Hemantha Withanage

Durban Package serves Corporate interests

2011-12-11T16:44:00.001+05:30

After two weeks of painful process “Durbanpackage” was delivered by the COP 17 at 5 am in the 11^th December 2011.Last 48 hours of the negotiations was non transparent similar to Copenhagen andCancun climate negotiations. Many national delegations were not inside some negotiationswhich were happen in the green rooms. Many decisions have been rushed throughin the last minute. Many negotiators were not in the room due to the extensionof the COP 17 for an extra day. While many spectators and the civil societystill believed the UN multilateral process, it was evident that multilaralismsis not functioning in the UN system.

The so called “Durban Package”has come to a number of controversial decisions around many of the major issueswritten in the Cancun Agreements, yet many of the elements have been postponed.Countries such as Russia was not sure what was just signed onto, as many of thefinal decisions involving relatively new texts were rushed through.

India played a major role inbringing equity and Common but differentiated responsibility in to the next commitmentperiod of the Kyoto protocol but lost in the last minute. Final plenarydiscussions on both the Kyoto Protocol and Long Term Cooperative Action were noisydue to the disagreements on the disputed texts forwarded to the main COPplenary despite objections.

Despite the disagreements, parties were successful in agreeingto a 2^nd commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol, which is rather weakand unambitious. Yet, it does not include major polluters such as US, Canada,Japan etc. It was decided that quantifiable emission reductions targets to bedecided in May 2012, which will be “an agreed outcome with legal force”. Secondcommitment period under the Kyoto Protocol shall begin on 1 January 2013 andend either on 31 December 2017 or 31 December 2020. However due to the lack ofambition in emission reduction targets the KP second commitment period, it willcover less than 15% of global emissions. According to the CMP decision “the aggregate emissions ofgreenhouse gases by Parties included in Annex I are reduced by at least 25-40per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and a review to be concluded by 2015.

Many countries felt that unlessambition is increased, KP second commitment period could potentially lock theworld onto a pathway of dangerous climate change to 3-3.5 degrees, as opposedto the 2 degrees currently aimed.

One of the serious problems underthe KP second commitment period is with monitoring and reducing greenhouse gasemissions from Land Use and Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), which is acritical structure under the Kyoto Protocol. As it was discussed the LULUCFloopholes in forest management would allow developed countries to increasetheir emissions by up to 6 gigatonnes by 2020.

One of the most contentious issues in COP 17 is theestablishment of the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The private window of the GCFwas heavily criticized by the civil society and by Venezuela. The Fund however was approved without fundsas an empty shell. The World Bank will remain as the interim trustee, but and independentboard will be formed by March 2012. However, Fund is suppose to producesafeguard, disclosure and accountability mechanisms. The Durban package invitesParties, to submit to the Board expressions of interest for hosting theGreen Climate Fund by 15 April 2012. The independent nature of the GCF istherefore uncertain at this stage. Among other disappointment the programme onNational Adaptation Plans decision has been postponed until COP18.

The Durban Package hasn’tdelivered much on the need for immediate action and ambitions to cut the GHG emissionsin time. While developing country negotiators were struggling to keep the multilateralprocess, rich countries, had green room discussions to influence selected countriesand groupings with bilateral financial packages.

Following the Copenhagen andCancun processes, once again the people been let down by the governments in Durban. US, EUand developed nations have won by allowing the polluters to profit from theclimate crisis. Aspointed out by Sarah Jayne Climate Coordinator of the Friends of the Earth International“It is clear in whose interests this deal has beenadvanced, and it isn’t the 99% of people around the world. The noise ofcorporate polluters has drowned out the voices of ordinary people in the earsof our leaders”.

Don't Kill Africa

2011-12-10T14:03:00.001+05:30

Hundreds of climate activists form Friends of the Earth International, Greenpeace, 350.org and many other civil society movement protested inside the COP 17 venue in Durban for delaying actions and against killing Kyoto Protocol. They sung

Shosholoza

Ku lezontaba

Stand strong, stand strong for Africa

Wen u ya baleka

Ku lezontaba

Stand strong, we support Africa..............

Environmental Minister from Maldives join the activists and demanded no kiling of Kyoto Protocol.

Thousands of people rally demanding climate justice

2011-12-10T13:52:00.001+05:30

Over 10,000 people join the rally on the 3rd December 2011 for demanding climate justice for the people in the world. Centre for Environmental Jutice/ Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka join the rally together with Friends of the Earth International and others. Thousands of the protesters demanded to LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE NOT THE POLLUTERS. They demanded no corporate window in the proposed Global Climate Fund, No Carbon Markets, No REDD.

Coal in the hole; Oil in the Soil; Tar sand in the land- but Nuclear unclear-

2011-12-03T03:08:00.001+05:30

Coaland oil are the main fossil fuels responsible for the most Green House Gasemissions. Rich nations burn most of these fuels and responsible for emittingCO2 in to the atmosphere. Oilwatch International demand keep “oil in the soil”and “coal in the hole” and “tar sand in the land”. This solution is simple.What are the alternatives? Earth receives enough solar energy and wind power ifthe world needs to harness them.

Yetmost developed countries plan to build more and more nuclear power. SouthAfrica Government planning to spend 1 trilling Rand for building nuclear powerplants. India, Russia, Malaysia are some other countries to build nuclearpower. Sri Lanka is also planning to follow the same path.

Germanyis the only country to abandon all nuclear power stations. All remainingnuclear power stations should be closed by 2020. Will rest of the world followGermany?

Greedy Corporate Fund or Green Climate Fund

2011-12-03T02:16:00.001+05:30

GreenClimate Fund was one of the hopes of the developing countries during the lasttwo climate negotiations. It was agreed in COP 16 held in Cancun and had seriesof negotiations to shape it. However, two questions remain unresolved. Itsinterim Trustee the World Bank can become the permanent Trustees and there areno provisions to stop that. It also has created a private window which willbenefit the greedy corporations. As civil society pointed out both corporationsand the World Bank have no rights to engage in a green climate fund.

Inmost current examples Bankers, Fund managers, companies and the consultants arethe beneficiaries of these public funds and not the poor communities or thedeveloping country governments.

Severaldeveloped countries including UK are threatening to turn the Green Climate Fundinto a Greedy Corporate Fund that would serve the interests of the corporateand financial sectors, instead of financing activities to save the planet andprotect the poor in developing countries.

Let the Fund be green and not to serve the corporategreedy.

COP and COPs

2011-12-03T01:49:00.001+05:30

A police constable guarding our hotel in the city ofDurban in South Africa where COP 17 is happening told me that local people herewondering whether this is an event organised by them. As you know COP is anacronym for (Police) constables. He asked me what is happening inside theInternational Convention Centre (ICC) where the world governments are gatheringto discuss the future of the climate on the Earth. He told me that local peopledon’t understand how to react to the climate problem and if they were told theycould have done something that would help reduce climate change.

Sunday night downpour killed 13 people in the area of Durban. The samecyclone killed 11 people in Sri Lanka and reported many fishermen are missing.Sri Lankan authorities admitted that they failed to inform the people about theCyclone on Sunday. This is the story across the world. More cyclones anddroughts are common in the World. According to the IPCC experts it is virtuallycertain that on a global scale hot days become even hotter and occur moreoften. For the high emissions scenario, it is likely that the frequency of hotdays will increase by a factor of 10 in most regions of the world. Likewise,heavy precipitation will occur more often, and the wind speed of tropicalcyclones will increase while their number will likely remain constant ordecrease.

Pablo Solon, former chief negotiator of Bolivia said “In Cancun, the developed countries listed theirgreenhouse gas emission reduction pledges for the 2012-2020 periods. The UnitedStates and Canada said they would reduce emissions by 3% based on 1990 levels,the European Union between 20% and 30%, Japan 25%, and Russia from 15% to 25%.Adding up all the reduction pledges of the developed countries, the total reductionin emissions by 2020 would be 13-17%, based on 1990 levels. However, Kyototargets expect to reduce GHG emission by 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. Thecurrent pledged are far behind this expectations and it will increase thetemperature 5-8 degrees Celsius. Are we ready for this?

It is clear that United State want to kill Kyoto protocol. They are notsignatory to it. Russia, Canada and Japan declare that they will never agree toa second commitment of period of the Kyoto Protocol. Will the Kyoto protocoldie in Durban?

It is clear that the countries are not going to agree on the earth climatefuture in Durban. However, South African Government is trying hard to produce a“Durban mandate” as a result of the ongoing negotiations. The “mandate” isnothing else other than agreeing on the EU position. TheEU publicly supports a second commitment period as it believes that a singlelegally-binding instrument would be the best while that it should be the lastone before convergence between the Kyoto Protocol and Convention outcomes, andthat in any case it should last no longer than 2020. So hopefully Kyoto willsurvive although it is in great danger in Durban.

Other than the Kyotoprotocol is being the only legally binding treaty, it has provision to cover the principle of “historical responsibility” and the principle of “common butdifferentiated responsibility. It is in the opinion of many in the climatejustice movement that the world is no longer going to have these principles inany future agreement. Saving Kyoto Protocol therefore is the responsibility ofthe developing countries.

Many Africancountries and small Island states are trying hard to save it. G77 and China is alsotrying its best to stop wrecking the Kyoto ship in Durban harbour. Yet, is notan easy task. Many smaller countries including Sri Lanka has no voice in theclimate summits. Unfortunately as one of the most vulnerable island nation, wehaven’t played our role in the climate negotiations.

Developing countries should be committed to direct the UNFCC negotiations in line withthe International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations of greenhousegas emissions reduction for developed countries (including the EU) of at least-25 to -40% based on 1990 levels by 2020, and -80 to -95% by 2050 to avoid anincrease in global temperature of more than 2°C by 2100. However, division inAfrican, Asian and other developing country groupings may decide the survivalof the vulnerable communities due to climate change.

Duty of the COP (Constables) is to secure the people. Can COP 17 secure allof us living on the earth?

Arsenic in Rice

2011-07-10T21:56:00.003+05:30

Is this the cause for Chronic Kidney Disease in Rajarata?

It is wrong to say that there is no Arsenic [As] in Rice. The studies shows inorganic arsenic and its related organic compounds are available in various items and sources in many countries. Prof. Meharg’s study suggests that rice from the US, France, Italy and Bangladesh has the highest levels of inorganic arsenic tested, with about 30 per cent of American long grain rice samples found to contain levels above the Chinese strict standards. He had suggested that rice from India and Egypt had the lowest levels; with basmati rice is the best type. While Indian, Pakistani, Nepalese, Chinese, Egyptian, Thai suppose to be safer, he suggest avoiding American, Italian, French and Bangladesh rice.
(http://www.foodsmatter.com/allergy_intolerance/cow_milk_all_management/articles/rice_arsenic_1_03.10.html)

It is not a surprise to me when Prof. Nalin de Silva, Dr. Channa Jayasumana and other researchers found Arsenic in Sri Lankan Rice. They are not the first research team to find Arsenic in Sri Lankan rice. But the question is how the Minister of Agriculture, ITI and the other agencies assure that there is no Arsenic in Sri Lankan rice. Whatever, the controversy once again shows the inadequate and low standard testing facilities in Sri Lanka are a great danger to the health and environment.

The important question is what the primary source of arsenic in rice? One possible explanation could be natural sources. Other source is undoubtedly the industrial products such as pesticides, fungicides animal growth-promoters, preservatives in wooden timbers etc. Therefore, I do not wish to ignore the idea that pesticide is a possible source for Arsenic in rice. But one cannot conclude unless without adequate research assessing all possible causes.

Yet, is this the cause for Chronic Renal Disease unidentified etiology (CKDue)? Some researchers say “No”. Why the Kelaniya and Rajarata research team jump to the conclusion that Arsenic [As] in the pesticides when converted to Calcium Arsenate [Ca3(AsO4)2] with the hard water causes the Kidney disease. They say it is not only rice, but when they consume contaminated rice and hard water (with Calcium Carbonate [CaCO3]) it causes the problem. While the chemistry is correct, is this adequate to prove Arsenic is the reason for the Chronic Renal Failure? If Calcium Arsenate is the problem, why the patients don’t show similar symptoms to the Arsenic contamination in Bangladesh. Their skin shows brown patches and skin cracks but this is not the case in Sri Lanka.

However, as a result Sri Lanka Customs become proactive and already found nine pesticides with Arsenic. Sri Lanka does not allow importation of Arsenic pesticides since 2001. Unfortunately we have learned that Registrar of Pesticides is going to make new specification with a permissible Arsenic level and release the pesticide containers. I will not surprise if this happens. The corporations are very powerful. Whether Arsenic is the missing link to Renal deceases in North Central province or not, importation of pesticides with Arsenic is a wrong act. All citizens have the duty to fight against this.

Let Us live- Don’t Poison us

2011-07-10T01:35:00.003+05:30

This is the campaign we launched in July 2011. It is not a new theme. We have been fighting against the Agrochemicals for over 3 decades. We are much aware of the 12 POPs which include 6 pesticides. However, all pesticides, weedicides and fungicides are harmful to the human, other living being and to the ecosystems.

Immediate reason for revamping the Pesticide campaign is the recent controversy on Arsenic in Pesticides. Some researchers from the Universities of Kelaniya and Rajarata claims that they found Arsenic in Pesticides and they believe that is the reason for the unidentified kidney disease in the North Central Province of Sri Lanka. This disease has killed more than 20,000 people already and another 20000 people are suffering from the disease at the moment.

However other researchers say the reason is not the Arsenic in Pesticides but Cadmium in Fertilizer. Others claim it is high Fluoride levels in water. Some others say it is due to the Cyanotoxin which is a result of Cyano-algae found in some reservoirs.

“We do not wish to limit the campaign against pesticide just because it has Arsenic. Pesticide includes Mercury, Cadmium and other heavy metals as well. However the active ingredient itself is highly poisonous” says Hemantha Withanage, Executive Director of the Centre for Environmental Justice/ Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka.

The open Forum held on the 7th July 2011 was organized by the Centre for Environmental Justice, Vikalpanie, Sri Lanka Soba Samuhikaya, MONLAR, New Era, Swarnahansa Padanama, Buddhist Actions on the Nature and number of other organizations. Over 200 farmers, CSO members , environmentalists, Academics and many other professionals joined the event.

We Demand
• complete ban of all harmful agrochemicals
• support organic farming
• ensure right to live and right to health for the people in Rajarata and nearby areas
• bring strict regulations to control all agrochemicals
• stop distribution of low quality fertilizer and
• ensure food and water safety.

CEJ celebrated World Environment Day 2011

2011-06-10T23:54:00.000+05:30

Centre for Environmental Justice/ Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka celebrated World Environment Day 2011 in Dehiattakandiya a remote town near Ampara in the Eastern Province. The Event was co -organised by Dehiattakandiya Divisional Secretariat and the social service organisations in the area.

Over 5000 visitors from the different locations in the Eastern Province visited the environment day exhibition held on the 6th june 2011. Center for Environmental justice (CEJ/Friends of Earth (FOE) Sri Lanka and the Dehiattakandiya Division Secretariat have organized an essay completion, art competition and a debate on the themes related to forest protection observing the world environment day. More than 30stalls in the Environment Day exhibition at the Mahaweli ground in Dehiatakandia near Mahiyanganaya exhibited the traditional farming equipments, local seeds, paddy varieties and more.

The UNEP theme for the World Environment Day in 2011 is “Forests: Nature at your service” in complementary to the UN year of Forest which is celebrating in this year. Forest is the home for millions of species. It cleans air and conserves water. It provides food, seeds, timber and many other natural and human needs.

Uma Oya EIA decision- A lost opportunity

2011-05-06T08:23:00.004+05:30

Hemantha Withanage
1st May, 2011

I heard that the Uma Oya project has been approved by the authorities on 12th April 2011. The project is a river diversion. It is controversial more than the Upper Kotmale. Yet there is no debate similar to Upper Kothmale.

There is no doubt that the Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) law is not the holy Bible, but a tool for development. If one does a correct EIA, developer can reduce the costs, negative impacts while maximize social and economical benefits. Unfortunately in Sri Lanka, the EIA has been looked as a legal tool only. It has been used to stop the project but not to improve them except in very few cases. This is a serious drawback of the current EIA process. This has lead the political leaders and the bureaucrats undermine the EIA and see it as a negative development tool. Thus, many development projects in Sri Lanka do not follow the EIA process anymore. But the EIA for the Uma Oya Hydropower project was published in Ceylon Daily News of 27th December 2010, seeking public comments.

Uma Oya is a river flows down from the central hills to join the Mahaweli River. It passes through Welimada in the Uva province providing water to large extent of rice fields and other agricultural lands. Under the Uma Oya Hydropower project water will be diverted to Kirindi Oya basin which will take water to Hambantota through a more than 19 km long underground tunnel across mountains in Bandarawela by creating a dam at Puhulpola (in Welimada) and a reservoir in Diaraba. The project cost of headwork is USD 529,059,197 which is equivalent to SLR 60,841,807,770. In brief, 85% of the project cost is provided by a loan from Export Development Bank of Iran and the rest 15% is supplied by the Government of Sri Lanka.

According to the EIA, the objective of the project is to divert water to Hambantota development. The EIA states that, “……..Under this initiative, an International Airport, a Harbour and an Oil Refinery have been taken up for development. These mega projects and the urban and industrial development activities that are expected to take place as a result would need considerable quantities of water in addition to the irrigation and domestic water demands of the region. This project initiative is focused on these requirements”.

But when analyzed the predicted benefits of the project, increased yield of water is only 2% and cultivation of other crops in new areas is 11% of the total benefits of the project. 84% of the benefits are from energy generation. But that aspect has not well covered by the EIA. If energy has recognized as main benefit, this may achieve without trans-basin diversion and many other structures of the project which would result major negative environmental and social impacts in the Uma Oya basin.

Cost benefit analysis

An environmental cost-benefit analysis of a proposed project is essential for decision-makers to determine whether the potential benefits of a proposed project outweigh the project’s environmental costs. An environmental cost-benefit analysis is even more essential for a project of this nature, where the Government of Sri Lanka is planning to borrow several hundred million dollars from a foreign government, and will be obliged to repay the loan even if the project’s benefits do not outweigh the project’s environment costs.

A poor decision will bind the Government of Sri Lanka, and its taxpayers and citizens, to repayment a loan for a project that is also damaging to the environment.

Unfortunately, the environmental cost-benefit analysis presented in the EIA is too deeply flawed to serve as a basis for decision-makers in Sri Lanka to make this determination.

Chapter 6 of the EIA presents a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed Uma Oya Multipurpose Development Project in which the benefits of the project are presented in the following headings and in the following amounts:

As is readily apparent, the benefit of energy generation is alleged predominant benefit of the project, amounting to more than 84% of the project’s total alleged benefits of $221 million per year.

However, the EIA grossly overstates the value of the project’s energy yield. In arriving at a value of nearly $187 million per year, the EIA determined the “cost saved in construction and operation of the cheapest alternative facility that could provide power supply of equivalent quality and quantity to the intended beneficiaries” (Page 284).

Environmental costs

Unfortunately the EIA states that “Certain costs and benefits have not been included in the analysis due to unavailability of methodologies and lack of data.” This includes Impacts on flora and fauna, geological impacts, soil erosion, noise pollution, etc, during the construction stage, River pollution and its long term cumulative impacts on aquatic flora, fauna and humans, clearing of forest areas and damages to ecosystems and functions performed by such ecosystems, including fragmentation, impacts on humans forced into involuntary resettlement, Impacts on wildlife, including endangered elephants and other rare/endemic species, Impacts on aquatic fauna, including anadromous and migratory fish species, Impacts on sites of historical, cultural and religious significance. It is highly erroneous to say that these methodologies ate not available. By not including values for these impacts of the proposed project, the EIA does not contain a true environmental cost-benefit analysis of the proposed project.

If the costs of any of these impacts, either individually or separately, are significant, then the project could be a financial as well as an environmental tragedy. For example, if the project were to lead to the extinction of Sri Lanka’s remaining elephant population, would the production of an additional 231 GW-hr of electricity offset the cost of this tragic result?

Therefore, we consider that the environmental costs of the above are very significant aspects which are totally missed in this proposed EIA and therefore developing an Environmental Impact Assessment fades away.

Fauna

The proposed EIA repeatedly stated the serious impacts to the biodiversity specially the fauna. The project would cause substantial impacts to aquatic life, especially through fragmentation of habitat. The EIA, then, recognize the risk of extinction for migratory species. Among the migratory species who live in the area there are Garra ceylonensis and Garra ceylonensis phillipsi. Both endemic species can run to extinction due to the project . But the impact of the fragmentation of habitats will affect all the species and also the other indigenous species of the area Puntius bimaculatus.

In Section 5.4.7 of Management Actions to Mitigate Impact on Aquatic Inhabitants, it states that “However, these species are available in the other undisturbed tributaries of the country. Therefore, no mitigation is recommended as the fish ladders are very expensive and therefore not practical for this project”.

The EIA categorizes the impact of the project on fauna by stating: “Moderate impact on the animals living associated with Victoria-Randenigala-Rantambe Sanctuary is anticipated. This is due to the diversion of Uma Oya water away from it normal path where this Sanctuary is located. Animals living there can face water scarcity problems especially elephants that are ranging downstream areas of Uma Oya. Similarly other activities that take away wildlife habitats located close proximity to any form of reserve will have an impact on species that are having larger home ranges covering outside areas.”

Especially, the EIA recognize an impact on reaming bears. Sri Lankan Sloth Bear is a subspecies of the Sloth Bear who live in Sri Lanka and who is considered Critically Endangered and its population is considered in decrease by the IUCN. However the EIA states: “Last reaming Bear habitats close proximity to Bogahapttiya area and Slender Loris habitats are also affected.”

The EIA also recognize a strong impact on elephants. Of course there is a current debate whether Sri Lanka has too many elephants that cannot be sustained. The EIA of the Uma Oya project clearly states: “The Uma Oya development project has significant impact on elephants” and “Nearly more than 1500 elephants inhabit the area and majority will be affected covering Hambantota and Moneragala Districts.” According to the recent statistics, this is nearly half of the total elephant population of the country.

Chapter 5.4.4 of the EIA report described the proposed mitigatory measures to minimize human elephant conflict such as extension of Lunugamwehera NP, Yala Block IV, and Manage Elephant Range etc. In the monitoring plan none of the measures have defined for monitoring. Recent incidents clearly revel that relevant authorities fail to translocate the displaced elephants, therefore the mentioned mitigatory measures could not be predicted.

Resettlement

The EIA states the necessity of permanently relocating a total amount of 202 households. Moreover the agricultural lands of 197 families will be acquired for the project and the livelihood of those families will be disrupted. Although in Chapter 5.1.4 states that “Agricultural land holders who lost their lands will be entitled to receive lands in downstream area”, the locations and the distance from households have not mentioned.

Also it states that, around 38% of affected people are farmers, specially vegetable and potatoes which cannot be continued in the proposed resettle areas and they have to shift to a totally different employment of tea. Although 1 acre of land is provided, “it is doubtful” whether they would be able to adapt to the new life.

However, above findings show that the recommendations given in the EIA are not based on the true cost and benefits. It shows that energy benefits have overstated and the environmental cost has underestimated. The recommendations also not based on the adequately considered alternatives and the environmental impacts. I believe the government of Sri Lanka has lost the opportunity to benefit from the EIA process in the case of Uma Oya Diversion.

Longest toilet Queue

2011-04-05T00:01:00.003+05:30

Just two days before the fourth South Asian Conference on Sanitation in Sri Lanka (SACOSAN IV, 4-7 April 2011) a coalition of leading civil society groups and international organizations from across South Asia came together to urge their governments to take real steps in addressing life-changing sanitation and hygiene issues. Symbolizing the lack of toilets the representatives joined the longest toilet queue. Centre for Environmental Justice/ Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka was the local host for the event.

How to achieve better sanitation in Sri Lanka?

2011-03-30T22:50:00.003+05:30

2.6 billion People worldwide still do not have access to proper toilet facilities. 1.2 billion People continue open defecation. About 737 million people in the South Asia region still practice open defecation. In Sri Lanka approximately 200,000 people still practice open defecation. In Sri Lanka hundreds of schools do not have proper and adequate toilets including the western province. It was reported that 17 schools in the North Central province doesn’t have a single toilet. Girl students and female teachers especially suffer from this situation. In most cities, public places such as railway stations, bus stands, long distant bus stops have very dirty toilets. Many toilets build in the dry zone are not in operation due to lack of water. They have converted the toilets into an animal shelter. Most plantation workers and families share only one or two toilets for many lines houses. More shockingly, number of tsunami settlements has over flowing toilet pits due to the bad design. Many public toilets release excreta into the lagoons, canal and rivers. These are just few issues highlighted during the preparation of the public perspectives study conducted by the Centre for Environmental Justice in the last few months. The United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) aims at achieving a 50% reduction in the number of people without “proper sanitation by 2015”. Further, the year 2008 was declared the ‘International Year of Sanitation’ by the UN General Assembly in 2006 because progress by governments to achieve the MDG goals was so slow. South Asian Conference on Sanitation is an initiative to mobilize achieving MDGs and monitoring its progress. The Fourth South Asia Conference on Sanitation (SACOSAN) IV will be held in 4-7th April 2011. The previous SACOSAN conferences we held in Islamabad, Dhaka and Delhi in 2003, 2006 and 2008 respectively. Third SACOSAN produced the Delhi Declaration and the Road Map to achieve its targets. One of the main objectives of the Road Map was to enable countries to identify gaps and issues, and record the lessons learnt from past experiences. The ROAD MAP identified five factors that each country needs to plan and fulfill to achieve the MDG targets for sanitation by 2015. These are (i) country commitment, (ii) enabling policies, (iii) effective and accountable institutions, (iv) financing and (v) monitoring and sustaining change”. It is expected that participating countries will prepare and share information and knowledge based on these during SACOSAN IV and work towards strategies for the future. Civil Society also plays key role in achieving sanitation target. According to the survey conducted by CEJ approximately 58% of the toilets have been directly provided by the CSOs in Sri Lanka. They engage in onsite sanitations in the rural and Estate sector. They promote eco sanitation and school sanitation too. CSOs play a major role in organizing SACOSAN IV. In planning for this event WaterAid, Freshwater Action Network South Asia (FANSA) and Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) has embarked upon a programme to carry out research in South Asian countries through partner CSOs and synthesize the results to develop a “Peoples’ Perspective” for the region. The research aims at collecting information at the grass roots on people’s ideas and views on how to achieve better sanitation, the success and/or failure of sanitation projects, who will be involved in it and what is the course of action for implementation. It is in the light of this background that the Sri Lanka report has been prepared. As a result of the survey conducted by the Centre for Environmental Justice it was found many obstacles for achieving sanitation targets in Sri Lanka. The following are the recommendations made based on the same. Carryout awareness and education programmes on sanitation and hygiene: Awareness and education programmes on sanitation needs to be carried out along with the implementation of sanitation projects for (i) schools, (ii) estate communities, (iii) household affected by Tsunami and (iv) other beneficiaries of such projects. These programmes should cover a number of aspects including the following: • The correct use of a toilet • The manner and methods of disposing of sanitary towels • The cultivation of good toilet habits • Health infections that can be caused by the use of unclean toilets • Health problems that can arise due to non-urination and/or defecation for long periods • The proper maintenance and cleaning of toilets • Diseases that can be caught and spread through OD, unhygienic sanitation conditions and lack of personal cleanliness Awareness creation of the general public is also essential in relation to; • The responsibility and ethics of using public toilets • Health problems caused by the use of unclean toilets • Health problems arising from non-urination and/or defecation when required • Smoking and other undesirable practices such as graphity in public toilets Sanitation projects must be well planned and designed: To achieve greater success sanitation projects must be well planned and designed taking a number of aspects into account - such as soil and environmental conditions, availability of water and appropriate technology - prior to implementation. Ensure supervision and monitoring: Supervision and monitoring throughout the project cycle is an absolute requirement. Post project support and maintenance in terms of services, advise and funds particularly for the poor is also desirable. Obtain community participation from the beginning: Obtaining community participation from the beginning to end of a project is an absolute necessity. Further, involving the community in construction and maintenance of sanitation projects is important. Urgent attention to be given to the Estate sector: Special and urgent attention must be given to the sanitation and water requirements of the communities in the Estate sector both in terms of funding and education. The government and Estate companies should take the main responsibility in this effort. Fresh evaluation of Tsunami areas required: Re-visiting the Tsunami areas and carrying out an appraisal of the status of existing sanitation projects, and embarking on a course of action to address the problems is essential. In fact, periodic reassessment is recommended. This is particularly so as the objective of sanitation projects soon after the Tsunami were to cater to the immediate situation and not the long term sustainability of it. Drawing up and implementing a comprehensive plan for Schools: A comprehensive plan of action is required for improving the sanitation facilities and conditions in schools which either don’t have facilities or have problems with existing ones. As a practice separate toilets must be maintained for males and females in relation to both students and teachers. The government should take a lead role with the support of parents, teachers, student and past pupils. CSOs can also play a vital role as was the case in the Southern Province where all school toilets in the sample were built by them. Make an assessment and action plan for areas which have no sanitation facilities: An assessment should be made of areas which don’t have sanitation facilities at all and those which have very poor facilities. Draw-up a plan of action and fund raising strategy to provide sanitation facilities in these areas based on the assessment. Establish transparency and accountability mechanisms for funds: Creating mechanisms for transparency and accountability in the channeling and utilization of funds for sanitation projects is required for good governance and successful projects. Nationally, it could be seen as a pre-requisite for achieving good sanitation in the country. It will lead to minimizing political interference and the wrongful use of funds by the various stakeholders and actors. Make water supply mandatory for sanitation projects: Sanitation projects must be built together with water supply projects for it to be successful. Experience shows that implementing sanitation projects without planning for the supply of water sets the stage for failure. Local Authority and Provincial Council officers and the public must supervise public toilets: In relation to public toilets built by Local Authorities and Provincial Councils both public participation and continued supervision by officers of these agencies vis-à-vis the functioning and maintenance of the system (including the supply of water and electricity) must be ensured. It is noted that the absence of this results in a host of problems including the wastage of funds. Provide individual water taps in public toilets: Providing separate water taps for each toilet will help to keep the public toilets clean. Usually people do not like to use common water tanks and buckets for washing. Placing clean disposal bins in female toilets with instructions for the disposal of sanitary towels is essential. Bins should be operable by foot as women hesitate to open the lids of bins particularly when they are unclean. This results in sanitary towels being thrown on the ground or dumped into flush toilets. Often flush toilets get blocked due to this. Government and CSOs should play a key role in the implementation of projects: It was evident in the study that the CSO’s played a major role in the provision of sanitation and water projects in all provinces. CSOs have been able to operate quite well at the ground level. Hence, it is important for the government to support and engage CSOs in this effort. The government should play a greater role in improving sanitation in the government schools. More attention can also be given to joint ventures with CSOs. Local Authorities and Provincial Councils must introduce solid waste management programmes: The Local Authorities and Provincial Councils with the assistance of CSOs must introduce solid waste management programmes in their respective areas. Solid waste can be turned into a source of income generation. People must be encouraged to separate waste at source. Separated organic waste can be composted while the paper, polythene and glass can be sold for recycling. Carryout awareness and education programmes on solid waste disposal and management: There is an urgent need to conduct awareness and education programmes (with special attention to housewives) in all locations on a number of common issues such as the following: • Composition of solid waste • Environmentally sound methods of solid waste disposal • Health impacts related to various practices of solid waste disposal • The need for waste separation • Composting, re-use and recycling • Establishment of community waste management methods • Working towards zero waste management Sanitation is not just a government business. All the citizens and every agency should pay a vital role in achieving sanitation targets. As a middle income country Sri Lanka cannot continue open defecation and maintain dirty school and public toilets. We hope SACOSA IV will open the eyes of all to achieve sanitation targets early.

A Red sandalwood tree to become a monk

2011-01-21T13:25:00.005+05:30

Red sandalwood tree in the Badulla town ( about 134 km from Colombo city) in the Uva province is more than 400 years old. According to some people this is oldest red sandalwood tree in Asia. This has auctioned by the government authorities for 30 million Rupees. People and the Buddhist monks in the area, ordinate the tree( make a monk) on January 2011 to protect it. The tree now will be treated as a Buddhist monk.

This is the second time in the Sri Lankan history that a tree was converted to a monk. It was first done in a village called Nawalakanda along Matugama Rathnapura Road to protect a “Bulu” (Terminalia bellirica) tree from cutting down for “Kukulu Ganga” Development Project.

Road construction in the Badulla town has cut down many trees already. It is the usual practice of the Road Development Authority (RDA) to cut down trees for road development.

Red sandalwood is famous in Indian cosmetic industry and for religious purposes.

My thoughts on Cancun Accord

2010-12-13T10:17:00.002+05:30

Surprisingly, other than Bolivia no other country opposed to the new Cancun Accord came out of COP 16 negotiations at 3.40 in the morning on 11th December 2010 in the Moon Palace, a Spa and Golf Resort located in Cancun, Mexico far away from the local communities. Bolivia pointed out that this new accord does not provide any mitigation targets and no adequate finance provides for addressing climate crisis which we are facing already. It has set the temperature increase to 2 degrees which will increase 3 degree temperature in the African region. However the African, Asian and Least Developed Countries were not able to negotiate the climate agreement based on the science perhaps due to the high expectations of the financial package. The COP 16 agreed that a 30 billion Dollar short term finance and 100 Billion dollars annually after 2020. But this money is not assured. It will be only mobilised though public and private sources. The trustee will be the Wold Bank who is responsible for climate crisis we face today. In many ways Cancun Accord is nothing more than the Copenhagen Accord II.

G 77 and China, is a block of many large and smaller countries which also include major polluting industrial as well as poorer countries. How can they give one voice? Surprisingly, Venezuela or Cuba did not associate with the views of Bolivia. At the opening of the conference Papua New Guinea argued that no consensus can be achieved in this issue and the decision making process in the UNFCC to be changed to the decision majority. However India argued that consensus can be reached in multilateral negotiations and mentioned the recent decisions taken in the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) held in Nagoya. Therefore the decision making is in the UNFCCC is still based on the consensus. However, the Cancun Accord was adopted with no consensus which is a slap of the face of India. This also question credibility of the UN multilateral process.

Understandably, Bolivia joined the COP 16 negotiations after hosting more than 25,000 people in Cochabamba in April 2010 which established the People’s agreement in Cochabamba. Bolivian President Evo Morales who attended the climate event organised by Via Campasina in the city of Cancun was embraced by the farmers and the civil society. The farmers slept on the concrete floor of the basketball stadium for more than a week while governments negotiate the agreement inside the expensive Moon Palace.

The Bolivian position on the Cancun accord will give much strength to the people’s voice and opportunity for the other governments to think why they are away from people. In most countries people protect the leaders when they do the election campaign. Once they are elected Military protect them from people. However, Evo Morales who attended the farmer’s event was protected by the farmers. I am happy to see that there are leaders who are still protected by the people not by military.

BRAVO NNIMMO!

2010-12-05T03:23:00.007+05:30

I remember I met Nnimmo for the first time in the first Oilwatch International meeting held in Mexico City. I met him second time in Ecuador in 1997. He was arrested on arrival at the Nigeria Airport in Lagos on 26th October 1997. He was detained in the airport for the night and transferred to the Head Office of the SSS in Lagos the next morning.

As he wrote us later, "all through Monday I was subjected to rigorous interrogations. I spent Monday night in their cell. No talk of convenience in the cell! I regained partial freedom at about 8 pm on Tuesday night, I was allowed out of their center, but with all my luggage held hostage. That included my eye glasses, wedding ring, wrist watch and wallet. I was further interrogated on Wednesday and Thursday. Centred on my involvement in the struggle for a better environment in Nigeria. Centred also on my activism in the Oilwatch network. I was finally released yesterday [Friday 31st October 1997]. My luggage was returned to me but my Passport is still being held."

Where is the liberty? Where my freedom? Our freedom?? I have to keep reporting to the SSS and that in itself is dangerous! That's the price to pay for fighting for an environment suitable for mankind. He wrote..

Now Nnimmo is the Chairperson of the Friends of the Earth International, the largest grassroots environmental network. This Monday Nnimmo Bassey will be one of the five recipients of the 2010 Right Livelihood Award. This award is often referred to as the 'Alternative Nobel Prize'.

Nnimmo Bassey, who is also Executive Director of Friends of the Earth Nigeria, was nominated for this award "for revealing the full ecological and human horrors of oil production and for his inspired work to strengthen the environmental movement in Nigeria and globally."

Bravo Nnimmo!

No to World Bank and ADB role in climate finance

2010-12-05T00:17:00.004+05:30

Yesterday( 3rd December 2010) over hunderd people coming from various parts of the world took part in a mobilization in Cancun city, Mexico against giving any role to the World Bank in climate financing. They demand that World Bank, Asian Development Bank and other regional banks should not handle climate finance due to the undemocratic governance structure of these banks and their contribution to the climate crisis by financing fossil fuel based power plants. Civil society demands that future climate finance should be deliverd under a fund managed by the UNFCCC.

Will Japan kill the Kyoto Protocol?

2010-12-02T02:01:00.005+05:30

December 30th Japan announced that it will abandon the Kyoto Protocol. Many climate negotiators felt that this as a threat to the progress needed at the UN climate talks in Cancun.

Kyoto Protocol is the only treaty that could tackle growing greenhouse gas emissions by rich countries. This historic treaty was, ironically, agreed to in Japan, which chaired the third Conference of the Parties under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1997.

According to Yuri Onodera, Friends of the Earth Japan: "Japan's move to drop out of the Kyoto treaty shows a severe lack of recognition of its own historical and moral responsibility. With this position, Japan isolates itself from the rest of the world. Even worse, this step undermines the ongoing talks and is a serious threat to the progress needed here in Cancun."

All rich countries, including Japan, should agree on cutting their emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020, without resorting to carbon offsetting, and commit to this under a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.There will be no excuse if they kill the Kyoto Protocol at this critical moment.

Another Copenhagen?

2010-12-01T03:19:00.002+05:30

Hemantha Withanage

COP16 or climate negotiation was started in Cancun in Mexico with many ambitions by the parties on 29th November. Representative form Venezuela said we have 15 days to save the world. In Copenhagen in 2009 some representatives told that we have 10 days to save the world. But while many countries were in open negotiations, United States sweeps the process by bringing 26 countries to a close door process which resulted the Copenhagen Accord. Later 140 countries signed. I am happy that Sri Lanka is one country that did not associated even with the pressure from the US.

It was told that Mexican Government has invited Heads of the States of the G20 countries to the high level segment of the Cancun negotiations but not others. Civil society believes that it will once again destroy the negotiations. However, it looks most people either in the negotiation rooms or observers have no much hope on Cancun.

Sri Lankan Role in Cancun negotiations

2010-12-01T02:49:00.001+05:30

Hemantha Withanage,
Centre for Environmental Justice/Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka

In 1992, all of the world’s governments pledged their commitment, through an international agreement, to adopt measures to prevent a climate disaster. This is what gave rise to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which almost all of the world’s governments have signed and ratified. Therefore all government have the responsibility – to protect this common good of all humankind, the global climate.

Governments will be participation in the sixteenth time to resolve climate Change related problems. The last several meetings have not moved beyond negotiating over secondary issues and have failed to tackle the climate the problem and agree on the elimination of fossil fuel emissions in the shortest time possible. There are indications that the next meeting in Cancun will follow in these same footsteps.

Nevertheless, the world still has hope that governments will adopt the decisions needed to prevent a climate disaster, and it is prepared to support them. In order for this hope to inspire this support, what is needed are clear signs of a complete change of attitude. In this regard, the main sign would be placing fossil fuels at the centre of the debate. The time has come to put aside discussion of false solutions that have been so eagerly espoused (“carbon sinks”, “avoided deforestation-REDD”, the “Clean Development Mechanism”, “carbon offsets”, etc.) to focus on the real problem: how to move beyond the fossil fuel era as quickly as possible.

We realize that this is an enormous challenge, but is it really too much to ask, when what is at stake is nothing less than the survival of life on earth? The groups gathered in the leadership of the Bolivian Government in October 2010 agreed several steps and made proposals to the United Nations which is also called as Cochabamba agreement.Specific proposals from the Cochabamba Agreement included in the negotiation text are:

• 50% domestic reduction of greenhouse gasses emissions by Annex 1 countries for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol years from 2013 to 2017.
• Stabilize the rise of temperature to 1º C and 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
• Guarantee an equitable distribution of atmospheric space, taking into account the climate debt of emissions by developed countries.
• Full respect for the Human Rights and the inherent rights of indigenous peoples, women, children, migrants, and peasants and other small producers.
• Full recognition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
• Recognition and defense of the Rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony with nature.
• Guarantee the fulfillment of the commitments from the developed countries though the building of an International Court of Climate Justice.
• Rejection of the mechanisms of carbon markets that transfer the responsibility of the reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases from developed countries to developing countries.
• Promotion of measures that change the consumption patterns of the developed countries.
• Promotion of national policies that could improve local markets and food sovereignty instead of supporting global markets and exportation.
• Adoption of necessary measures in all relevant forums to exclude from the protection of the intellectual property rights those technologies to mitigate climate change.
• Developed countries will allocate 6% of their national gross product to actions relevant to Climate Change to repair the ecological debt from the North and use this to adaptation and mitigation measures in the global South.
• Integrated management of forests for mitigation and adaptation, without applying market mechanisms and with the full participation of indigenous peoples and local communities.
• Prohibition of the conversion of natural forest and other valuable ecosystems for plantations, since the monoculture plantations are not forest; Instead, to encourage the protection and conservation of natural forests.
• The management of funds and policies related to climate change must be under the governance of the UNFCCC.

We believe that Sri Lankan delegation should support these demands and push the G77 countries to support the same.

Among the various proposals at the negotiation table Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation (REDD) would be one issue that will be discussed in COP 16. We believe REDD does not give adequate benefits to Sri Lanka as some forest heavy countries are already in the front line. Further, we believe REDD or REDD plus would be harmful to the local communities and their livelihood will be in danger. We believe Sri Lanka be concern about this aspect when negotiating at the COP 16.

Adaptation will be the most important issue that Sri Lanka should have a position and need to focus more to obtain necessary finance and financial mechanism relation to adaptation. Adaptation fund and proposed Climate fund under UNFCC would be worthwhile initiative to support.

The reduction of GHG emission will be the most important for future. Sri Lanka must support reducing emission by cutting down the 50% domestic reduction of greenhouse gasses emissions by Annex 1 countries for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol years from 2013 to 2017.

Don’t Nuke Sri Lanka Please!

2010-10-03T21:31:00.007+05:30

Hemantha Withanage

Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice

Sri Lanka is becoming a power hungry nation. Unnecessary lighting and unsustainable electricity consumption need more and more power generation. Despite the protest against coal power, Sri Lanka is building several coal power station with 3200 MW generation capacity. 1000 MW by the China and another 1000 MW by India are on the way. New Energy Minister (Former Environmental Minister) Champika Ranawaka now wants to become the nuclear champion by building a Nuclear Power plant by 2025. It is pity that Minister Ranawaka who started his environmental carrier as an activist against the coal power has now playing this role to supply power for energy hungry and unsustainable development paradigm.

A year ago, in the time of annual meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency Professor Tissa Vitarana Minister of Science and Technology was somehow become convinced that Nuclear power is the future power option for Sri Lanka. He said that Thorium deposits available in some parts of Sri Lanka can be a source of energy. Minister Ranwaka who attended the 54th annual meeting in this year suddenly becomes vocal on the same plan. It seems now Minister Tissa Vitarana found another Minister to back his idea.

The news appeared in the Daily Mirror of 5th September 2009 reporting that Minister Tissa Vitarana has invited Indian scientists to conduct a feasibility study to search for Thorium deposits in the Southern coastal belt for use as an energy source for nuclear power generation in Sri Lanka with the assistance from the Indian Government. However, Minister Ranawaka is looking for the assistance from the Russian scientist.

There is very much protest to the promotion of nuclear power by the general public in worldwide. The meltdown in Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April 1986 was the world's worst nuclear disaster. The explosion of the nuclear reactor killed at least 32 immediately. However, thousands more have died since 1986 due to related diseases. Over 100,000 people were evacuated from the region following the blast. Radiation is still a problem in the region.

According to Benjamin K. Sovacool that worldwide there have been 99 fatal accidents at nuclear power plants from 1952 to 2009, totaling US$20.5 billion in property damages. Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster and almost two-thirds (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in USA which has access to latest technology.

As we have seen in other countries, nuclear power is a risky and dangerous source of power. It needs pre-processing, maintenance, waste disposal and decommissioning involving very high risks and sensitivity.

One of the foremost facts of nuclear power plants is the construction cost. Recently built nuclear plants in some countries cost more than several billions of US dollars. In the Sri Lankan scenario, this will lead to a big financial risk. Also it takes more than one decade to construct such a plant. Therefore considering the financial constraints and the time involved, a nuclear power plant is not the best solution to meet the present growing demands of energy of the country. According to some economists nuclear power plants involve very high construction costs with low fuel cost. While the cost is from the government, the risk is for the people and benefits go to the construction companies rather than the public.

Thorium deposits exhaust and will not last more than 50-60 years according to the researchers. The problem arising here will be supplying of energy source when deposits are drained. If the material has to be imported (from Russia or elsewhere), the proposed targets will not be achieved and will be another burden on the country’s finances.

The environmental hazards due to mining of Thorium have to be addressed widely. Extraction of radioactive elements, such as Thorium, gives rise to considerable amounts of radioactive waste which cannot be under estimated. The safe disposal and transportation of residues of such plants also have to be given substantial considerations. Also social, economical and environmental measures need to be adopted to prevent possible nuclear disasters. There are many residents living around and working in Indian Uranium mining sites facing death and other health problems.

It is true that the countries who developed Nuclear power should consult the neighbouring nations. India did not follow this agreement when they develop number of nuclear station in the southern tip of India. Any disaster in these plants may also cause risks to Sri Lanka too.

As we have learned, Nuclear power is not carbon neutral. According to some researches, “the nuclear fuel cycle is responsible for emitting 84 to 122 grams of carbon dioxide for every KWh, mostly from mining, plant construction, and plant decommissioning.

Another factor that may be of interest is the issue of liability. As experienced in other countries, nuclear equipment suppliers will expect an immunity clause before providing equipment or services. The clause(s) will either limit liability to a ridiculously low amount and/or immunize private equipment manufacturers, service providers altogether from any liabilities arising from a meltdown or nuclear disaster.

These are few reasons that we must consider before thinking nuclear power in Sri Lanka. It is hard to understand why we go for these risky and unsustainable options when we have sustainable sources such as wind, solar, dendro, small hydro and wave. Hope ministers don’t forget that Energy sovereignty when dealing with energy security.

Photo Credit: http://www.time.com/

Public Toilet, school toilets and sanitation

2010-09-20T23:18:00.004+05:30

Hemantha Withanage,
Centre for Environmental Justice

Public toilets should not be the dirtiest place in your neighbourhood. Yet most public toilets, school toilets, toilets in estates are not clean and adequate. Commuters, school children and urban dwellers seriously suffer from this problem. You can hardly find a clean toilet in Colombo, Kandy and other urban centres. All railway stations, bus stands, even small eateries where long distant buses stops have very dirty, smelly toilets. More than men women suffer most from this problem. Have you ever thought of how women and school girls suffer due to unclean toilets?

Open defecation – the riskiest sanitation practice. Although there are no official figures available, Sri Lanka still has this problem. This practice decline worldwide, with a global decrease from 25% in 1990 to 17% in 2008, representing a decrease of 168 million people practicing open defecation since 1990. However, this practice is still widely spread in South Asia, where an estimated 44% of the population defecates in the open. Globally, 1.2 billion people practice open defecation, two thirds – 778 million –in South Asia.

This is due to the lack of toilets, attitude, perhaps ignorance and lack of awareness. Sri Lanka with very high literacy awareness may not be the case. However, compare to other countries in Asia, Sri Lanka has achieved its sanitations Millennium Development target. Yet lack of toilets is a significant issue in some areas.

Clean Water and Sanitation are two sides of the coin. Clean affordable water is a human right. In South Asia only 81% people have access to clean water. In Sri Lanka 77% people enjoy clean drinking water exceeding the MDG targets.

Rural areas lagging in water and sanitation globally. Seven out of ten people without basic sanitation are rural inhabitants and more than eight out of ten people without access to improved drinking water sources live in rural areas.

A similar disparity is found between the poor and non-poor. Richest are more than twice as likely to use an improved drinking-water source and almost five times more likely to use improved sanitation facilities.

Sanitation is fundamental to personal hygiene and maintaining a clean environment within households for a healthy family. However, with almost 39% of the world’s population or over 2.6 billion people living without improved sanitation facilities, are far from reaching the sanitation MDG target. According to the WHO if the current trend continues unchanged, the international community will miss the 2015 sanitation MDG by almost one billion people.

The Delhi declaration, the outcome of the third South Asian Conference on Sanitation (SACOSAN III) held in 2008, recognizes that access to Sanitation and Safe Drinking Water is a basic right, and accordingly national priority to sanitation is imperative. This also confirms their commitment to achieving National and Millennium Developmental Goals (MDGs) on Sanitation in a time bound manner in all participating countries in South Asia. It asserts that achieving total and sustainable sanitation in all rural and urban communities in their countries is not only possible but also is their esteemed goal.

Millennium development goal have set the targets to halve the population with no sanitation by 2015. Strong political leadership is needed to address this crisis. Countries in the SAARC region established a regional corporation to facilitate efforts to meet the sanitation challenge in the region. The South Asia Conference on Sanitation (SACOSAN) is used as the platform for dialogue and influence to mobilize political will to focus on sanitation.

It was revealed that unhygienic practices, due to lack of sanitation, by the majority of people in the region are a serious public health threat to the quality of life. The main cause of child morbidity in the region under the age of five years is due to water and sanitation related diseases. Diarrhea continues to be the leading cause of child deaths in South Asia and poor sanitation- alongside unsafe drinking water- causes 88% of these deaths according to the World Health Organisation. According to the UNICEF/WHO “at current rate of progress, the 2015 MDG target for sanitation will not be met in South Asia until 2043- 28 years too late.”The 8 countries in the SACOSAN process have determined that programmes for good sanitation and hygiene promotion should be accelerated in order to improve quality of life of people and to reduce child mortality and morbidity.

Sanitation targets cannot be achieved unless there is a great political will and without right attitudinal changes. It’s true that SACOSAN process has influenced member countries to prepare policies and programmes towards meeting sanitation goals. As a result many countries have formulated sanitation policies focusing on sustainable sanitation, increased community subsidies and mobilized more resources for promotion, creating awareness among people and building political will. However, the political will is essential at the local level too.

Right to sanitation is a basic human right. How many Municipalities, Urban Councils Pradeshiya Sabas, school principles, station masters, small eatery owners, and Estate managers have taken this serious? Why not the Public Health Inspectors, Environmental Police keep eye on public toilets, school toilets and estate toilets?

Vehicle emission tests – another scam

2010-06-27T13:34:00.002+05:30

Hemantha Withanage
Centre for Environmental Justice

Things we do with genuine interest can go wrong. When I supported Lawyer Lalanath de Silva to bring a lawsuit on air pollution, it was not the expectation to generate a massive corruption cycle. But the vehicle emission testing mechanism adopted in Sri Lanka has now have created a mass corruption cycle from testing personal to the police.

During the hearing Lalanath De Silva urge the Sri Lanka`s Supreme Court to rule that citizens have a fundamental right to a healthy environment. Sri Lanka`s constitution guarantees a right to life, but Colombo`s air is so polluted that breathing it damages peoples` lungs he said. Lalanath asserts that Sri Lanka`s government — by failing to implement adequate air quality standards — is violating Sri Lankans` right to life.

It is true that well tuned engine save environment, fuel and money. However, the vehicle emission test procedure resulted on the case does not resolve the problems. The vehicles with pollution can be passed with extra charge. My own experience is a bitter story which is true for many drivers. Some old vehicles which come to the emission testing happily leave the place with a pass report. I was wondering how they do it. My vehicle failed four times this year but someone was able to obtain the emission report after paying extra 500 Rs. This cleared my doubt. I checked with many drivers and garage mechanics and several of them have gone through similar experience.

The corruption is the current emission testing procedure is not just part of the corruption culture that exists is many sectors in Sri Lanka. The non implementation of basic agreements, checks and balances that were needed before the implementation of the process are the main reasons.

Corruption in testing centers operated by both companies involve in testing programme is one of the problem. Perhaps most people see those who take bribes and pass the vehicle as their saviors to get rid of the regulation requirement. Most testing staff have no training and experience on handling and understanding the mechanical problems of a vehicle. Mean time garage mechanics don't understand the science of emission testing.

Drivers are running between the garages to the testing place to the spare parts shop blindly. They are eager to pass the vehicle to obtain the Vehicle Revenue License. They blindly listen to the mechanics and the testing people and spend money to cure the vehicle problem. In my experience testing personal doesn’t know which part should be replace or repair when the test failed. One testing place recommended me a name of an expert in the head office who was not able to contact.

Sometime garage mechanics try to make money out of this business. One mechanic suggested me to remove the engine head and clean with the cost of Rs 15,000. Then I took the vehicle to the manufacturer and they tuned the vehicle with new plugs and air filter but failed the emission test again. I found the agent even did not have an emission testing equipments at that time. If the manufacturer cannot handle the problems how can we expect mechanics to do it?

How can one expect the garage mechanics who use the eyes and ears when tuning the engine to understand the Hydrocarbon, Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide levels which are the tests do in the emission testing centres? Meantime testing persons were not able to tell me which part has the problem. Garage mechanic told me they retard the engine and reduce the petrol flow in order to pass the test, however the vehicles cannot run on the road with that fake tuning. So all the vehicles convert back to the original garage tuning in order to drive the vehicle. So this brings the vehicle back to the original pollution status. Does this resolve the vehicle pollution problem of ensure right to life?

Therefore I believe current emission test is a money making machine for many groups and for the government. As someone experienced testing people get bribe to pass the vehicle and police get bribes not to fine those polluting vehicles. I have learned that the Motor Traffic Department itself has earned 10% of the testing charges which has now come to Rs.80 million. They have done nothing to resolve the current problems of the system. Therefore I suggest that this vehicle emission testing should be suspended until testing programme
• produce accredited list of garages and train garage mechanics
• recruit well trained staff to vehicle emission testing centres who knows garage language and technical language
• Establish an advisory service for those vehicle drivers and for the mechanics to explain which part of the vehicle should be replaced or repair and give a sheet of paper with guidelines that garage should follow in order to repair a failed engine.
• develop a mechanism to stop taking bribes
• provide at least a small testing equipment to all the accredited garages

I believe that Motor traffic Department should spend the revenues from the testing charges to train garage mechanics. I also believe the AirMAC and the Motor Traffic Department should organize a monitoring and consultation mechanism to deal with the above issues with the participation of academics and civil society. I far as I know, the above are not new proposals, but the agencies have failed to implement them to date. Failure to do this will be seen as a big racket which justify the vehicle pollution with a piece of paper in hand. Finally, tell me how to tune my vehicle to pass the test in the proper way.

Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead in Paints launched

2010-06-27T13:17:00.002+05:30

Hemantha Withanage and Chamali Liyanage
Centre for Environmental Justice

Lead in paint is a major health problem to both children and the adult population. While eliminating lead in new paint is on the way, lead in legacy paint or old paint coatings in buildings remain a major problem. The World health Organization(WHO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) led “Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead in Paints” was launched in Geneva, in May 2010 considering the gravity of lead in paint problem in the world.

In 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) committed itself to take actions to protect human health from exposure to lead. Paragraph 56 was on lead in gasoline and was implemented an unleaded gasoline was introduced by 2005. However, lead in paint remains a major issue. Paragraph 57 of the Plan of Implementation of the WSSD states:

“Phase out lead in lead-based paints and in other sources of human exposure, work to prevent, in particular, children's exposure to lead and strengthen monitoring and surveillance efforts and the treatment of lead poisoning.”

The International Conference on Chemicals Management at its second session held in Geneva, in May 2009 endorsed the establishment of a global partnership to promote the phase-out of the use of lead in paint as an important contribution to the implementation of paragraph 57 of the Plan of Implementation of the WSSD and to the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management.

According to the WHO and UNEP figures at least 143,000 people die every year due to lead contamination and 600,000 people suffer due to same. Since most countries now have introduced unleaded gasoline, the other major source for lead contamination is lead paint.

Lead paint standards

The paint manufacturers are fast moving towards unleaded paint. Now the standard used in the United States is 90 ppm for Enamel paint. China also use 90 ppm as their standards. Background levels in non-lead paints are between 40 ppm to 5 ppm. There are non lead ingredients now available. The World Health Organization and UNEP have already proposed to limit lead level to 90ppm.

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka is still far behind these standards. As part of the global call against lead in paint, International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) and Toxics Link, India together with ten national organizations carried out a research on Lead in paint in 2009. Centre for Environmental Justice/ Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka, a member of the IPEN are the Sri Lankan collaborators to this research. It was found that out of 33 Sri Lankan paint samples tested from 4 different brands 19 have very high lead levels. Later we tested six samples from the same brands in the ITI, Sri Lanka and proved the high lead levels.

As a response to the call by the Paint Manufacturers Association that our tests were incomplete, we tested another 14 samples and found high lead level in another 10 samples. We have found lead exceeding the acceptable levels such as eg: 137325ppm, 133463ppm, 55237ppm etc. However, we understand that there are a number of unregulated small –time manufacturers who also engage in the business.

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka does not have MANDATORY STANDARDS to date. This will remain a problem since the Consumer Affairs Authority is silent on this issue. However, as a response to the finding of the CEJ, the draft specifications (first Revision- SLS 539:2010 dated 2010-04-30) on enamel paint were made available for public comments last month. Draft standards for Toys and Accessories are now available for public comments until 25 June 2010. Both these standards will be voluntary standards. While the voluntary standards have a moderate value, it does not achieve the purpose of regulating the lead in paint.

Yet, the draft standards are far behind the international standards. The draft only proposed 600ppm standard for lead which is totally inadequate. This is the old standard for many countries. Therefore we strongly suggest that this specification should bring the lead level down to 90 ppm at least as the technology and alternative materials are readily available. According to experts this is achievable.

According to the draft specifications, only Lead and Chromium levels are mandatory and five other metals such as Antimony, Barium, Cadmium, Cobalt and Mercury are optional. Cadmium is a very toxic substance and sometimes used in the manufacture of pigments. Previous amendment No 4 to SLS 539:1981 approved on 2003-02-19 Specification for Enamel paint specifies limits for Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Lead, Mercury, Selenium and Thallium. It is hard to understand the reasons for putting some of them as optional and the complete removal of Arsenic, Selenium and Thallium from this new amendment. We believe that specifications for heavy metals should be made mandatory.

The indicated levels of chromium, antimony, barium, cadmium, cobalt and mercury appear to be way too high. As per our information, in the past, mercury was used in many water-based latex paints as a fungicide to prevent the growth of bacteria in the paint produced in United States. However, Mercury use in interior and exterior latex paint was banned in the United States in 1991. Therefore, we propose elimination of Mercury in both interior and exterior paint under this specification.

According to the Occupational Health Department, many paint workers are vulnerable to high lead contamination. They are subject to lead contamination during wall preparations and painting. According to the new draft the level of lead should be indicated on the label of the container. But it may contain other heavy metals, which are not mandatory, in high levels. This "marking"/ labeling requirement is inadequate There are precedents in other countries, such as United Kingdom, that they show all the levels in the label. Therefore we request that a requirement be included to display the levels of all heavy metals in the label with a statement "Complies with the maximum concentration of Lead, Chromium, Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Cobalt, Selenium, Thallium and Mercury as defined in XXX standard". This will give a warning to consumers when choosing the products and also it will promote manufacturers to avoid such toxic levels.

Paints and especially paint dust are harmful to people. Some developed countries carry instructions on how to prepare the walls and remove legacy paint. We believe that the paint container should display a warning on disturbing old lead paints for surface preparation that they may contaminate soil and interior dust which can result in significant exposures of workers, children, pregnant woman and building occupants. Exposure to lead dust can cause serious illnesses, such as brain damage, especially in children. Pregnant women should avoid exposure completely. There should be a warning to wear an approved respirator to control lead exposure and use of a vacuum and a wet mop in removing and cleaning the surface.

Most countries produce paint with no added lead. We also propose that although this specification suggests a higher limit to total lead, there should also be another specification which says “no added lead”. Since the countries are already going for 90 ppm lead limit and “no added lead” requirements, the Sri Lankan paint manufacturers will be at risk if they produce paint with 600ppm lead to the international market. Therefore, this specification needs to protect them from such risks.

Lead in paint is not only a health and environmental issue but also a social and environmental justice issue too. It is known that some paint manufacturers produce low lead paint for the international markets while producing high level lead paint for the local market. All people should join the Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead in Paints for the sake of your children and own health.

Dambakola Patuna

2010-04-22T21:57:00.003+05:30

I had a rare chance to visit Dambakola Patuna, the place which Sangamitta Therani landed in Sri Lanka with the most sacred Bo tree which is in Anuradhapura today. Sangamitta Therani is the only daughter of King Dharmashoka and the sister of Arhat Mahinda who introduced Buddhism to Sri Lanka. The Bo tree was was brought to Sri lanka during King Devanampiyatissa (306BC-266 BC) and planted in Mahamewna Uyana.

Dambakola Patuna is located about 20 km from Jaffna town and 10 km from Kankasanthurai. Dambakola Patuna is not very far from Keermale water ponds.

Point Pedro

2010-04-22T21:27:00.004+05:30

Point Pedro is a place at north which had no acess to civilians in the past 3 decades. Length of Sri Lanka measure from Dondra point( Devundara Thuduwa)in the Southern Province near Matara to Point Pedro( Peduru Thuduwa) in the Nothern Province near Jaffna. Distance between two points is 432 kilometers.Unlike the sandy coast with strong waves in Dondra, Point Pedro has calm ocean with coral beach. I was fortunate to see the other corner of Sri Lanka first time in my life in April 2010.

Demise of environmentalist Piyal Parakrama

2010-03-08T20:34:00.004+05:30

Among number of environmentalist Piyal was one of the leading person with his charismatic and controversial voice in protecting the environment. The news on his demise on the 3rd March 2010 was a shock to me.

I met Piyal soon after I joined the Environmental Foundation in 1990 as an environmental officer. Piyal was already an environmental campaigner with his background at the Young Zoologist Association. I remember, Dharman Wickramarathne, Sudharman Radaliayagoda, Piyal and myself attended a meeting in Puttalam against shrimp farming in the lagoon in that early days. Since then we have worked together against coal power plants, proposed garbage disposal in Meepe, Upper Kotmale, Kukule Ganga and many other environmental issues. I remember we had some differences on the approach to some issues but it was a common goal that we wanted to achieve.

We have an unfinished environmental struggle. His death will be great loss to the common citizens and the environmental movement which he served with his volunteer activism. He has offered more than he gained from the nature that he belongs and he loved. May you attain Nibbana!

Deadly lead in all house paints available in Sri Lanka

2010-02-13T22:53:00.003+05:30

Hemantha Withanage

Science still does not play its role in protecting people. Among various cases a study found that new household paints sold in Sri Lanka contained large amount of deadly lead. Those decorative paints with Yellow and green color contain very high lead levels. The study conducted by the Toxics Link together with IPEN together with Centre for Environmental Justice found lead in 33 paint samples out of 33 tested (100%). Fifteen paint samples exceeded permitted lead levels for paints in the Sri Lanka. The study also found safer paints with identical colors that did not contain lead.

Among the key findings of the study, 69% samples exceeded the current Sri Lanka lead in paint standard of 600 ppm. The highest sample contained 137,325 ppm lead, 1526 times greater than the US limit and 228 times higher than SLS standards.

Lead causes irreversible nervous system damage and decreased intelligence at extremely low doses. Lead exposure in childhood has been associated with lower vocabulary and grammatical-reasoning scores, increased absenteeism, poorer eye-to-hand coordination, and lower class standing in high school.

The U.S. EPA has determined that lead is a probable human carcinogen. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) Healthy Environments for Children Alliance, “There is no known safe blood lead level but it is known that, as lead exposure increases, the range and severity of symptoms and effects also increases.” One of the largest causes of lead exposure is lead-contaminated dust from decaying paint. Lead ingestion and poisoning typically occurs through hand-to-mouth activity.

Lead threatens a child’s brain development and health. Child lead poisoning should be taken seriously and parents should be aware of possible pathways of exposure including lead paint in one’s home.

The question remains why those authorities who are responsible for regulating those products were unable to play their role.

HopEN[D]hagen

2009-12-20T09:52:00.003+05:30

Climate talks 2009 ended with no legal agreement. Last minute Obama manage to bring several big countries such as India, China, and Brazil, to agree on non transparent accord brought by US. This is a disgusting game of the developed nations. Many nations including Tuvalu opposed the accord.

Undoubtedly Copenhagen has been a failure. Justice has not been done. The actual legally binding agreement was postponed to June 2010.

Climate change is responsible for many disasters today. By delaying action, rich countries have pushed millions of the world’s poorest people to hunger, suffering and loss of life.

A confidential United Nations paper leaked on December 17 predicts that averages temperatures will increase to 3degrees even with the current international pledges are fully implemented. This will mean at least 5 degrees increase in African countries. This is effectively a death sentence for many in some of the world’s most vulnerable countries, including small island states, who had demanded a limit of 1.5 degrees.

Instead of committing to deep cuts in emissions and putting new, public money on the table to help solve the climate crisis, rich countries have bullied developing nations to accept far less. The finance they agreed is only 30 billion upto 2012.

It was very clear that United Nations failed to give climate justice in Copenhagen. They failed due to the wrong and non transparent process adopted by the Danish Government. They also failed due to the text, accords prepared behind the closed doors. It was also failed due to the selection of chairs from friendly nations and by dividing nations further.

The Civil society was most united and successful in preventing world goes into a bad deal. The only real leadership at the conference has come from the hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who’ve come together to demand strong action to prevent climate catastrophe. Their voices are loud and growing. Many people felt that growing climate justice movement is the beginning of change. (Unfortunately Obama failed to bring the CHANGE to climate talks)

Finally, the developed countries did not commit to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% in comparison with 1990 levels by 2020 as expected by us. They also did not acknowledge the climate debt that they owe to developing countries as a result of decades of pollution and overuse of the environmental space. They did not drop false solutions such as Cap and Trade, CDM etc. Thus COP 15 failed to deliver any meaningful solution to the climate catastrophe.

Further, COP 15 was one of the most Carbon intensive conferences. It was reported that estimated 40,500 tons of carbon dioxide was pumped into the atmosphere during the 12-day conference - 90 percent of it from flights. It was reported that Obama joined the event with several hundred staff who were brought in big planes. Nicolas Sarkozy in his special Airbus and Brazilian President Lula de Silva on a presidential jet.

Very few leaders such as environment ministers of the Netherlands and Switzerland took the train.

I believe the carbon footprint of the KlimaForum is also very high although it may be thousand times less compared to the official COP 15.

More money for coffins

2009-12-18T02:50:00.002+05:30

Climate financing is a major discussion in the climate talks in Copenhagen. U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton announced that the U.S. supports the goal of jointly raising $100 billion a year by 2020, mainly for forestry and adaptation. However, transparency of the developing countries will be the deal breaker.

The UN 2009 World Economic and Social Survey estimates that developing countries will require up to $600 billion to transition to a low-carbon growth path and to adapt to the impacts of climate change. The US goal of $100 billion falls far short of what’s needed to secure the safety and well-being of those most affected.

It is not clear how much of the $100 billion should come from public sources and especially from U.S. According to the sources U.S. responsibility is 33.1 percent of the total amount needed for climate finance. Yet US has not accepted the historical responsibility to the climate change yet.

During the last week EU countries only offered 7 billion up to 2012. Angry African countries said that proposed 10 billion US Dollar UN fund is not even adequate to buy the coffins for the Africans.

350 or 550

2009-12-18T02:29:00.002+05:30

A UN analysis leaked today shows that the current level of developing country emission cuts will lead to increase temperature rise over the next century to 3C.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/un-leaked-report-copenhagen-3c

According to the Guardian “A rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger, according to the 2006 Stern economic review of climate change for the UK government - as well as leaving up to 50% of species facing extinction. Even a rise of 2C would lead to sharp decline in tropical crop yields, more flooding and droughts.

No deal?

2009-12-17T17:00:00.002+05:30

The video telecasted during the opening ceremony of the COP 15 and before the world leaders during the high level segment shows a small girl is waiting for the world leaders to protect the world.

You de Boer, Executive president of the UNFCC said “Thousands of young people care about the outcome of this conference. I have received hundreds of paper footprints from children in Germany. I have received 1000 folded paper butterflies from children in Australia. And I have received 350 drawings from children in the United States. They all want their future to be safer. One drawing captures what you as the leaders of the world’s nations need to do particularly well. It is a drawing by 8-year old Sophia Dada.”

Every leader echoes that whole world watching them. Everyone is looking for a fair deal. Where is that deal? The negotiation is now in a deadlock.

In my mind this mess was created by the Danish COP 15 presidency because of her closed door text which was prepared with the selected developing country governments to make a deal. This was the news in the second day of the COP. The delegations and the civil society started distrusting other delegations. The Danish COP presidency Ms. Connie Hedegaard was then replaced by the Danish Prime Minister, Mr. Lars Lokke. But he brought another green room text.

Countries such as China made strong disagreement with the new text. Venezuelan President Hugo Charves was quite angry with the process. This might lead the fair deal to a NO DEAL. While 194 countries are engaged in a two way approaches, which is under the Kyoto Protocol and under the Long term vision as agreed by the Bali Action Plan, the Danish government want the process to end up in Copenhagen.

This no transparent approach is the biggest mess in the COP 15.

COP banned Civil Society

2009-12-17T00:52:00.002+05:30

Today Friends of the Earth members were banned going inside COP 15 meeting. After 4 hour struggle Secretariat agreed to allow 12 members to go in. In protest we all left the COP 15.

CO2penhagen

2009-12-15T20:44:00.002+05:30

It’s catchy. Copenhagen, Hopenhagen now becoming a CO2penhagen.

Soon COP 15 will start the Ministerial meetings. Chair of the LCA session responding to the questions raised by Belarus and number of other countries said that negotiators were not able to agree after a 2 year of negotiations and any change to the new Chair’s text will be too late. Singapore delegations said that the “package” of text provided by the Chair does include individual’s opinion but not the opinion of the group.

According to sources, the German minister the co chair of the Ad-hoc working group said that all developing countries want the Kyoto Protocol to continue. Chair also referred to the individual pledges by Annex 1 Parties which ranged from 16-23% reduction of emissions from 1990 levels by 2020. He proposed that the question for Parties to address on 15 December is whether this target was sufficient or whether the ambition needs to be increased and how this was to be done. He wanted Parties to focus on the aggregate level, range and pledges and ambition in the pledges.

Japan said that if one set of developed countries has to meet commitments under the KP and others do not, it is a problem as the KP covers only 30% of the global greenhouse gases. They want to kill Kyoto Protocol.

Developing countries are now being divided to small island states, REDD countries, Least Developed Countries and rest of developing countries. Every one trying to get a piece of the cake. Developed countries are hunting developing countries for the climate game. It is still unable to see a good outcome.

Police arrests 1,000 protestors

2009-12-13T17:22:00.009+05:30

Around 100,000 took to the streets on Saturday 12 December marchin on the UN conference center in a non-violent demonstration. Reports are that close to 1,000 were arrested in several sweeps.

Their hand were tide and kept on the cold streets( tempreture was below 0 degree) for more than 3 and half hours before taken to the Police Station. Herman, the Spanish translator of the Friends of the Earth Group was among them. He said Copenhagen Citizens asked the Police to "let them go".

They were released arround 11.30 pm after the lawyers intervention. Some say this is a warning for the protestors before the begining of the high level segment next week.

System Change Not Climate Change

2009-12-13T16:48:00.004+05:30

Yesterday (12 December 2009) over 100,000 people got to the streets in Copenhagen demanding system Change Not climate Change. They carried the placards stating
Climate Justice NOW!
Change the Politics not the Climate,
Planet Not Profits
Nature does not Compromise
There is no PLANET B
Bla Bla Bla Act now!
Don't Nuke the Climate!
Greenwash Warning NO False Solutions!
Stop Climate Change Not Refugees!

Flood for Climate Justice

2009-12-13T16:39:00.003+05:30

Yesterday( 12 December 2009) more than 4000 people joined the flood action organised by the Friends of the Earth International and Friends of the Earth Europe and Friends of the Earth Denmark (NOAH) in Copenhagen during the 6th day of the COP 15.

They demanded Climate Justice Now.

Reparations for Climate Debt

2009-12-13T16:30:00.000+05:30

Statement by Climate Justice Now!
Delivered by Hemantha Withanage of Sri Lanka, December 12, 2009

1. Thank you for the opportunity to address this meeting.

2. We are movements gathered under the Climate Justice Now! Network – many from the South, from developing countries. Thousands of our members are here in Copenhagen, joining thousands of other citizens in a historic march towards Bella Center.

3. We are calling for Reparations for Climate Debt, the debt that is owed by northern countries (Annex 1 countries), multinational corporations, and International Financial Institutions to the peoples and countries of the South. This debt is owed by the North for using up more than their fair share of the earth’s capacity to absorb greenhouse gases, and in the process depriving the peoples of the South of their share, thus creating this climate crisis. Yet it is the people of the South who bear the worst effects.

4. What developed countries have put on the table, however, is nothing less than an insult to the dignity of the peoples of the South. It demonstrates complete disrespect for the value of our lives.

5. 2.4 billion Euros a year until 2012! No long term financing! This a mockery. Where are the reparations by developed countries for the damage they have done so far in the developing world?

6. We are not asking for aid or assistance, but for the North to make good on their climate debt. We are their creditors.

7. We do not require – or want - the existing multilateral financial institutions. They are part of the problem and the plunder. Climate finance must be provided in a democratic manner-at every level- through a multilateral fund under the authority of the COP.

8. Finance must be public, not private. It must not involve carbon markets. Such markets are part of the problem, not the solution!

9. We demand nothing less than climate justice now!

“1.5!” “One point five!”

2009-12-11T04:40:00.001+05:30

A group of demonstrator’s entered near the ‘Tyco Brache’ the conference room at 3 pm on the 9th December demanding support for Tuvalu proposal for the Kyoto Protocol. The Conference of Parties (COP) was suspended after the debate between the AOSIS and some countries in G77 and China. Tuvalu proposed to have a separate contact group to discuss their proposal. But some countries including China and India saw this as a proposal to kill Kyoto protocol and make a new legally binding agreement in Copenhagen. Perhaps they are right.

The demonstrations demand “Legally binding text! Legally binding text!” “ 1.5!” “One point five”

The island countries who promote as most vulnerable countries and African nations now demand 1.5 degree temperature increase limit. 2 degree temperature increase in African countries means at least 3 degree increase for them. To bring to 1.5 degree limit the CO2 level should be maintain at least at 350 ppm.

COP 15 Logo

2009-12-10T17:03:00.001+05:30

China yesterday opposed to the COP 15 logo and stated that it does not represent the nature of United Nations Framework of Convention on Climate Change or Kyoto protocol. Chine representative said that this logo looks more fragile, and it does not give a comfortable feeling to engage in the negotiations. They also opposed not allowing there Minister to enter to the COP 15.

Need more photosynthesis

2009-12-08T20:52:00.001+05:30

Polar bear is melting in the middle of the Copenhagen city square. Pandas, trees, have also joined the Copenhagen climate talks. Russia has finally announced 25% emission cuts by 1990 levels. France would be pushing the EU to adopt a target of 30% for the reduction of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, compared to 1990. 10% more emission cuts will be needed for EU to reach the IPCC estimates to keep 350 ppm CO2 limit.

Photosynthesis which we have studied in the very first science classes is in the middle of the debate. Trees were looked as only timber until very recent. But everyone now in love with the leaves with chlorophyll, which convert Carbon Dioxide to Carbohydrate after reacting with water. Countries in Europe have started loving trees in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and elsewhere. Africa, Asia and Latin America will allow the trees to do the photosynthesis if only there are money flows from the developed countries. Although this looks funny, Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation is (REDD). In the second day of the COP 15, many southern countries have urged REDD plus mechanism to put in place. Zambia urged to include carbon stock into the plans.

It will be part of the final deal. Yet there are criticisms that how the REDD will deal with the local people specially people living inside the Forest. The question is whether they will be benefited or it will result displacing them for the sake of forest conservation.

Who will “seal the deal?”

2009-12-08T01:55:00.001+05:30

The most important environmental talk of this century was begun in the Bella Centre in Copenhagen in the capitol of Denmark on 7th December 2009. According to the sources there are more than 30,000 people have got the registration to this land mark conference. Outside the Bella Centre, civil society coming from over 200 countries have also gathered to witness this global deal. They too organise “klimaforum” and bring the voices of the civil society to shape the deal.

Speaking at the Opening Ceremony, Mayor of Copenhagen requested the parties to “seal the deal” The G77 and China, African nations and the least developed countries once again reiterated their commitment to Kyoto Protocol which is the only legally binding agreement. But developed countries want a different deal. There deal will include public and private finances, Carbon market, REDD and other false solutions. They want the developing countries to agree on emission reductions.

The deal will not be easy. There is a rumour that Danish chair is now ready with an alternative text which was prepared behind closed doors. Some believe it might come out in the middle of the dialogue. According to the environmental groups, some developing countries are also part of this close door deal.

Sealing the deal will be done only by the political leaders at the high level segment of the COP 15. Climate talks over the next two weeks will prove whether the political leaders have the guts to take a decision to reverse the climate catastrophe.

Can We expect Climate Justice in Copenhagen?

2009-11-28T18:24:00.006+05:30

Hemantha Withanage
Executive Director/ Senior Environmental Scientist
Centre for Environmental Justice

Climate change is very high in the global political agenda at the moment. 15th Conference of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol will begin on December 7th, 2009 in Copenhagen. COP 15 will be a very crucial event in the history of human race. However, we cannot have much hope since the developed countries so far very hesitant to accept their historical responsibility to the climate change and enter to a genuine deal.

It’s not a fiction. Intolerable heat, unpredictable high intensity rains and floods, cyclones, increased beach erosion are some symptoms of changing climate. Perhaps, Sri Lanka has a little understanding about the climate change. However, neighboring Maldives, Bangladesh or pacific islands such as Tuvalu, Kiribati already feel the rising sea level. Cyclone Nargis killed over 100,000 Burmese and affected more than 2.5 million people in 2007. Floods and cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh killed over 3000 people and affected over 900,000 families in year 2007. Floods in Sri Lanka in 2008 affected over 200,000 people and killed few. During the drought of 1999-2001 in Afghanistan FAO suggest that about half of the population was directly or indirectly affected by drought. About 3 to 4 million people were severely affected and another 8 to 12 million were under the threat of famine and stranded. There are similar stories across South Asia, Philippines, United States and across the globe.

Science is clear. Although there is a dispute about the temperature rise, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) report published in 2004 shows that rising temperature has a direct relationship with the increase of Green House Gases such as CO2, Methane, NO2, CFC and even water vapor. Methane emits from the nature as well as animal husbandry. One of the most famous climate thought appeared in the UN COP 15 thoughts are “Meatless Mondays Keep the Warming Away” and “Be a Vegan-Save our Beautiful World”. It is true that meat industry needs lost of energy and release methane. But CO2 which is result of burning “fossil Fuel” is a major reason to trap heat within the atmosphere which results global warming.

It is estimated that the temperature rise will be 2 – 5 degrees Centigrade at the end of the century. Some believe of a more severe temperature increase and 40 cm sea level rise by 2080. Some assessments state that the rise of average temperature by 4-5 degrees Centigrade will raise the sea level by 3-5 meters which leads to break up of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. Greenpeace says the breakdown of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) alone contains enough ice to increase the sea level by 5 meters and if all ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melt entirely, the sea level will rise by 70 meters. Although the countries except the United States signed the Kyoto protocol, which agreed to reduce 5.2% of CO2 emissions of the 1990 levels, none of the countries have fulfilled this obligation yet.

It is expected that he Obama administration will unveil the target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions at next month's climate conference in Copenhagen. The United States has been under great pressure from the international community to present its target at the summit, because it is the only industrialized country that still hasn't revealed a plan to reduce emissions. United States present its domestic targets in August 2009 which is 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.This is only less than 4% by 1990 levels which is far less than what other countries have been pushing. Meanwhile, total emission cuts so far agreed by the entire Annex I countries excluding US are only 14 percent to 17 percent from 1990 targets. However the US and other annex I countries argue that China, India and Brazil need to bring its CO2 level down too. Although US is responsible for the highest historical carbon emission, China’s per capita CO2 level is number one at the moment.

This is a very clear politics of the developed countries in this very divisive issue, the climate catastrophe. According to the climate scientists at least 40% of the 1990 levels of emission cuts should be done by 2020. This level is necessary if we are to maintain the 2 degree centigrade temperature rise and keep the CO2 level at 350 ppm. Any further increase of the CO2 level in the atmosphere will severely affect the sea level rise and other climate disasters.

Where this politics will lead us? It is estimated that over 200 million people become climate refugees at the end of the century due to impacts of climate change. In a conservative estimate, it is calculated that the inaction of cutting emission drastically by developed countries would cost the climate impacts around 40-70 billion annually. I believe the question is not where to find this money. During the US recession the United States bailout package for its corporations was over 3 trillions. The total fund requirement to reduce CO2 level is 250 billion only.

The more important issue for the people in the developing world is how the climate debate will affect our genuine development. The reason I use the term genuine development is only because I see that the current development in Sri Lanka is not correct and not sustainable. The Electricity Generation plan recently unveiled by the Ceylon Electricity board has over 3200 MW coal power plants which will be totally based on imported Coal from Cheaper sources. This cheaper coal has more than 1 percent sulphur and more ash content. These coal power plants will emit CO2 1.9 Metric Tonnes per capita which almost same as the sustainable level of CO2 emission by 6.5 billion people living in the world today.

The easy argument of the Coal power agents today is that Sri Lanka’s per capita CO2 emission is only 600 Kg and we have ample space to increase the Co2 emission. But we have increased 230 percent since the Kyoto protocol signed. Burning coal which is imported from other countries cannot be justified as sustainable. On the other hand the problem today is the wrong development paradigm of the industrialized countries. Copying the same would be a complete disaster for us.

We have the right for development as same as like any other nation. As part of the environmental justice the developing nations now fight for climate justice. The developed countries owe ecological debt for the developing countries for overconsumption of our atmosphere, environmental space and natural resources. It is clear that their development has deprived us from development. Climate debt is owed for the historical overproduction of GHG emissions by developed countries that saturated the atmosphere – considered to be a ‘global common’ – thereby reducing the environmental/survival space available for developing countries. The climate debt is also owed for the impacts of climate change that is suffered in past and present in developing countries, and for future generations.

Sri Lankans position in the climate debate is also requesting the ecological debt that developed countries owe us. Sri Lanka Government has signed to the Bolivian proposal to request ecological debt. As we believe, ecological debt asserts that wealthy nations have generated a huge debt through centuries of exploitation of the natural resources of poorer nations. The ecological debt, including the climate debt must be paid not only in terms of financial means. This has to include the unconditional cancellation of all the unfair debts that the impoverished countries have – generated through the implementation of colonial and neoliberal policies. Liberalization practices imposed through the international financial institutions causes the degradation of environment; local social and economic system thus exacerbates vulnerability to climate change. Liberalization creates unequal access to natural goods which reducing opportunities for the poor to build resilience to climate change.

Being part of the G77 cluster, Sri Lanka also strongly support the request from Annex I countries to cut emissions, mitigate the damages, assist adaptations, request climate finance through a United Nations manage funds and transfer technologies to combat climate change. The African nations and the small islands states have almost similar approach. Yet the negotiation is not easy.

Any solution to climate change should be people centered. The government can do very little either to reduce everyone’s carbon footprint, to reduce industrial emissions or adapt to the climate disasters. The climate negotiations need to bring the opinion of the public, small enterprises or academics to the big picture. However, Sri Lankan climate bureaucrats have a phobia to meet the civil society and dialogues on public expectations and opinions. I have attended many civil society initiatives on climate change. Unfortunately, I failed to meet the national delegation in those local meetings.

Internationally, many developing governments are in corporation with the civil society thoughts. Many government delegations have included civil society representatives in the delegation too. There is nothing to lose in this case since we all in the southern believe that our final goal is climate justice. Climate justice can only achieve by developed nations taking responsibility for historical emissions and pay their climate debt. We must have climate bailout.

In a worst case there would be no deal in Copenhagen. Annex I countries are trying to kill Kyoto Protocol and they will likely to discuss the shared long-term vision only. There is a great debate on climate financing. Developed countries are planning to distribute climate finance through the climate criminals such as ADB and World Bank who has increased more than 100 percent its funds to the coal based power generations in the recent years. Much opposed carbon trading due to the failures in the recent past may still continue since that is the only way for the business corporation s to make money. Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries (REDD), much opposed carbon Offset mechanism supported by the UN will continue since that is the only money available for development countries.

The per capita emission is US 19.5, Canada 18.8, Australia 20 and United Arab Emirates 35 and China is only 4.58 by 2006 in Metric tonnes. The total emission china leads with 21.5% and United States 20.2% and European Union 13.8%. Except the United States, all other countries have committed some emission cuts even though it is very small with total 14 percent to 17 percent.

There is a very little chance that Annex I countries agree some emission cuts close to 20 percent by 1990 levels. There will be no deal without US committing to reduce its emissions. US domestic emission cut is 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels which is only 4% reduction by 1990 levels. Also there will be no deal without China, India and Brazil take actions to cut domestic emissions. China offered 40%-50% reduction by 2020 from 2005 levels. Any deal to reduce less than 40 percent by 1990 levels by all Annex I countries will not give hopes to developed countries. Yet, there is no walk out.

Environmental Law Education

2009-11-28T18:15:00.001+05:30

Hemantha withanage

People are bound to hundreds of laws, norms and policies which they are not seen or aware. Their behavior, livelihood and use of natural resources are controlled by those unknown laws. According to a well excepted legal maxim, the Court always considers that all people are aware of the laws. Unawareness is not an excuse before the law. But do all and every persons aware of the laws?

Environment is one of the most discussed subjects in the recent times which need citizens’ attention. Land, Water, Air are basic components that are essential for human beings and nature. Sustainable development needs a balance between the modern development and natural environment. Role of Environmental Law requires here to balance these two conflicting concepts. Yet, environmental law awareness is not equally exist and maintained in any society throughout the world. More educated people have a better understanding of the laws that govern their day today life. Meanwhile, marginalized communities who also don’t have adequate basic education suffer from lack of awareness. It is impossible to achieve Environmental justice and environmental governance unless the marginalized communities are equally making aware of their rights and those legislations, policies and norms that their lives are bound.

Sri Lankan law is mainly governed by the common law system. However Statutes and other written laws have been introduced to the law stream even under the civil law system. Accordingly, there are a number of new laws such as EIA Regulations, Industry Specific Standards and Regulations, Vehicle Emission Standards, and Noise Standards have been enacted in the environment sector. On top of these there are new Carbon Funds, Adaptation Funds and Conservation Levy, Genetically Modified Food labeling, which are not clear to common persons. Lack of awareness of the new laws and the important provisions of regulations is a major bottleneck for achieving benefits of these laws.

Sri Lanka does not exercise many access to information laws. This is a major shortcoming for achieving better governance. Other than in the Environmental Impacts Regulations, no other law provides mandatory public participation in decision making process in environmental field. The marginalized communities are unable to bring the environmental as well as fundamental rights violations to the courts due to lack of awareness and inadequate legal aid when they suffer from denial of access to information and participation.

Among the Universal principles of the Rule of Law, it is well accepted that the government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law, and the laws should clear, published, stable and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property. However, in my experience most people including the government officers and law enforcers do not aware the laws adequately and accurately. The reasons may include lack of interest, legal education, technical language, and negative attitudes as well. It should be mentioned that the half knowledge of responsible government officers leads for many harmful and tragic ends too.

In a country like Sri Lanka, majority people still live in rural areas struggling with their livelihood. It is unfair to think that those people are adequately aware of the laws that brought by the legislature time to time, mostly to protect the rights and interests of the urban population. As an example most protected area laws have brought forward in order to protect the interests of the majority, but not even with the participation or consultation of the local communities who are the experts of the experience obtained by the nature .

However, the Rule of law does not work or make a mean if the people are ignorant and unaware of the laws.

Legal Aid and legal Education programmes initiated by Center for Environmental Justice with the support of World Justice project is targeting common citizens, CBO leaders and the local level government officers to enhance the citizens’ awareness on the rights and the available tools and mechanisms to achieve justice and Enhance legal education among the marginalized groups to ensure that they understand the rule of law and the role of judiciary and the legislature. This approach also provides free legal aid for the marginalized communities who cannot afford expensive legal expertise.

The legal education programs were held in eighteen places within a year. We have selected community leaders, civil society organizations, and the groups that are negatively affected (both environmentally and socially) from resources extraction, development projects or other ill environmental decision making. The workshops are organized in such a way to meet both legal & environmental education and identifying issues that need legal support or other assistance to follow the due legal and administrative processes. The persons, who have been encouraged to approach the court of law, were given free legal aid.

Unlike the other laws, Environmental law cannot be practiced unless the parties or legal practitioners have some basic understanding of the science of the law. Except public nuisance procedure all other legal instruments need scientific explanations to prove the impacts on the burden of balance of probability. Unlike decade back, Science plays a major role even in public nuisance cases. It is notable that, if the judiciary too has a better understanding of law and the doctrine of governance of the nature as well, no doubt the privileges entrusted by the law will be enjoyed by whole society. We have designed the legal education programs to overcome this problem to a large extent.

Most people in the Northern and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka have not had the opportunity to exercise many of the new laws due to war circumstances. Even the lawyers in those areas had no adequate awareness on the laws and experience of practicing. We hope to educate both lawyers and general public on what are the new laws in those areas which can be used for the protection of environmental rights and achieve environmental justice for all.

Yet, there is a question to answer. Does the Court of Law is predictable? Many participant say no. Long delaying of cases reduces the trust of approaching the courts. Unclear court procedures let the people move from one Court to another. Some people concerns of the independency of the Court of Law.

It is agreed that the laws and norms, the institutions and the process should respects to the basic better governance characteristics which are transparency, participation, Rule of Law/ Predictability and Accountability. The experience in the recent past shows we have yet to achieve better governance.

Adaptation for Sri Lankan communities

2009-09-20T14:06:00.003+05:30

How Climate change will impact livelihood?

Hemantha Withanage
Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice

Climate change is visible in most parts of Sri Lanka. Majority of the people believe this climate change is unfavourable to living beings and livelihood. However, local climate changes in certain areas are better compared to 30 years ago. For example, Mahaweli water feeding areas in the dry zone gets more water, are more favourable to people and the environment.

However, local people cannot distinguish these local climate changes from the global climate change. On the other hand some impacts can be explained as the impacts of local environmental changes. For example some water related impacts have direct links to the destruction of forests in the local environment. These unfavourable conditions are varying from community to community.

Most nature dependent livelihoods such as farming, fishing, different types of labour including labour involved in Tea and Rubber industry, natural resources based sustainable livelihoods have negative impacts. There are unfavourabe conditions due to the spread of vector borne diseases and also quick weather change including heat. These communities have made very, very negligible contributions to the GHG emissions except the farmers engaged in slash and burn cultivation or animal husbandry. So they have nothing to mitigate.

However, a survey conducted by the CEJ shows that people, especially those engaged in nature based livelihoods, are somehow suffering from climate change. They need alternative livelihoods and living conditions have to adapt to the new climatic conditions.

Adaptation is a need of changes for the survival of the living beings in order to respond to the natural changes. This is part of the natural evolution too. However, sudden natural changes due to climatic impacts are detrimental to the other living beings. Many of these species might disappear from the earth before they adapt to the changing climate. As the human species, we have a better ability to adapt to the changing situations. Yet, human species also suffer from unexpected cyclones, floods, sea level rise, heat waves etc.

Building awareness among the civil society is an immediate requirement in Sri Lanka. Meantime those policy planners can learn from the local communities. As we were going through the survey we found that the following areas need adaptation.

The farmers have to adapt to the increased intensity of floods and the dry seasons. Change of the rain pattern has negatively affected farmers, especially those engaged in slash and burn cultivation. This may need moving the cultivation seasons or change of crops and cropping pattern. They will have to consider moving away from Chena cultivation to permanent cultivation. They may also need to find plant varieties that suit the changing rainfall pattern.
Adaptation to water conservation, rain water harvesting is also important.
People living in the low lying areas need to adapt to the increased level of flooding. Some affects are due to the lack of climate proofing of the old and newly built infrastructures. For example, Kukule Ganga dam has created increased flooding in the low lining areas in the downstream. Some people might have to move their houses to the high ground to avoid increased floods in the surroundings of those mega development projects. Coastal low lying areas face salt water intrusion which destroys the agricultural lands, traditional livestock, grazing lands, and the water table.

Fisher folk face loss of coastal houses due to see level rise or due to heavy erosion by increased size of waves. They also have to face the loss of fish caused due to the destruction of mangrove forests, sea grass beds, acidification, coral degradation or other unknown reasons.

Some water intakes are vulnerable to sea water ingression. This affects water facilities including the Kaduwela water intake. As the ground water table is going down in certain areas, the water scarcity is becoming a major problem. People in general have to adapt themselves to the mosquito menace as it is increasing in the areas that were considered as more cold. The earth slides have increased in some wet areas due to high rainfall over an extended period. People living in slopes and earth slide prone areas need actions.

Some houses may need stronger construction to adapt to the increased intensity of winds. Perhaps older structures are more vulnerable. Certain locations might not be suitable for house constructions anymore.

Lack of climate proofing in mega development projects makes people and environment vulnerable to the climate damage. Most of the infrastructure projects have not considered climate change in designing and implementation. While some adaptations are part of the learning curve of the local people who have specialized in their locations, some adaptations need proper authority but careful and cautious intervention. As many people engage in nature related livelihoods are losing jobs there is a need of creating green jobs in the future.

The result also shows that climate change is not only a business of the environmental agencies of the government. It needs to be a crosscutting issue for many other authorities including agriculture, water and irrigation, fisheries, meteorological, coastal, disaster mitigation and academics. The research team felt that even the provincial and local authorities have a role to play.

Local communities have lot to contribute to the climate plans. Keeping them out of climate business will create unnecessary damage to life and livelihood as we have seen in some Asian countries in the recent past. Bringing them to the climate planning will allow them to understand and contribute to the mitigation and adaptation. Therefore, democratizing of climate plans and action should be done without further delay.

Can “Biochar” make a country carbon Neutral?

2009-09-20T13:58:00.004+05:30

Hemantha Withanage

Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice

Several patent applications have been made for industrial charcoal use in soil and for “Pyrolysis” for charcoal production. Industrial Charcoal or “Biochar” is one of the solutions suggested by the corporations to mitigate climate change. The promoters suggest “biochar” is similar to the “Terra Preta” a mixture of charcoal and varieties of biomass developed by the Central Amazonians thousands of years ago.

These “biochar” producers suggest that this is the “silver bullet” for reducing global greenhouse gases thereby mitigating climate change. This has been already proposed to the UNFCCC and for clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Several African governments also proposed this in order to promote private sector involvement in climate Mitigation.

The Maldivian Government is targeting to become the first Carbon Natural nation by developing three small islands producing waste into “Biochar”. The company involved in this business is Carbon Gold, a UK based entity.

However, many environmentalists disagree with this approach and suggest not including “biochar” in climate mitigation proposals. One argument is that industrial “Biocharcoal” is not close to “Terra Preta”. New science has so far not unveiled the techniques used by the ancient people to produce it. If the new companies granted patents, those will ensure that any future profits from the technology will go to companies, not communities. According to the FOEI and other groups, given that successful strategies for combining charcoal with diverse biomass in soils were developed by indigenous peoples, ‘biochar’ patenting raises serious concerns over bio piracy. The inclusion of soils in carbon markets, just like the inclusion of forests in carbon trading will increase corporate control over vital resources and the exclusion of smallholder farmers, rural communities and indigenous peoples.

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has perpetuated, rather than reduced fossil fuel burning by permitting industries to purchase “rights to pollute” and further delaying the social and economic changes which are essential for addressing climate change. The climate impacts of fossil fuel burning are irreversible, yet so-called ‘soil carbon sinks’ are highly uncertain and impermanent.

“Biochar” producers suggest production of gigatones on “biochar” will reduce the CO2 into pre industrial levels. However environmentalists state that it will require millions of hectares of lands to convert into biomass production which will be mostly monoculture plantations which are already problematic. This is not different from the controversial “Agrofuel” production. A UNEP report found that industrial charcoal release most of its carbon content in 30 years time, although the “Biochar” producers suggest that this carbon will remain in soil for thousands of years.

There is no consistent evidence that charcoal can be relied upon to make soil more fertile. Industrial charcoal production at the expense of organic matter needed for making humus could have the opposite results.

Combinations of charcoal with fossil fuel-based fertilizers made from scrubbing coal power plant flue gases are being marketed as ‘biochar’, and those will help to perpetuate fossil fuel burning as well as emissions of nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. According to the experts the process for making charcoal and energy (pyrolysis) can result in dangerous soil and air pollution.

Using waste for composting is the best solution for carbon minimization. However, turning waste into “biochar”, perhaps will be better than burning them. However, carbon in waste is not the problem for climate change. The biggest problem is burning fossil fuel. However “biochar” is not an alternative to fossil fuel. There are many scientific uncertainties over “biochar”. It is not a proven technology for making a country carbon neutral.

end.

Coal, renewables and the CO2 meter

2009-09-10T22:03:00.003+05:30

How Sri Lanka is increasing its Carbon emission?

Hemantha Withanage,
Centre for Environmental Justice

Sri Lanka is already building a Chinese funded 900 Megawatt coal power plant in the Western coast of the island and plans are being made to build a joint venture 1000MW coal power plant with India’s National Thermal Power Corporation in the Eastern coast. Meanwhile, India and Sri Lanka will be linked with a 100MW energy supply cable under the Asian Development Bank funds. India, China and Australia are eyeing to sell their coal to Sri Lanka.

Australia is also planning to sell a 300 MW Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) power plant. Although LNG is cleaner, there is no single LNG power plant in Sri Lanka.

Solar power is the most expensive energy in the country. Some poor families in the remote areas, who have obtained solar energy, pay Rs. 70,000 in a 2 year period to light 3 bulbs and a B/W Television. Government has no tariff reductions for these renewable yet.

Mini-hydro plants’ estimated generation capacity would be 97.7 MW. However some mini-hydro power plants are more harmful to the Environment. Total Hydropower generation by the big reservoirs is around 1207 MW. However this is vulnerable to the climate change.

According to the sources Sri Lanka’s next best natural resource after the hydro power is wind power because of the Monsoon winds across the country. Sri Lankan government is planning to build the country’s second wind power plant, which is expected to generate 10MW of power. The country’s first wind power plant established in Hambantota which is generating about 3MW is not a very successful one.

Sri Lanka, is in a long debate on coal versus best alternatives. Coal power plant originally proposed in Trincomalee in 1985 was then moved to Mawella, Negombo and Norochocholai.

According to some CEB sources, present Coal power plant, financed by the Chinese government, is very costly. A unit of this coal power will be around 40 rupees. According to the sources CEB will only pay Rs. 18 while the balance would be subsidized by the government. The plant does not install the best available technology.

300 MW plant will require 2640 MT of coal daily. As we have indicated many times the 900 W coal power plant will burn 7920 MT daily. Each tonne of Coal produces 7186 pounds of CO2 assuming that 98% of the coal combustion happens. So the Norochcholai Coal plant will emit 28456 tonnes CO2 daily. This calculations show that 900 MW Coal plant will result Sri Lanka increase CO2 to 0.5 tonnes per capita.

Proposed total coal power generation capacity of Sri Lanka is around 3300 MW. According to the above calculations Sri Lanka will emit 2 tonnes per capita CO2 annually. Chinese and Indians financed coal power plants alone will increase Sri Lanka’s contribution to 1 tonnes per capita CO2.To put this in context, national average emissions in UK is 10 tonnes per capita. The UK government has pledged to cut emissions by 20% before 2012, to around 8 tonnes per capita. This forms part of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global climate change.

It is estimated that the sustainable CO2 emission quota per capita for each of 6 billion global inhabitants is 2 tonnes per annum. This means once Sri Lanka produces coal energy using 3300 MW coal plants, we will reach the sustainable level of CO2 emissions.

According to the Energy Forum Sri Lanka’s CO2 emissions have increased by 230% over the last 20 years: the world’s third highest rate. Therefore there is no doubt that the government must seriously review its policies, targets and plans for establishing 3300 MW of coal power plants in Sri Lanka. Unfortunately that is not the case.

The authorities argue that Sri Lanka can still increase its CO2 emissions, since we only emit 600 kg which is far below the proposed sustainable level. However once we reach the CO2 level only with Coal power there is no provision for other development.

Despite the CO2 emission Coal prices have also increased several times parallel to the oil prices. Those who debated for the Coal power argued that Coal energy will be the cheapest for the country. Since we do not have our own coal beds, we are unable to control the prices.

Sri Lanka still depends, for 70% of energy from Biomass. We also had many wind mills introduced 3 decades ago to draw water. The potential for wind, solar and wave energy is enormous in Sri Lanka. However, the coal and diesel lobby in Sri Lanka does not allow making our energy sustainable.

Your Planet Needs You! Unite to Combat Climate Change

2009-06-17T21:43:00.004+05:30

Hemantha Withanage,
Executive Director/ Environmental Scientist
Centre for Environmental Justice

It is not yet another day. This year on World Environment Day, people around the world will join together to show their unity to combat climate change. World Environment Day (WED) was established by the UN General Assembly in 1972 to mark the opening of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment.

Every monsoon season, in the past decade, we have seen more and more natural disasters. During other times we face severe droughts, mosquito menace, coastal erosion, heat waves which are somehow linked to climate change. IPCC findings, published in 2004, clearly shows that increase of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) in the atmosphere as the reason for climate change. This includes, CO2, Methane, NO2, CFC and even water vapour. The main cause for climate change is burning fossil fuel, mainly by the developed nations, since the industrial era began. The world is debating since the RIO conference held in 1992, but with no emission reductions yet. Once again they will meet in Copenhagen in December 2009 for making some crucial decisions.

It is estimated that the temperature rise will be 2 – 5 degrees Centigrade at the end of the century. Some believe of a more severe temperature increase and 40 cm sea level rise by 2080. Some assessments state that the rise of average temperature by 4-5 degrees Centigrade will raise the sea level by 3-5 meters which leads to break up of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. Greenpeace says the breakdown of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) alone contains enough ice to increase the sea level by 5 meters and if all ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melt entirely, the sea level will rise by 70 metres. Although the countries except the United States signed the Kyoto protocol, which agreed to reduce 5.2% of CO2 emissions of the 1990 levels, none of the countries have fulfilled this obligation yet.

The world cannot be saved by the bodies appointed for saving it unless we all unite. This year's theme ‘Your Planet needs You! Unite to combat climate change' – is a topic that shows the value of every individual’s responsibility to protect the planet.

Sri Lanka has made less contributions to climate change. Although, our GDP is high enough to become a middle income country, we are still an agrarian society. However, we need to understand that the current development paradigm is not climate friendly. Most developed countries followed the thinking ‘develop today and conserve later.’ However the environmental disasters, including climate change, have shown that this is a failed approach.

Today we are facing three major crises, i.e. food crisis, climate crisis and financial crisis. At the end humanity is in a serious crisis. Some economists believe that the world will recover from the financial crisis. However, there is no easy solution for the food crisis and the climate crisis.

As Mahatma Gandhi once mentioned, “there are enough resources for the people’s needs but not for people’s greed.” The countries in the north have already exceeded their fair share in their resources utilization. They also have exceeded the use of the environmental space. The developed countries, representing less than one fifth of the world’s population, have emitted almost three quarters of all historical emissions. On a per person basis, they are responsible for more than ten times the historical emissions of developing countries. They owe the people in the south a huge ecological debt and emission debt. This is true for the wealthy minority in our own societies. They are not yet ready to pay this debt.

Unfortunately, the poor majority in the world suffers most from both the food crisis and the climate crisis. According to Greenpeace more than 120 million people will become climate refugees by the end of the century in India and Bangladesh alone. According to Oxfam, a charity organization, the world will require 50- 140 billion USD a year for the poorer countries to adapt to climate change.

So, it is clear that if we are to save the world, those who consume more and those who owe us need to pay their debts. Honouring these obligations is not only necessary but it is also the basis of a fair and effective solution to climate change. Those who benefited most in the course of causing climate change must compensate those who contributed least to it but bear its adverse effects.

Public perceptions show that people in Sri Lanka, who engage in nature based livelihoods, are already suffering from climate change. I wonder whether there are any statistics in Sri Lanka produced by the authorities since climate change is a very new subject for many of them. However, we cannot ignore climate change anymore as it is already causing impacts.

If we are to promote a carbon neutral economy we still have the opportunity and time for it. It is not advisable to wait for the government agencies to show the red flag on climate change. Every individual has the responsibility to act on climate change. To give few advises: - Use less energy consuming items, Use public transport or bicycles to save fuel where possible, Reduce the use of plastics. It is true that although 80% plastic can be recyclable, only 20% is recycled today. Plant a tree. Stop burning waste. Help recycling. Talk to your friends on climate change.

The authorities need a more dynamic approach on climate change. Sri Lanka’s coal lobby is not climate friendly. Although wind energy, solar energy are climate friendly, Sri Lanka’s authorities have a phobia in promoting them. Authorities still have a learning exercise on climate change. But, we should not underestimate the climate impacts to Sri Lanka as we are an island in the Bay of Bengal.

Cyclone ‘Nargiz’ attacked Burma killing more than 23,000 people and left around 40,000 homeless in 2007. Cyclone ‘Sidr’ killed over 4,000 people in Bangladesh in the same year. Therefore it is advisable for everyone to learn how to face severe weather conditions, floods and droughts, cyclones, sea level rise, or facing increased mosquito menace. Farmers need to learn how to adapt to droughts or delayed rainfall. Fishermen need to adapt to less catches, rough seas or less fish due to degradation of corals. It is not too late to include climate adaptation to the school curricula. We do not have to wait for such disasters to happen like hurricane ‘Katrina’, ‘Rita’ in the United States or cyclone ‘Nargiz’ in Burma. Only you can make this change.

Garo People

2009-05-23T18:06:00.001+05:30

Hemantha Withanage

It was my dream to see “Garo people” when I saw the book entitled “Stolen Forest” written by environmental writer Philip Gain which shown the destruction of the “Sal Forest” they live. I had a rare opportunity to meet the “Garo people” live in Modhupur, about hundred kilometers away from Dhaka. I was with the Friends of the Earth Asia Pacific regional members and the friends from the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association.

Garo people have a Tibet- Burmese origin. Some believes they have come from Garo province in Meghalaya, in India and settled in the Sal Forest in Bangladesh centuries ago. They have own culture and living style. Garo people believe them as the “children of the forests”.

The “Sal Forest” now being reduced to a small area since the forest has been encroached by various agencies and elites. They grow Banana, Pineapple and Papaya for commercial purposes and apply agro-chemicals as promoted by an ADB funded project. Unfortunately they have lost the original life style. The authorities take them to the courts if they try to engage in their original activities. Garo people now look for support to reclaim their rights over the forest. It’s clear case how local indigenous people push into a development debacle.

Red lines for REDD

2009-05-07T12:28:00.003+05:30

Hemantha Withanage
Centre for Environmental Justice - Sri Lanka

May 2009

The UN initiated Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD) in Developing Countries is one of the latest approaches for reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. A multi-donor trust fund was established in July 2008 in collaboration with FAO, UNDP and UNEP for this purpose.

As per the IPCC estimates the cutting down of forests is now contributing close to 20 per cent of the overall greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Forest degradation and land use change also make a significant contribution to emissions. Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and approaches to stimulate action” was first introduced at the Conference of the Parties (COP11) in December 2005 by the governments of Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, supported by eight other Parties.

There are opposing and supporting views for this. One of the opposing views is because REDD text agreed in COP 14 in Bali did not include the rights of the indigenous people who are living in the forests. Largest forests in Asia, Africa and Latin America are inhabited by the local indigenous people for thousands of years. “Adivasi” people live in Dambana, Sri Lanka are also a good example. However, most of the forests in Sri Lanka are not inhabited by people as they have been removed under conservation programmes or development projects more than two decades ago. Yet there are many local communities who live near the forest areas protect, and depend on the forests resources and the services.

Forests in all tropical countries play a major role in the life of the communities living around them. It is not just a carbon sink but also it is the source of food, water, fire- wood, medicines, building material, non timber forest products, raw material for household appliances. It also controls erosion and floods, maintains the seed banks. It is our life.

On one hand Annex I countries which are supposed to reduce their GHG emissions owe a huge debt to countries which maintained good forests which absorbed CO2 since the industrial evolution began. Those who lived inside and protected forests should be entitled to get the repayment for those services. However in practice this may not be easy. All Sri Lankan forests were vested with the Crown by the British colonials under the Waste Land Ordinance which are now under government control. In practice, the REDD programme will mainly enter into agreement between the [so-called] forest owners, which is the Government, and the parties that seek emission cuts. The Government can only gain benefits in this case.

If the forests are included in a contract by the governments it will have serious control and will limit access to local people. Many of them are local poor who are rely on the forest. So, protecting the rights of those people living in poverty and those who are relying on forests for subsistence is an utmost important aspect in this business. Is the REDD program ready to compensate those people and find alternate livelihood for them?

REDD will cut emissions if we keep those forests healthy. As we know Sri Lankan forests have many threats. The illegal cutting of timber, encroachments, massive destruction for development projects are some of them. In many countries they are the government itself, forest and energy industries, road development and big agri-businesses, tea cultivation etc., are responsible for the forest degradation. Involvement of these sectors in both economic and political structures, needed for a successful implementation of REDD, which will have serious cost involvement too.

If we are to receive REDD funds we have to maintain healthy forests. According to the UN “The UN-REDD Programme is aimed at tipping the economic balance in favour of sustainable management of forests so that their formidable economic, environmental and social goods and services benefit countries, communities and forest users while also contributing to important reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

It is the opinion of many activists that forests should not be treated as carbon sinks. it has multiple values. The above explanation shows that REDD has been proposed as not only for Climate Change Mitigation, but also the conservation of eco-diversity and continue to give other forest services such as water regulation. For local people living by the forests is much more important than getting control by the climate mitigation mechanisms ( such as emission traders) who are far away from them. Therefore we believe that REDD should not be included in the emissions market. Further, if REDD is considered under emission market, the developed countries could by themselves be out of their own obligations to reduce CO2 emissions in their own country by buying cheap forest certificates. According to the Rain Forest Foundation ,UK “REDD would potentially be using for the carbon offsetting and the it would subsidy the loggers.”1

On the other hand, since developed countries are not willing to accept emission cuts, the REDD will be mostly voluntary. They will prefer some countries where they can find cheap credits. This may create a cold war between Annex II countries and it might weaken the Annex II countries’ positions. Specially this is more possible in the case with the global financial crisis. Some countries will have more to offer which means they will offer cheaper CO2 absorption.

Conservation of forests is not cheap in countries such as Sri Lanka where the threat is so much compared to some countries which have more lands with low population pressure. So the cost of maintenance is not equal in all the countries. This means the cost of CO2 absorption is also not the same. Therefore if those countries are to maintain healthy forests they need more funds. On the other hand too much focus on some forests in order to respect the REDD agreements will limit attention on some not so important forests which means the total forest degradation might still go up.

As we always believe real emission cuts should be done at home by controlling their own life style by the developed countries. However, there should be a mechanism to stop further degradation of tropical forests. With the REDD funds it will not be possible to stop all deforestation within a country at once. But, the conservation of existing natural and well managed forests should have priority over reforestation and afforestation under any mechanism. Although we can see that we are losing our natural forest cover in Sri Lanka, overall forest cover has gone up since it includes the new plantations. So it is sometimes hard to depend on the national statistics about degradation.

Consideration of biodiversity is a important aspect in REDD approach. Monoculture and Plantations have little or no contribution to biodiversity compared to natural forests. Undoubtedly, natural forests could store more carbon than forest plantations. Therefore REDD should not waste its funds for plantations which are economically so attractive.

Countries such as Sri Lanka has contributed to the conservation of forests for thousands of years. That should be rewarded in order to discourage future deforestation. There is a trend in Annex II countries, such as Sri Lanka, to destroy some forests disregarding climate impacts for development projects. If they are to save them, it needs attractive income generation from those global forest services.

One big problem with REDD is the consideration of the rights of the Indigenous and local communities whose rights must be fully respected. This is undeniable specially when UN has already accepted the rights of the indigenous people. Therefore, REDD should respect the good governance principles and democratic decisions making including Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC). Participation of the people on site is indispensable to make forest conservation permanent and socially just. In my opinion there won’t be conservation to the forest unless people have access to the funds earned under the REDD.

Nevertheless, if the REDD are going to be successful it needs dedicated funds rather than support going through the general ODA accounts. The ODA funded activities are not successful in many countries. Neither the carbon market managed activities. It will need serious management. The good governance, compensation for local right owners, poverty elimination, fair treatment of all forests, should be included in designing implementation and in post activities.

The project is normally looked after only during the implementation. If the REDD is to be successful the forests should be managed not only during the short term project period but for a long term i.e 100- 200 years. It is a question whether this is going to happen and whether those developed countries are going to put funds for such a long period.

The Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 by the United states proposed something similar to „debt for nature swap“ which was under heavy criticism. Yet some 16 countries including Indonesia, Peru, Philippine are part of this programme. It allows countries to put debt payment to United States into a fund which manage national forests in the way United States want to control. US president has veto power over the use of the fund money. It is my fear that the REDD could be another face of the same.

With all pros and cons of REDD, more importantly REDD programmes will include forests’ ability to absorb CO2 emissions in future. However, our forests have already fixed carbon and they are already carbon stocks. If the REDD considers forest carbon stock roll, it may be easier to respect forests’ roll and continue the services without conflicting the local interests.

Unlike many countries Sri Lanka has home gardens. They are not forests but they have canopies similar to a rain forests with timber and non timber species. They act as carbon sinks and reduce erosion and control floods too. If you look at these home gardens and carbon stocks rather than forest carbon sinks it can greatly increase the carbon absorption. While forests are still with much higher diversity, if the REDD consider home gardens as carbon stocks which are done by the ordinary people they may look as an alternative. For the carbon absorption. Sri Lanka has 818,000 Ha of home gardens approximately which is about 1/3 of the total natural forest and Plantation cover in Sri Lanka. This may be the case in many tropical countries.

*****

1 http://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org/Carbon_Sunk

Bio-Fuel and the Food Crisis

2008-07-29T16:50:00.001+05:30

Hemantha Withanage,
Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice

Sri Lanka is planning to run train engines with bio-fuel by 2010. Big corporations are eyeing to cultivate 65,000 hectares of sugar cane in Sri Lanka to produce ethanol. However, the so called green solution to climate change and increasing fossil fuel prices seem much more disastrous to the human society and the environment.

The most recent worry of human society is the growing food crisis. Rising food prices have ignited riots in some countries. Some think that this is the first real economic crisis of globalization. About 850 million of people go to bed in hunger every night. About 1.1 billion people are still living below the one dollar poverty line. According to reports the new food crisis pushed 100 million more people back below the poverty line.

It was told that world has adequate food but the issue is that there is no proper distribution. However, according to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) “the era of cheap food for Asia is over as surging demand, supply problems and the growing production of bio-fuels will keep food prices high.” The Bank refers to the growing demand for food in Asia. However, as reported by the Guardian in early July 2008, the leaked World Bank study disputes that: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases."

The US government claims that plant- derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. Meanwhile, as the Guardian reported, an unpublished report of the World Bank state that Bio-fuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated. The other factors, such as high energy prizes, and fertilizer prices, have contributed only 15% according to the report.

Bio-fuel is the controversial alternative fuel to reduce emission of greenhouse gases and reduce dependence on imported fuel. Bio-fuel is any fuel that is derived from biomass i.e. present living organisms or their metabolic byproducts. Therefore, it is a renewable energy source, unlike other natural resources such as petroleum, coal, gas and nuclear energy. Since so-called bio-fuel is mostly based on agricultural plants, activists consider bio-fuel as agro-fuel.

The plants whose oils are popularly considered for bio-fuel are soybeans, rapeseed, sunflower, safflower and palm, which are mostly food sources. Agricultural products specifically grown for use as bio-fuels include corn and soybeans, mostly in the United States, and flaxseed and rapeseed, mostly in Europe. The recent G8 summit however called for promotion of bio-fuel derived from non food sources.

The most famous agro-fuel is ethanol derived from molasses a byproduct of the sugar industry. Brazil’s transport sector uses ethanol upto 30%. The World Bank report points out that agro-fuels derived from sugarcane, which Brazil specializes in, have not had such a dramatic impact. However, cultivation of sugar cane has increased tremendously which has resulted in loosing fertile land for food production and increased water pollution. The most controversial agro-fuel is ethanol derived from corn in the United States which is only about 2% of the transport energy requirement.

Bio-diesel refers to any diesel equivalent bio-fuel made from renewable biological materials such as vegetable oils, castor oil or animal fats etc. Bio-diesel can be used in diesel engines either as a standalone in modified diesel engines or blended with petro diesel for unmodified diesel engines. Fuel containing 20 % bio-diesel is labeled B20 and pure bio-diesel is referred to as B100.

Bio-diesel is mostly produced in Europe. It needs large amounts of land. Millions of hectares of agricultural and forest lands have been converted to oil palm, sugar cane, and other cultivations that produce bio-fuel in India, Colombia, Indonesia, Brazil etc, which creates many other social and environmental issues. Other than land, water is a limiting factor for cultivation of such plants.

Political leaders of the developed countries seem to be ignoring the strong evidence that agro-fuels are a major factor in recent food price increase. They concentrate more in keeping industry going and learning poor people live in hunger. Yet, there is no clear policy on the use of agro-fuel. Some countries have mandatory agro-fuel in addition to petrol and diesel. Since April 2008 Britain has had to include 2.5% from agro-fuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10% by 2020. Philippines also use 10% addition to fossil fuel.

Both bio-fuel and bio-diesel prices are higher than the conventional petrol and diesel, unless subsidized by the governments. According to sources it can replace only about 15% of the world fuel requirements, while it will be responsible for releasing 17- 450 times green house gas emission due to conversion of Forest for cultivation of such plants as Conservation International forecasts.

It is too early for Sri Lanka to learn from other countries the pros and cons of using agro-fuel. While it can be a solution to the use of fossil fuel in the transport sector, the transport sector is only responsible for 20% of the total fossil fuel consumption. 80% of the fossil fuel is used for electricity generation. Sri Lanka is fast advancing towards high carbon economy. Sri Lanka will generate 3300 MW electricity using coal by 2015. However coal is not a cheap fossil fuel source anymore. It is highly polluted compared to other thermal options. Converting few train engines to run with bio-fuel is not a big relief then.

It is a shame that converting food to bio-fuel when 850 million people suffer and 25,000 people die each day from hunger. Although the situation in Sri Lanka is not bad as India, Bangladesh or Pakistan, Bio-fuel is not a green option for Sri Lanka too. As an island, Sri Lanka has limited land. It will perhaps destroy our remaining forests, and fertile agricultural land and water. Making ethanol will pollute the remaining water sources. This will worsen the food crisis. We already have enough social and environmental problems due to Pelwatta and other sugar cane cultivations. Perhaps Sri Lanka needs a scientific debate over this issue before politicians make another ad-hoc decision.

29 July, 2008

Climate Change and Environmental Governance

2008-07-18T17:49:00.002+05:30

Paper presented at the Climate Change and Ecological Justice parallel session at the South Asian People’s Assembly( People’s SAARC) held in Colombo from 18-20 July 2008

Hemantha Withanage
Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka

Most environmental decisions are still taken by the politicians and high level bureaucrats. Those who have scientific knowledge are still not in the front line in these decisions. Climate negotiations once again prove this reality. While IPCC is clear about the global warming the mandatory emission cuts, it is a hot issue among the elite, corporations and the politicians. Self appointed body, G8 undermines the UNFCCC negotiations. The affected communities and the vulnerable communities nowhere near the discussion tables.

Floods and cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh killed over 3000 people and affected over 900,000 families in year 2007. Last floods in Sri Lanka affected over 200,000 people and killed few. Recent cyclone Nargis killed over 100,000 Burmese and affected more than 2.5 million people. Meanwhile stories from India, China, are much more catastrophic. During the drought of 1999-2001 in Afghanistan FAO suggest that about half of the population was directly or indirectly affected by drought. About 3 to 4 million people were severely affected and another 8 to 12 million were under the threat of famine and stranded. Around 300,000 people fled to neighboring Iran and Pakistan and more than 400,000 moved to safe places within the country. There are similar stories across South Asia.

According to new Greenpeace Report “Blue Alert, Climate Migrants in South Asia” More than 120 million people from India and Bangladesh alone will become homeless by the end of this century." It estimates that 75 million people from Bangladesh will lose their homes. It also predicts that about 45 million people in India will also become "Climate migrants". Around 130 million people now live in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in which are called low elevation coastal zones, which comprise coastal regions that are less than 10m above the average sea level.
Growing number of natural disasters such as floods, droughts, cyclones are mostly affecting the poor who have no idea of what is happening in the world. How many poor coastal, communities knows melting glaziers in the North Pole and Himalayas is the reason for sea level rise and coastal erosion? How many poor people know that burning fossil fuel is the reason for the strong cyclones and disastrous floods? How many Maldivians know that they will go under water within next few decades due to the GHG emission produced by those tourists who come from the rich countries?

For the first time in the history Environment ministers from the South Asian regional body, SAARC, met in early July 2008 in Bangladesh have agreed on measures to tackle climate change. They agreed to share data on weather patterns and their experiences of dealing with natural disasters. The environment ministers have agreed to a series of resolutions to pool resources and know-how. Bangladesh, which is frequently hit by massive floods and cyclones, will share its experience of handling large-scale natural disasters. The ministers want South Asia to speak with as one in the international negotiations on climate change and also to appeal jointly for global funds. Will this alone solve the problems?

There is no question among the scientific community that GHG emission is the main cause for the melting glaciers and increased intensity of floods and droughts. Rich nations, mostly highly industrialized countries release more than 50 per cent of CO2 emissions by burning fossil fuel in order to maintain their luxury life style. Current per capita emission levels in the SAARC countries which is around Sri Lanka 0.6 tonnes, Bangladesh 0.3 tonnes, Maldives 2.5 tonnes, Pakistan 0.8, Afghanistan…..India 1.2 tonnes Nepal 0.1 Butan 0.2 is quite low comparing to the 21 tonnes in United States.[1] Among few other solutions, reducing CO2 by limiting consumption of fossil fuel will be the number one solution.

During the SAARC Environment Ministers meeting Bangladesh's interim Prime Minister, Fakruddhin Ahmed, said that rich polluting nations had a duty to help poor countries adapt to changes, like rising sea levels, which threaten to inundate coastal areas.”However, the truth is United States and some other rich nations block reduction of emission negotiated by the UNFCCC. Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally by 50 percent by 2050, which was among the major decisions of the recent G8 summit held in Japan which seems to be a reverse from the minimum action that was demanded by the global community during the United Nations Summit on Climate Change in Bali last December. It was also projected the minimum cut needed by 2050 to be in the range of 80 to 90 percent, if the rise in global temperature was to be kept below 2 degrees centigrade in the 21st century.

Except India, no other countries in the SAARC region can make a strong voice in this debate. However, India is a growing economy that increases GHG emission day by day. To my opinion other countries in the region are more fascinated with the so called mechanisms provided by the UN and other Multilateral Development Banks which are more towards financial packages for clean development mechanism, climate investment Funds , Carbon credit etc. Sri Lankan Carbon Fund is an incorporated entity that promotes public private partnership. They deal with the big polluters in order to promote clean development and sell purchase carbon credits.

There can be engineering and scientific solutions to mitigate the problems. But it is not simple as the rising sea levels would be devastating. The impacts will also include flood and storm damage, drinking water shortage, loss of economic activities and income generation, erosion, saltwater intrusion, rising water tables and wetland loss. These will greatly reduce the ability of the SAARC countries to provide people access to land for living and cultivation, water, causing severe hardship.

As Greenpeace report pointed out “about 125 million migrants, comprising about 75% from Bangladesh alone could be rendered homeless by climate change. The bulk of migrants from Bangladesh are likely to move to India creating further tensions.” The region is already home to the largest number of people living in poverty and such impacts will take a horrendous human toll. The report says that India should seek policy options that are proactive in terms of developing international strategies to reduce the risk of destructive climate change.

Can the elected governments and handful of aid agencies deal with the problems without mobilizing the civil society? The Civil society, especially those Poor who are most vulnerable to the climate disasters are still in dark with regard to the climate impacts. Therefore, responsible governments and agencies should enlighten the civil society and bringing the vulnerable groups to the climate decisions.

Establish both formal and informal climate impact education
Identification and mapping of disaster prone areas
Learning of traditional community adaptation; survival techniques during droughts, floods, cyclones etc.,
Sharing community knowledge with other communities in the region who are vulnerable to similar disasters
Combine expert opinion of the scientific community with community knowledge and make suitable plans for mitigation climate impacts
Identify suitable economic models and income generation for communities those vulnerable to loss of properties and income
Educate small industrial sector for emission reduction techniques and promote green industries
Educate every citizen for the protection of trees and forest as carbon sinks and
Promote a low carbon economic model across the nations though public participation.
Approach carbon credits and other mechanisms for necessary fund generation and make transparent mechanism to spend those funds for the implementation of agreed mitigation, income generation and establishment of suitable economic models

True environmental governance needs all stakeholder groups to take part on the environmental decisions. Governments and the bureaucracy cannot manage the climate crisis without true participation of the civil society especially those who are vulnerable and affected from climate related disasters.

19th July 2008
[1] UNDP, Human development Index 2007/2008- http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/238.html

The G8, Environment and Climate Change

2008-07-15T15:16:00.000+05:30

Hemantha Withanage
Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice

Climate Change and Food crisis were two major items that dominated the G8 summit 2008 just ended in Hokkaido, Japan. However, the agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally by 50 percent by 2050, which was among the major decisions, is perhaps a reverse from the minimum action that was demanded by the global community during the United Nations Summit on Climate Change in Bali last December.

In the Bali Climate Conference, opposition from the US, Japan, and Canada almost killed a developing consensus that should commit industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. It was also projected the minimum cut needed by 2050 to be in the range of 80 to 90 percent, if the rise in global temperature was to be kept below 2 degrees centigrade in the 21st century.

The G8 emission cut has no clear baseline. According to Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda it was from 1990 levels. However, subsequently he mentioned that it is based on year 2000 baseline. Furthermore this declaration of intent is not binding.

Even though the G8 countries, responsible for half of the GHG emissions, the G8 recipe suggests a global cut, not one undertaken by the industrialized countries alone. This gives opportunity for the big polluters, like the US, to reduce only a little and pressure other countries to reduce emissions. As indicated by the Bush administration they would block any plan to tie G8 countries to commitments on emission targets without a global deal. However, within hours China and India and other emerging economies refused to endorse the targets, arguing that richer nations should carry more of the burden.

G8's endorsement of the World Bank's Climate Investment Funds seems to be another wrong push. According to the G8 communiqué certain countries had already pledged $6 billion. The said fund does not have a clear definition of clean technology. Therefore it will lead the funds may be used to finance projects that do not clearly mitigate climate change or may take up resources that bring only incremental change when we need a fundamental change. Many developing countries see the World Bank mechanism as a threat to serious efforts to assist the global South to deal with climate change.

According to the Civil society statement, “Challenge to the G8 Governments” since the signing of the Climate Convention in 1992, and even after instituting “environmental policies,” the World Bank approved more than 133 financial packages for oil, coal and gas extraction projects, comprising mainly loans but also including equity investments, guarantees and some grants. The total amount exceeds US$28 billion dollars. Fossil fuel corporations based in G8 countries benefit from almost every project finance package. The International Finance Corporation of the World Bank is increasing its fossil fuel lending portfolio. The Asian Development Bank, of which Japan and the United States are the biggest shareholders, is a major lender to coal, oil and gas projects in Asia, approving close to US$2 billion worth of loans since the year 2000.

The said G8 statement undermines the already established Adaptation Fund under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali by the Conference of Parties in December 2007 to provide technological assistance to developing countries. It is unfortunate that instead of funding this mechanism, the G8 countries will divert their contributions to the World Bank Climate Investment Funds to maintain control of the process of technology transfer.

According to the G8 Action Network, “after failing as a development bank, the World Bank is now trying to create the image that it is the "climate bank." With the 2 billion already spent on coal, oil and gas projects over the last year, the World Bank has broken its own record as the world's largest multilateral financier of greenhouse-emitting energy initiatives.”

While the G8 agreed to the importance of clean energy it promotes nuclear power as one of the solutions. Considering the risk of Nuclear power it is not a clean source. Meanwhile it proves business for certain G8 countries.

The G8 statement on Forest sector is a positive approach. It says “we will make all possible efforts by ensuring close coordination among various fora and initiatives with a view to promoting effective forest law enforcement and governance and sustainable forest management worldwide.” They also plan to combat wildfires which largely contribute to the global warming. However, G8 countries do not own much Forest resources.

Under the 3R( Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) initiative by endorsing the Kobe 3R Action Plan G8 “supports the international circulation of reusable and recyclable materials and resources in an environmentally sound manner consistent with the Basel Convention.” However, this might promote the electronic waste circulation from the developed countries to the developing countries.

The G8 climate solution undermines the global process and become an obstacle for the agreed processes. Global warming is a result of overconsumption by several rich nations. There is no other solution other than reduction of the emission of GHG by reducing consumption. However self appointed G8, led by United States is a greater obstacle for such a process.

G8 calls Multilateral Development Banks to support the adaptation efforts of the least developing countries and small island countries that are most vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change. Perhaps while the endless global debate on climate change continues, adaptation is the only available option for the vulnerable communities.

July 2008, Colombo

Environment Conservation levy and climate adaptation

2008-05-07T17:00:00.000+05:30

A response to the ongoing debate

Hemantha Withanage, Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice

Since the media reports on passing of Environment Conservation Levy Act has been rounding the corner, arguments and counter arguments are frown upon with tinge of personal rivalry among the public, experts and officials. In the process of healthy discourse the larger context should not be missed or diverted.

The main accusation in the article entitled "The Environmental Conservation Levy Bill: Myths and Realities" on 25 April 2008, in the Island newspaper is that my previous article dated 15 April 2007 published in the same Daily is based on wrong information. I would like to refer to two articles written on this subject. Article written by Rohan Samarajiva "What is best for Sri Lanka's environment: Tax or incentives? appeared in Lanka Business Online on 31 Mar 2008 says "A Bill will be brought to Parliament within days to give broad-ranging discretion to the finance minister to impose an environment conservation levy on households (as defined by the Bill), goods made here or imported, and services provided in Sri Lanka. Do not be fooled by the name. This is a tax; it has nothing to do with the environment; and it subverts the control of finance by Parliament."

The article written by Manel Abeyrathne appeared in the Daily Mirror on 15 April 2008 also states that "Unfortunately there was no debate on the Bill since parliament was in uproar concerning the appointment of the acting secretary general and in the ensuing confusion the bill is said to have been passed though there appears to have been no clear decision taken regarding it till such time as the speaker expresses his opinion. Whatever the situation of the bill appears to be in parliament one wonders how effective such a levy would be and also the necessity at this juncture to burden the people further with an additional levy."

Manel also argues that "While it is certainly noteworthy that the environment ministry is concerned about creating an environment friendly atmosphere it is certainly confusing as to how a levy at this junction on the goods mentioned can bring about the required justification. It is stated that households liable to this levy would be those that have a vehicle , a telephone , and electricity supply .The Ministry of Environment expects Rs 1,000 million from this source annually from 2008."

This proves that I am at least not the confused one about the Environmental Conservation Levy. To avoid this confusion as propagated by some officials, it is the public duty of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resource should make available the final draft of the Bill. While the counter argument referred to the Principle 16 of the Agenda 21 which gives the polluter pays principle, I must remind that the principle 10 of the Agenda 21 also explain about the access to information. In this case, the information is missing or strategically classified.

Principle 16 says "National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment."

As well Principle 10 of the agenda 21 says "Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual

Environment ...

shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes …Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, redress and remedy, shall be provided." To my understanding, the propagated consultation for this Bill was done among selected few by the Ministry but not public consultations.

The article appeared on 25 April 2008 is wrong when it says that ‘Extended Producer Responsibility’ cannot be adopted by Sri Lanka like South Korea as such items are imported to Sri Lanka from other countries. I believe there is no necessity for the producers to be based in the host country to establish EPR regulations. It can be passed on to the producer through the importer. EPR simply extending responsibility for waste from government to private industry, forcing producers to internalize waste management costs in their product prices.

For understanding of the readers, environmental stewardships or EPR regulations encourage all stages and actors involved in the life cycle of a product including manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and government to take responsibility for the environmental and human impacts that result from the production, use, and disposal of that product. Those regulations have both mandatory and voluntary provisions though product take back, product leasing rather than selling, design changes for easy recycling and reuse etc. Part of the regulations cover ban of importation of obsolete products such as used refurbished items such as computers, washing machines etc.

It is important to understand all waste material especially certain products with heavy metals cannot be treated or recycle in Sri Lanka since we don’t have such high technology. Financial resources cannot only solve this problem. Countries such as South Korea also send the toxic parts such as mother boards of computers to China for recycling.

To my knowledge CEA produced its Hazardous Waste Regulation in 1996. If the Ministry and the CEA had the will to implement they should not have idle for 12 more years. I don’t blame the present Minister and the CEA chairman for the inaction. However, I believe CEA has the competent staff to deal with the hazardous waste regulation but no adequate expertise to deal with the recycling of the waste. While CEA can tie together with the expertise of the other agencies it might be worth to give the responsibility of dealing with high polluting material to the producer.

To my understanding it is unwarranted to remind every CEA chairman about the complaints or the requests made earlier by the public regarding environmental matters. The chairman should be forthcoming to take the responsibility from predecessors. Ministry and the CEA should revisit the requests we made regarding the electronic waste since 2004. Perhaps the author of the April 25th article can ask the concerned officer to deal with that matter.

I failed to understand the statement that "there is no evidence that the use of electronic devices reduced traveling time or space. In contrast those have increased the amount of travel.". I propose Ministry should refer this matter to the communication specialist.

The purpose of the CEA is to set standards and enforce the relevant regulations. I do agree that the need of the financial resources for the conservation efforts of the CEA and the other agencies under the Ministry. I also agree that the tax money which comes from the Treasury is public money and is not adequate for this purpose. However, National Environmental Act (NEA) already provides such a mechanism although it has not adequately followed due to political reasons.

Under the NEA every polluting industry has to obtain an "Environmental Pollution License (EPL)" and pay Rs. 15,000 for a period of three years. According to the NEA, as amended, every person who contravenes the provisions shall be guilty of an offence, and on conviction shall be- liable to a fine of not less than Rs. 10,000 and not exceeding Rs. 100,000, and thereafter in the event of the offence being continued to be committed, to a fine of Rs. 500 for each day on which the offence is so continued to be committed." As we see there are many defaulters in Sri Lanka. If the existing law be enforced properly and the CEA can set up an effective Legal Department, this is not un-achievable. If the CEA effectively enforce the law there will be adequate funds to deal with environmental conservation cost.

Meanwhile Geological Survey and Mines Bureau (GSMB) deals with large amount of mineral resources and they can easily collect money if they charge proper royalty for the natural resources.

In my argument implementation of the Environmental Conservation Levy Bill needs significant staff and time of the CEA and other agencies. I wonder whether the Ministry has done any cost- benefit analysis of the implementation cost of this levy Bill. Perhaps bringing defaulters of this conservation levy to the legal process might collect more than the funds generated from the levy.

According to the article written by the CEA chairman as appeared in the Daily Mirror on 21 April 2008, the funds could be utilized for providing subsidies for pollution control technologies and for the purpose of granting low interest loans to industrialists. However, I fail to see that the Fund is going to be used for establishing recycling industry for the electronic waste and/or promote producer or importer responsibility and educating general public for proper waste management etc with the intervention of the Ministry. I doubt whether the subsidies and low interest loans finally end up in the pockets of the Corporations.

I am also curious to know how the fund will be utilized in the ‘adaptation fund’. The Bill produced before the Parliament is so vague and misleading that I don’t see any adaptation plan in it. Perhaps the Ministry can elaborate such plans and proposed regulations to the general public as they are bewildered, like me, on the conservation levy and the climate adaptation.

Originally appeared in The Island- Sri Lanka 6th May 2008

National Environmental Levy bill, Adaptation Fund and politics!

2008-04-20T15:35:00.001+05:30

Hemantha Withanage Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice

Alas! Global climate politics is finally at home.The much controversial Environmental Conservation levy bill just passed without a debate in Sri Lanka Parliament. According to Environment Minister Champika Ranawaka the Bill is based on the polluter pays principle. While the tax itself not justified in the Bill, the question remains why the levy charged for electronic items, phone bills and electricity bills for the climate adaptation Fund. (Full Story)

Say no to Colombo garbage!

2008-02-03T07:16:00.000+05:30

The saga of unending recyclomania and more stinking city garbage dumps

By Hemantha Withanage

At last, polythene products thinner than 20 microns are to be banned. But manufacturers started producing 21 microns polythene sheets and bags adding more volumes of plastic to the environment. What can we do now?

I don’t claim Colombo is the most polluted city in Asia. But, while many cities are becoming more environmentally friendly Colombo is moving in the other direction. Sri Lankan city limits are marked with stinking garbage dumps. Without sign boards anyone can know one is entering the city.

FULL STORY

Sethusamudram project: Who looks after Sri Lanka's interests?

2008-02-01T17:00:00.000+05:30

Hemantha Withanage

Executive Director, Environmental Scientist, Centre for Environmental Justice

The Construction of Sethusamudram, Ship Canal by the Indian government has become a controversial issue among the environmental groups in India and Sri Lanka. Unfortunately the Sri Lankan Government's position has not been made clear to the public yet. It was reported that the Indian government has suggested to the Sri Lankan Government that this canal could be used as a barrier to the terrorist movements. That could be a reason for the silence of the Sri Lankan Government.

FULL STORY

GM Food labeling assures freedom of choice

2008-01-31T13:34:00.001+05:30

Hemantha Withanage

A ll food items that contain Genetically Modified ingredients will carry a prominent sticker in near future informing that the product contains GM materials, giving the consumer the freedom of choice. This is a requirement under the regulations made by the Minister of Healthcare and Nutrition under section 32 of the Food Act No. 26 of 1980 published in Gazette Extra-ordinary 1456/22 dated 2006 August 03 . Defaulters of this law will have to face a six-month jail term or a Rs. 10,000 fine or both. These regulations shall come into operation on 1st January 2007.

FULL STORY

Tropical Forest Conservation Act and Ecological debt

2008-01-31T13:24:00.000+05:30

Appeared in The Island, Colombo http://www.island.lk October 01, 2003

By Hemantha Withanage
Environmental Scientist

The Sri Lankan government is planning to sign an agreement, under the US Tropical Forestry Conservation act, to bind Sri Lanka's forests for external debt, soon. Under this arrangement those forests will in future be managed by a committee comprising representatives from the US government, International NGOs other than local representatives. Would this be a question of sovereignty too?

Like any other developing country, Sri Lanka receives loans and grants from both multilateral and bilateral agencies, such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the IMF, USAID and the JBIC. Nevertheless, Sri Lanka’s foreign debt continues to increase.

FULL STORY

Upper Kotmale Who is Right?

2008-01-31T13:13:00.000+05:30

By Hemantha Withanage and Charmini Kodithuwakku

Originally appeared in Dailymirror in 2002

It's indeed a shame that Sri Lanka's most acclaimed natural waterfalls in the hill country will cease to exist soon, all in the name of development. The chronology of events on Upper Kotmale Hydropower project would raise so many questions rather than provide answers. The most important question of all, is whether justice was served to protect the greater interest of the public and the future generation in our country? If the approval process was carefully studied, then it would be an insight to the vicious cycle of approving a project even if it may contain disastrous consequences to the environment and society. Sri Lankan energy policy contains disastrous consequences to the environment and society. The policy caters to promote hydropower, as the CEB vehemently believes that it is the cheapest source to generate energy.

FULL STORY

WHO OWNS THE RAIN?

2008-01-31T13:00:00.000+05:30

Originally appeared in FOE Newsletter in 2001

Water Privatization in Sri Lanka

The dictionary describes water as colourless, tasteless and odourless - its most important property being its ability to dissolve other substances. We in South Africa do not see water that way. For us water is a basic human right, water is the origin of all things - the giver of life. Poet Mazisi Kunene in "Water Is Born All Peoples of the Earth". Water is a valuable resource, vital to human life. Water is owned by the commons. South African water policy states that "There shall be no ownership of water but only a right (for environmental and basic human needs) or an authorization for its use. … Everyone has the right to have access to sufficient water." Today however, in many countries, including Sri Lanka, access to clean water has become very scarce due to human attempts to control and manage this natural resource.

FULL STORY

Gullivers, Lilliputians and GM Food

2008-01-31T12:47:00.000+05:30

by Hemantha Withanage

Appered in Biotechnology and Development Monitor NO48, December 2001,

In April 2001, the Sri Lanka Health Department, on the advice of its Food Advisory Committee, gazetted restrictions on the importation of genetically modified (GM) foods. Twenty-one products including a wide range of soy products (flour, textured vegetarian proteins, TVPs); corn products (flour, cereals); fresh tomatoes and processed tomato products; cheese, bakers yeast, beet sugar and microbiological cultures were mentioned.

The Sri Lankan Government annpounced that imports of food would have to be accompanied a certificate issued by an accredited laboratory confirming they did not contain GM ingredients. The Controller of Imports directed banks to warn their clients of these restrictions and to include them in letters of credit. These measures provoked immediate reaction from US government representatives and the WTO which resulted in the Sri Lankan government withdrawing the legislation.

FULL STORY

Sri Lankan Struggle for keeping water public

2008-01-31T12:26:00.000+05:30

Hemantha Withanage[1]

Water is a right! Water is a ‘common resources’. No one seems to confront this. However, ‘right to water’ means that everybody gets access to ‘free access to water’ is something that people engage in a debate. This debate is endless. However, how to manage water is a question that everybody is trying to answer.

Meanwhile, International Financial institutions powered by the water corporations are moving to engage making water a commodity. Manila water is run by a private corporation. Jakarta is same. However, despite the Asian Development Bank’s and World Bank’s strong pressure to adopt ‘privatisation friendly water policy’, Sri Lankan water is still remaining in the public hand. This is so far because of the civil society struggle for keeping water public.

FULL STORY

ADB’s Future Strategy: Would It Really Matter to the Poor?

2008-01-31T12:14:00.000+05:30

Hemantha Withanage[1] and Ronald Masayda[2]

NGO Forum on ADB

September 2007

Introduction

The initial implementation review of and the multi-stakeholder consultations on the Asian Development Bank’s Long Term Strategy Framework (LTSF) bear close scrutiny and watching for instructive insights on the accomplishments or failings of the Bank’s anti-poverty agenda in the first five years. It is also important to carefully monitor and observe how the results of this review exercise would affect the Bank’s poverty reduction directions, priorities and activities in the next 10 years.

The ADB says the basic premise for the LTSF review are attributable to the changing regional and global trends to wit: unprecedented high rates of growth, global capital flows into the region, the co-existence of high rates of savings along with the need for high investment rates, and significant adverse environmental implications associated with the high growth rates. The undertaking, therefore, should give pause to the Bank to assess whether its over-all prognosis of a poverty-free region by 2015 is indeed reachable and realistic.

FULL STORY

Keeping Poverty Alive Beyond 2020

2007-04-27T14:41:00.000+05:30

A Personal View Eminent Persons Group Report

The recent report of the Eminent Persons Group to the ADB President entitled, “Towards a New Asian Development Bank in a New Asia,” is worth reading if only for the rosy future it paints for the peoples of Asia and the Pacific come 2020. As the Bank enters its fifth decade of existence and amid increasingly cutthroat competition from other lending institutions that threatens its “preeminence as a regional bank,” the Report prescribes new directions and approaches for the ADB. These are promoting inclusive growth; facilitating environmentally sustainable growth; and promoting regional (and global) integration.

In so doing the Bank, whose development model has created both so-called millions of beneficiaries and countless unwitting human victims and incalculable environmental harm in a number of Asia-Pacific nations, would preserve its raison d’etre; thus avoid becoming an anachronism in our rapidly-evolving and developing region.

FULL STORY

Four Decades of the Asian Development Bank

2007-04-27T14:38:00.000+05:30

The Asian Development Bank had its beginnings when it held its inaugural Annual Meeting in November 1966 in Tokyo. Its next Annual Meeting was then held in Manila in April 1968. In 1966, the Bank was owned by 40 regional and 16 non-regional member countries. Currently, it is owned by 48 regional and 19 non-regional ones. Its authorized capital stock of US$1.1 billion increased to US$48 billion in 1999 then to US$50 billion in 2006. Moreover, the annual budget is US$42 million in 1966 which increased to US$7.97 billion on 2007.

From its founding up to 31 December 2005, the ADB has approved US$84.6 billion of Ordinary Capital Resources (OCR) loans. In 2005 alone, it approved loans from OCR totaling US$4.4 billion (US$4.0 billion in 2004), which included US$536 million (US$293 million in 2004) for private sector borrowers. On the other hand, outstanding loans from the Asian Development Fund (ADF), which is the largest Special Fund, amounted to US$20.2 billion as of 31 December 2005.

FULL STORY

Aren’t they loud enough?

2006-08-23T12:59:00.000+05:30

Hemantha Withanage
Executive Director, NGO Forum on ADB

Around four thousand people rally against the Asian Development Bank during its 39th Annual Meeting held in Hyderabad in May 2006. They uttered “We can survive without ADB.”

Most people join the rally was for safeguarding safeguards. The civil society demanded “No to Displacement,” “Respect indigenous rights,” “Stop destructive development,” “ADB Quit India,” “ADB Out of Water and Power,” “Make ADB accountable to the People,” “Our lives and resources are more important to us than your dams. Stop taking them away from us,” “Better off without the ADB,” “ADB- compensates KJDRP affected people in Bangladesh,” “Junk ADB to stop degradation and metabolism of nature and society,” “ADB Hands off our water our health our forest, our livelihood, our environment.” The civil society even rephrased ADB as “Anti-democratic Destructive Burden.” Meanwhile Greenpeace demanded: “ADB Quit Coal” and said Climate change! Party is over.” The affected people of Mae Moh coal power plant in Thailand offered a bowl of coal to the ADB president during his meeting with the civil society.

FULL STORY

Accountability Mechanism: A jailbird of bureaucracy

2006-08-23T12:16:00.002+05:30

Hemantha Withanage
Executive Director, NGO Forum on ADB

Asian Development Bank proudly presented its new accountability mechanism as the medicine for its project-related disputes in 2003. When presenting, former ADB President Tadao Chino said, “I am confident that with support from all stakeholders, the Accountability Mechanism will satisfy their demand that ADB address the complaints of project-affected people on the ground and establish a transparent process that will increase ADB’s accountability.”

Theoretically, it provides mediation through the Special Project Facilitator (SPF) and a verdict on the violation of ADB policies through the Compliance Review Panel (CRP). But after two years of its existence, has it delivered any solutions to people’s issues?

The recent CRP monitoring report on STDP, which was issued in July 2006, shows that the ADB management and the Road Development Authority have not complied with most of the remedial action proposed by the CRP report issued in July 2005. Said report was a response to the complaints made by project affected people.

FULL STORY

yasmin lawsuit