A demonstration was staged in Jaffna

April 24, 2013

A demonstration was staged in Jaffna today against civilian land being forcibly taken by the government.

Reports from Jaffna said that the demonstration, organised by the Tamil National People’s Front (TNPF) lasted for several hours outside the Jaffna District Secretariat.

A huge police presence was seen during the demonstration agaisnt taking over civilian land in Jaffna, which was attended by the public and members of the TNPF including TNPF General Secretary Gajen Ponnambalam.

Recently there were reports that the government is to also acquire a large area of land in Vavuniya to permanently build a military camp.

According to the Lands Ministry, the owners of the land located in close proximity to the A9 highway have already been informed of this move.

The Lands Ministry says the land acquisition is being carried out legally and the owners will be compensated accordingly.

An army board of inquiry had recently ruled that the government has an absolute right to maintain its armed forces anywhere in the island according to the strategic and security needs.

It noted that a present the Tamil Diaspora operating from foreign countries are trying to de-stabilize Sri Lanka and so long as foreign governments give them a free hand their activities would pose a clear and present danger to the national security of Sri Lanka.

“Hence there is an absolute need to locate our armed forces at strategically important locations. However the Board recommends that Military bases should be located in such a manner so as to cause minimum inconvenience to the public,” the army board said. (Colombo Gazette)

Workshop on Extraterritorial States Obligations / Access to Natural Resources

Kathmandu, Nepal 16-19 April 2013

Organized by

FIAN Nepal, FIAN International and the ETO Consortium

Participations

Nepal

India

Srilanka

Bangalidesh

Pakistan

Objectives of the Workshop

Expected Outputs Part 1:

-          Clarity/Knowledge on the concepts

-          Additional CSOs and academics join the ETO Consortium

-          Strategy developed for advancing ETOs in SA

-          Exchange of experiences of violations and steps taken at different levels

-          Practical skills/ Tools for analyzing ETO cases applying ETO Maastricht principles

-          Establish a South Asia ETO coordination focal point to guide the follow up

Expected Outputs Part 2:

-          Clarity/Knowledge on the concepts (Land tenure GL /Right to Land/Land grabbing)

-          Exchange of experiences of violations and steps taken at different levels

-          Practical skills/ Tools for analyzing cases from right to food / right to land perspective and to apply the Guidelines

-          Formulate strategies and initiate joint actions at country/regional level against land grabbing and for the promotion of the Tenure Guidelines

THE ETO PRINCIPLES[Extraterritorial States Obligations]

•       Codificatión and progressive development

•       Sources:   International treaties,  costumary  law, Jurisprudence, general comentes and concluding observations of HR Treaty bodies.

•       Característics: Principles v. Guides

•       Use:  Adjudication , lobby, setting precedentes, awareness raising

ETO: The Concept (P.8)

a)      States’ acts and/or omissions, within or beyond its territory, having effects on the enjoyment of human rights outside of that State’s territory

       b)    Cooperation Obligations (Global Obligations)

General principles

Remembering Human Rights principles:

•       Human Dignity

•       Non discrimination and equality

•       Transparency

•       Accountability

•       State‘s obligations to respect, protect and fulfill,

•       Universality, indivisibility and interdependence;

•       Human rights sources

•        Right to informed participation

ETO OBLIGATIONS – RESPECT (19-22)

•       Take action, separately, and jointly to refrain from conducts which nullifies or impairs the  enjoyment and exercise of of ESCR including beyond borders (Direct interference)

•       States must refrain from any conduct which (indirect interference):

a) impairs the ability of another State or           international organization to comply with ESCR obligation.

b)aids, assists, directs, controls or coerces another State or international organization to breach that State’s or that international organization’s obligations regarding ESCR, where the former States do so with knowledge of the circumstances of the act.

•       Refrain from sanctions and embargoes

ETO Obligations – Protect (23-27)

•       Obligation to take action to protect, jointly or separately

•       Includes obligation to regulate non-State actors they are in a position to regulate

•       Including administrative, legislative, investigative, adjudicatory , diplomatic and other measures.

•       Duty to refrain from nullifying or impairing the discharge of this obligation to protect.

In each of the following circumstances:
a) harm or threat originates or occurs on its territory
b) where the non-State actor has the nationality of the State concerned;
c) as regards business enterprises, where the corporation, or its parent or controlling company, has its centre of activity, is registered or domiciled, or has its main place of business or substantial business activities, in the State concerned;

d) where there is a reasonable link between the State concerned and the conduct it seeks to regulate, including where relevant aspects of a non-State actor’s activities are carried out in that State’s territory; ex.($)
e) where any conduct impairing economic, social and cultural rights constitutes a violation of a peremptory norm of international law. Where such a violation also constitutes a crime under international law, States must exercise universal jurisdiction over those bearing responsibility or lawfully transfer them to an appropriate jurisdiction.

ETO OBLIGATIONS – FULFILL (28-35)

Obligation to create an enabling international environment

 for ESCR fulfillment, ex: Trade,  investment, taxation, finance, Environmental protection, developement cooperation,

Through: 

a) elaboration, interpretation, application and regular review of multilateral and bilateral agreements as well as international standards;

b) measures and policies by each State in respect of its foreign relations, including actions within international organizations, and its domestic measures and policies

Tenure Guidelines -

Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests

Overview

}   Adopted by the CFS in May 2012

}  Developed in an inclusive and participatory process which lasted more than three years

}  First international instrument on the governance of natural resources, which applies an approach based on economic, social and cultural rights

Nature and scope

}  Preface: TG are intended to “contribute to the global and national efforts towards the eradication of hunger and poverty” and pursue “the overarching goal of achieving food security and the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security.”

}  In order to achieve this, secure tenure rights and equitable access to land, fisheries and forests are crucial

Tenure“

}  “Tenure is the relationship, whether defined legally or customarily, among people with respect to land, fisheries, forests and other natural resources.“ (FAO)

}  Governance of Tenure: who decides which resources can be used by whom and under which conditions, and how this decision making should be done.

TG are intended to serve as a reference and provide practical guidance to governments to improve governance of these resources

NOT a Human Rights Instrument, but a Policy instrument

But:

}  refer to existing binding international human rights obligations

}  First authoritative international interpretation and guidance on how to implement existing binding international human rights obligations related to land and natural resources

Content

Seven parts:

}  Objectives, nature and scope of the Guidelines;

}  General principles, rights, and responsibilities;

}  Legal recognition and allocation of tenure rights;

}  Transfers and other changes to tenure rights (such as restitution and redistributive reforms);

}  Administration of tenure (e.g. taxation);

}  Responses to climate change and emergencies (such as natural disasters and conflicts);

}  Promotion, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Guidelines.

Towards an Assessment

a) CS participation

}  TG are result of a process that lasted over three years

}  regional consultations on all continents and several rounds of negotiations in the newly reformed CFS (4 with CS)

}  autonomous and self-organized participation of civil society, facilitated by International Facilitation Group of the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC), then by a CSM working group

Reasons for CS participation:

}  continuation of nearly two decades of struggling for equitable and sustainable access to and control over natural resources for food production (World Food Summit 1996, International Conference for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD) 2006 etc.)

}  context of new wave of land grabbing

}  incorporate into the FAO work the existing international human rights and environmental law provisions protecting the rights to land and natural resources of all rural constituencies

}  contribute to a more democratic decision making process for food and agriculture

                “CSO Guidelines”:
Civil society proposal, which condenses CSOs’ visions and aspirations on how land and natural resources should be governed to achieve food sovereignty

b)     Limitations…

Water was excluded

Focus on tenure of resources, not use and management

No ban on land grabbing

No further consolidation of provisions contained in UNDRIP

Voluntary…?

c)      …and strengths

Guidelines are anchored in the existing obligations under international human rights law, explicitly mentioning the UDHR (1.1)

Principles of implementation: human dignity, non-discrimination, gender equality, holistic approach

call states to provide legal recognition for legitimate tenure rights, particularly customary and informal tenure rights which are not currently protected by law

}  provisions seeking to protect local communities, indigenous peoples and vulnerable groups from land speculation and land concentration

}  include a number of safeguards to protect local people from the risks of land acquisition

}  Underline the responsibility of non-state actors, including business enterprises, to respect human and tenure rights

}  (Implicitly) recognize states’ extraterritorial obligations (paragraphs 3.2 and 12.15).

Next steps

}  Support social movements and CSOs asking for  implementation at national level

}  Disseminate Guidelines and ensure interpretation according to HR standards

}  Monitor governments, agencies, international organizations etc.

}  Use them in case work

When we get our home?

Mullikulam: Restrictions on fishing, cultivation, access to the church and school continue

 [Groundviews]

15 Mar, 2013 WATCHDOG Human Security, IDPs and Refugees, Mannar, Politics and Governance, Post-War

The continuous appeals and campaigns carried out by the people of Mullikulam, the Bishop of Mannar, Rt. Rev. Dr. Rayappu Joseph and members of the clergy and civil society seems to have finally borne some results, in terms of the resettlement process of the people of Mullikulam. Even though the situation is still far from ideal, and the people still aspire to return home, as the intention of the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN) to stay put, is quite clear, and as the people have suffered for so long, they have reluctantly agreed to being resettled 750m outside of their original residential lands.

Two and a half months since (December 26^th 2012) the Defence Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith met with the people of Mullikulam to discuss^[1] their grievances,[2] we visited Mullikulam on 13^th March 2013. We were able to see for ourselves and hear directly from the people about the progress made in terms of commitments[3] made by the SLN in relation to the resettlement progress of the Mullikulam people. Primarily, the letter focuses on the progress made in relation to matters of housing, water, infrastructure, fishing, transport and access to the church and school.

While some work has been done by the SLN on the above, access and restrictions have continued or even worsened.

Whilst the letter assures that the SLN has “…granted access for the villagers to visit church and school during day and night time,” some villagers shared  that access is being approved on an arbitrary basis, as on some occasions they have not been permitted to visit the church, whilst on others, they have. Still others claim that “known” people are permitted access at any time. There is no full and free access to the Church yet. Apart from ‘Gate Passes’ having been given to two of the villager leaders, school children and teachers being permitted admission daily via the Navy bus to attend school, priests being given free access at any time, and everyone being given access to the church on Sundays, there does not seem to be one clear rule with regard to access.

During our visit, on 13^th March, we experienced first-hand the SLN’s lack of clarity on this issue. Ironically, of the 10 persons in the van, only one person did not belong to any of the above mentioned “approved” categories, but still, we were kept waiting at the main gate of the SLN’s North Western Command Headquarters, for close to half an hour. Whilst we waited for “approval” from HQ, a Navy officer came up to the vehicle and asked us if any of us had cameras. When we replied yes, he went over to another officer and told him this. He also asked us why were visiting, to which a priest responded that we were going to check on the renovation work being done on the Church of Our Lady of Assumption (which is located in the heart of the village, now occupied by the Navy). Finally, after both gate pass holders, another villager and the Parish Priest got out of the vehicle and went to check with the officer in charge, as to the reason for the delay, we were finally permitted to proceed only on the condition of a Navy officer joined us in the van, effectively subjecting us to surveillance and monitoring our activities and conversations. Having visited the school and church premises twice before, this was the first time that we were provided with an accompanying escort. So, contrary to the picture that is being created that the SLN is ‘loosening its reins’, on the issue of access in particular, there seems to be “tightening” of access with additional surveillance. This clearly indicates the lack of religious freedom and dishonoring of the commitments made, in addition to the discrimination meted out in terms of access to this particular place of worship. We are not aware of any Buddhist Temple and indeed other places of religious worship where such restrictions are placed and visitors subjected to such strict surveillance.  It also flies in the face of LLRC’s recommendation that there should be access to all places of religious worship, including those in High Security Zones. But it  makes more sense when seen in light of the statement^[4] made by the Defence Secretary, that the “…Mullikulam base will continue to function as a RSC (Regional Security Centre) and will not be removed or relocated in any other place as it will jeopardize National Security objectives,” at the December 26^th meeting last year.

Subsequently, on the North Western Area Commander, Rear Admiral N.K.D. Nanayakkara’s return (as he was out when we visited) to Mullikulam, and on hearing about our experience, he was reported to have reprimanded the officers at the entrance of the Base severely, and sent 3 Navy officers to the settlement to apologize for delaying to keep the people waiting at the gate, without allowing them to visit the church freely as promised.

And with regards to fishing, more restrictions have come into place instead of restrictions being relaxed. The letter states that the people are permitted to fish during the day and that night fishing has been extended to 10pm. However, the people say that before the 30^th of January, 2013 they were permitted to fish unrestricted over-night. This sudden restriction on night fishing has posed much hardship for the villagers, as there are apparently very few fish during the day time. Furthermore, prior to the December 26^th meeting last year, the people were permitted to fish along the entire 2½ kms (equating 6 Paadu, which is a Deed to fish in a specific area) stretch of coastline between the Modaragama river and Pemunthal. Now however, the villagers are only able to fish in 1km (3 Paadu) radius as the remaining 1½km has been restricted due to “security reasons”, by the SLN. Therefore, the villagers say that it is not an “extension” of the time allocated for night fishing, but rather a reduction of that time.

Furthermore, despite this  more than 5 years since military established its control in Mullikulam, since their return to Mullikulam in June, 2012, they have had to subscribe to a ‘Pass System’ authorizing them to fish in the same waters that they used to fish unrestricted before their displacement. Unlike in other parts of the country, the SLN plays the dominant role in regulating the fishing. Each fisherman must get himself registered with the Mannar Fisheries Authority, who will then send a registration letter authorizing them to fish in the demarcated 6 Paadu, to the SLN, who will in turn issue a pass to the registered fisherman. So far, 130 fishermen (including those who take part in Maadal fishing, which is mostly carried out from the shore), from the Malankaadu settlement have been registered and issued with a pass from the SLN. Every morning the fishermen must hand over their photocopy of the pass to the SLN and take the original to sea with them. On their return, they need to exchange the passes once again before returning home.

In relation to their cultivation lands, 450 acres fall within the Naval base, and is therefore still inaccessible to the villagers for cultivation. They are only permitted to cultivate the 640 acres that is located North of the canal. Furthermore, of the 7 tanks that were originally accessible to the people, they can now access only two, Pulliyankulam and Addappankulam, of which the latter lies along the 750m border, and is therefore meant to be shared by both the SLN and the people. The people however said that they do not make use of the shared tank as Navy officers bathe there and they do not want to create unnecessary problems. Furthermore, as the 5 tanks within the Navy occupied lands have not been maintained during the war, they are no longer functional, and even many of the people’s original paddy lands inside the base are no longer fertile as the SLN has built direct access roads that run across the paddy lands.

However, in reference to some of the SLN’s claims in terms of infrastructural development, some progress made to date. Following is a list of claims and the progress made as of 13^th March, 2013. (Based both on feedback from the people and first-hand visits to the sites);

-        The SLN is constructing 26 houses for resettlement in Malankaadu (near where the people currently reside in a temporary camp). – 75% complete. But the people were also very concerned that they had yet to hear any news regarding the commitment of 130 houses to be constructed under the Indian Housing Scheme.

-        Renovation of the Church complex – 25% complete, although the SLN letter says 40%.

-        As for the demarcation of land between the people and the SLN, the letter states that the Navy camp is confined to the South of the canal, and the people to the North. The people confirm this demarcation.

-        Approximately 2 acres near the coast has been cleared for a public cemetery, although the SLN letters only claims to have cleared ½ an acre.

-        The SLN has constructed 2 concrete pedestals to place water tanks on, in the school. It has not donated two water tanks to the school as per the letter.

-        A school bus service is run free of charge by the SLN, and has been in operation since the MN/Mullikulam R.C.T.M. School re-opened on the 6^th of February, 2013. The bus picks up 35 students, 2 teachers and 2 cooks from the Malankaadu settlement daily at 6.45am and drops them back by 1.45pm.

-        In accordance with the letter, the SLN has provided drinking water via bowzers once every two days to, and constructed two toilets at, the settlement in Malankaadu when the villagers first returned to Mullikulam in June 2012. However, with regards to providing the villagers with a generator to supply electricity, the 1400 Horse Power generator they were given by the SLN at the end of January, broke down after two weeks. Having then returned it to the SLN for repairs, they have yet to be provided with a replacement. However, as the house construction in ongoing nearby, and generators are in use for the construction work, the settlement too gets a daily power supply whenever the generators are on. Villagers say that times vary from day to day.

-        The letter also mentions that having taken into consideration the people’s appeals to extend the grace period for using nylon nets, as they were badly off, that they had extended its’ usage till the 28^th of February, 2013. However, the people say that following a meeting on the 8^th of February, 2013, at the SLN base, it had been agreed on that the period be extended a further 6 months till July, 2013.

-        The letter states the SLN has cleared 1.5km stretch of road from the beach to the village. Villagers say that about 2kms have been cleared, but as it is only about 13ft wide, the Survey Department had recommended that it be widened further as it was not as wide as a regular road should be. The SLN had promised to widen it according to the Survey Department’s recommendations.

-        According to the letter, Navy has employed two women from the village and appointed them as primary school teachers. They have received two months payment of Rs. 30,000 per month, from February 2013 to date. It is also mentioned that the SLN had requested for the villagers to send their children to the Seva Vanitha Pre-School, located in the school premises in Mullikulam, where about 10 children of Navy officers currently attend school. However, the children’s parents had been reluctant to send their children to this pre-school as it is run by the SLN, so now their children attend pre-school in a make-shift cadjun hut at the settlement, which switches between being a Sacristy (part of a Church), meeting place, community notice board area and pre-school, depending on the need of the hour.

-        As for the clearing of internal access roads, as per the Mullikulam Village Plan jointly proposed by the Urban Development Authority and Survey Department, at the meeting held on the 6^th of February, 2013 at the Mullikulam Government Agent’s office, the villagers said that they had not seen the plan, but that work was currently underway to clear the internal access roads. The villagers have been told that they will be shown a plan on the 19^th of March, 2013.

The people also told us about how approximately 25 Navy families now live in their lands and that 33 houses have been repaired and occupied by the SLN, with more than 20 female Navy personnel having taken up residence within the former hospital building. Furthermore, of the two school buildings, only one has still been released for the 35 students from Mullikulam to study in. The remaining building is still being utilized to conduct Civil Engineering classes for the SLN.

Whilst some limited progress has taken place since the December 26^th (2012) meeting, the people of Mullikulam have not been given any specific deadlines regarding either the completion of the SLN’s work, or when they would be able to return to some semblance of normalcy.

Overall, Mullikulam people’s wait to live in freedom, dignity remains a distant dream.

---

[1] The Tamil Canadian Elders for Human Rights, SL Archbishop collaborates with Gotabhaya in militarization land grab – http://thetamilelders.org/index.php/eelam-news/item/193-sl-archbishop-collaborates-with-gotabhaya-in-militarization-land-grab

[2] WATCHDOG, Sri Lanka Navy vs. the people of Mullikulam - http://groundviews.org/2013/01/24/sri-lanka-navy-vs-the-people-of-mullikulam/

[3] As stated in a 13 point letter, dated 21^st February, 2013 sent by Vice Admiral J.S.K. Colombage, Commander of the Navy, to the Bishop of Mannar, Rt. Rev. Dr. Rayappu Joseph, on the progress made by them in relation to the resettlement process of the people of Mullikulam.

[4] As said at the meeting with the Mullikulam people on the 26^th of December, 2012.

Groundviews