A ripple in development - Norad

need to advertise them to the public 5 . It would be interesting to examinethe time-line for complaints in Sri Lanka (how did the number of complaintsvary over time?).The difference between the Sri Lankan and the Indonesian numberof complaints should not be taken as an indication of differing levels ofsatisfaction. The two mechanisms were very different. They operatednot only at a different phase of the response , but in very different waysin very differing contexts.In general, weak accountability mechanisms were not due to thetsunami. One report noted that such mechanisms “generally are weak, andthe infl ux of tsunami assistance reveals these weaknesses more starkly” (Fletcher etal., 2005, p. 96).1.5 Decentralisation and subsidiarityWhat lessons can be drawn from comparison of the three very different experiences ofIndonesia , Sri Lanka and Maldives with regard to decentralisation and subsidiarity?The Centre for Policy Alternatives in Sri Lanka makes a distinctionbetween devolution (the vesting of central government powers in theprovincial tier) and decentralisation (the delegation of certain managementfunctions to local bodies) (2005, p. 3). However, decentralisation isoften used to describe the first of these functions.Subsidiarity is “the principle that decision making and implementation shouldbe carried out at levels closest to citizens” (Grewal, 2006, p. 8). Subsidiaritydemands that regional and local authorities should take responsibilityfor all tasks other than those that can only be carried out at the nationallevel.Historically, Indonesia and the Maldives have been much more centralisedthan Sri Lanka , but this has been changing. Decentralisation inIndonesia is strongly supported by the donor community , and here anongoing decentralisation process has probably had the largest impacton the response . Indonesia is now “one of the most decentralized countries inthe world” in terms of spending with sub-national government now managinghalf of public investment (World Bank , 2007a, p. xv).In Sri Lanka the initial loss and damage assessment noted that “reconstructionover the dispersed locations provides an opportunity for Sri Lanka todeepen its on-going decentralization efforts” (ADB et al., 2005, p. 3 of annexVI). However, there are almost no further references to the decentralisationprocess in Sri Lanka in later documents, suggesting that it has notbeen a very large issue. The lack of subsidiarity in the national contextwas seen as one of the factors driving disparities in post-tsunami assist-5This was one of the lessons identified by the ETESP project: “Socialization seminars and workshopsare not enough to make beneficiaries and the public aware of the complaint handlingsystem. Use of media ads proved to be effective in making people from a wide area aware of howthey can register their complaints or queries about subprojects. Distribution of brochures is alsohelpful but to a lesser extent” (Hasan and Nicolas, 2008).21