Why is there a risk of corruption in the delivery of aid following the tsunami in Sri Lanka?

There are seven main reasons why aid delivery is prone to corruption:

i) The current accountability framework in Sri Lanka is extremely weak and there is a lack of legal provision for financial accountability. The Parliamentary Oversight Committees, the Auditor General's department as well as the Commission to Investigate Bribery and Corruption are generally lacking powers and are not independent. The Bribery Commission does not even have suo moto powers.

ii) Furthermore, the lack of a national strategy and failure to streamline allocation in the reconstruction and relief efforts, coupled with minimal supervision, will undoubtedly result in lop-sided distribution and abuses of discretion on a geographic, beneficiary and industry basis.

iii) The lack of a long-term follow-up mechanism on the part of the donor governments, organizations or individuals - as the monies are grants and not loans - will also enhance possibilities of systemic financial abuses.

iv) TI Sri Lanka strongly feels that there is an absence of visible political will to fight corruption in post-tsunami reconstruction. The need of the hour is for strong and committed leadership to address the phenomenon of corruption.

v) There is a lack of legislative enactments - such as right to information measures, disclosure laws and whistleblower protection statutes - to empower affected communities and citizens.

vi) To date, there has been no enactment of disclosure norms for all relief and reconstruction activities.

vii) Lack of consultation in the decision-making process of affected persons, civil society and professionals.

What are the main aspects of aid delivery that are vulnerable to corruption in Sri Lanka?

The most vulnerable areas are: tender procedures in both services and procurement, including imports; expenditure control procedures; appointments to all key positions; the operation of implementing agencies; and land allocation.

How difficult has it been to raise awareness of the danger of corruption in tsunami aid?

Awareness raising efforts of the dangers of corruption in tsunami aid have been straightforward and fairly well received. The various steps taken by TI Sri Lanka (such as issuing press releases, forming coalitions, issuing concrete proposals) have received wide coverage by the media and have generated a regular debate in various forums.

The only obstacles faced have been from the government sector. On various occasions, recommendations and proposals submitted have not received so much as an acknowledgement. Upon raising the potential threat of corruption in the aid process, there was also a baseless allegation that TI Sri Lanka is being partisan. These allegations are essentially made by political appointees in the government.

There is a general tendency in the government to label any organization or individual that criticises their policies as partisan. Notwithstanding this, we have been working effectively with most public institutions.

What kind of activities have you been carrying-out to address corruption in tsunami aid efforts in Sri Lanka?

Firstly, we issued a press release on 31st December 2004 requiring unity to rebuild the country while stressing the importance of maintaining accountability. This can be see on our website. We also had internal discussions from which evolved a set of proposals to the government with regard to integrity and accountability. We volunteered to assist the government on their accountability structures. We were also instrumental in organising a meeting of civil society organisations and donor agencies on 28th of January 2005. This initiative was jointly organised by Sarvodaya, the largest NGO in Sri Lanka, and the Centre for Policy Alternatives, another leading Sri Lankan NGO, and the Center for Humanitarian Agencies (CHA), the leading Sri Lankan NGO handling humanitarian activities - especially active in the conflict areas in the north and east. This short seminar was funded by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

Furthermore, we were invited by many NGOs to set guidelines for civil society. We in fact addressed various meetings organised by the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies on this matter but could not effectively work on the guidelines. We plan to do this in future. Another step we took was to request all donors, government agencies and NGOs to disclose the donations and aid received by each of them. One political party and one donor (the Japanese Government) subsequently disclosed receipt of the donations as well as other details. We also received a request from the Free Media Movement to guide the rural journalists working in tsunami affected area on how to report on corruption. I then conducted a one-day workshop and they are testing it on the ground.

We also had detailed meetings with senior media experts on the reporting of the tsunami, in particular whether the media represent the affected people in their reporting. Based on that, we conducted a sample survey which broke new ground. The analysis is still ongoing but a report will be ready within a month. This work was also funded by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

We also actively took part in the Jakarta meeting jointly organised by TI, the OECD and ADB, and issued a position paper on this. Thereafter, TI Sri Lanka together with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka, organised a seminar on the 11th of May on reconstruction after disaster. Another event we undertook was organising an "Idea Competition." The purpose is to gather public opinion on strategies to prevent corruption in post tsunami reconstruction. We are hoping to start this campaign at the end of May.

Lastly, we began a new programme called "Value for Money Auditing" by civil society. This is an idea developed by TI Sri Lanka following discussions with the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Institute of Engineers and the Institute of Architects. This project will most likely begin in June. By doing this, we will be conducting detailed sample audits by professionals with the assistance of affected people and civil society organisations. We are in the process of finalising the project proposal for this.

Have you had any initial successes in addressing the issue of corruption in tsunami aid?

Yes, our successes include:

i) A commitment of co-operation from the Institute of Architects, the Institute of Engineers and the Chartered Institute of Accountants.

ii) The World Bank and Swedish International Development Agencies are now considering a report we have submitted to them.

iii) We have also had numerous requests for information and expert input from UN organisations and from the ADB.

What would you like to see happen - at home and abroad - to minimise the risk of corruption in tsunami aid?

In the Sri Lankan context we believe the following could minimise the risk of corruption:

i) A firm commitment by the government in terms of its political will. Clear, committed and cohesive policy statements and operational directions from the highest levels of the polity send a powerful message of uncompromising political commitment. The need of the hour is for strong and committed leadership to address the phenomenon of corruption that lurks ominously in the shadow of the various aid pledges that have been made in the wake of the tsunami disaster.

ii) The strengthening of local institutions and networks is a must to ensure community ownership and participation in relief and reconstruction activities. A point to emphasize is the need to identify and promote local expertise; there is a clear danger of applying universal templates to culture-specific contexts and creating solutions that are impractical and, what is worse, exaggerate existing problems.

iii) Empowering citizens and affected communities through enacting new legal measures such as the right to information, laws on disclosure and whistleblower protection, will go a long way in ensuring effective public participation and collaboration in rolling back corrupt practices. TI Sri Lanka strongly calls for the urgent enactment of disclosure norms for all relief and reconstruction activities.

iv) There is a growing danger that all capacity building measures on accountability and transparency will be limited to relief and reconstruction projects (mostly, due to donor compulsion) and will leave the larger domain of public institutions untouched. There is a strong need to strengthen critical institutions like the office of the Auditor General, independent commissions like the CIABOC (Bribery Commission) and the Parliamentary Oversight Committees.

v) The undercurrents of conflict embedded in the social and political fabric of the country need to be kept in perspective while designing participatory structures for the implementation and monitoring of relief and reconstruction programmes. The idea of broad-based consortiums should be promoted to make public participation more inclusive and representative.

About the interviewee: J.C.Weliamuna, Executive Director TI Sri Lanka

Mr J.C Weliamuna practices in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka. His areas of specialty are constitutional law, human rights law and labour law. He is also a human rights activist and a regular contributor to the media on accountability, human rights and constitutional issues.

Mr. Weliamuna serves as the norms coordinator of the South Asian Region of the World Confederation of Labour. He is also a bureau member of SAHR (South Asians for Human Rights), a regional NGO. He serves as the Director of Sarvodaya Legal Services Movement, the Director of the Programme for Protection of Public Resources, and is a consultant to the Migrant Workers Centre of the National Workers Congress.