On 27 April 2017, I addressed a press conference at the Department of Government Information, Colombo, as a citizen concerned about waste management in Sri Lanka. I was joined by Ven Hadigalle Wimalarasa thero and Hemantha Withanage, Executive Director of Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ) Sri Lanka, an advocacy group.
Nalaka Gunawardene (centre) addressing press conference of Lankan citizens concerned about waste management, at Dept of Govt Information, Colombo, 27 April 2017.
Two teenaged girls being knocked down and killed by a moving train in Dehiwala on 25 April 2016 shocked the whole of Sri Lanka. This tragic accident could have been avoided if only there was greater safety consciousness in the two girls – and those accompanying them.
The latest tragedy highlights a deeper problem: our glaring lack of safety consciousness as a nation. Everyday, we take too many chances with our lives and limbs.
Many individuals and institutions don’t take simple precautions that can avert accidents and human tragedies. For example, how often do we see a helmet-wearing father riding a motorbike carrying his children without helmets? Or mothers walking their children on the road — with kids going on the side of vehicle movement?
Most of the time, we get away with careless reckless behaviour without repercussions. But sooner or later, luck runs out and tragedy befalls.
In post-war Sri Lanka, traumatic injuries are still the leading cause of public hospital admissions – and not just from road traffic accidents (whose numbers keep rising) or attempted suicides (whose numbers have come down).
In this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in the print issue of 8 May 2016), I call for greater safety consciousness at home, in schools, on the roads and everywhere else.
There are at least three post-1977 introductions that have transformed our society across all social and economic levels. They are: trishaws or three wheelers (came in 1978); broadcast television (started small in 1979 and went nationwide in 1982) and mobile telephony (1989).
According to government statistics, a total of 929,495 trishaws (officially called ‘motor tricycles’) were registered in Sri Lanka by end 2014. That makes it the second most common type of motorized transport (there were 2,988,612 motor cycles by end 2014). In comparison, there were 97,279 buses and 566,874 motor cars.
With 2015 additions to this fleet, we can say that one million trishaws are running on our roads. They have become the leading provider of informal public transport (IPT) services, carrying passengers as well as goods (sometimes well in excess of intended capacity).
An entirely a market driven phenomenon without any state subsidies, they are the lifeline of income to a very large number of families in Sri Lanka.
In in this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in issue of 6 Dec 2015), I look at the social, economic and cultural impacts of this vehicle in the Lankan context.
I ask: Can better regulation streamline the industry and improve the drivers’ social status?
Versatile three-wheelers or trishaws have become pervasive in Sri Lanka. Photo taken in Polonnaruwa by Anomaa Rajakaruna, in 2011
Findings of the survey by Yapa Mahinda Bandara of Moratuwa University based on sample of 342 three wheeler drivers in Western Province, Sri Lanka, 2015
Sri Lanka’s 2012 Census of Population and Housing categorised only 18.2% of the Lankan population as being urban. However, that figure is highly misleading because we currently use a narrow definition.
Currently, only those living in Municipal Council (MC) or Urban Council (UC) areas are considered urban. However, some Pradeshiya Sabha areas (the next local government unit) are just as urbanised.
At the recent LBR/LBO Infrastructure Summit 2015 held in Colombo in early November, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development Champika Ranawaka took on this myth head on. He argued that Sri Lanka’s urban population share is probably as high as 48% — which is two and a half times higher than the current figure.
His concern: misconceptions such as this distort the country’s policy decisions on infrastructure planning and urban development.
The World Bank’s global lead for urban development strategies, Sumila Gulyani, who spoke during the opening session, agreed with the Minister’s contention of nearly half of Sri Lanka’s population having already become urban.
I discuss the matter in this week’s Ravaya column, (appearing in issue of 29 Nov 2015).
South Asia at night – composite satellite image acquired by NASA between April 18 – October 23, 2012 This new image of the Earth at night is a composite assembled from data acquired by the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP) satellite over nine days in April 2012 and thirteen days in October 2012. It took 312 orbits and 2.5 terabytes of data to get a clear shot of every parcel of Earth’s land surface and islands.
The level of urbanization is an indicator of a country’s economic development and the living standards of its people.
Some purists might disagree, but it is universally agreed that urban areas – cities and towns of various size and shape – offer better facilities and opportunities for their residents.
So how urbanized is Sri Lanka? Many among us keep repeating a notion that ‘we are predominantly rural’, but is it really so?
The 2012 Census of Population and Housing categorised only 18.2% of the Lankan population as being urban. However, that figure is highly misleading because we currently use a narrow definition.
Currently, only those living in Municipal Council (MC) or Urban Council (UC) areas are considered urban. However, some Pradeshiya Sabha areas (the next local government unit) are just as urbanised.
Minister of Megapolis and Western Development Champika Ranawaka speaks at LBO-LBR Infrastructure Summit 2015 (Image courtesy LBO)
At the recent LBR/LBO Infrastructure Summit 2015 held in Colombo in early November, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development Champika Ranawaka took on this myth head on. He argued that Sri Lanka’s urban population share is probably as high as 48% — which is two and a half times higher than the current figure.
He mentioned as examples Pradeshiya Sabha areas like Homagama, Beruwala and Weligama that are administratively classified as ‘rural’ despite having many urban characteristics.
His concern: misconceptions such as this distort the country’s policy decisions on infrastructure planning and urban development.
The World Bank’s global lead for urban development strategies, Sumila Gulyani, who spoke during the opening session, agreed with the Minister’s contention of nearly half of Sri Lanka’s population having already become urban.
The Bank’s own estimates are roughly the same, she said. “The official statistics of urban population in Sri Lanka is from 14% to 18% — but if you look at the agglomeration, it is (actually) around 47%”.
World Bank’s Sumila Gulyani speaks in Colombo, 3 Nov 2015. (Image courtesy LBO)
She added: “All South Asia countries under-state their urbanization level relative to, say, Latin America. In India it’s the same story. The reason has traditionally been that the rural areas got more national subsidy programmes — and no administration wanted to be called urban!”
Taking South Asia as a whole, 30% of its combined population now lives in cities. A massive rise in this urban share is expected in the coming decades. Sri Lanka cannot buck this trend.
Despite this, old myths linger on for years. The problem, as Gulyani highlighted, is in the mismatch of capabilities: “If the (local government) council that is managing an urban area is a rural council, you are not going to see the kind of planning and urban management you need to see for productive urban growth.”
Hidden Urbanization
Meanwhile, a new World Bank report on urban trends in South Asia reminds us that Sri Lanka’s share of the population officially classified as living in urban areas actually fell slightly between 2000 and 2010.
The report suggests that as much as one-third of Sri Lanka’s population may be living in areas that, while not officially classified as urban, “nevertheless possess strong urban characteristics”.
This report tries to overcome our region’s data deficiencies by drawing on some unconventional data sources — such as nighttime lights and other forms of remotely sensed earth observation data.
Analysis of night lights has also revealed a more general growth of multi-city agglomerations – continuously lit belts of urbanization containing two or more sizeable cities – across South Asia. Their number has risen from 37 in 1999 to 45 in 2010.
In Sri Lanka, the report says, such ‘ribbon development’ radiates out from Colombo along major transport arteries to link it with both Kandy and Galle/Matara, revealing a dynamic urbanization process.
A general conclusion of the report is that South Asian countries urgent need to increase higher quality and more comprehensive data on urban trends and conditions.
South Asia at night – composite satellite image taken in April & Oct 2012 (Image courtesy NASA)
Anomaly of 1987
In Sri Lanka, the low figure for urban population is the direct result of an administrative decision to count all Pradeshiya Sabha areas as being rural. This has long been critiqued by experts such as town planner Prof Ashley L S Perera of the University of Moratuwa.
When the new local government unit was created in 1987 for political expediency, their demarcations totally ignored the existing ground realities, he says. That has led to much confusion about ‘urban areas’ in Sri Lanka for the past quarter century.
Statisticians in Sri Lanka’s government are also well aware of this. Analysing the key findings of the 2012 head count, the Department of Census and Statistics says that the country’s urban percentage “would have been much higher if the definitional issues were resolved”.
In its Census of Population and Housing 2012: Key Findings, the Department notes: “Areas coming under all Municipal Councils (MC) and Urban Councils (UC) are currently considered as urban sector in Sri Lanka. Prior to 1987, Town Councils were also included in the definition of urban areas. With the setting up of Provincial Councils in 1987, these Town Councils were absorbed into Pradeshiya Sabhas which fall into the rural sector since then.”
After 1987, some towns lost their urban status and overnight became ‘officially rural’. The Department acknowledges that there are many areas outside MCs and UCs that “have urban outlook but still classified as rural”.
This leads to underestimation of the degree of urbanization and comparison becomes difficult over the years, it says.
The Department highlights the need to “introduce a realistic definition of urban areas taking into account of the characteristics of the population rather than based on pure administrative considerations.”
It says that Sri Lanka’s urban percentage “would have been much higher if the definitional issues were resolved”.
At the time of the 2012 Census, Sri Lanka had a total of 23 MCs and 41 UCs. According to the Census findings, the country’s eight largest cities – Colombo, Kaduwela, Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia, Moratuwa, Negombo, Kotte, Kesbewa and Maharagama – made up nearly half (48%) of what is officially considered the ‘urban’ population. All these are located in the Western Province.
The balance 56 urban areas include 26 small cities with population below 25,000. “This shows the uneven distribution of the urbanization” says the Department.
The Census found that in the Colombo district, three out of four people (77.6%) already live in urban areas. Batticaloa (28.7%), Ampara (23.6%), Trincomalee (22.4%) districts in Eastern province and Mannar (24.5%), Vavuniya (20.2%), Jaffna (20.1%) districts in Northern province all have urbanization levels higher than the current national average of 18.2%.
Misleading the world
Adopting a more pragmatic and realistic definition of ‘urban’ is thus a policy priority for Sri Lanka. That can help better planning of our rapidly urbanising human habitats.
Such a move can, hopefully, also awaken those Lankans who insist about their ‘very rural island’ contrary to what the evidence suggests.
It would also stop international organisations and researchers from mistakenly labelling Sri Lanka as a country with only a small urban population.
For example, World Urbanization Prospects 2014, a global overview published by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, has listed Sri Lanka as one of 16 countries worldwide that “still have low levels of urbanization, i.e. below 20 per cent”. (As an inter-governmental body, the UN goes by national governmental data.)
The largest (by population) among these ‘low urbanized countries’, were listed as Burundi, Ethiopia, Malawi, Niger, South Sudan, Uganda, Nepal and Sri Lanka. “By 2050, all of these countries are expected to become significantly more urbanized, with as much as twice their respective proportions urban in 2014,” the UN report noted.
However, as minister Ranawaka just publicly declared, that doubling has already happened in Sri Lanka! Now if only official data custodians can change definitions, we can finally move away from the illusion of being a rural country…
City design, transport planning, air quality and public health may fall under the purview of different government agencies. But in our chaotic cities, these factors come together to create urban nightmares. Solutions also require an integrated approach.
Can we awaken from this sleep-walking before it’s too late?
This is the question I pose – and try to answer — in this week’s Ravaya column, (appearing in issue of 1 Nov 2015).
I quote the transport specialist Professor Amal Kumarage of the University of Moratuwa as saying that the national average speed is already down to 26 km per hour. Within the Colombo district, the average speed is 22 km per hour. The national average speed is projected to drop to 19 km per hour, while the Colombo district figure would drop to 15 km per hour, by 2031.
What are the smart solutions? I highlight the greater emphasis and investment needed in mass transit systems. In particular, I mention solutions such as dedicated bus lanes, bus rapid transit arrangements, congestion charges, and other demand side management options.
The term ‘smart city’ refers to urban systems, and not to the smartness of residents. In fact, there is no universal definition of smart cities: it can mean smart utilities, smart housing, smart mobility or smart design.
Smart cities use information and communications technologies (ICTs) as their principal infrastructure. These become the basis for improving the quality and performance of urban services, reducing costs and resource consumption, and for engaging citizens more effectively.
ICTs – ranging from automatic sensors to data centres — would create ‘feedback loops’ within the complex city systems. If processed properly, this flow of data in real time can vastly improve the design of “hard” physical environment and the provision of “soft” services to citizens.
In this week’s Ravaya column, (in Sinhala, appearing in issue of 4 Oct 2015), I explore the concept of smart cities, which the new government of Sri Lanka wants to develop.
It is a formidable task. India in 2014 announced an ambitious programme to create 100 smart cities. Under this, state capitals, as well as many tourist and heritage cities are to receive funding for upgrading their infrastructure. But Prime Minister Modi and his technocrats have been struggling since then to explain just what they mean by smart cities.
I argue that smart cities need empowered people and engaged city administrators. I have argued in earlier in this column, concrete and steel do not a city make. Likewise, ICT enabled smart infrastructure alone will not create smart cities – unless the human factor is well integrated.
Over the weekend of September 25 – 27, the United Nations headquarters in New York hosted the Sustainable Development Summit 2015. It was a high-level segment of the 70th UN General Assembly that was attended by many world leaders including Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena.
Sustainable Development Summit 2015 Logo
The UN, which turns 70 this year, is once again rallying its member governments to a lofty vision and ambitious goal: to embark on new paths to improve the lives of people everywhere.
For this, the Summit adopted a new and improved global task-list called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Prepared after two years of worldwide consultations, the SDGs offer a blueprint for development until 2030.
There are 17 SDGs tackling long-standing problems like ending poverty and reducing inequality to relatively newer challenges like creating more liveable cities and tackling climate change. These are broken down into 169 specific targets. Their implementation will formally begin on 1 January 2016.
SDGs in a nutshell – courtesy UN
The SDGs are to take over from the Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs, that have guided the development sector for 15 years. Sri Lanka was among the 189 countries that adopted the MDGs at the Millennium Summit the UN hosted in New York in September 2000. On that occasion, the country was represented by Lakshman Kadirgamar as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The eight MDGs covered a broad spectrum of goals, from eradicating absolute poverty and hunger to combating HIV, and from ensuring all children attend primary school to saving mothers from dying during pregnancy and childbirth.
Much has happened in the nearly 5,500 days separating the adoption of the original MDGs and now, the successor SDGs. This month, as the world commits to ‘leaving no one behind’ (as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said), it is useful to look back, briefly.
Good ‘Report Card’
How has Sri Lanka pursued the MDGs while the country coped with a long drawn civil war, political change, and the fall-out of a global economic recession?
In fact, it has done reasonably well. In its human development efforts, Sri Lanka has quietly achieved a great deal. However, there are gaps that need attention, and some goals not yet met.
We might sum it up with a phrase that teachers are fond of using, even on good students: “You’re doing well – but can do better! Try harder!”
For the past 15 years, the MDGs have provided a framework for Sri Lanka’s national development programmes. Progress has been assessed every few years: the most recent ‘report card’ came out in March 2015.
The MDG Country Report 2014, prepared by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), is a joint publication by the Government of Sri Lanka and the United Nations in Sri Lanka. Data from the 2012 census and Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2012/13 have generated plenty of data to assess MDG situation across the country, including the war affected areas.
“Sri Lanka has already achieved the targets of 13 important MDG indicators out of 44 indicators relevant to Sri Lanka. Most of the other indicators are either ‘On Track’ or progressing well,” says IPS Executive Director Dr Saman Kelegama in his foreword to the report.
Highlights
The report offers insights into how Sri Lanka’s ‘soft infrastructure’ — all the systems and institutions required to maintain the economic, health, cultural and social standards of a country – are faring.
Consider these highlights:
Sri Lanka’s overall income poverty rates, when measured using accepted statistical benchmarks, have come down from 2% in 2006/7 to 6.7% in 2012.
Unemployment rate has declined from 8% in 1993 to 3.9% in 2012. However, unemployment rate among women is twice as high as among men.
While food production keeps up with population growth, malnutrition is a concern. A fifth of all children under five are underweight. And half of all people still consume less than the minimum requirement of daily dietary energy.
Nearly all (99%) school going children enter primary school. At that stage, the numbers of boys and girls are equal. In secondary school and beyond (university), in fact, there now are more girls than boys.
More babies now survive their first year of life than ever before: infant mortality rate has come down to 9.4 among 1,000 live births (from 17.7 in 1991). Deaths among children under five have also been nearly halved (down from 2 in 1991 to 11.3 in 2009).
Fewer women die needlessly of complications arising from pregnancy and childbirth. The maternal mortality rate, which stood at 92 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1990, plummeted to 33 by 2010. Doctors or skilled health workers are now present during almost all births.
Sri Lanka’s HIV infection levels have remained now, even though the number of cases is slowly increasing. Meanwhile, in a major public health triumph, the country has all but eradicated malaria: there have been no indigenous malaria cases since November 2012, and no malaria-related deaths since 2007.
More Lankans now have access to safe drinking water (up from 68% in 1990 to almost 90% in 2012-2013.)
These and other social development outcomes are the result of progressive policies that have been sustained for decades.
“Sri Lanka’s long history of investment in health, education and poverty alleviation programmes has translated into robust performance against the MDGs, and Sri Lanka has many lessons to share,” said Sri Lanka’s UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative, Subinay Nandy, at the report’s launch in March 2015.
Proportion of Lankans living below the poverty line – total head count and breakdown by district
Mind the Gaps!
Despite these results, many gaps and challenges remain that need closer attention and action in the coming years.
One key concern is how some impressive national level statistics can eclipse disparities at provincial and district levels. The MDG data analysis clearly shows that all parts of Sri Lanka have not progressed equally well.
For example, while most districts have already cut income poverty rates in half, there are some exceptions. These include eight districts in the Northern and Eastern provinces, for which reliable data are not available to compare with earlier years, and the Monaragala District in Uva Province – where poverty has, in fact, increased in the past few years.
Likewise, many human development indicators are lower in the plantation estate sector, where 4.4% of the population lives. An example: while at least 90% of people in urban and rural areas can access safe drinking water, the rate in the estate sector is 46.3%.
Another major concern: the gap between rich and poor remains despite economic growth. “Income inequality has not changed, although many poor people managed to move out of poverty and improve their living conditions,” the MDG Progress report says.
In Gender Equality, Sri Lanka’s performance is mixed. There is no male-female disparity in education, and in fact, there are more literate women in the 15 to 24 age than men. But “these achievements have not helped in increasing the share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector,” notes the report.
Disappointingly, women’s political participation is also very low. The last Parliament had 13 women members out of 225. That was 5.8% compared to the South Asian rate of 17.8% and global rate of 21.1%. The report has urged for “measures to encourage a substantial increase in the number of women in political offices”.
Of course, MDGs and human development are not just a numbers game. While measurable progress is important, quality matters too.
The MDG report highlights the urgent need to improve the quality and relevance of our public education. Among the policy measures needed are increasing opportunities for tertiary education, bridging the gap between education and employment, and reducing the skills mismatch in the labour market.
On the health front, too, there is unfinished – and never ending — business. Surveillance for infectious diseases cannot be relaxed. Even as malaria fades away, dengue has been spreading. Old diseases like tuberculosis (8,000 cases per year) stubbornly persist. A rise in non-communicable diseases – like heart attacks, stroke, cancers and asthma – poses a whole new set of public health challenges.
Sri Lanka offers the safest motherhood in South Asia
Open Development
So the ‘well-performing’ nation of Sri Lanka still has plenty to do. It is just as important to sustain progress already achieved.
The new and broader SDGs will provide guidance in this process, but each country must set its own priorities and have its own monitoring systems. The spread of information and communications technologies (ICTs) has created new sources of real-time data that can help keep track of progress, or lack of it, more easily and faster.
Whereas MDGs covered mostly “safe” themes like poverty, primary education and child deaths, the SDGs take on topics such as governance, institutions, human rights, inequality, ageing and peace. This reflects how much international debates have changed since the late 1990s when the MDGs were developed mostly by diplomats and technocrats.
This time around, not only governments and academics but advocacy groups and activists have also been involved in hundreds of physical and virtual consultations to agree on SDGs. In total, more than seven million people have contributed their views.
As the government of Sri Lanka pursues the SDGs that it has just committed to in New York, we the people expect a similar consultative process.
Goodbye, closed development. Welcome, Open Development!
Science writer Nalaka Gunawardene wrote an earlier version of this for UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Sri Lanka’s new blog Kiyanna.lk. The views are his own, based on 25 years of development communication experience.
Equal numbers of girls and boys go to school in Sri Lanka today, But women struggle harder to find employment.
In their manifesto for the Parliamentary Election in August 2015, the United National Front for Good Governance talked about Megapolis. Now in office, UNFGG wants to make it happen.
The proposal is not exactly new. It first emerged over a decade ago, when Ranil Wickremesinghe was last Prime Minister. The original plan was developed by CESMA International, a part of Singapore’s state-run Housing Development Corporation (now rebranded as Surbana).
The aim was to create a large metropolitan region “expanding outwards from Colombo to Avissawella in the north and Panadura to the south”.
The revived megapolis plan would probably resemble original. And it looks set to become the Mahaweli of the new government.
Despite regime change in January 2015, we in Sri Lanka still live with corruption, technocratic arrogance and political expediency. Our rulers love to monitor private actions of citizens in the name of ‘national security’. Can megapolis or smart cities become another extension of our overbearing state?
I argue here that the new government must also learn from the decade-long misadventure of Hambantota where investments did not match local needs or people’s aspirations.
See also: My interview with Dr Ranil Senanayake (2012):
In this week’s Ravaya column (in Sinhala, published in issue of 10 May 2015), I explore the aftermath of the major earthquake that hit Nepal on 25 April 2015, causing widespread damage. I quote Nepali experts and activists on how the lack of preparedness aggravated impact, and the challenge of recovery that now faces Nepali society.
I quote my journalist and activist friend Kanak Mani Dixit, who wrote on May 1: “There’s nothing to do but to try to convert the Great Nepal Earthquake of 2015 into an opportunity to transform the conduct of politics and in the process lift up Nepal at least from the status of a ‘least developed nation’ to that of a ‘developing nation’. For a beginning to be made in that direction, the polity must be jolted out of its stupor. Only then can the advantages Nepal has—of nature, history and demography—be fully realised.”
I also comment on outrageous claim by some religious nuts who make a bizarre claim that Nepal’s earthquake was “karmic justice” for the sacrifice of some 5,000 buffaloes for a religious festival held last year. I paraphrase in Sinhala these words by young Lankan blogger Yudhanjaya Wijeratne.
Volunteers help remove debris of a building that collapsed at Durbar Square, after an earthquake in Kathmandu, Nepal, Saturday, April 25, 2015. A strong magnitude-7.9 earthquake shook Nepal’s capital and the densely populated Kathmandu Valley before noon Saturday, causing extensive damage with toppled walls and collapsed buildings, officials said. (AP Photo/ Niranjan Shrestha)
Meanwhile, a new World Bank report on urban trends in South Asia reminds us that Sri Lanka’s share of the population officially classified as living in urban areas actually fell slightly between 2000 and 2010.
For example, 
Open Minds! (formerly: Moving Images blog) 