SRI LANKA: FEW DONORS HAVE CUT AID DESPITE WIDESPREAD

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000903 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR SCA/INS, EEB/IFD/ODF, AND DRL/IL LAUREN HOLT DOL/ILAB FOR TINA MCCARTER MCC FOR S GROFF, D NASSIRY, E BURKE AND F REID GENEVA PASS USTR E.O 12958: N/A TAGS: EAID ECON PHUM CE SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: FEW DONORS HAVE CUT AID DESPITE WIDESPREAD CONCERNS ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS REF: A) COLOMBO 829 B) COLOMBO 322 ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The resumption of conflict and a deteriorating human rights climate have caused relatively few donors to reconsider parts of their planned aid to Sri Lanka. However, out of reluctance to penalize the intended recipients of development assistance, both multilateral and bilateral donors are for the most part maintaining their aid programs in Sri Lanka. Additionally, many donors are increasing their humanitarian assistance, especially to assist internally displaced persons. Following is an overview of the status of donors' assistance programs in Sri Lanka. End Summary. MULTILATERAL DONORS -------------- ¶2. (SBU) World Bank: As of late 2006, the World Bank had 16 operations under implementation with a total value of $806.6 million and an undisbursed balance of $519.7 million. In 2006, the World Bank disbursed $108 million or 15.5% of the total foreign assistance to Sri Lanka. Recently the Bank delayed board consideration of a judicial reform project worth $45 million because it had concerns regarding the integrity of Sri Lanka's judicial system. Specifically, it suspected favoritism was influencing the selection of personnel being sent abroad for training under an earlier related program. The Bank has not suspended other projects, but its local staff tells us the Bank is increasingly scrutinizing its lending in light of the government's poor human rights performance. Further, some humanitarian aid programs in the North and East are delayed due to the ongoing conflict. The World Bank recently warned Sri Lanka that it may face controversy regarding corruption and nepotism if it relies too heavily on unsolicited tenders for major infrastructure projects. In late May 2007, the World Bank approved a $34 million credit to build 10,000 houses for internally displaced people located in Puttalam district. ¶3. (U) Asian Development Bank (ADB): The ADB continues to finance more than 30 projects through concessionary loans, program loans and grants. In 2006, ADB approved loans for Sri Lanka amounting to $274 million out of total loan approvals of $8 billion for Asia and Pacific countries. Of this, ADB disbursed $138 million, or almost 20% of total foreign aid to Sri Lanka in 2006. BILATERAL DONORS -------------- ¶4. (U) Japan: Peace envoy Yasushi Akashi stated that Japan will continue to send aid to Sri Lanka despite allegations of human rights abuses (ref A). Japan remains the largest bilateral aid donor, contributing around $200 million annually. International NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch, are lobbying Japan to exert greater pressure on the GSL to address these abuses. ¶5. (U) Germany: Germany is the second largest bilateral donor after Japan, having disbursed $68.7 million in 2006. Since October 2006, Germany has suspended plans for $50.6 million in upcoming aid, to pressure the GSL and the LTTE to resume peace talks. The German Development Corporation (GTZ) committed $123 million after the tsunami disaster, of which $76 million was used by the end of 2006. SIPDIS The GTZ, however, stated that an increase of ceasefire violations prevented the implementing aid agencies from conducting their programs effectively. As a result, in 2006, tsunami aid programs worth $16 million were halted. Due to these difficulties, Germany did not commit to new funds for 2007. ¶6. (U) European Union (EU): On June 5, the European Parliament conducted a public hearing on the "impact of post-tsunami relief," with particular attention to the human rights situation. Despite grave concerns over the escalating violations of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, the EU continues to commit its tsunami and development aid funds. Overall, contracted funds for 2006, including tsunami funds for that period, were $74 million. Several development projects were delayed this year solely due to feasibility and COLOMBO 00000903 002 OF 002 security concerns in the conflict areas. Sri Lanka continues to benefit from the EU's GSP Plus trade concessions despite local media speculation that Sri Lanka may be at the risk of losing them due to human rights abuses. ¶7. (SBU) United Kingdom: The UK's bilateral program closed in March 2007 due to Sri Lanka's Middle-Income Country status. Currently the UK is evaluating whether to continue making the remainder of its $80 million pledge for debt relief after the 2004 tsunami. The amount equals ten percent of Sri Lanka's debt to the World Bank's International Development Association between 2005 and 2014. The UK debt relief package was designed to be "conflict sensitive" by requiring Sri Lanka to agree that it would adhere to international obligations in human rights and other areas, avoid initiation of conflict, avoid unjustifiable military expenditures, and maintain transparency and accountability. Due to concerns that Sri Lanka is not meeting these commitments, the UK suspended payment of the second of two $3 million payments it was to make this year for the debt relief (ref B). According to the British High Commission, Sri Lanka and the UK are currently discussing whether Sri Lanka is adhering to the debt relief conditions. ¶8. (U) Australia: Australia's level of bilateral funding for Sri Lanka decreased this year due to increasing difficulty in implementing its aid programs in the conflict areas. Meanwhile, aid funds are being redirected humanitarian assistance and a few medium- to long-term conflict transformation activities. ¶9. (U) Switzerland: The Swiss drafted a strategy in late 2006 stating that all future projects will have a distinct conflict transformation agenda. ¶10. (U) Sweden: The new strategy for 2008- 2012 is likely to result in a gradual phase-out of Sri Lanka. No new agreements other than for humanitarian assistance and conflict transformation are planned unless Sri Lanka deals with its human rights problems and initiates a peace process based on de facto case-fire and substantial negotiation process. ¶11. (U) Denmark: The Danish Development Cooperation Office officially closed end of October 2006, based on a decision not to renew the three-year aid grant due to the country's deteriorating security situation. ¶12. (U) Canada: No changes in current projects are planned, but Canada might reduce programs in the South if it becomes too difficult to implement programs in the North and East as an expression of protest to the GSL about isolating and limiting access to the North and East. ¶13. (U) Italy: No change in funding, although some activities in Jaffna and Trincomalee have been suspended due to the security situation. ¶14. (SBU) COMMENT: In 2006, the World Bank, ADB, Japan and Germany accounted for 80 percent of the foreign aid spent by the Government of Sri Lanka. All other donors accounted for less than 20 percent, with USAID's FY-06 program of approximately $7 million accounting for less than one percent of the World Bank's assistance. Of the major donors, only Germany has shown a willingness to impose any conditionality on the GOSL through its foreign assistance program. Other donors who do have major concerns about human rights and the resumption of the conflict in Sri Lanka in general do not have aid programs of major significance and have chosen to downsize their programs or redirect them to address the consequences of the conflict and/or peacebuilding. For assistance reductions to truly have an impact on the GSL, the three major donors - the ADB, World Bank and Japan - would need to significantly change their policies. This is unlikely to occur in the near future.