Human security and development:

An inextricable link

Address by Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights, at the Panel Discussion on “Prevention of Threats and Emergency Response: Challenges of Policy Making” at the 9th Annual Global Development Conference 2008, in Brisbane, Australia.

To my mind, questions of human security are inextricably linked with development as fair, equitable and sustainable development is the best guarantee of freedom from want which is at the core of the wide-ranging scope of the concept of human security.

The concept of human security transcends traditional military-centred notions of security which guarantees the freedom from fear of violence to include a concern for the welfare of an array of vulnerable groups in society such as ethnic minorities, women and children.

The traditional dichotomy between national security and human security is being eroded as emerging global crises threaten both paradigms equally.

Human security cannot be realised without ensuring national security and a safe and secure nation is ultimately guaranteed by securing the right of individuals and groups to freedom from want and the right to development.

The threats that face us as members of the global community - environmental degradation, climate change, terrorism, internal and international conflict and natural resource exhaustion - are so vast in ambit and magnitude that they threaten human, national and even global security.

In this context, the question of prevention and mitigation of threats assumes signal importance.

As Minister in charge of the subject of disaster management, I am principally concerned with issues of prevention and mitigation of both natural and man-made disasters. Successful prevention and mitigation presupposes the existence of identification, organization, preparedness and effective early warning.

Without these systems in place, prevention and mitigation become well-nigh impossible. We are then left with response and recovery as the only means to address threats. Looking from a human security standpoint, such a limited range of action is unsatisfactory.

If sustainable development is the objective, then disaster risk management is a powerful instrument in ensuring continued economic growth leading to sustainable development.

Sri Lanka, unfortunately, did not pay sufficient attention to the need for an overarching framework for disaster prevention and mitigation, risk awareness and preparedness, within the broad rubric of disaster management, until 2005.

The tsunami of December 2004 brought into sharp focus the need for an all-encompassing strategic, legal/policy based and institutional approach to disaster management.

Although Sri Lanka had, prior to 2005, addressed some threats on a piecemeal basis such as flood control, infrastructure for relief, land use for urban development, forestry and agriculture, soil and coastal conservation, no overall plan existed for integrated disaster management until I led an effort to encapsulate these principles in through the modality of a Parliamentary Select Committee.

This all-party Parliamentary process, chaired by myself, led to the enactment of the Sri Lanka Disaster Management Act No. 13 of 2005.

We have formulated a national policy which has adopted participatory approaches and is focused on building relevant capacities at the national, provincial and district level and, especially, among local communities.

We have also completed a 10 year Road Map in line with the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015. From a disaster management perspective, prevention and mitigation of threats and disaster risk management can best be achieved by ensuring ownership, coherence and coordination at and between national, regional and local actors.

This is a principled stand that we have taken and we are now in the process of building capacity at a decentralised level both in political and administrative spheres.

I have thus far dwelt briefly on Sri Lanka’s approach to natural and, to a certain extent, man-made disasters. Our practical experience in dealing with threats and responding to them has provided us with valuable lessons relating to prevention as well.

The catastrophic tsunami taught us valuable lessons which we have sought to apply in responding to the needs of conflict affected communities. This leads us to consider the other sort of man-made disasters which are two-fold in character.

On the one hand, we have technological disasters which involve environmental hazards and threats to safety and human security through inadequate management of natural resources. The other sort of man-made disaster is the one that we in Sri Lanka are trying to grapple with at present.

This falls under the broad classification of sociological man-made disasters. This category of disasters includes conflict, terrorism, crime and civil unrest.

This kind of disaster poses an enormous threat to both national and human security, as these kinds of disasters lead to political and economic instability posing a threat to development and the effective realisation of the freedom from want.

In this sphere of disaster management, prevention assumes even greater significance.

Speaking now with my other hat on as a Human Rights Minister, it then becomes necessary to identify, highlight and prioritize factors that will prevent, forestall and mitigate threats to human security.

One of the most practicable and effective approaches is the full realization of economic, political, social and cultural rights. The denial or perceived denial of human rights and justice is a perennial cause of human conflict.

Human rights include the right to participate - fully and equally - in development and to share in the fruits of development. Human rights also provide a key response to threats to human security.

For instance, in a conflict affected situation, when the State is compelled to take up arms to defend the civilian populace or to prevent disintegration and dismemberment of the nation and its polity, human rights become an important touchstone by which the proportionality and method of the response may be evaluated.

It must be acknowledged that human rights are also most gravely threatened during such times. We have taken a conscious effort to introduce rights based approaches to disaster management. This obviously involves both elements of prevention and response.

However human rights and rights based approaches must inform every aspect of disaster management. This is an area we are constantly working on in refining our policies and practices. As much as we need leadership and a top-down strategy, we must also not forget to listen to those most vulnerable and adopt a bottom-up strategy.

Sri Lanka’s conflict affected areas, at present, represent two distinct phases of conflict: the East represents the post-conflict reconstruction phase while sections of the North display elements of the prevention/escalation/conflict management phases.

The approach in the East requires a different response to threats to prevent humanitarian crises from erupting which could be caused by lack of speedy economic recovery, infrastructure development, threats to safety and security and acts of terrorism.

It is a response as well as a preventive measure whereas in the North the focus is more on response. However, there are elements of early warning, mitigation and prevention prevalent at the same time.

It is difficult to see prevention and response as two discrete facets along a linear continuum. In a conflict situation, it is more appropriate to view prevention and response as a cyclical process - one reinforcing and strengthening the other.

In a conflict situation, it therefore would be less than useful to engage in an analysis of the question whether prevention or response takes (or should take) priority. As to whether it is prevention or response that demands greater resource allocation is impossible to predetermine since they are part of a larger process.

What is needed is careful analysis of threats and structured responses tailored to particular exigencies. Sri Lanka is faced with the threat of terrorism and is responding in a manner that addresses the multifarious aspects of the threat to our nation and her peoples.

We are addressing the symptom of the crisis - I refer to violence, armed rebellion and terrorism - through military responses. The root cause of the conflict is being addressed by political means which involve power sharing between the Centre and the periphery without compromising Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity, unity and national sovereignty.

It is my view that resolute political measures - were they taken some decades earlier and implemented to the fullest - would have provided a means whereby the present threat would have been lessened, forestalled or prevented altogether.

In closing, I will refer briefly to a unique mechanism that Sri Lanka has developed which is aimed at responding to humanitarian concerns that have resulted from Sri Lanka’s unique situation.

Quite apart from law and policy formulation; practical measures to ensure coordination, maximization of efficiencies in resource utilization, consultation, transparency and accountability, participation of all relevant actors and the safeguarding of human rights and humanitarian law - all aspects of good governance - must be ensured in preventing and responding to threats.

Sri Lanka has put in place a unique mechanism that attempts to cater to all these aspects in responding to crises and preventing aggravation of humanitarian challenges.

We have devised a body known as the Consultative Committee on Humanitarian Assistance (CCHA) under my Chairmanship that brings together all key actors from Government, the international community including the co-chairs to the peace process, the European Union, the UN and non-governmental agencies in a collective effort to address the multifaceted demands that have arisen as a result of the Sri Lankan conflict.

A particularly significant aspect of this is that the operational Sub-Committees are co-chaired by international and national actors so as to build ownership, mutual trust and effective partnership. It is my belief that the CCHA is an appropriate model for many situations faced by grave threats to human security.