planning branches of the districts through a line minis-
try (see figure below). With the change of government in November 2005, the Ministry of Rural Livelihoods Develop-
ment became the line ministry for all planning units. This seems to be the typical structure, showing that in theory each
national ministry can exert its power at district level without the Government Agent, as he is not the head of all sectors.
Thus the office of the GA remains a structurally more or less separate but in practice influential coordinating and deci-
sion-making entity.

Usually, the GA/District Secretary oversees all development activities in the district, including Central Government
activities, provincial functions and to some extent non-governmental projects. The District Secretaries function as the
‘outposts’ of the Central Government. The district administration is responsible for backstopping and coordinating im-
plementation of activities assigned to them by both the provincial administration as well as the Central Government.
Thus the District Secretary plays the role of coordinator, linking the activities of central and provincial administrations.
Since the GA supervises the Divisional Secretariats, he has a certain influence over other activities as well. In reality,
most of the provincial functions and activities at local level are executed and implemented by the Divisional Secretari-
ats. The relationship of GA and the province is therefore complicated, since lines of command and responsibilities are
not clearly defined. It comes down eventually to personal attitudes of the individuals whether it is a conciliatory or a
more conflicting relationship.

Several committees build up an important institution in the districts. Among these, the District Coordinating Committee
(DCC) is central as an advisory body to the districts. It is chaired by an MP appointed by the President with the GA
acting as secretary. According to NEPC Planning Procedures, the DCC assembles all provincial ministers (not in place
in NEPC), all provincial council members of the district (not in place in NEPC), and all the chairpersons of local au-
thorities within the respective district. It is the major decision-making body in the district, sanctioning all development
projects and programmes. The District Development Committee (DDC) is the body mandated to approve activities and
allocation of funds in the district. It is called monthly or bi-monthly and in most cases is chaired by the same person as
the DCC. The main task of the committee is to allocate the decentralised budget of Rs.5 million available to every MP.
Hence all the MPs from the district take part. There are other committees, e.g. sectoral committees, which are of less
relevance for the overall planning process.

In most cases, the committees and MPs set allocation priorities. It is also in these committees, particularly in District
Coordinating Committee and District Development Committee, where there is an opportunity for collaboration between
the Local Government authorities and district planning.

It is also to be noted that a number of parastatal, semi-autonomous agencies form part of the district level planning
structure as they have offices in the districts. Some of them are Central Government bodies such as the Urban Devel-
opment Authority (UDA), Central Environmental Authority (CEA) and National Housing Development Authority
(NHDA). Their impact will be described in more detail below (local level).

9
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

Figure 10
District Planning Office, Vavuniya: Organisation Chart
Source: District Secretariat with own amendments

Ministry of
Rural Livelihoods Development
national level
(Line Ministry for all planning branches)

District Secretariat
Government Agent/Distr. Secretary district level

District Planning Office

Deputy Director Planning

Divisional Secretariat
Assist. Director Assist. Director Assist. Director Divisional Secretary
Planning - I Planning - II Planning - III

local level

Administration (6) Development

Officers (5) Venchala Vavuniya Vavuniya
Cheddikuloam Vavuniya South North

Assist. Director Assist. Director Assist. Director Assist. Director

Planning (1) Planning (1) Planning (1) Planning (1)

Development Development Development Development

Officer (2) Officer (2) Officer (2) Officer (2) 10
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

5.7 MAIN DEVELOPMENT AGENTS AT LOCAL LEVEL

5.7.1 Administration at local level

A dual administration is the salient feature at the local level. On the one hand there is the Divisional Secretariat under
the Central Government, and on the other hand 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 were created at the level of the former AGA divisions (Divisional Sec-
retariats), directly under the control of the Provincial Councils. However, most power at local level still rests with the
Central Government. Even though the Pradeshiya Sabhas were established to carry out devolved functions of the Pro-
vincial Councils, the bureaucratic/administrative machinery that facilitates such functions is in the office of the Divi-
sional Secretary (DS). The DS was initially envisaged to function as the secretary of the Pradeshiya Sabha. But they
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, which employs officers of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service (Development
Studies Institute, University of Colombo and South Asia Institute University of Heidelberg, 2003).

Originally, a Commissioner of Local Government at national level handled all administrative functions in respect of the
local authorities. Now the provincial Commissioner of Local Government carries out these functions. The Department
of Local Government, North-East Province, was formed in 1989. Presently it comes under the Provincial Ministry of
Public Administration, Local Government, Cooperatives, Rural Development, Road Development, Industries and
Training. The objective of the Department of Local Government is to guide, assist and supervise the local authorities in
the proper and efficient administration of the areas of their jurisdiction (NEPC/Planning Secretariat, 2004).

The number of local authorities in Sri Lanka is about 300, changing whenever areas receive new designation and/or are
further divided. At the time of writing, the North-East Province was divided into 75 Local Governments and 71 divi-
sions. Originally, before the introduction of Pradeshiya Sabhas, Central Government had created the divisions to match
Local Government areas (municipal, urban, town and village). Over time, however, changes mostly due to ethnic group
boundaries caused a mismatch and often these areas are now not identical any more. According to the Operational In-
formation of the NEP, there were 61 Pradeshiya Sabhas, 7 Urban Councils and 3 Municipal Councils in 2004. Criteria
for classification have not been followed rigidly; hence there are Pradeshiya Sabhas in the country which more closely
resemble resemble urban areas. “This situation is the result of not following any suitable criteria in determining the
type of local authorities. Even at present this is done in an ad hoc manner and not according to any accepted basis. If
this process is not regulated the growth of an unsystematic network of local authorities would be inevitable” (GoSL,
1999). However, the classification can be broadly based on population size. Thus a Municipal Council comprises a
town with more than 30,000 inhabitants, and an Urban Council has a population between 10,000 and 30,000. Prade-
shiya Sabhas contain areas with smaller towns and their associated hinterlands. Pradeshiya Sabhas do not always have a
secondary town but may have one or more smaller urban areas with a population below 5,000 (ADB, 2000).

Local authorities can be considered as semi-autonomous. The people in them can assess the needs of their area and
make certain decisions, depending on the resources they possess. On account of the prevailing situation in the North-
east, regional elections have not been held for most local authorities for several years. Hence only some councils are
headed by elected representatives, most of them in Singhalese majority areas. All other councils are temporarily headed
by Special Commissioners. A Special Commissioner (mostly the same person as the Divisional Secretary) in the NEP
has the authority to do the work of the chairperson of the local authority. Yet some local authorities are disenfranchised
even when they have an elected council, since the practice of the Special Commissioner system has been so deeply in-
ternalised that even in some areas where local elections took place, the function is still retained.

Fundamental in our findings is the understanding of Local Government by the majority of our interview partners. The
common understanding 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 Governments – from the national to the local level. Thus it is only one among many other
sectors, thereby degrading its status as a proper Local Government level. This is the current perception and structure
prevalent in Sri Lanka (see Figure 11). The Sri Lanka Institute of Local Governance corroborates this understanding of
LG and its shortcomings in defining the need for reforms: “The Local Government in Sri Lanka has not been recog-
nized 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 Insti-
tute of Local Governance, no date: 32).

11
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

A different perspective is a comprehensive Local Government, an all-encompassing local level government structure
that integrates all sectors, and as such the consequential institutional complement to the National and Provincial Gov-
ernment. These levels usually permeate each other (see Figure 12). The figures displayed are grossly simplified, but
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, LG in figure 11 is much less
prominent than in figure 12. As a result, it can be much more easily suppressed by others who, according to this per-
spective, enjoy the same status. Figure 12, by contrast, shows that LG provides for the integrative dimension of all sec-
tor departments and the accountability to the public/electorate. Unfortunately, the narrow understanding regarding Lo-
cal Government is demonstrated by the fact that local authorities do not enjoy constitutional recognition as a tier of the
government system in Sri Lanka.

Figure 11 Figure 12
LG viewed as a Sector Subject LG as a comprehensive government level

National Government Structure: National Government

National Line Ministries
Provincial Government

Health Agriculture
Local Government

Irrigation Industries
all Departments
within MCs, UCs,
Transport PSs

Local Government
Provincial Ministries

And more…
National Ministries

5.7.2 Local Government finance

As explained earlier, Local Governments receive their funds from the national budget through the Provincial Govern-
ment. There are, however, other sources of funding for Local Governments that do not necessarily follow the same
channel. The main sources are:

Rates

Other revenue

Assigned revenue (stamp duty and court fines)

Borrowings

Government transfers

Other receipts

The significance of the sources varies considerably between Municipal Councils, Urban Councils and Pradeshiya Sab-
has. For Municipal Councils, rates are the most important source of income, accounting for 35-40% of the total income.
Urban Councils and Pradeshiya Sabhas, on the other hand, depend largely on government transfers (30-35% and 25-
30%, respectively). Rates play a relatively small role in the overall income of Pradeshiya Sabhas (5%), while stamp
duty and other minor receipts play a significant role.

The collection and transfer of rates present serious complications. Rates are levied by the Land Registration Office and
transferred to the Provincial Government for further transfer to the Local Government. The funds however do not reach
the Local Governments as expected. The same applies to court fines, which are levied by the courts themselves. One of
the problems in the case of rates is the capacity of the Local Governments to maintain their valuation rolls (the docu-
ment that determines the value of a property and the rate to be paid). Regular updating of valuation rolls (usually every
five years) is a costly exercise, which most Local Governments cannot afford. It is however a “good investment”, since
monies spent would be soon recovered through the collection of updated rates. But the Local Governments seldom see
the long-term benefits of such exercises. Supplementary valuation, i.e. valuation of properties in new areas to be incor-

12
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

porated to the rateable area, faces similar problems. In fact, most Local Governments do not have a clear picture of the
official boundaries of their areas of jurisdiction. In response to urban growth, however, Local Governments very com-
monly provide services to areas which do not fall under their jurisdiction, or to such areas which do not pay rates be-
cause they have never been valued.

In NEP the financial situation of Local Governments is even worse. Local authorities are hesitant to charge fees, e.g.
rates, to many of their subjects. The understanding is that the population of NEP is already punished disproportionately
highly due to the conflict. Loss of property, damage of business enterprises, payments to the LTTE, etc. put additional
burdens on the people. The imposition of property and business rates would seem too much like castigation to these
suffering people.

5.7.3 Planning at divisional level

Measures for decentralisation of planning go as far back as the early 1970s when Divisional Development Councils
were established together with a decentralised budget. Following this, the Divisional Secretariat became the focal insti-
tution for planning of divisional level programmes. District Development Councils were established in 1980, but dis-
solved and replaced by the establishment of the Pradeshiya Sabhas in 1987.

The divisional level constitutes a focal point in the process of decentralised planning and development, as the node be-
tween national development strategy percolating through the provincial and district levels, and the community devel-
opment needs emanating from village level organisations. Till now the divisional development planning process has
been the major planning effort aiming at local level development in the NEP. However, planning for development has
been carried out in an ad-hoc manner and on an unsystematic basis (Sivalingam, 2004).

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 decentralised development budget to the GA in a
district. The GA then allocates it to the divisions which are ‘implementing’ development activities. Activities of pro-
jects such as NECORD, NEERP, NECCDEP, NEIAP, and others are also considered, yet as they usually have their
own programmes they relate at best to the planning decisions made in the divisions. However, implementation at divi-
sional level is understood as monitoring and supervision, which are seen as the major functions of the divisional plan-
ning unit. Even though field staff is available to inspect progress of projects, the actual implementation is carried out
mainly through local societies such as the Rural Development Societies (RDS) and Women’s RDS, less through local
NGOs.

Focal areas for development activities are identified in different ways. Besides the Divisional Secretary, who has a say
in setting planning priorities, there are some criteria used concerning, for example, (a) rehabilitation areas, (b) poverty
level, (c) remoteness of area/underdevelopment, (d) ethnic set-up, (e) demographic features, etc. However, there ap-
pears to be no systematic approach in their application.

The Divisional Secretariat formulates annual plans, so-called Divisional Development Work Plans. They contain
budget allocation, and include responsible agencies, targets and outputs. It must be noted though that this plan is a sim-
ple list of activities and projects, not a comprehensive development plan. It does not include specifications on coordina-
tion, 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 at this level that we
encountered activities resembling a planning process built 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 Grama
Niladharis (GN Divisions) regarding different sectors.

In the first instance, the plan content is decided at divisional level. Demand and needs-based project proposals from
grassroots level are submitted via the GN Divisions. The Divisional Planning Unit assesses all these proposals and a
first selection and prioritisation takes place. The result is a compilation of projects in a document that becomes the an-
nual work plan of the Divisional Secretariat. This plan is presented to the Divisional Coordinating Committee for dis-
cussion, amendment and approval. A revised version is subsequently submitted to the district/GA. At this level, the
plan is presented to the District Coordinating Committee for further discussion and approval. Following this, it is then
passed on to relevant Central Government ministries, among them the Ministry of Nation Building and Development,
but planners at divisional level do not know in detail how the procedures work from there onwards.

This selection process is also subject to a political component, since MPs of the 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,
undermining to a certain extent the relevance of the local democratic structures, i.e. the local authorities.

13
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

The Divisional Secretariat distributes a copy of its Work Plan to other development agents such as INGOs, provincial
ministries, sector departments, etc. Eventually, the Divisional Secretariat itself will only implement a very small portion
of the projects contained in the plan, expecting other organisations to implement the remaining projects. In order to
avoid duplication, the implementation of activities is supervised at the district level during committee meetings.

In the case of Trincomalee, coordination between the Divisional Secretariat and Urban Council Trincomalee occurs
only at the highest level through the Special Commissioner (who is both Divisional Secretary and Head of the Urban
Council) in the committees. But the divisional planning staff do not sit in these committees. In spite of these efforts,
there is a lot of duplication of work, e.g. in this case the UC planning comes up with a plan, while the division has its
own plan (the Work Plan). It is clear that this process could easily be unified and a concerted effort could evolve to
prepare one plan together, even more so as the Divisional Secretary in his function as Special Commissioner unites
both the Urban Council and the Divisional Secretariat in terms of jurisdiction and responsibilities. Similarly, there is no
proper coordination with other planning agents, for example UDA, CEA, etc.

5.7.4 Local Government in the planning system

Local authorities derive their powers from the respective ordinances (see above chapter on legislation). Local Govern-
ments are “charged with the regulation, control and administration of all matters relating to public health, public util-
ity 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).

As remarked earlier, there is a multiplicity of laws regarding mandates and functions of authorities relating to planning.
There are several supplementary acts specifically relating to physical planning (and utility provision) which specify
functions of local authorities. It is interesting to note that initially, after independence “planning and execution of the
‘Plans’1 were entrusted to local authorities assisted by the Department of Town and Country Planning [now National
Physical Planning Department]” (Mendis, 2003). Although the laws are vague in terms of defining clear planning
mandates, many functions of local authorities have been increasingly limited ever since by the Central Government.

Nowadays, LGs are in a very weak position to conduct any kind of planning. This is mainly so due to the lack of capac-
ity of the LGs 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 at the end of this section) which are widely seen as encroaching upon the man-
dates of local authorities. The planning unit within the Provincial Local Government Department is there in name only,
and largely dysfunctional. The situation at the lower levels is similar. Planning units are either not part of the cadre or,
if exist, are not functioning.

Thus at the R/ACLG office in Vavuniya we could observe that a kind of planning branch was only recently established
staffed with a Local Government Assistant (LGA). The LGA is presently aided by Community Development Officers
(CDO) who are working in the four divisions of the district. The initiative of setting up this planning section seems to
come from the R/ACLG, who took up this idea probably with the support of the Commissioner for Local Government
in Trincomalee. The arrangement is still informal and it is neither clear as yet where it will be located in the overall
organisational structure of the office nor who will be eventually responsible for planning.

Looking at the local authorities proper we find a similarly grim picture. For example, the local authorities at the Urban
Council in Trincomalee and Kinniya Pradeshiya Sabha have planning units in name only; and this seems prevalent in
most places. In the UC Trincomalee, planning is combined with civil works due to insufficient staffing (see figure be-
low). Vacancies especially in top-level posts are high, which is a result of lack of interest from the Central Government,
which has the power to appoint public servants at this level. Even though the planning section is not operational, vari-
ous kinds of plans do exist, mostly financial and budget plans. Proposals for 5-year, 3-year (so called capital plan) and
annual plans are developed by the civil works department and then forwarded to a committee that convenes monthly.

Under given circumstances this Development Planning Committee ‘replaces’ the non-existent Council. The Special
Commissioner, the Secretary of the UC, the Chief Clerk and the heads of all administrative departments of the UC con-
stitute it. The final decision though rests with the Special Commissioner, whose main role is actually Divisional Secre-
tary for Trincomalee Town and Gravets.

1
Two types of ‘plans’ existed then: a) Zoning/Housing and Town Improvement Schemes, and b) Planning Schemes to control use of land.

14
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

In Kinniya Pradeshiya Sabha a Local Government Assistant (LGA) is formally in charge of the planning division since
1999 (see figure below). According to him there is no other staff available for this function owing to a chronic shortage
of staff. A similar situation would be common in all PSs in the North-East Province. The PS does not have enough fi-
nancial resources to carry out maintenance and other related works laid out 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 within its boundaries. The only interface between Divisional
Secretariat and the Pradeshiya Sabha is the Divisional Planning Committee. This committee does not meet regularly but
only on demand. The Special Commissioner, who in this case, is at the same time the Secretary of the Pradeshiya
Sabha, chairs it.2

In both UC Trincomalee and Kinniya Pradeshiya Sabha the Urban Development Authority is supposedly involved in
the planning process.3 In the first case there is a fortnightly “UDA Meeting” including representatives from UDA Dis-
trict Office, UC Trincomalee represented by the Special Commissioner and Secretary, a Public Health Assistant (who
belongs to UC administration) and the Medical Officer Health (MOH) of the Provincial Public Health Department.
However, it was not possible to find out what the subjects and function of this meeting are. In the second case, the chart
of the structure of the PS it shows that planning is handled by the LGA together with UDA, but in practice they have
hardly any relationship besides some reconstruction activities following the tsunami.

The relationship between the UC Trincomalee and the NEPC is defined by the latter’s role as a local authority that
comes under the Provincial Department of Local Government. Thus it only has a real link mainly to the Commissioner
of Local Government. This relationship is basically confined to formalities such as staff appointments and funds for
salaries. Contacts with other departments, particularly the Provincial Planning Secretariat, do not exist. Significantly,
the PS staff pointed out that they have to follow the hierarchy of the Local Government structure to reach higher levels
of the NEPC administration. Direct contact with PPS in matters of planning seems to be impossible. This appears to be
a pivotal issue in Sri Lanka causing not only enormous delay in activities and long bureaucratic procedures that hinder
flow of direct communication, but perhaps more seriously it even prevents government bodies from carrying out their
designated functions. Consequently, our question who they refer to when a planning issue has to be resolved remained
unanswered. This is typical as apparently there is no mechanism for such procedures and no established practice. It
illustrates the weakness or absence of both vertical as well as horizontal links among planning actors.

The above outlined condition reflects the ‘narrow view’ of Local Government, since the Local Governments follow
their departmental hierarchies, which inhibits formation of meaningful intergovernmental connections based on sub-
jects, e.g. planning. Thus it would be neglecting the line of command prescribed for the Local Government’s planning
section if it contacts Planning Secretariat straight away, and not through the office of the CLG.

2
In this arrangement the office of the Special Commissioner remains at least with the local authority and not, as in other cases, with the Divisional
Secretary.
3
UDA covers all designated “urban areas”. Originally, all UCs and MCs fall under UDA areas, but not all PSs. In the course of time, however, politi-
cal decisions resulted in some PSs also being declared as “urban areas”. Obviously the classification of “urban areas” does not follow clear defini-
tions.

15
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

Figure 13
Urban Council Trincomalee4: (Simplified) Organisation Chart before the 2006 Elections
source: UC Trincomalee (2006) with own amendments

Special Commissioner
Council Instead of elected council
(Divisional Secretary Towns & Appointed by Cen-
Gravets Trincomalee) tral Government

Vice Chairman political body

Secretary administrative body

Administration Finance Civil Works Health

& Planning Local authority

Planning Works Fire

Officer Brigade
Architect

absent
elected body

4
From 14th April 2006 the Urban Council has been put in place following local elections held in Trincomalee district.

16
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

Figure 14
Kinniya Pradeshiya Sabha5: Organisation Chart before the 2006 Elections
source: Kinniya PS with amendments

COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE

COUNCIL

Council Member Chairman Vice Chairman

Internal Audit
political body
administrative
Secretary and Special Commissioner Medical Officer Health (MOH) body

Public Health Public Utility General Ad- Technical Service Finance Planning
Service ministration

1. P.H.I. 1. C.D.O. 1. Staff Assistant 1. Engineer 1. Book Keeper 1. Local Government

2. Sanitary Supervisor 2. Librarian & Assis- 2. Clerks 2. Technical Officer 2. Revenue Clerk Assistant
3. Sanitary Supervisor tant 3. K.K.S. 3. Revenue Supervisor 2. Urban Development
3. Pre-school teacher 4.Office Labourer Authority???

Sub Office Alankerny Main Office Kinniya Sub Office Kurinchakerny

absent elected
body

5
From 14th April 2006 the Pradeshiya Sabha was divided and an Urban Council created. Elected bodies have been put in place following local elections held in Trincomalee district.

17
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

5.7.5 Other planning agents at local level

A plethora of other planning agents operate and intervene in local level planning. Out of these, the parastatal
Central Government agencies are the most conspicuous ones since they have been given legitimacy for their ac-
tivities. This has not always been the case. Prior to 1989, local authorities had more powers in respect of plan-
ning functions than nowadays. For about three years in the period 1991-93 all powers were devolved and the
districts were in fact weakened as compared to the local authorities. Significantly, the Divisional Secretariat
came under the Provincial Government. Thereafter this set up was unconstitutionally changed through a circular
to the advantage of politicians at the Central Government. This is the situation that remains to this day, and the
powers of Local Governments are still being undermined. After all one has to keep in mind that before 1989
town planners and engineers were placed in UCs and MCs, but were removed afterwards to create national agen-
cies such as National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWSDB), National Housing Development Authority
(NHDA), Urban Development Authority (UDA), and others.6

The figure on planning institutions (see end of this section) is an attempt to illustrate the existing planning
framework from a Local Government point of view. Although we cannot claim that it shows the complete pic-
ture, it nevertheless clearly demonstrates the extent to which national institutions such as ministries and specific
agencies take over the role as key planning organisations, leaving Provincial and Local Governments normally at
the receiving end. According to this, a ministry at national level, Ministry of Urban Development, is mainly re-
sponsible for spatial planning and provision of technical support. In addition, the Ministry of Nation Building
(former ‘RRR’) is of special important to NEP, as it produces district development plans. Other ministries carry
out sector-related programmes not shown in the figure. Several sector agencies (NWSDB, NHDA, CEA, UDA)
provide for the entire set of physical and infrastructure development such as public utilities, housing, environ-
mental and settlement planning.

Policy-making however, is fragmented between all these institutions, which is visible in poor coordination and
total lack of strategic planning. Proper development planning is made more complicated. Another inhibiting fac-
tor is the ambiguous division of responsibilities between the centre and the provinces (especially exacerbated in
the NEPC), which makes it difficult to improve administrative capacity at provincial and local levels. Local au-
thorities generally lack capacity for land management and enforcement capacity for development control. Coor-
dination of all relevant development actors is inadequate. Thus it is apparent that a multi-headed, hydra-like con-
struct exists especially in the area of physical planning.

Urban Development Authority

An important agency in physical planning at local level is the UDA. We have looked into its workings more in
detail because physical planning is currently 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 NEP. The main regional office for the Eastern Region is located in Trin-
comalee, while two more offices were established in Batticaloa and Kalmunai in response to the tsunami. Jaffna
and Vavuniya offices cover the Northern Region. It must be noted though that UDA operates only in the so-
called cleared or government-controlled areas.

According to the Town and Country Planning Amendment Act No:49 of 2000, UDA carries out physical plan-
ning 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 Regional
Physical Plans. Generally 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 Trinco-
malee 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. UDA is currently working in Trincomalee for
tsunami resettlement in Kinniya, and on a physical plan for Kantale, among others. In 2001 a plan for Trinco-
malee Town and Gravets was also prepared. UDA officials maintain that their plans are comprehensive in terms
of economic, environmental, social, and spatial aspects.

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 issuing building construction permits. UDA does not have
seconded staff within each local authority (this is misleadingly and incorrectly displayed in the official PS Kin-
niya organisational chart). Lengthy procedures for plan preparation and approval with abundant stages and au-

6
Personal communication with Ms Wijailudchumi, former CLG, NEP.
18
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

thorities involved characterise the planning process. Draft plans climb up the ladder to the highest authority, i.e.
the Ministry of Urban Development. This structure reflects the highly centralised administration of Sri Lanka
and planning in particular, where a national ministry decides about such small places like Mutur or Kantale.
Normal phases of plan preparation are as follows:

1. Request from a local authority submitted to UDA

2. UDA prepares a draft plan
3. UDA submits plan to the local authority for their assessment (60 days/2 months), as well as to other authori-
ties (NWSDB and NHDA), which are asked to contribute in their capacity to the plan proposal
4. UDA makes changes and amendments based on comments received
5. UDA submits plan proposal to the National Planning Committee which is concerned only with urban devel-
opment
6. Then it is passed to the board of Managers, UDA
7. Finally it is submitted to the Ministry of Urban Development

It seems that a 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 formalised rela-
tionship or coordination arrangement between NEPC 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 Planning Secretariat.
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. UDA officials have the feeling, which is
probably correct, that physical planning is often neglected in such meetings. So at times it might seem difficult to
include the physical dimension in meetings. 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.
Some UDA officers even believe the UDA should come under the NEPC to guide and assist it.

Even though the UDA is a national agency, its Northeast offices are grossly neglected. The Trincomalee office
seriously lacks basic resources to carry out its functions. It does not have enough computer facilities (maps are
still drawn manually) and communication facilities. The staff usually take a bus to carry out fieldwork in the
entire Eastern Region. The office is chronically understaffed, with four only professional planners. 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 in coming to Trincomalee from Colombo. As a result, current
staff in UDA is entirely Singhalese, thus contributing to constraints in their work. They are for instance, not able
to enter LTTE-controlled or other Tamil-dominated areas, and so they are limited in carrying out their full func-
tion.

The ethnic dimension is very serious in this case, as Tamil planners and staff would be crucial in building capac-
ity at UDA. It also carries further implications. A participatory planning process is unlikely to be conducted if
the planning staff has difficulties in getting admission to the respective area or 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 the importance of who prepares a plan and how it is generated. The example demonstrates
the significance of a conflict-sensitive planning approach, which we deal with below.

Role of NGOs

As indicated earlier, so-called NGOs and INGOs are important and dominant development agents at the local
level. Particularly in the aftermath of the tsunami the number of these organisations has gone up significantly,
raising the question of how they contribute to the needs and requirements of the people and how they could be
linked to local level administration. Several issues arise in this respect, the most important being the lack of co-
ordination and consistent planning to guide development agencies. There seems to bei no proper mechanism at
national, provincial, district or local level to coordinate the activities of NGOs. But there are other reasons of
relevance at local level.

On the one hand, NGOs find it difficult to find their way through the bureaucratic jungle of approval and permits
for their proposed activities, complaining about delays and non-transparent decision-making process. The result
is that they attempt to circumvent authorities whenever possible and to minimize contacts. Nonetheless, it ap-
pears most collaboration takes place with the Divisional Secretariats while Local Governments are largely ne-
glected. Only very few NGOs, it seems, take on this challenge and consider changing the situation. One such
attempt has been launched recently by People in Need (PiN), which decided to support the Divisional Secretariat
in Kinniya to improve its capacities in coordinating development activities.

19
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

On the other hand, local level administration, both local authorities and divisional administration, is incapable of
tackling the challenge of coordinating and monitoring activities of NGOs efficiently. A pivotal problem is the
fact that the present planning process is not inclusive. Real participation and decision-making processes do not
take place in a manner that guarantees a product that really reflects strategic needs. The population, CBOs, sector
departments, and also NGOs are an insufficient part of such a process. The consequence is that the local level
administrations cannot present solid development programmes to the NGOs to guide their intervention. In addi-
tion, the fact that the NGOs are mostly left out of the decision-making process means that they do not feel part of
it and would therefore not be co-owners of development.

5.7.6 Conclusions

Owing to the prevalent administrative circumstances, the government-controlled line of command is the pre-
eminent planning authority at district and local level. This situation appears prevalent in most districts, and usu-
ally these entities are viewed as the singular 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 man-
dates 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, we have not found a
planning mandate backed by any Act of Parliament. Consequently, strengthening this structure would result in
supporting a centralised administration that acts on a top-down approach, whereas the constitutionally defined
democratic local authorities, namely the Municipal Councils, Urban Councils and Pradeshiya Sabhas are for the
most part reduced to bystanders.

In other words, the Central Government administrative structure has been able to dominate local planning even
though there are other central agencies (UDA, NHDA, CEA, etc.), which were created to support the Local Gov-
ernments in fulfilling their part in planning. In this regard it is also crucial that we do not confuse the term Local
Government (i.e. UC, MC, PS) with the DS and GN, which are part of the Central Government structures.7 On
the other hand it is neither possible nor practicable to neglect the key role of Divisional Secretariat and District
Secretariat in the planning process. Particularly in the NEP, the rehabilitation and reconstruction activities are
mainly carried out through this channel, under the leadership of the Ministry of Nation Building and Develop-
ment.

As to the actual planning procedures and processes, we believe that the shortcomings and weaknesses of the sys-
tem are generally well known to most observers and stakeholders involved in it. The fundamental issues from
our point of view, however, may be summarised as follows:

1. There are a large number of administrative institutions operating at local level, mainly national sector agen-
cies, the Urban Councils, Municipal Councils, and Pradeshiya Sabhas, and the Divisional Secretariats. Ide-
ally, the Divisional Secretariats should have been the administrative part to the Local Governments (PS, UC
and MC). Yet presently they function as two separate institutions more or less independently of each other.
2. Inadequate transparency and accountability characterises the planning process, whereby the main planning
actors (Division/District) have no people’s representation.
3. Poor coordination and communication and frequent unwillingness to collaborate owing to asymmetrical
power relationships among stakeholders and even within departments. The tsunami emergency situation
forced the various planning institutions and levels to collaborate better and coordinate their activities. Yet
this was a temporary arrangement only, without institutionalisation of such coordination and cooperation ef-
forts. Today, the situation has fallen back to the practices that existed before. A lesson learnt is that if there
is willingness and commitment, collaborative planning is possible.
4. Sectoral rather than integrated thinking dominates current planning practice, in part due to the understanding
of Local Government as a ‘sector’. Spatial/physical planning is conceptually and institutionally isolated
from development (socio-economic) planning and budget formulation.
5. There is no unified organisational and procedural framework in place in the various planning units, be it
local authorities, divisions or districts.
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 lo-
cal authorities, districts and divisions, (2) planning in general through central agencies in districts, and (3)
the control of funds for development.

7
Technically, DS and GN are also part of local government, yet this term is reserved in Sri Lanka for the Local Government authorities (UC,
MC, PS)
20
 Claus Kruse
Centre for International Migration and Development (CIM) /
Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils

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

If spatialised 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 ad-
ministrative structures at local level in order to improve the planning process and consequently to increase the
impact of development activities. While it is recognised that strengthening both Local Governments and Divi-
sional Secretariats is required, the focus will have to be on the first to bridge the gap between them.

21