Gnanaseelan, J., & Manobavan, M. (2010). Synthesizing the
historiographical aspects found in literature for building a descriptive model
of the man-nature interfaces in post-colonial Batticaloa: A Discourse Analytic
Approach. Journal of the Sri Lanka Association of
Geographers, the Department of
Geography of the University of Ruhunu, Vol. 1, No. 1, 36-50.
Synthesizing the historiographical
aspects found in literature for building a descriptive model of the man-nature interfaces
in post-colonial Batticaloa: A Discourse Analytic Approach
Abstract: Physical geographers, when
trying to understand the interfaces between natural resource bases and the
human society in any given geographical area need to understand how the system
has evolved during the course of its past history. It is often the old-books or
folklore and epics which are verbally transferred from
generation-to-generation, that aid the investigators to construct descriptive
models of how the system was in the past and understand the present trends in
the interfaces properly. Discourse analysis, where literature meets
signal-processing science, is a proper aid to the physical geographer. It helps
to visualize a piece of information (any form of a literary or non-literary
text) as a cluster of signals, and perform scientifically proven
signal-processing procedures to extract the information relevant to the investigation.
This is a forensic analysis enabling the investigator to gain deep insight into
the past history of the system. This paper highlights an effort to synthesize
the historiographical aspects found in literature on Batticaloa from the early
parts of the 20th century to develop a descriptive model of the
interfaces. Considering the efforts by the government to provide a sustainable
developmental strategy to the eastern regions of Sri Lanka
[Key words: discourse analysis, model,
development, human-nature interface, resource]
Introduction:
The
overall survival of the human race depends on how effective individual
societies are in sustainable interactions with the surrounding natural
environment (Lovelock, 1995). Human societies are scattered all over the
surface of the Earth and have evolved with distinctive identities as per their
strategies used to eke out livelihoods on the basis of natural resources. To a
physical geographer, the fundamental step towards understanding the dynamics of
an area of human habitation is to identify the relevant interfaces between
the society and the natural environment. An interface can be defined as the
means of interaction with the environmental system or factor (e.g. temperature,
rainfall) or a component of an ecological system (e.g. a water body, lake, etc.
of a local area). The interfaces can be dampening, stabilizing or bi-polar
(which is a mixture of the previous two). If there is a dampening interaction,
the natural resource base gradually depletes – which results in the death of
the system, for example, the Easter Island
scenario, an excellent explanation to the dampening interaction (Townsend et al., 2000). A stabilizing interaction
is where the human society tries to use the natural resource base to its
optimum benefit, without adulterating the natural environmental composition.
The dry zone cascade irrigation system based communities of the past in Sri Lanka are
an excellent example (Shanmuganathan et
al., 2009). However, systems scientists argue that in nature, the society
interacts with the natural environment in a bi-polar manner, where there is a
multitude of actions and reactions, which eventually yield to the state of a
dynamic steady state of the sustainable socio-environmental-economical cum
political systems (SEEPS) of a given area (Richmond, 2001).
On the other hand, SEEPS –
being complex and extremely sensitive systems, are quite dynamic and they
evolve over the temporal domain. Hence, hysteresis is regarded as an essential
property of SEEPS. Hysteresis is
a property of systems (usually physical systems) that do not instantly react to
the forces applied to them, but react slowly, or do not return completely to
their original state. The state of such a system depends on its immediate
history. For example, if you push on a piece of putty it will assume a new shape, and when you remove your hand it
will not return to its original shape, or at least not immediately and not
entirely.
As such, a physical
geographer interested in understanding the systems dynamics of any given
geographical region in a country needs to look at the hitoriographical aspects
of the SEEPS of that area. History is not often well documented, even if there
is sufficient documentation or data, there is always the question of the
validity of the data that has been archived. In these regards, the physical
geographer needs to resort to alternative investigative methods. There is definitely
information available in folklore, literature and related works produced in the
form of books or monographs. The information in these is generally hidden or
suggestive. As such, the investigator has to decipher the right information
he/she needs by analyzing the text. Discourse Analysis (DA) which is a
technique used by linguists can be an effective tool to decipher information of
the past history of the SEEPS of a given geographical area.
DA can be explained using
‘signal processing’ as a paradigm. Signal processing techniques in telecommunication engineering and the
computer sciences are applied to decipher information sent via the environment
as jumbled/mixed signals to infer the finite signals specifically needed for
the understanding or information that needs to be delivered to the respondent.
Similarly, DA techniques when applied to a text decipher the inherent details and
ideals pertaining to the factors that might have prompted the author to tell or
write the story (fig 1).
Figure 1: Parables between signal processing
and discourse analysis (from Gnanaseelan and Manobavan, 2009a & 2009b)
This article presents the results of an
investigation which highlights an effort to synthesize the
historiographical aspects found in literature on Batticaloa from the early
parts of the 20th century to develop a descriptive model of the
interfaces between the society and nature. Considering the efforts by the
government to provide a sustainable developmental strategy to the eastern
regions of Sri Lanka ,
the need to evaluate how the resources and the interactions can be sustained in
a favorable manner is realized. In this regard, the need to develop a model of
interfaces is paramount, and this is where this investigation will aid
immensely considering that there is little or no statistical data available on
the past history of Batticaloa district. Two prominent works on Batticaloa, one
in English by S.O. Canagaratnam aka SOC and the other(s) in Tamil by F.X.C.
Nadarajah aka FXCN (in two parts, or in the form of two books) have been taken to
infer how the authors have used various sources to compile their very own
individualistic descriptions of the interfaces. The work of SOC called as the
‘Monograph of Batticaloa” was published in 1921, whereas FXCNs first piece (in
Tamil) called the ‘Mattakkalappu Manmiyam’ [in English, ‘the chronicle of
Batticaloa’] was published in 1963, and the second piece called as
‘Mattakkalappu makkal valamum valvum” [in English, ‘the life and prosperity of
the people of Batticaloa’] later in the early 1980s.
Methodology
Firstly, the textual and
related ancillary information from the “Monograph
of Batticaloa’ [MOB], the
‘Mattakkalappu Manmiyam’ [MM], and,
‘Mattakkalappu makkal valamum valvum” [MMVV]
were compiled to form a workable data base. Thereafter, macro-level DA was
performed on the information gathered as such to develop a basic understanding
of the SEEPS of Batticaloa.
This article
looks at the management and utilization of surrounding SEEPS in Batticaloa
Region and their relationship to sustainable development. In this context,
environmental management is understood as an outcome of a political procedure
for regulating societal relationships with nature. The analysis of the
discourse of SEEPS is based on reviewing the textual content of the three books
mentioned above. The result is a picture of how discourse shapes and is shaped
by the process of historiography or historicization of the SEEPS of
Batticaloa. The analysis reveals a
complex interaction between the state, the livelihood means, civil society, and
nature as they are constructed through discursive processes of the historiography.
The DA tries to unfold the overall construction of the history of the region
where it has occurred.
Perspective/s of “the
ecological” has become an arena in which hegemony is asserted and where the
members of the community consisting the common man/woman of that region mount
their challenge to institutions and structures of power as well as where they
express their alternative designs for different social relations (Keil &
Graham, 1998). The DA critically approaches the texts of these two prominent
scholars, one was with colonial loyalty and the other with indigenous loyalty
of classic proportions, to evaluate how their constructions represent the
sustainable models of SEEPS with or without any hegemonic interest.
DA takes a middle approach
deductively drawing outcomes from certain large dynamics of the discourse of
SEEPS and inductively constructing our knowledge on these outcomes from macro-
and micro-analysis of actual discourses. It is an attempt to explain how the
construction of SEEPS discourse through documents, rhetoric, and action
articulates environmental, social and political goals that are broader than and
have more long-range effect than the existing ones.
Hajer (1996), who has
pointed out that ecological discourse, is not just about the environment; we
might rather ask which social projects are articulated with environmental
protection. Therefore this analysis operates on two levels: the close reading
of the texts and their core assumption, and the interpretation of these
documents in describing an effective model of SEEPS. The discourse of the
history of SEEPS is a practice of control as long as it functions purely on the
basis of resource exploitation and resource discrimination but it can also
become a practice of social change. If it is assumed that “language not only
constructs, in large measure, our reality for us, it reflects, and helps to
create, the interests and ideas of dominant social groups” (Rydin &
Myerson, 1989, p. 477), then we can also suppose that language plays a major
role in constructing the countervisions and strategies in the interfaces of man
and nature.
Discourses of SEEPS are
connected through the concept of power. Power in this sense rests in
institutions and structures that represent constraints as well as commitment to
sustainable development. The moment of power is itself both internally heterogeneous
and complex, but power relations (political, economic, symbolic, environmental,
etc.) and pressures are fundamental within the social process and some
conception of how they work is therefore crucial for understanding social processes
(Harvey, 1996, p. 78).
Following Harvey (1996),
there is a dialectic of fluidity and permanence of the social process, and the
“analysis confronts how such permanences can occur, how fluid internal
relations can be converted into social causation and how the internalization of
forces operating at other moments might limit or undermine the permanences and
the social causation with which they are associated” (p. 82).
Translated into the Batticaloa
realm, the dialectic of permanence and fluidity is played out in the pre-colonial,
colonial and post-colonial built environments and social processes, governance structure
and social movements, state and civil society and nature. The proper,
well-balanced political governance of environmental management is the
regulating mechanism that establishes the rules after which we structure this dialectic
in the process of the discourse of SEEPS.
Figure 2: Schema of the methodological
framework adopted for the investigation
Then,
using the information collated from recent research on Batticaloa (from the
works of Mandru, 1996 and Shanmurgaratnam, 1995; both focusing on the
development of a natural resource management framework for the Batticaloa
area), together in comparison with the statistical information gained from the
published data sets found in the Statistical Hand Book for the Batticaloa district
– we developed a conceptual numerical-model of functionality for Batticaloa’s SEEPS
at present using a multi-criteria evaluation approach (based on Common and
Stagl, 2005; using the systems thinking approach prescribed in Richmond, 2001).
This is a simple normalized index, which assumes the totality of all functions
in the said system is 1, where this totality is affected by the various sub
functionalities as mentioned below contributing to the systems main function, being
the sustenance of the society of Batticaloa. As such, the total functionality of
the SEEPS of Batticaloa at present can be expressed as a combination of factors
S, E, RC, L and P, where they are present in the ratio of -
(Eq. 1)
Where, S – social function, E – environmental function, RC – religion and cultural function, L – livelihood function, and, P – political function.
These
functionalities are considered to be the essential drivers of development in a
sustainable manner as per the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Using
this baseline model, we can compare how MOB, MM, and MMVV have portrayed the
SEEPS of Batticaloa as per the said functionalities, and using macro-level
analysis to find out how a comprehensive functional model of these
functionalities can be developed, which could serve as a tool for understanding
the various interfaces. Figure 2 describes the schema of the methodological
routine adopted for this investigation. This was developed using the systems
approach to investigating phenomena (on the basis of the Spinoza’s riddle
paradigm presented in scientific philosophy) explained by Richmond (2001).
Analysis
On
the basis of the information extracted using macro-level DA, we present how MM,
MOB and MMVV portray the SEEPS of Batticaloa and how each of the books describes
the ‘system’ as per the authorial-perspectives incorporated in them.
Figure 3: MM’s
three sphere model (TSM) of the Batticaloa’s socio-environmental-economical
cum political system (SEEPS)
Figure
3 illustrates the functionality of the SEEPS of Batticaloa portrayed in FXCN’s MM. The author focuses on three
interacting spheres, namely Kings and Royalty (their influences as such),
conflicts (between feudal royal clans) and (their) conquests, and, culture
(which developed as a results of interactions between clans etc). These spheres
are the main functional element in FXCN’s model of Batticaloa as per MM. FXCN argues that they intertwiningly
interact with each other in a land which is resplendent land (i.e. a ‘blessed
land’ with ample natural resources for human subsistence, survival and
development). Whilst it is understood that in reality no geographical region in
this world can be regarded as totally ‘resplendent’, FXCN’s model prescribes and
contributes to the formation of the SEEPS of Batticaloa. The MM emphasizes that a human community
based system will develop and thrive in a geographical area if there is the
right and adequate type of legislation, policy making and law-enforcement which is possible through the
appropriate and optimal political machinery. This model gives prominence to the
interactions, and their importance for societal persistence and survival using
a ‘sovereign-centric’ perspective. It is an overtly idealistic and
non-realistic explanation of the SEEPS of Batticaloa. However, the author’s
emphasis on the necessity of good-governance through the appropriately optimal
political framework is a fact that any developmental geographer would
definitely endorse.
Figure 4: MMVV’s
Sustainable Society Model (SSM) of the SEEPS of Batticaloa
Figure
4 is a model of how MMVV portrays the
(gradual) development of a ‘sustainable (village level) society model’ (SSM).
This could, chronologically be regarded as a continuation of the process
initiated by the interactions prescribed in the ‘three sphere model’ (TSM) of
the MM. It explains how various functionalities of the system initiate the
processes of the development of a sustainable society in a geographical region
(i.e. Batticaloa region). However, there are marked differences between these
two, such as;
a.
The TSM focuses on the interactions, where as the SSM
focuses on the process and the gradual development of a system via sustainable
interfaces.
b.
Whilst functionality of the political component of the
system is given much prominence in the TSM, the SSM emphasizes on the gradual
system development where society through its cultural and religious practices
develops ‘livelihood’ via sustainable interfaces with the environment. As such,
the SSM does not consider ‘politics’ as a worthwhile functionality of the
system it tries to explain.
The
SSM focuses on the arrival of the human population through mechanisms of
migration and displacement to the Batticaloa system and the colonization
function which establishes the pioneer colonies (reference to the various kudis (settlements) or clans). These
pioneering colonies gradually begin the habituating process, where they adapt
to the local environment (and concurrently transform and adopt the environment)
to develop the early village-based systems. These village based systems have kovils (temples) of the deity that is
worshipped by the kudi of the
locality. This religious and cultural element was brought into the system when
it was colonized first. These kovils
functioned as the coordinating centers for all the village’s activities, such
as cultivation, harvesting, fishing etc.
The
coordination by kovils was informal
yet effective as an element of ‘god fearing’ was attached to the process and
was exercised through rituals and festivals. With the kovils acting as the general management committee and informal
legislative body via the cultural process, the system gradually developed into
a stable steady state to form the ‘sustainable village system’.
In
this model, since the management is informal and is considered as an inherent
element of the cultural rituals and festivals – there was no need for a strong
political function. Anybody violating the rituals, religious practices and the
traditions were simply excluded from the system. As such, the model prescribed
in the MMVV is anthropocentric as it
emphasizes on the human individual and the human society as the main focus to
development. This model explained by FXCN is far ahead of its time (in terms of
perspective), as the ‘anthropocentric focus’ for development was only realized
as per the Agenda 21 of the UN Rio Declaration much later only in 1992, where
it was established that “the human individual (and the human society) is/are
the centre/s of development”. As such,
the MMVV’s sustainable society perspective
can be regarded as a cost-effective and extremely stable time-tested model for
a sustainability of the system, as this was how the SEEPS of Batticaloa existed
for many centuries till the arrival of the European colonists/imperialists.
Figure 5: MOB’s
Environmental Management Model (EMM) of the SEEPS of Batticaloa
On the contrary, MOB’s explanation of the post-colonial SEEPS
of Batticaloa takes a management perspective (figure 5). SOC in the MOB, describes a system and its
management in an eco-centric manner in the following steps,
a.
The natural environment comprises of the interactions
that occur between the water, terrestrial, and, vegetation (forest) systems;
b.
the natural environment impacts the society and
determines its livelihood and survival;
c.
on the other hand, the natural environment is
affected/impacted by climate;
d.
similarly, climate also impacts/affects society (its
persistence and survival);
e.
if the society is to survive, expand and grow – it
needs to manage, mitigate, and control the natural environment in a sustainable
manner, so that a ‘developed’ SEEPS of Batticaloa;
f.
where a ‘developed system’ signifies one that is stable
in-terms of socio-economics and has established long-lasting and sustainable
interfaces with the natural resources.
As such, the EMM explains
that to reach the ‘so called’ steady state, it is the responsibility of the
administrators to plan, strategize and finance proper environmental management
(see Fig 6, for a quote taken from the forward in the MOB).
Figure 6: A quote to re-iterate the idea
behind MOB’s Environmental Management
Model of the SEEPS of Batticaloa (Source: Canagaratnam, 1921)
Using
the functionalities explained in the models explained in figures 3, 4 and 5 as
well as the information that can be inferred from textual flow, word
compositions and patterns prevalent in the books, it is possible to develop
macro-level numerical-models for the functionality of systems explained.
The
ratio of the combination of sub-factors contributing to the ‘Total Functionality’
in MM’s ‘three sphere model’ can be
stated as,
(Eq. 2)
The
functionality for the environmental component is regarded as zero (0) in this
expression due to the non-realistic ‘resplendent’ perspective taken by FXCN for
MM.
As
per the MMVV’s ‘sustainable society
model’, it can be stated as,
(Eq. 3)
Here,
the functionality for the political element is considered to be zero due to the
fact that there is no room for formal management or legislature in this system.
As
has been emphasized, SOC emphasizes on environmental management as a pivotal
need for the sustenance of the system in MOB.
Considering the perspectives adopted by the EMM, the numerical expression can
be stated as,
(Eq. 4)
Figure 7: Visualisation of the numerical
expressions of the models for present, MM,
MMVV, MOB perspectives of the SEEPS of Batticaloa
Figure
7 is a graphical explanation of the numerical expressions for the total
functionalities of the SEEPS of Batticaloa as per MM, MMVV, MOB, and ‘present-day’
perspectives. Moreover, an average numerical model of equations #2, #3, and #4
can be developed and can be expressed as,
(Eq. 5)
This
model of average is an expression of a system driven by anthropocentric,
eco-centric and sovereign-centric perspectives. It is the simple numerical
explanation of a system working for benefits of the society for establishing
sustainable interfaces with nature using the right legislative governance
pathway.
The
correlation (at 95% confidence limits) between the numerical model for the
‘present-day’ SEEPS of Batticaloa and the numerical models for the MM, MMVV, MOB and AVG. perspectives are
as follows:
|
|
MM
|
MMVV
|
MOB
|
AVG.
|
|
Correlation
|
-0.35
|
0.62
|
0.32
|
0.56
|
The
MM which is a highly idealistic (near
mythical context) has a negative (and weak) correlation and is deviating from
the realistic system description of Batticaloa. MMVV has a relatively higher correlative relationship of 62% with
the realistic Batticaloa system. Even-though, SOC’s MOB (EMM) has a relatively low positive correlative relationship,
the functionalities prescribed by the EMM should not be ignored. In-fact, EMM is
NOT about the SEEPS of Batticaloa, but about the way to manage it.
Figure 8: Visualisation for the comparisons
of the numerical expressions of the models for present and AVG. perspectives of
the SEEPS of Batticaloa
The
average numerical model has a correlative relationship of almost 56% with the
‘present-day’ model (even though there are marked differences), and is a relatively
reasonable description of a sustainable SEEPS of Batticaloa.
Figure
8 visually compares the numerical models for ‘present-day’ and ‘AVG’
Batticaloa. The AVG model while closely following and corresponding to the
trend of the ‘present-day’ model for the ‘social’, ‘environmental’, and
‘religious and cultural’ functionalities, highly deviates in the ‘livelihood’
and ‘political’ functionalities. The highest deflection of (almost) 10% is
observed for the ‘political’ function between these models. Considering this,
it can be argued that the ‘present-day’ model for Batticaloa can be improved
into a more sustainable mode if the ‘political functionality’ is developed in
an optimal and appropriate manner to ensure sustainable interfaces with the
natural environment are maintained in the ‘right’ manner for ensuring
environmentally feasible livelihoods for the survival and sustenance of the
society of Batticaloa.
Conclusion:
This discourse analysis infers
the hidden facts found in literature towards developing conceptual models of
sustainable interfaces for the SEEPS of Batticaloa. This work has combined the sovereign-centric (MM) anthropocentric (MMVV) and eco-centric perspectives (MOB) to visualise how an ideal sustainable
system for describing the SEEPS of Batticaloa can be presented. When it is
compared to how the present-day system of Batticaloa is functioning (Fig 9), it
is seen that ‘governance and management of the system’ should be increased
through the appropriate political machinery.
Figure 9: Schema for the arriving at the Model for understanding
the sustainable-interfaces
In Batticaloa, a
combination of economic and livelihood crises, ecological disasters, and political
activism in the past has resulted in a rearrangement of existing modes and institutions
of environmental regulation. There is a growing interest in establishing regional
forms of urban governance (Popper, 1993; Wallis, 1994) in relation to environmental
regulation. Overall, the ecological management and development attempts have to
be seen as part and parcel of more general current attempts to re-regulate the
urban region (Boudreau & Keil, 2000). It is more urban-centric than rural
or nature-centric which is seen as a threat to sustainable or adaptable
environmental strategies of management and utilization. Therefore, the findings
emphasizes an institutional focus on both systems maintenance functions and lifestyle
functions, a comprehensive management planning leading to policy development,
and representation or public participation in regional decision making
(Bollens, 1997).
The unique qualities of
urban politics and the structure of urban governance particular to the eastern
region inform the need of this analysis especially in the economic
restructuring of the region in a set of strongly interventionist approaches of
the modern day governance. This analysis assumes that environmental regulation
could be an active part of the economic and spatial restructuring of the region.
As a guiding principle, the texts sought to capitalize on the diversity
inherent in the Lagoon in relation to the Batticaloa region, to institute it,
enlarge it and manage it with the ultimate goal of instigating a total hybridization
of the lagoon’s variegated natural and human ecosystems, while reducing those
aspects that threaten our continued humane existence.
The books have emphasized
the creation of mixed and multiple use environments with environment-friendly
systems. Regulation of the societal relationships with nature should not
retreat to the level of pure crisis management only. In the past, as the
findings say, environmental regulation has responded to the political process
driven strong social commitment. The alternative social-ecological discourse
always needs to struggle to keep its head above the water, as envisioned by the
books – the emergence of a discourse of ecological democracy. However, the
researchers are aware of the hidden dangers lurking in over-interpreting the texts.
References:
Bollens, S. A. (1997). Fragments
of regionalism: The limits of Southern California
governance. Journal of Urban Affairs, 19(1), 105-122.
Boudreau, J.-A. & Keil, R.
(2000). Seceding from responsibility? Secession movements in Los Angeles. Unpublished Manuscript.
Canagaratnam, S. O., (1921) Monograph
of the Batticaloa District. H.R. Cottle, Government Printer, Colombo,
Ceylon
Common, M., and Stagl, M.,
(2005) Ecological Economics – An
Introduction. Cambridge
University
Gnanaseelan, J., and, Manobavan, M., (2009a) “A discourse analysis of
the historical socio-environmental perspectives of the Batticaloa region
presented in the work of F. X. C. Nadarajah” - in the Proceedings of the Annual Conference – 2009 of the Sociological
Association of Sri Lanka. University of Colombo. Pp 31.
Gnanaseelan, J., and, Manobavan, M., (2009b) “Tracing development
strategies in the environmental discourse of S.O.C’s historiography: ‘Monograph Of Batticaloa” – a
textual analysis”. In the proceedings of the 2nd Annual Research Sessions of the Vasvuniya Campus of the
University of Jaffna (14th Oct 2009). Pp 39
Hajer, M. (1996). Ecological modernization
as cultural politics. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, &B.Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity:
Towards a new ecology (pp. 246- 268). London
Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature and the
geography of difference. Cambridge , UK
Keil, R., & Graham, J.
(1998). Reasserting nature: Constructing urban environments after Fordism. In
N. Castree&B. Braun (Eds.), Nature at the millenium: Remaking reality at the end
of the twentieth century (pp. 100-125). London
Lovelock, J. E., (1995) The Ages
of Gaia: A Biogeography of Our Living Earth. Cambridge University
Mandru (1996) Master Plan for the Batticaloa Lagoon.
Workshop Document.
Popper, F. (1993, September/October).
Rethinking regional planning. Society, pp. 46-54.
Richmond, B., (2001) An introduction to systems thinking.
High Performance Systems Inc., USA
Rydin,Y.,&Myerson, G. (1989).
Explaining and interpreting ideological effects: A rhetorical approach to green
belts. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 7,
Shanmuganathan, S., Manobavan, M., and, Fernando, G. W. A. R., (2009)
Analyzing changes in surface-subsurface hydrology in Vavuniya UC limits.
Proceedings of the Sixth-National
Symposium on Geo-Informatics “Geo-Informatics for National development”.
[Dayawansa, N.D.K, De Silva, R.P and, Damegama, S.D.P.J (Eds.)] ISBN
955-130-812-4 (pp 63-74)
Shanmugaretnam, N., (1995) The
need for and steps towards a master plan for suitable utilization of the Batticaloa
lagoon. Report to NORAD.
Townsend, C. R., Harper, J.
L., and Begon, M., (2000) Essentials of
Ecology. Blackwell Science., USA
Wallis, A. D. (1994). The third
wave: Current trends in regional governance. National Civic Review, 83, 290-310.
[1] Lecturer in English, English
Language Teaching Unit, Vavuniya Campus, University of Jaffna [e-mail: jeya86@hotmail.com]
[2] Senior Lecturer in
Environmental Science, Faculty of Applied science, Vavuniya Campus, University of Jaffna
[e-mail: m4n0b4v4n@gmail..com]
No comments:
Post a Comment