Media reports state that the government has identified 60,000 families to be evicted from prime lands in Colombo. The properties are to be released for ‘development’ activities as part of a broader initiative to beautify Colombo under the ‘City of Colombo Development Plan’[1]. In accelerating this Plan, the Urban Development Authority (UDA) and the Land Reclamation and Development Board have been brought under the Defence Ministry. Since 2010, it is reported that households in parts of Slave Island, Wanathamulle, Central Colombo and other areas have been evicted from their homes and places of livelihood activities.[2] Many of those affected are the poorest and most vulnerable in the city including low income wage earners, children, the elderly and the disabled.

The National Involuntary Resettlement Policy (NIRP) was formulated in 2000, adopted by the government and approved by the Cabinet in 2001. It provides principles, rules and norms to protect people displaced by development projects. The policy requires implementing agencies to submit detailed Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) for all projects displacing people and requires project authorities to pay compensation for land at replacement value. The policy specifically states that impoverishment should not take place as a result of compulsory land acquisition and that people ‘who do not have documented title to land should receive fair and just treatment’.[3] The policy also assigns specific institutional responsibilities to the Ministry of Lands, the Central Environmental Authority and Project Implementing Agencies.

The NIRP is not averse to development activity but was developed to safeguard those who are likely to suffer the negative impacts in the process of development, specifically when land acquisition occurs. The policy states that those negatively impacted should be compensated and helped to restart their lives and livelihoods at new locations.

On the onset it appears that the NIRP should be implemented to current slum clearance programs in Colombo and the suburbs. This raises an important question; why is the NIRP not being implemented? On the assumption that the broader objective of ‘development’ is to reduce poverty and inequality, should we not also recognise that ‘development activities’ can benefit some sections of the population at the expense of others? Should we not recognise those who are likely to be the most adversely affected are those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder anyway?  Should we not improve their quality of life and make development inclusive?

Given that media reports indicate that this urban clearance program is to be extended to other cities in Sri Lanka[4], it is likely to be the poorest and most vulnerable that are going to be the worst affected. Can we justify such ‘development’ programs?