A qualitative research on the effect of multiple-use conflicts on small-scale fish workers in Kalpitiya, Sri Lanka

(1)

A qualitative research on the effect of

multiple-use conflicts on small-scale

fish workers in Kalpitiya, Sri Lanka

Thesis

Student: Job Stelwagen

Student number: 11670878

Supervisor: Maarten Bavinck

Submitted: 28th_{of May 2021}

(2)

Acknowledgments

This thesis on the effect of multiple-use conflicts on small-scale fish workers in the Kalpitiya area is a result of three intense months of work. I could not have done this all by myself. Therefore, I would like to thank some people who really helped me over these last months. First and foremost, I want to thank my supervisor Maarten Bavinck. When I started this project back in March, I experienced some difficulties finding the right subject. Maarten suggested a few topics and gave advice over the topics I thought were interesting enough to write about, made me realize that Maarten seems to know something about every little corner in Sri Lanka. From that moment on, his helpful connections on the island, valuable advices, and pep talk has helped me throughout the whole process. I could not have wished for a better supervisor! Secondly, I would also like to thank Jaap Rothuizen and Esther Jansen for arranging and hosting the meetings with speakers from Sri Lanka at the beginning of the project, and for providing me with feedback during the project.

Finally, I would like to thank all the research participants. Employees from various hotels and resorts in Kalpitiya for picking up the phone, Suranjan Fernando for giving me the chance to talk to a small-scale fish worker from the Kalpitiya area, and Herman Kumara for arranging the interview with Suranjan and providing me with relevant insights regarding the topic of this thesis. Without them, this thesis would be totally different.

(3)

Abstract

Millions of households across Sri Lanka depend on small-scale fisheries as it provides a major source of food security. Over the last years, developments inside and outside the fishing industry have affected these small-scale fisheries. After the devastating tsunami in 2004 and the end of the civil war in 2009, the neoliberal government of Sri Lanka intended to achieve economic growth among other things by stimulating foreign companies to invest in popular tourist areas along the coast, which resulted in the appropriation of space and resources in coastal areas by actors outside the community. When different actors want to use the same area for different purposes, this can result in so-called multiple-use conflicts. By reviewing literature, studying satellite images, and conducting interviews with involved actors, this single embedded case study aims to investigate how multiple-use conflicts affect small-scale fish workers in the Kalpitiya area in western Sri Lanka. Although some research has mentioned the threat of planned development projects to small-scale fish workers in this region, recent developments are not discussed in the scientific literature. Here we show that it is premature to speak of a multiple-use conflict between all actors involved in the Kalpitiya area. Although not all developments in the peninsula of Kalpitiya affect small-scale fish workers, private investors, supported by the Sri Lankan government, used their bundles of power to grab over 1140 acres of coastal area to build hotels and resorts spread over the area. This resulted in; 1) the disruption of ecosystem services which intensified social struggles between local and migrant small-scale fish workers; 2) the removal of more than 2500 families from their lands, and 3) the prohibition for some small-scale fish workers to access coastal areas which they were free to use before. Because more and more interests are getting involved in the area, this might eventually lead to the rise of multiple-use conflicts in the future.

(4)

Appendix 1 – Transcript interview Herman Kumara 28 Appendix 2 – Transcript phone call Dinuda Resort Kalpitiya 32 Appendix 3 – Transcript phone call Kalpitiya Lagoon Resort 34 Appendix 4 –Whatsapp-transcript Wellé Wadiya Resort Kalpitiya 36 Appendix 5- Transcript interview Suranjan Fernando 37

(5)

1. Introduction

Fishing has been practiced in Sri Lanka for over two thousand years and is therefore considered as one of the first economic activities of coastal communities. Nowadays, over 575.000 persons are directly or indirectly employed in the fishing industry, divided in small-scale and large-scale fisheries which together contribute for 1.4 percent to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Sri Lanka (Ministry of Fisheries, 2021).

The thesis will mainly focus on small-scale fisheries as this “sector plays a crucial role in the livelihoods, food security and nutritional needs of a large population in Sri Lanka.” (Ibrahim, 2020, p.5). Most small-scale fish workers use long-established fishing techniques, hire family members to work together, and rely on local markets for their sales (Ibrahim, 2020). Although many livelihoods depend on small-scale fisheries, the contribution of small-scale fisheries to the overall fishery sector has declined over the last years. Therefore, from a vulnerability perspective, Ibrahim (2020) discusses in his article how developments occurring inside and outside the Sri Lankan fishing industry affect small-scale fisheries. One of the main drivers which negatively affect small-scale fisheries is tourism. Sri Lanka is a popular destination for tourists from all over the world, with almost two million tourists visiting the island in 2019 (Ministry of Tourism and

Aviation, 2019). Although the tourism sector directly employs 250.000 Sri Lankans and almost two million indirectly (UNDP Sri Lanka, 2020), tourism development negatively affects the livelihoods of many small-scale fish workers in particular tourist spots on the island as coastal areas are grabbed in order to build huge hotels for tourist on their lands (Bowie, 2015). As a result of this tourism development, many small-scale fish workers across Sri Lanka have been denied access to their fishing spots or even worse, are forced to leave their local livelihoods (Ibrahim, 2020). Since the end of the civil war in 2009, the neoliberal Sri Lankan government intended to achieve economic growth among other things by stimulating foreign companies to invest in popular coastal tourist areas (Camisani, 2018), e.g.: by building hotels near the coast. When different actors, e.g.: promotors of tourism development and local communities affected by this development, want to use the same area for different purposes, this can lead to so-called multiple-use conflicts.

This thesis will focus on the Kalpitiya region. Kalpitiya is a coastal peninsula in the Western part of Sri Lanka and consists of 23 different islands, permanently inhabited by many small-scale fish workers, and inhabited a few months per year by fish workers who seasonally migrate to Kalpitiya to temporarily use this coastal region. A few years ago, the SLTDA, which is the official government institution regulating tourism development, created the ‘Kalpitiya Figure 1: Location of Kalpitiya in Sri Lanka

(6)

tourism development projects to a 99-year lease, made the Kalpitiya lands even more attractive to investors (CNS/Ecosocialist, 2014). Although some research has mentioned the threat of planned tourism development projects to fish workers in this region (CNS/Ecosocialist, 2014), recent tourism and other economic developments are not discussed in the scientific literature. Therefore, this thesis aims to investigate how multiple-use conflicts affect small-scale fish workers in the Kalpitiya region. In order to answer this main research question, the thesis also aims to investigate: 1) which interests are involved in the multiple-use conflicts in the Kalpitiya region, 2) how the appropriation of space and resources affect local small-scale fish workers and finally, 3) how small-scale fish workers in this region respond to these conflicts.

In the next section, relevant concepts for answering the research question are discussed, after which used methods are explained in the methodology. The results chapter presents the most relevant findings from studying different data sources, which are linked to the concepts used in the theoretical framework in the discussion chapter. Finally, the last chapter answers this thesis’ research questions, and discusses some limitations and reflections.

2. Theoretical framework

In order to investigate how multiple-use conflicts can affect small-scale fish workers in the Kalpitiya region, this theoretical framework will discuss the following concepts relevant for the thesis itself: multiple-use conflicts, coastal grabbing, and access and property rights.

2.1 Multiple-use conflicts

Coastal areas are zones that are very attractive to many different actors as these areas have a great variety of resources (Masalu, 2000). When different actors want to use the same area for different purposes, this can result in so-called multiple-use conflicts (Prestrelo & Vianna, 2016). Based on the article by Cicin-Sain (2003), these multiple-use conflicts are categorized in the into three dimensions: the roots of the conflict, coastal grabbing, and access and property rights. The latter two dimensions will be explained in separate sections down below.

The roots of the conflict discuss the different interests, or purposes, actors have in a particular coastal area. In coastal areas, different kind of processes are interconnected, e.g.: social, economic, political, and environmental processes (Masalu, 2000), which are related to the different interests of the actors involved in multiple-use conflicts. Based on the situation in the Kalpitiya region, this thesis will discuss environmental, social, political, and economic interests. Actors with environmental interests want to conserve the rich biodiversity of the Kalpitiya region, a region where coral reefs, mangroves, seagrasses, and animals like sea turtles, dolphins and whales can be found (Ekanayake, 2017). Social interests are mainly concerned with protecting the livelihoods of small-scale fish workers. As the amount of land used for economic interests in the area has increased, and the area has been promoted by the Sri Lankan Ministry of Tourism as an attractive tourist spot for private investors (Ibrahim, 2020), economic and political interests are also involved in the Kalpitiya region.

2.2 Coastal grabbing

As coastal areas are considered as multipurpose systems with a diversity of functions, services, and resources (Cormier-Salem & Panfili, 2016), these areas are productive and valuable, and therefore attractive to different actors for different purposes. These coastal areas can be

(7)

grabbed, a term introduced by Bavinck et al., (2017). They describe coastal grabbing as “the appropriation of coastal space – including sea and land – by interests external to the community.” (Bavinck et al., 2017, p.2). Processes of coastal grabbing contribute among other things to the intensification of social struggles over fisheries, the degradation of coastal ecosystems (Bavinck et al., 2018), and the rise of multiple-use conflicts.

Coastal grabbing is related to land grabbing and water grabbing, concepts widely discussed in scientific literature. Where land grabbing refers to the frequently cross-bordering appropriation of land (Borras and Franco, 2012) and water grabbing refers to the use and control of water by actors external to the community (Franco et al., 2014), coastal grabbing distinguishes itself from these concepts by its focus on coastal areas as coastal communities depend on access to resources in both land and sea areas (Bavinck et al., 2017). These coastal communities have mostly been dependent on coastal natural resources for a very long time (Bavinck et al., 2017), and for them a “conservation of resources and the spaces in which they are embedded is (…) a logical concern, enshrined in and practiced through systems of customary knowledge and management.” (Bavinck et al., 2017, p.1). And so, coastal grabbing by external parties creates unbalanced relationships between involved parties by which communities depending on resources in coastal areas are affected, e.g.: small-scale fish workers. Local communities are disposed and can get excluded from areas they were free to use before the appropriation (Harvey, 2004). By dispossessing these areas, existing sets of property rights are undone, and new ones are produced (Bavinck et al., 2017). Moreover, the transformation of socio-ecological systems as a consequence of coastal grabbing are often caused by neoliberal policies and practices (Bavinck et al., 2017). Based on the study of different cases of coastal grabbing worldwide, Bavinck et al., (2017) mention that governments often directly or indirectly support changes of coastal areas worldwide in order to realize economic development, even if this disrupts livelihoods of local communities or socio-ecological systems.

By using an outline provided by Bavinck et al., (2017) that can be helpful when studying cases of coastal grabbing, this thesis discusses the following variables of coastal grabbing: the location of the grab, the ‘thing’ that has been grabbed, the purpose of the grabbers, the ones who ‘do’ the grab, and finally, the victims of the grab (Bavinck et al., 2017).

2.3 Access and property rights

Property, i.e.: the right to benefit from things (Ribot & Peluso, 2003), “consists of ‘bundles of rights’ organized in different ways” (Bavinck et al., 2017, p.3), differing from context to context. “In practice there is co-existence and interaction between multiple legal orders such as state, customary (…) and local laws, all of which provide bases for claiming property rights.” (Meinzen-Dick & Pradhan, 2002, p.1). When there are different legal orders that can be applied to the same territory, or the resources found in this territory, this is called legal pluralism (Bavinck, 2005). So, for example in Kalpitiya, small-scale fish workers claim property rights over things because they have had local customary rights for generations, while state law entitles state authorities to claim property rights over these things (Lanka, 2013).

(8)

natural resources or areas of land people want to use (Ribot & Peluso, 2003). By concentrating on the ability to derive benefit from things instead of the right to benefit from things, a wide range of social relationships are considered that can limit or enable people to benefit from things (Ribot & Peluso, 2003).

The bundle of powers is made up of different kind of mechanisms, or strands, e.g.: property. Therefore, it is possible to have the right to benefit from things, but not the ability to derive benefits from things (Ribot & Peluso, 2003). Powerful actors have access to multiple or different kind of mechanisms in order to get or control access to resources (Ribot & Peluso, 2003). The mechanisms that make up the bundle of powers are complex but need to be understood in order to understand how the equity of access to resources are distributed (Ribot & Peluso, 2003).

Different claims over The appropriation of

the same territory coastal space is

can lead to related to

By dispossessing coastal areas, existing property rights are undone

Actors with bundle of powers can get control over resources and spaces Figure 2: Conceptual diagram of the theoretical framework

3. Methodology

3.1 Methods

This thesis aims to investigate how multiple-use conflicts affect small-scale fish workers in the Kalpitiya region in Sri Lanka. The research questions fit qualitative research best as the thesis discusses different perspectives and interests of the involved actors in the multiple-use Kalpitiya area. The thesis is a single embedded case study (Bryman, 2012). Single because it only focusses on the Kalpitiya region as research area, and embedded because the actors

Coastal grabbing

- Coastal space is grabbed by interests external to the community

Legal pluralism

- Different legal orders applied to the same territory, or resources within this territory

Multiple-use conflicts

- Different actors want to use the same area for different purposes

(9)

involved in the multiple-use conflicts are the unit of analysis and so, the case study involves more than one unit of analysis (Bryman, 2012). Because there has not been done research that investigates how multiple-use conflicts affect small-scale fish workers in this research area, the thesis is explorative, and moreover inductive, as it generates new theories (Bryman, 2012).

The concepts used in this thesis are studied by using both primary and secondary data. According to Hox and Boeije (2005), primary data is “data originally collected for a specific research goal” (Hox & Boeije, 2005, p.593) and secondary data is “data originally collected for a different purpose and reused for another research question” (Hox & Boeije, 2005, p.593). Primary data was gathered by conducting online semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders involved in the Kalpitiya region. Conducting semi-structured interviews is a useful way of gathering data for qualitative research (Bryman, 2012). By asking follow-up and probing questions, the interviews helped producing an overview of the perspectives of some of the important stakeholders involved. As the questions and topics covered in the interviews differed between the stakeholders, an item list has not been used.

The research participants have been selected by purposive and snowball sampling methods. “The goal of purposive sampling is to sample cases/participants in a strategic way, so that those sampled are relevant to the research questions that are being posed.” (Bryman, 2012, p.418). As this thesis focused on multiple-use conflicts in which many actors are involved, it was important to hear insights and perspectives from the different actors involved. Therefore, interviews have been conducted with the head of the National Fisheries Solidarity Movement (NAFSO) Herman Kumara, employees from the Dinuda Resort Kalpitiya and Kalpitiya Lagoon resort, and the owner of the Wellé Wadiya Resort Kalpitiya. Next to this strategic sampling of research participants, snowball sampling methods have been used to get in touch with small-scale fish workers in the area. This “is a sampling technique in which the researcher samples initially a small group of people relevant to the research questions, and these sampled participants propose other participants who had the (…) characteristics relevant to the research.” (Bryman, 2012, p.424). In this way, Herman Kumara had arranged the interview which have been conducted with the small-scale fish worker from Kalpitiya. Despite approaching different contacts in the region who could be interviewed or could provide contacts to other possible research participants, it has not worked out to conduct interviews with more small-scale fish workers or staff members from the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority. Therefore, the sample is not as diverse as was desired at the start of this project.

Next to primary data, secondary data has also been used. Studying data sources, e.g., news articles, publications, and journals, which are created for different purposes, were still useful for this thesis as most concepts presented in the theoretical framework are widely discussed in scientific literature. Moreover, Google Earth has been used to study satellite images that contained useful insights about landscape design over the years, e.g., the building of hotels. Hence, this thesis has used both primary and secondary data.

3.2 Reliability of the research

In guaranteeing the reliability of this thesis, credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability all play a crucial role (Bryman, 2012). The research becomes more credible

(10)

enhances the thesis’ credibility. Furthermore, the dependability and transferability has been guaranteed by being transparent about the used methods, datasets, and analyses (Bryman, 2012). Lastly, it was important to enhance the confirmability of this thesis. Therefore, the researcher has reflected on personal values and prejudgments in the subchapter down below to omit these as much as possible. However, according to Bryman (2012), it was not possible to be completely objective as a researcher.

3.3 Data handling

This data management protocol (DMP) describes which data is derived for this thesis and consists of six sections:

1) Types of Data: as explained in the Methods section above, both primary and secondary data are used. If allowed by the interviewee, the semi-structured interviews were recorded. After every interview had been conducted, the interviews were transcribed and saved. Next to this creation of new data, secondary data has also been used, e.g., by looking for written sources using Google Scholar and satellite images by using Google Earth.

2) Contextual details: to get a clear overview of the gathered data, files and folders has gotten understandable names. In order to name files this way, Van Loon (2019) mentions that file names have to be limited to 32 characters, leading zeros have to be used, special characters have to be avoided, and finally, similar data file names have to be avoided. Data storing for this thesis has followed this structure.

3) Quality control: using erroneous data has been avoided. Therefore, transcriptions of the interviews will be double checked, and moreover, secondary data sources which have been used, had enough scientific references (Van Loon, 2019). This has been checked by the researcher.

4) Storage, backup, and security: the created and gathered data has been collected on the computer of the researcher. To make sure this data will not get lost, backups of the data has been made on a regular basis by using UBS-sticks. Furthermore, the gathered data has been secured as the researcher is the only person to have access to all the gathered data.

5) Copyright and reuse: to increase the impact of the findings of the research, the eventual research findings might be published. The created data will be archived in the Uva/AUAS figshire repository of the University of Amsterdam. The author will own the copyright over this data.

6) Protection and privacy: to address ethical issues, interviewees had been asked permission to use their personal information at the start of each interview to respect their privacy. As this research has focused on conflicts, it was important to keep in mind that research participants should not be harmed as shared information by these participants might be sensitive to other stakeholders. Therefore, it was important to implement informed consent, which “means that (…) research participants should be given as much information as might be needed to make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to participate in a study.” (Bryman, 2012, p.138). If wished by the participants, the names of these interviewees were changed but this was not the case. Furthermore, permission to record the interview had been asked

(11)

before the interview started. Finally, as a ‘Western’ student conducting research in Sri Lanka, it was important to be aware of the positioning of the researcher. In order to conduct a multi-faceted research in a foreign country, a decolonization of knowledge was desirable, 'Southern' theoretical voices and debates had to be included, and as much open questions without prejudices from the researcher as possible were asked during the interviews.

3.4 Methodological skills

The interview questions were, among other things, based on the operationalization table which can be seen in Table 1. This table was constructed by using secondary data and consists of the main concepts of this thesis, its dimensions, and its variables. After the semi-structured interviews were conducted, the interviews were transcribed and added to this thesis as appendices.

Concept Dimension Variables

Multiple-use conflict Roots of the conflict

Coastal grabbing Legal pluralism Environmental interests Political interests Economic interests Social interests Location The grabbed Purpose of the grab The grabbers The victims

Legal orders Bundles of powers Table 1: Operationalization table

(12)

4. Results

This chapter presents the most relevant findings from studying literature, videos, websites, satellite images, and conducting interviews with different stakeholders. This chapter is divided into the following subchapters: land use for economic interests, tourism development in the Kalpitiya area, nature conservation, and the impact on small-scale fish workers.

4.1 Land use for economic interests

“The economy of the Kalpitiya region constitute of 65% from salt industry, 17% from fishing industry, 09% from tourism, 05% from power generation industry and 04% from agriculture” (Kalpitiya City Development Plan: 2019-2030, 2019, p.13). As other subchapters in this result section will focus on tourism and (small-scale) fisheries, this subchapter will briefly discuss land use for the salt industry, agriculture, and wind power industry in the Kalpitiya area.

Water from the Puttalam lagoon flows into salt production fields in the Kalpitiya area, so-called salterns (Sanz, 2017). As Kalpitiya area is a windy and arid zone, fast evaporation of the salt water in the salterns is ensured, which makes it a very suitable area for large amounts of salt production (Miththapala, 2011). As mentioned above, the salt industry is one of the main contributors to the economy of the Kalpitiya area. Between 2012 and 2017, this industry produced more than 7.5 million tons of salt and earned 430 million Sri Lankan rupees – converted € 1.8 million - both on an average annual basis, hereby contributing for 35% to the whole salt production in Sri Lanka (Kalpitiya City Development Plan: 2019-2030, 2019). The expansion of land used for this salt production by private entrepreneurs have been increasing over the last years (FAO, 2013), as can be seen in Figure 3. The Kalpitiya City Development Plan for the years 2019-2030 (2019) aims to increase the contribution of the salt industry to the economy of Kalpitiya by 50% by expanding these salterns, which means that even more land in the area will be used for this salt industry.

Figure 3: Increase of salterns in the Kalpitiya area. Left: July 2010. Right: September 2019. Next to the production of salt, agriculture also contributes to the economy of the area. Adding (ground)water and fertilizers to the sandy soils make the Kalpitiya area very suitable for agricultural practices (Kalpitiya City Development Plan: 2019-2030, 2019). Coconut,

(13)

vegetables, fruit, cashew, tobacco; all are being cultivated, from which coconut is the crop that is being cultivated the most (Jayasingha et al., 2014). As can be seen in Figure 4, coconut cultivation on land keeps on increasing.

Figure 4: Increase of land used for coconut cultivation in the Kalpitiya area. Left: July 2010. Right: July 2017.

The windy Kalpitiya area makes it also an area with a high potential for wind power generators. The development of these wind power generators is included in the development plan for the Kalpitiya area as it can contribute to the economy and generate sustainable energy for the area and country as a whole (Kalpitiya City Development Plan: 2019-2030, 2019). As can be seen in the circles in Figure 5, wind turbines have been built in the area a couple of years ago, close by to tourist stays, agricultural lands and salterns. By the year 2030, the electricity generated by wind turbines must be increased by 10% (Kalpitiya City Development Plan: 2019-2030, 2019). Therefore, it is likely that the number of wind turbines in the area will increase soon.

Figure 5: Placement of several windmills in the Kalpitiya area. Left; February 2014. Right: January 2018.

(14)

Next to the use of land for the salt industry, agriculture, and wind power industry, land is also being used for tourism purposes. Therefore, the next subchapter will provide an overview of tourism development in the Kalpitiya area.

4.2 Tourism development in the Kalpitiya area

Since 2008, the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority (SLTDA) has identified over 4000 acres of land in the Kalpitiya area for the development of tourism projects (Bhagya & Mustafa, 2019). This Kalpitiya Integrated Tourism Resort Project aims to attract (inter)national investors to the coastal peninsula of Kalpitiya. This declaration of the Kalpitiya area as a promotion zone has led to a lot of controversy over the years, which will be discussed in subchapters below. This subchapter explores how the coastal peninsula has been developed into a promotion zone.

The development of tourism in the Kalpitiya area can be traced back to the 26th of December 2004. On this day, the earth west of the Indonesian island Sumatra shook with a magnitude of 9.3 on the Richter scale. The resulting tsunami took over 230.000 lives spread across different countries, which made it one of the most destructive natural disasters in modern history (Klein, 2007). Among these countries was Sri Lanka, one of the hardest ones hit by the tsunami as 35.000 inhabitants died, almost one million got displaced from their homes, and fishing boats and houses along the coasts were totally washed away (Klein, 2007). Three days after the tsunami destroyed the coasts of Sri Lanka, the government decided to move coastal residents away from the sea into so-called buffer zones, located half a kilometer to two kilometer inland from the sea (Appendix 1). A safety measure, according to the government, in case another tsunami would strike again. According to Herman Kumara, head of the National Fisheries Solidarity Movement (NAFSO), fish workers were not allowed to build anything in these buffer zones (Appendix 1) and voluntarily return home if they wanted (Rice & Haynes, 2005). “On the surface it [the buffer zone rules] made sense, but there was a glaring problem (…): it was not being applied to the tourism industry. On the contrary, hotels were being encouraged to expand onto the valuable oceanfront fishing people had lived and worked. Resorts were completely exempted from the buffer-zone rule” (Klein, 2007, p.388).

The buffer zone rules were backed up by the Task Force to Rebuild the Nation (TAFREN). Just one week after the tsunami, which also demolished the coastal peninsula of Kalpitiya, this extra-governmental body was created by the Sri Lankan president Chandrika Kumaratunga to create a plan to redevelop and rebuild Sri Lanka back better (Klein, 2007), and liberalize economic policies (Appendix 1). TAFREN consisted of ten members, all powerful entrepreneurs, from which five of them were involved in the coast tourism industry. None of the TAFREN-members was involved in the fishing industry or representing affected local communities (Rice & Haynes, 2005). The ideas put forward by TAFREN were backed up by the US-government, who were donating aid money for the reconstruction of Sri Lanka as it saw Sri Lanka’s potential as a popular tourism destination (Klein, 2007). Unsurprisingly, TAFREN proposed tourism development as the most important development plan to rebuild the nation (Appendix 1). By promoting tourism across the country, TAFREN and the neoliberal Sri Lankan government hoped among other things to create jobs, develop rural areas, stimulate the economy, earn foreign exchange, and develop the infrastructure (Bhagya & Mustafa, 2019). Fifteen zones spread over the north-western, western, and southern part of Sri Lanka were declared as tourism development zones, amongst them the Kalpitiya Tourism Zone (KTZ)

(15)

(Holden, 2019). Because of the civil war in Sri Lanka between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam that was happening at that time, TAFREN did not propose any of these zones in the north and east part of the country, the areas most affected by the war (Appendix 1; Buultjens et al., 2016). A few years later, in 2008, the SLTDA announced that 4000 acres of land in the peninsula would be acquisitioned in favor of the Kalpitiya Integrated Tourism Resort Project (KITRP), which made the KTZ one “of the biggest tourism development project[s] veiled in the Indian Ocean” (Bhagya & Mustafa, 2019, p.12). TAFREN and the SLTDA considered the Kalpitiya area as a great location for tourism development because of its location between the Indian Ocean on one side, and Puttalam lagoon on the other. Kitesurfing, snorkeling spots, historical sights, whale and dolphin watching, coral reefs, mangroves, sea weeds, coastal plains, sandy beaches; all were seen as tourist attractions which made the peninsula an up-and-coming destination worth investing in (Appendix 1; Appendix 2; Appendix 4; Bhagya & Mustafa, 2019).

After the announcement of Kalpitiya as a tourism zone, the construction of hotels and resorts in the area began. As can be seen in Figure 6, the Saachi Resort in 2011 was one of the first resorts that was being constructed in the Kalpitiya area, followed by many other hotels and resorts following the next ten years. Just recently, the Urban Development Authority (UDP) created a development plan aiming at making Kalpitiya area the “most attractive tourism resort center in the country” (Kalpitiya City Development Plan: 2019-2030, 2019, p.28). By promoting the unique natural character and tourist attractions of the Kalpitiya area, the UDP still aims to promote the potentials of tourism development in the area (Kalpitiya City Development Plan: 2019-2030, 2019).

Figure 6: Different hotels and resorts in the Kalpitiya area at the beginning of 2011 (left) and 2021 (right).

(16)

Table 2: Names of hotels and resorts that can be seen in Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

However, from the moment Kalpitiya was declared a tourism promotion zone and the construction of hotels and resorts in the area started, there has been a lot of controversy about the KTZ and KITRP, and its impact on the natural environment and local small-scale fish workers. When asked about this controversy, an employee from the Dinuda Resort Kalpitiya (L in Figure 6) said: “Uhm… I do not know anything about that” (Appendix 2), and the owner of the Wellé Wadiya Resort (D in Figure 6) mentioned that “there wasn’t any opposition from locals. They were quite happy to see development in the area.” (Appendix 4). The impact of tourism development on the natural environment and small-scale fish workers will be discussed in the following subchapters.

4.3 Nature conservation

One of the reasons why the Kalpitiya area has been considered as a great location for tourism development, is because of its rich biodiversity. The coastal peninsula of Kalpitiya is famous for its proximity to mangroves, coral reefs, sea weeds, and for the large diversity of animals which can be found around Kalpitiya (Ekanayake, 2017). By promoting the natural environment, the KITRP aimed to attract many tourists. However, the eventual development of tourism in the area has had negative influences on the exact environment the KITRP initially promoted (Lanka, 2013). Next to the influence of tourism development, the mode of lives of small-scale fish workers can also pressurize the natural environment. This subchapter investigates the impact of tourism development and mode of lives of small-scale fish workers on the natural environment.

One of the largest tracks of mangroves in Sri Lanka can be found in the Kalpitiya area around the Puttalam lagoon and Dutch Bay (Balasuriya, 2018). Mangroves, the dark green parts in Figure 7, are a forest type that grow alongside shallow saline coastal waters on muddy or sandy soils (Balasuriya, 2018; Ratnayake, 2012). These mangroves protect people to natural hazards like storms and soil erosion and are home to many different plant and animal species (Balasuriya, 2018). Therefore, these extended pieces of mangrove attract tourists and are of major importance for providing small-scale fish workers with firewood and food supplies (FAO, 2013; Ratnayake, 2012). However, at the same time, these sectors pressurize the mangroves they benefit from. Small-scale fish workers clear mangroves for firewood and overexploit fish resources in the waters around the mangroves (Ratnayake, 2012), while the building of hotels and resorts, and good infrastructure to these buildings, also result in the

A = Saachi Resort I = Kodev

B = Werala Beach Resort J = Kalpitiya Lagoon Resort C = Dutch Bay Resorts K = Kitelantis

D = Wellé Wadiya Beach Hotel L = Dinuda Resort Kalpitiya E = Villa Setha Wadi M = Seth Dev Lagoon Resorts

F = The Rascals Kite Resort N = Coco Cabana Kite Resort Kalpitiya G = The Villa Kalpitiya O = Arasi Resort Kalpitiya

(17)

removal of large parts of mangroves, as can be seen in Figure 7. This clearing again affects small-scale fish workers who depend on the resources found in the mangroves (Lanka, 2013).

Figure 7: The eventual (March 2011, left) and final (June 2012, right) location of Dutch Bay Resort (C)

Next to the destruction of large pieces of mangrove, seaweed beds, sea water, salt marshes, and coral reefs are also negatively affected by tourism development and, to a lesser extent, small-scale fisheries (Appendix 1; FAO 2013; National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency, 2015). When focusing on coral reefs, both tourists and local fish workers mainly affect the Bar Reef Marine Sanctuary (BRMS), located two kilometers off the coast of Kalpitiya. Fishers overexploit resources, mostly fish, which can be found around the BRMS (UNDP Sri Lanka, 2019). Moreover, “there is (…) considerable damage [done] to corals by tourists walking on coral beds during low tide, boats hitting corals or damage caused by boat anchors” (National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency, 2015, p.1). Furthermore, the cutting of mangroves around Puttalam lagoon leads to more soil erosion and mud flowing to the sea, which blocks sunlight and eventually harms the BRMS too (UNDP Sri Lanka, 2019).

So, the natural environment of the Kalpitiya area is negatively affected by developments in the area despite the importance of it for fish workers and the tourist industry. Therefore, it is important to educate tourists, tourism developers and small-scale fish workers the value of conserving the natural environment.

4.4 The impact on small-scale fish workers

As has been explained in the subchapters above, recent developments in the Kalpitiya area have led to intensified land uses. This subchapter will investigate how small-scale fish workers from the Kalpitiya area are affected by these developments.

The coastal peninsula is inhabited by 65.000 people, among them around 13.000 small-scale fish workers who depend on the resources found in the area for their livelihoods (World Forum of Fisher Peoples, 2014). These small-scale fish workers have been involved in fishing practices for generations, and as these have become deeply rooted in their veins, cultures, and

(18)

non-motorized traditional crafts, like canoes, log rafts and catamarans, to fish in the shallow waters of the ocean and the adjacent Puttalam lagoon (FAO, 2013). Next to the fishers who permanently inhabit the islands of Kalpitiya, the islands are also inhabited by small-scale fish workers from other places in the Puttalam district and Negombo who seasonally migrate to Kalpitiya on an annual base (Koralagamage, 2020). These seasonal migrants are mainly driven by climatologic factors, like monsoons, and the search for possible economic gains in the host region which can prevent the fishers from falling into the poverty trap during the off-season in their home regions. They take their vessels and other fishing gear to the peninsula and move into small huts close to the shores where they live for a few months (Koralagamage, 2020). Degradation of the natural environment in the area has led to increased competition over fish supplies between local and migrant small-scale fish workers (Koralagamage, 2020). While this competition remains present as local fish workers keep seeing these migrants as ‘outsiders’ and sometimes even prevent migrants from accessing fishing grounds (Koralagamage, 2020), a bigger conflict occurred when Kalpitiya was announced as a tourism zone.

The decision by TAFREN to declare Kalpitiya as a tourism zone was made without consulting local and regional stakeholders, e.g.: small-scale fish workers, religious leaders, and local politicians (Holden, 2019; NAFSO, 2013). This lack of transparency in decision making has worried small-scale fish workers in the area: “We do not know anything about these developments. People come from outside and claim the land belongs to them. (…) What will happen to us? (…) Who is responsible for this type of development?” (Holden, 2019, p.109). As most local small-scale fish workers have been living and fishing in the Kalpitiya area for many generations, the fear of living somewhere else and doing other jobs than fishing to provide them in their livelihoods, scares local fish workers: “Our people are frightened for the news that our lands are being acquired for tourism industry. If our lands are acquired, we will be deprived of everything including our livelihood.” (Lanka, 2013, p.24). Before the announcement of Kalpitiya as a promotion zone, small-scale fish workers did not need to have official land title deeds to live and work in the coastal areas of the peninsula, which changed after the announcement (Bowie, 2015). Feelings of insecurity and fear about the future among fish workers increased because most fishers do not have legal land title deeds. Also, existing customary rights, which transferred the ownership over land from generation to generation, were not considered as legal land title deeds by the Sri Lankan government as this informal system of land ownership is very difficult to prove (Appendix 1; CNS/Ecosocialist Horizons, 2014; Lanka, 2013). When TAFREN promoted tourism development as the way forward after the tsunami in 2004 and the civil war in 2009, private investors considered the lack of official land title deeds among fish workers as an opportunity to come to the islands of Kalpitiya and claim ownership over the coastal areas fish workers used before to live and work on (Appendix 1; World Forum of Fisher Peoples, 2014). In the eyes of small-scale fish workers, these wealthy investors were able to obtain official land title deeds because they “have been known to have connections and the financial strength to be able to pursue their business interests. Only the poor fishermen (…) have no way of proving their rights.” (Lanka, 2013, p. 40). Coastal areas in the peninsula were sold to private investors by the one of these connections, the divisional secretary of Kalpitiya, who is legally in charge of the coastal areas (Appendix 1). According to small-scale fish workers, private investors get land title deeds over a particular area from this

(19)

divisional secretary, but grab coastal areas somewhere else, located in better spots close to the sea and lagoon (NAFSO Sri Lanka, 2013).

Even if locals possess land title deeds which can prove their ownership over lands, processes of coastal grabbing can still take place, as the next example shows. In 2011, landowner Senul Abdeen Seleema noticed that employees of Neil D’Silva, owner of the Dutch Bay Resort shown in Figure 7, invaded the property of Senul and started building the resort (Bowie, 2015; Perera, 2012). After Senul explained to D'Silva that parts of the land on which he planned to build his resort were her property, D'Silva said that he had bought the land from Kalpitiya's divisional secretary. As the resort owner prohibited Senul from accessing the lands, she decided to take this case to court (Appendix 1; Bowie, 2015; Perera, 2012). After 7 months of court hearings, D'Silva was forced to stop working on the lands. As the building of the resort was already finished at that time, living and working on the lands became impossible for Senul, so she decided to move to another place in the Kalpitiya area (Bowie, 2015; Perera, 2012). Although D’Silva paid her a compensation for the lands, this example shows how private investors can grab lands without considering the inhabitants who live and work on these lands (Appendix 1; Bowie, 2015; Perera, 2012).

Because of these processes of coastal grabbing, around 1140 acres of coastal area have been grabbed (Appendix 1), and more than 2500 families spread over the Kalpitiya area have been removed from their lands up to the year 2014 (World Forum of Fisher Peoples, 2014). Furthermore, wire fences have been built and roads leading to the sea, lagoon, and religious buildings have been barricaded by private investors in some places in the area, hereby preventing small-scale fish workers from accessing their fishing spots and churches: “I cannot go to my beach seine as the tourist developer says it is within his territory. We have been here for generations. (…) These newcomers say this land belongs to them.” (Holden, 2019, p.110); “The roads are closed. If someone dies, we have to carry to coffin to the church graveyard. The road used to be here but now we have to take a longer detour.” (NAFSO Sri Lanka, 08-08-2013). Moreover, the destruction of mangroves to build hotels and resorts, and the water pollution caused by these hotels and resorts, threatens ecosystem services and fish stocks (NAFSO 2013; Holden, 2019). While a small-scale fish worker from the area does not consider the expansion of land used for the salt industry, agriculture, and wind power generators to be a high risk compared to the threats facing by the tourist industry, he mentions that the salt industry does have a negative impact on the lagoon's ecosystem services (Appendix 5). This impact on ecosystem services and fish stocks will eventually negatively affect the livelihoods of small-scale fish workers (Holden, 2019).

(20)

Figure 8: The construction of three resorts between July 2010 (left) and December 2019 (right): Saachi Resort (A), Dinuda Resort Kalpitiya (L) and Seth Dev Lagoon Resort (M)

Although not all planned tourism projects in the area took place, the above-mentioned developments have made a significant impact on the lives of small-scale fish workers. Many years after the declaration of Kalpitiya as a tourism zone in 2008, feelings of insecurity and fear about the future are still present according to a small-scale fish worker from the area: “Last December [2020], the government announced that people all over the country who do not have any land titles can apply for these titles. However, we got a response from the divisional secretary of Kalpitiya, who said that the applications from inhabitants of the islands will not be considered because Kalpitiya was declared as a promotion zone many years ago, which means that we won’t get any land titles. This shows the tendency that we are going to be removed from the lands we are living in.” (Appendix 5). These ongoing feelings of insecurity and fear make small-scale fish workers and NAFSO believe that “small-scale fish workers are not considered as important people.” (Appendix 5), “the government does not care about the issues of the people.” (Appendix 5), and that “the only focus of the government is on tourism” (Appendix 1).

By enlisting the help of NGO’s like NAFSO, visiting workshops from these NGO’s, uniting as unions, and by attending meetings with officials, small-scale fish workers try to push the government to take action to improve the situation small-scale fish workers are in (Appendix 5; Bowie 5). When asked what an ideal situation for small-scale fish workers in the area would look like, head of NAFSO Herman Kumara responded: “Tourism development should also help coastal communities instead of only a small group of investors. In most islands, coastal communities do not have water, electricity, roads, universities, education, health… These basic facilities are priorities for people living in these areas. It would be ideal if this would improve hand in hand with tourism. Next to that, cultures and traditions should not be ignored. People need to remain their cultures. Politicians and investors should come to this area to learn from locals and to provide them with more resources to survive. Not to grab their resources. Not to push them away from their lands and coasts. Not to destroy the sea, coral reefs, sea weeds... That is what’s really needed for fish workers. We are promoting co-existence instead of competition between the involved actors” (Appendix 1).

(21)

5. Discussion

In this chapter, the concepts which have been described in the theoretical framework will be linked to the most relevant findings which have been presented in the Results chapter. This connection of theory and results will be useful when answering the research questions of this thesis in the conclusion.

5.1 Kalpitiya as a multiple-use area

As the coastal peninsula of Kalpitiya is an area with a diversity of resources, functions, and services (Cormier-Salem & Panfili, 2016), different actors want to use the same productive, valuable, and attractive area for different purposes (Prestrelo & Vianna, 2016). Based on the article by Masula (2000), these different purposes, or interests, in the Kalpitiya area are divided into economic, political, environmental, and social interests.

The salt industry, agriculture, wind power industry, and tourism industry all have economic interests in the region. Figures 3, 4, and 5 show that land in the Kalpitiya area that has been used for respectively salterns, agriculture, and wind power generators has expanded over the last years. The Urban Development Authority aims to expand lands used for salterns and windmills even more for the years 2030 (Kalpitiya City Development Plan 2019-2030, 2019). Next to these three economic interests, other economic and political actors also became interested in the area after TAFREN, the task force created by the government, declared Kalpitiya as a tourism zone (Holden, 2019; Klein, 2007). After this announcement, private investors came to the islands of Kalpitiya to build hotels and resorts (Appendix 1; Klein, 2007). Because of this tourism development, the natural environment of Kalpitiya is affected as mangroves, salt marshes, and seaweeds are destroyed to build hotels and resorts, and coral reefs are demolished by tourism related activities (FAO 2013; National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency, 2015). Environmental interests in the area want to educate people about the importance of conserving the natural environment. Finally, social interests are concerned with protecting the livelihoods of small-scale fish workers in the area. As these fish workers feel connected to the lands and waters of Kalpitiya they have worked and lived in for generations (Noble, 2011; World Forum of Fisher Peoples, 2014), NGO’s like NAFSO want to protect these fish workers from losing their livelihoods because of tourism development and related processes of coastal grabbing (Appendix 1).

Thus, more and more interests are getting involved, with more actors wanting to use the Kalpitiya area for different purposes. However, at this moment, it is premature to speak of a multiple-use conflict. Although the livelihoods of small-scale fish workers are affected by tourism development and the expansion of the salt industry in the area (Appendix 1; Appendix 5; Lanka, 2013), there is no strife in which all involved actors conflict with each other at the same time. However, the Urban Development Authority continues to promote tourism development in the area and expand the salt and wind power industry (Kalpitiya City Development Plan 2019-2030, 2019), while small-scale fish workers remain using coastal areas for maintaining their livelihoods. Therefore, the peninsula will get even busier in the future which eventually can result in a multiple-use conflict in which all actors are involved.

(22)

5.2 Coastal grabbing in the Kalpitiya area

Processes of coastal grabbing in the Kalpitiya area are related to systems of access and property rights in the area. Property, in other words the right to benefit from things, consists of a bundle of rights which differs from context to context (Bavinck et al., 2017; Ribot & Peluso, 2003). When there are multiple legal orders through which actors claim property rights over an area or resources found within this area, this is called legal pluralism (Bavinck, 2005; Meinzen-Dick & Pradhan, 2002). In the Kalpitiya area, small-scale fish workers claim these property rights as they have had customary rights over coastal areas for generations (Lanka, 2013). At the time TAFREN announced Kalpitiya as a tourism zone, the Sri Lankan government did not consider these customary rights as official land title deeds anymore which were needed to, according to the government, officially own the land (Appendix 1; CNS/Ecosocialist Horizons, 2014; Lanka, 2013). In contrast to small-scale fish workers, powerful private investors were able to obtain these official land title deeds because of their so-called bundles of power. These bundles of power relate to the term access, i.e.: the ability to derive benefits from things (Bavinck et al., 2017; Ribot & Peluso, 2003), and consist of different kind of mechanisms, e.g.: financial strength and connections (Lanka, 2013). These mechanisms enable powerful actors to derive benefit from things and get control over access to resources and coastal areas (Ribot & Peluso, 2003), which happened in the Kalpitiya area when these private investors claimed ownership and grabbed coastal areas (Appendix 1). After claiming this ownership, private investors prohibited small-scale fish workers from accessing lands which they were able to use before (Appendix 1). In this way, small-scale fish workers have customary rights to benefit from resources which can be find in an area, but not the ability to derive benefits from these resources (Ribot & Peluso, 2003).

According to some small-scale fish workers from Kalpitiya area, private investors buy land title deeds from one of their connections, the divisional secretary, but grab coastal areas located in better spots in the area (NAFSO Sri Lanka, 2013). Bavinck et al., (2017) describe processes of coastal grabbing as “the appropriation of coastal space – including sea and land – by interests external to the community” (p.2). The appropriation of 1140 acres of coastal space in total in the Kalpitiya area is analyzed by using the outline provided in the latter article.

One of the locations in the Kalpitiya area where the grabbing took place, was the island Mohothuwarama. On this location, the founder of the Dutch Bay Resort invaded the property of a local landowner, claiming to have bought this piece of land despite the landowner having official land title deeds (Appendix 1; Bowie, 2015; Perera, 2012. While this file went to court, he denied the local landowner from accessing these lands, and built the resort (Appendix 1; Bowie, 2015; Perera, 2012). This example illustrates that the grabbing purpose of private investors like the founder of the Dutch Bay Resort, is to change coastal areas by building hotels and resorts spread over the peninsula. By approving TAFREN's proposals on tourism development in Kalpitiya (Bhagya & Mustafa, 2019), the Sri Lankan government directly supported these changes of coastal areas to realize economic development, even if this disrupted socio-ecological systems or local communities (Bavinck et al., 2017). In a lot of cases of coastal grabbing, coastal areas had been inhabited by local small-scale fish workers and seasonal migrants for generations (Koralagamage, 2020; Noble, 2011; World Forum of Fisher Peoples, 2014). As fish workers have been dependent on coastal resources, like food supplies and firewood (FAO, 2013; Ratnayake, 2012), for a very long time, the conservation of these

(23)

resources is for them a logical concern (Bavinck et al., 2017). However, the disruption of ecosystems caused by processes of coastal grabbing (Bavinck et al., 2018) threaten the resources local and migrant small-scale fish workers depend on (Holden, 2019; Koralagamage, 2020; NAFSO, 2013). This can intensify the competition and social struggles between these two groups of fish workers (Bavinck et al., 2018). Next to the disruption of ecosystems, more than 2500 families spread over the area (World Forum of Fisher Peoples, 2014) have been excluded from areas they were free to use before (Harvey, 2004). Therefore, the small-scale fish workers can be considered as the victims of the appropriation of coastal spaces by interests external to the community (Bavinck et al., 2017).

6. Conclusion, limitations, and reflection

6.1 Conclusion

By gathering both primary and secondary data, this thesis has set out to answer the main question: “How do multiple-use conflicts affect small-scale fish workers in the Kalpitiya region in Sri Lanka?”. In order to answer this question, the thesis aimed to investigate: 1) which actors are involved in the multiple-use conflicts in the Kalpitiya region, 2) how the appropriation of space and resources by interests external to the community affects small-scale fish workers, and 3) how small-scale fish workers respond to these conflicts.

Because of the diversity of resources, functions, and services in the Kalpitiya area, more and more interests are getting involved in the coastal peninsula. The expansion of the salt industry, agriculture, wind power industry, and tourism industry show the many economic interests that are involved in the area, while the latter industry also involves political interests. Environmental interests and social interests want to respectively protect the natural environment and the livelihoods of small-scale fish workers against the negative consequences of the expansion of the salt industry, tourism industry, and related processes of coastal grabbing.

After TAFREN announced Kalpitiya as a tourism zone, private investors used their bundles of power to grab coastal areas and build hotels and resorts spread over the peninsula. This appropriation of 1140 acres of coastal space by private investors resulted in; 1) the disruption of ecosystem services which intensified social struggles between local and migrant small-scale fish workers, 2) the removal of more than 2500 families from their lands, and 3) the prohibition for some small-scale fish workers to access the coastal areas which they were free to use before the appropriation. Many fish workers lack official land title deeds which made that they had customary rights to benefit from resources found in an area, but not the ability to derive benefits from these resources. In order to improve their situation and push the government to act, small-scale fish workers enlist the help of NGO’s and attend meetings and workshops with officials.

Based on the research findings, this thesis can conclude that it is premature to speak of a multiple-use conflict between all actors involved in the Kalpitiya area. Although the development and expansion of the salt and tourism industry affects and pressurizes the livelihoods of small-scale fish workers, not all actors involved conflict with each other at this moment. Nevertheless, more and more interests are getting involved in the Kalpitiya area,

(24)

6.2 Limitations and reflection

Some of the limitations of this thesis are discussed in this final subchapter. To start, this research has been conducted in times of the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected the methods of data collection and analysis. This pandemic made it impossible to travel to Sri Lanka to search for research participants, e.g.: small-scale fish workers. As these fish workers were difficult to reach during this online research project, only one small-scale fish worker was interviewed. Although more statements and perspectives from fish workers about developments in the area have been used that were found in older data sources, the researcher has tried to avoid making assumptions for all small-scale fish workers in the area, which was not always easy. Moreover, the pandemic also impacted the way semi-structured interviews were conducted. Because the interviews were conducted online, the absence of non-verbal communication may have caused answers to be interpreted differently than would be the case if someone was interviewed face-to-face (Bryman, 2012). Next to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the language barrier between the researcher and the interviewed small-scale fisher can also be considered as a limitation for the used methods. The translator involved in that interview can interpret and translate the original questions and answers slightly different, which can affect the outcomes and analysis of the interview. Finally, theoretical saturation regarding the topic of this thesis is not plausible. By conducting more interviews with involved stakeholders and small-scale fish workers, and by doing further research about the multiple-use conflicts concept and the impact of the salt industry, agriculture, and wind power industry on the livelihoods of locals and natural environment of Kalpitiya, more theoretical insights regarding the topic of this thesis will be produced.

7. References

Alex Sanz. (2017, October 23). Kalpitiya salt [Video]. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fqdbXTPP8U

Balasuriya, A. (2018). Coastal Area Management: Biodiversity and Ecological Sustainability in Sri Lankan Perspective. In Biodiversity and Climate Change Adaptation in Tropical

Islands (pp. 701-724). Academic Press.

Bavinck, M. (2005). Understanding fisheries conflicts in the South—a legal pluralist perspective. Society and Natural Resources, 18(9), 805-820.

Bavinck, M., Berkes, F., Charles, A., Dias, A. C. E., Doubleday, N., Nayak, P., & Sowman, M. (2017). The impact of coastal grabbing on community conservation–a global

reconnaissance. Maritime studies, 16(1), 1-17.

Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., & Scholtens, J. (2018). Fisheries as social struggle: a reinvigorated social science research agenda. Marine Policy, 94, 46-52.

(25)

Kalpitiya, Sri Lanka.

Borras Jr, S. M., & Franco, J. C. (2012). Global land grabbing and trajectories of agrarian change: A preliminary analysis. Journal of agrarian change, 12(1), 34-59.

Bowie, Y. (2015, June 23). Tourism mega-development in Sri Lanka results in human rights violations. https://groundviews.org/2015/06/23/tourism-mega-development-in-sri-lanka-results-in-human-rights-violations/.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Buultjens, J. W., Ratnayake, I., & Gnanapala, W. A. C. (2016). Post-Conflict tourism

development in Sri Lanka: implications for building resilience. Current Issues in

Tourism, 19(4), 355-372.

Camisani, P. B. (2018). Sri Lanka: a political ecology of socio-environmental conflicts and development projects. Sustainability Science, 13(3), 693-707.

CNS/Ecosocialist Horizons. (2014). Behind the Brochures: Tourists, Fishermen, and Land Grabs in Sri Lanka. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 25(4), 54-64.

Cicin-Sain, B. (2003, September). Multiple use conflicts and their resolution: toward a comparative research agenda. In Ocean Management in Global Change: Proceedings

of the Conference on Ocean Management in Global Change, Genoa, 22-26 June 1992 (p. 285). CRC Press.

Cormier-Salem, M. C., & Panfili, J. (2016). Mangrove reforestation: greening or grabbing coastal zones and deltas? Case studies in Senegal. African Journal of Aquatic

Science, 41(1), 89-98.

Ekanayake, E. M. L. (2017, january 9). Continuation of the Sea Turtles and Coastal Biodiversity Conservation in Kalpitiya Peninsular of Sri Lanka - The Rufford Foundation. https://www.rufford.org/projects/dr-em-lalith-ekanayake/continuation-of- the-sea-turtles-and-coastal-biodiversity-conservation-in-kalpitiya-peninsular-of-sri-lanka/.

FAO. (2013). Fisheries development and management plan of Puttalam lagoon.

http://www.fao.org/3/bm050e/bm050e.pdf

Franco, J., Feodoroff, T., Kay, S., Kishimoto, S., Pracucci, G., & Santos, R. (2014). The global water grab: A primer. Transnational Institute for Hands off the Land Alliance:

(26)

63–87.

Holden, A. (2019). Tourism, poverty and development. Routledge.

Hox, J. J., & Boeije, H. R. (2005). Data collection, primary versus secondary.

Ibrahim, F. (2020). Between the sea and the land: small-scale fishers and multiple vulnerabilities in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences, 43(1), 05-20.

Jayasingha, P., Pitawala, A., & Dharmagunawardhane, H. A. (2014). Evolution of coastal sandy aquifer system in Kalpitiya peninsula, Sri Lanka: sedimentological and geochemical approach. Environmental earth sciences, 71(11), 4925-4937.

Kalpitiya city development plan: 2019–2030. (2019).

https://www.uda.gov.lk/attachments/devplan_detailed/Development%20Plans%20201 9-2030/Kalpitiya/English.pdf

Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Metropolitan Books. Koralagamage, D. N. (2020). Small-scale fisher migration, conflict and wellbeing: A case

study from Sri Lanka.

Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120-124. Lanka, N.S (2013). The investigative report on the looting of sustenance lands belonging to

Kalpitiya island inhabitants.

Masalu, D. C. (2000). Coastal and marine resource use conflicts and sustainable development in Tanzania. Ocean & Coastal Management, 43(6), 475-494.

Meinzen-Dick, R. S., & Pradhan, R. (2002). Legal pluralism and dynamic property rights (No. 577-2016-39147).

Ministry of Fisheries (2021). Overview. Retrieved March 5, 2021, from

https://www.fisheries.gov.lk/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1 6&Itemid=118&lang=en

Ministry of Tourism and Aviation (2019). Overview. Retrieved March 12, 2021, from

http://tourismmin.gov.lk/web/index.php/en/downloads

Ministry of Tourism and Aviation, SLTDA and UNDP Co-convene Meeting with Development Partners on Building a More Resilient Tourism Sector in Sri Lanka. (2020, july 1).

(27)

https://www.lk.undp.org/content/srilanka/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2020/07/ Ministry-of-Tourism-and-Aviation-SLTDA-and-UNDP-Co-convene-Meeting-with- Development-Partners-on-Building-a-More-Resilient-Tourism-Sector-in-Sri-Lanka.html

Miththapala, S. (2011). An environmental and fisheries profile of the Puttalam lagoon system. IUCN Sri Lanka Country office.

NAFSO. (2013, May). Land grabbing through tourism: Boom or bane in Kalpitiya?

https://www.nafso-online.org/2013/05/land-grabbing-through-tourism-boom-or.html.

NAFSO Sri Lanka. (2013, August 8). Orphans of Development - The Plight of Kalpitiya’s Fisher folk [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmXd8uGtBKM

National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency. (2015). Education, capacity development and monitoring in support of bar reef marine sanctuary (BRMS) management. https://www.boblme.org/documentRepository/BOBLME-2015-Ecology-47.pdf

Noble, R. (2011, October). Globalised Tourism Development in Sri Lanka: Implications for Human Rights, Sustainable Development and Peacebuilding.

https://tourismconcern.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/RachelNoble-Globalised-tourism-development-SriLanka-Summary-Dec11.pdf

Perera, M. M. (2012, January 19). Kalpitiya: Muslim woman defeats mega tourism project over land expropriation. AsiaNews.it. http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Kalpitiya:-Muslim-woman-defeats-mega-tourism-project-over-land-expropriation-23734.html

Prestrelo, L. (2016). Identifying multiple-use conflicts prior to marine spatial planning: A case study of a multi-legislative estuary in Brazil. Marine Policy, 67, 83-93.

Ratnayake, P. U. (2012). A collaborative approach between tourism and coastal communities: a present-day need and opportunity for mangrove management and conservation in Sri Lanka. Sharing Lessons on Mangrove Restoration, 63.

Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural sociology, 68(2), 153-181. Rice, A., & Haynes, K. (2005). Post-tsunami reconstruction and tourism: a second disaster?.

London: Tourism Concern.

SLTDA | Key Development Projects. (n.d.). SLTDA. Retrieved March 12, 2021, from

A qualitative research on the effect of multiple-use conflicts on small-scale fish workers in Kalpitiya, Sri Lanka