ejustice 1.1 - COLOMBO’S DISAPPEARING WETLANDS

COLOMBO’S DISAPPEARING WETLANDS

Indika Rajapaksha (B. Sc)Environmental Officer

Colombo is a city built on and around wetlands. Over 500 years ago the ancient Kingdom of Kotte flourished in Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte and centred on a fortress surrounded by lakes and marshes known as Diyawanna Oya and Kolonnawa Oya. Whilst much has changed in the intervening years, today the home of the Sri Lankan parliament and administrative centre for the country can still be found situated on a reclaimed island on a lake in the suburb of Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte at the centre of the Colombo Metro Region (CMR).

Today wetlands cover approximately 20 km2 across the CMR .However, the extent of the wetlands only tells part of the story. Since the days of the Kingdom of Kotte wetlands within the CMR have been progressively degraded, infilled and lost. Much of this damage is considered irreversible. Some estimates suggest that wetlands comprising the Kolonnawa Marsh have been reduced in area by as much as 65% since the 1980s. Similarly, as much as 60% of paddy lands across the wetlands of CMR may have been converted to non‐wetland use over a similar time period.

The wetlands provide effective protection from flooding. During intensive rainfall events, the wetlands are able to store several tens of millions cubic meters of water (up to 68 Mm3 for the 100 year return period flood or the equivalent of more than 27,000 Olympic sized swimming pools). The wetlands can reduce extreme air temperatures and make the city more livable. Due to evaporative cooling, the wetlands can reduce air temperatures, the effect of which can extend into areas up to 100m away from the wetlands’ physical boundaries.

This means that over 65 km2, or more than 50% of urban Colombo, benefits from this natural air conditioning. The wetland soils are mitigating global climate change. Estimates suggest that the wetland soils contain approximately 1.43 million metric tons of carbon; the equivalent of almost 90% of the annual carbon emissions from CMR.

The wetlands are protecting the health of citizens. Four out of five of the wetland areas in Colombo buffer the negative impacts of airborne pollutants on air quality. Through the trapping and removal of particulate matter the wetlands are reducing the incidence of cardiopulmonary and respiratory diseases, coughing, bronchitis, and lung cancer, as well as premature deaths from these diseases resulting from elevated concentrations of ambient particulate matter.

The Colombo Metropolitan Region losses 1.2% of wetlands per year (World Bank,2018) The city of Colombo has been declared as a wetland city by the International Ramsar Convention Secretariat. The Wildlife Department, together with the cooperation of all relevant parties had made an application to the Ramsar Convention Secretariat to obtain the international wetlands certification for the Colombo city.

Highlighting the importance of making use of the urban wetlands amidst urbanization and focusing on protecting its biodiversity, it was decided at the Ramsar Secretariat Stakeholders Conference in 2015 to name such cities as international wetland cities.

Accordingly, 18 wetland cities were chosen from China, South Korea, France, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and several other cities to be named as wetland cities by the Ramsar Secretariat.

This provides a unique opportunity to protect the existing wetlands in the Colombo Metropolitan Region. A national wetland policy has been formulated by the Central Environment Authority in 2006. National Wetland Day which falls on 02nd of February is celebrated annually. However actual effort put towards conserving the existing wetland is minimum. Many unauthorized fillings are happening overnight. It is high time for individuals, civil society and citizens of Colombo to raise their voice against illegal filling, garbage dumping, and industrial effluent dumping to wetlands. Otherwise this title Colombo has gained as a wetland city would be just a title.[END]

ejustice 1.1 - MALWATHU OYA PROJECT TO DESTROY MORE FORESTS

MALWATHU OYA PROJECT TO DESTROY MORE FORESTS

Ranjan Karunanayake
Media Officer

The Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources Management has proposed Lower Malwathu Oya Reservoir (LMOR ) with the objectives reducing the flooding in the Malwathu Oya basin and increasing the water availability in Giant tank and Akathimuruppu tank and thereby increasing the crop production. An EIA report was prepared and recently opened for the public comments. Centre for environmental justice opposed the above project due to massive clearance and inundation of forests and not identifying enough alternatives for the project in the EIA report.

The project will inundate 4044 ha of land upstream of the dam site and the area immediately downstream of the dam will be developed as irrigated lands and resettlement areas.

Approximately 60-70% of the area identified for inundation is covered with natural habitats such as Dry mixed evergreen forests, riverine forests and thorn scrub that shelter many floral and faunal species.(1893 ha of disturbed and undisturbed forests and 735 ha of scrub jungle) Justifying them as degraded forest areas, due to Chena cultivations practiced time to time is not acceptable. In addition to that 810 ha will be cleared for new cultivations and 277 ha for resettlements. At Least 3715 ha of forests will be cleared due to the project.

The project is in close proximity to the Wilpattu National Park, Madu road and Giant tank sanctuaries and many forest reserves. Wilpattu National Park is located approximately 6-8 km to the west of the project affected area.

The proposed resettlement site is located adjacent to the Wilpattu National Park. This will affect the Wilpattu national park and the Wilpattu forest system negatively. This will create an opening for illegal activities such as timber felling, hunting etc.

In addition to that, the proposed elephant corridor runs through the resettlement area separating the land into two. If elephants actually use this corridor there is a high risk of creating a human elephant conflict. Proposed new cultivation areas are also located close to the forest areas where elephants reside and they will come to croplands to eat paddy and other crops. Therefore the project will escalate the human elephant conflict.

The project recommends Department of Wildlife Conservation to establish a new entrance to Wilpattu National Park near Thanthirimale town the by providing infrastructure such as improving the access road to the proposed entrance and establishing the entrance including the proposed buildings.

The purpose of the new entrance is to increase the number of visitations to the park. However we believe that this will bring negative impacts. More vehicles will travel to the park and this will disturb the wildlife activities unnecessarily. Therefore we oppose this suggestion to set up a new entrance to the Wilpattu national park.

Instead of building a large reservoir, rehabilitation of the existing small and medium scale tank system should have been considered as an alternative.

People from the affected area also believe that as an option. In addition to that no any other alternatives have been evaluated such as different areas for resettlement.

The forest cover of the country is being declined day by day. It is our duty to preserve the existing forest cover by all means. Therefore a more voice needs to be raised regarding this project.[END]

ejustice 1.1 - Development Debacles

Development Debacles

Hemantha Withanage (B. Sc)Executive Director

Sri Lanka has got number of failed and controversial projects in the past decade. Norochcholai coal power plant, Hambanthota Harbour, Mattala airport, Uma Oya diversion, Colombo port city to name a few. They cost billions of rupees however do not distribute expected benefits. Perhaps many of them are not required for the country. This unwarranted development or over development is the result of political arrogance of the ruling regimes. 

During the recent conference on the Environmental Impact Assessment held in Colombo, it was revealed that some major development project don’t even have a feasibility study or even a pre-feasibility study.

The developers in both private and public projects expect the EIA process to deal with the feasibility as well. There is no way that EIA teams can fulfil the task of making both feasibility and the Environmental Impact Assessment. The projects this way lack looking in to the more feasible alternatives.

Uma Oya diversion project is a clear example of launching the project without a feasibility study done, during the previous regime.

Addressing the gathering on 29th April 2008 on the occasion of the visit of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Sri Lanka, at Sapugaskanda, Former President Mahinda Rajapaksha said “Two gifts by Iran to Sri Lanka to build Uma Oya reservoir project and a modern oil refinery were the noblest of gifts we have received recently. Sri Lankans are visibly moved by this great gesture said President Mahinda Rajapaksa. A reservoir is the noblest gift one could give the Sri Lankan people.” However, President Ahmadinejad was not able to lay the foundation stone at Uma-Oya due to bad weather conditions. By December 2014, the Iranian gift become a death trap for the villagers in Bandarawela.

Other than the irrigation water to Wellawaya and Hambanthota it was promised to add 120 MW to the generation system with 230 GWh of annual energy generation. It was expected to connect the power plant to the national grid in 2015. The estimated cost of the project is 529 million USD and 85% of the total project cost is provided by the Government of Iran through Export and Development Bank as a loan. By now more than 7000 million rupees have been paid as compensation for the affected communities which is not even 20% of the total damage done by the Uma Oya project. Despite the failure of the project, Sri Lankan citizens will pay this money back to Iran next couple of decades. The project had neither a proper feasibility study nor an acceptable EIA with possible alternatives.

Hambanthota Harbor was built by digging Karagan Levaya which was one of the best lagoons for migratory birds reach in Sri Lanka. Feasibility study for the harbor was rejected by the ministerial task force since the study is not bankable and is not a full feasibility study in 2002.

Yet the project was pushed by the previous regime and it became another white elephant. Total estimated construction cost of the Phase 1 of the project is US $361 million and out of which, 85% has been funded by the EXIM Bank of the People’s Republic of China. Then Sri Lanka Port Authority Chairman boasted that Singapore Ambassador in Sri Lanka when touring the site said: “We’d better find ourselves another job”. Sri Lanka being at the very epicenter of trade routes will be able to accommodate even the largest of ships and cater to their needs. As expected, no shipping line was interested to use the harbor.

In July 2017, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leased out the Hambantota Port to China Merchant Port for a 99-year period at price of US$ 1.1 billion. The SLPA has built an artificial island in the extent of 110 hectares near Hambantota Port at a cost of over $500 million during the previous Rajapaksa regime. This man-made island which has been built as an entertainment facility was also given to Chinese company.

Colombo Port City is another projects that has detrimental economic, environmental and social implications. This single project developed four EIAs, yet failed to address the real implications due to the high political interests.

These are just few occasions that Department of National planning and the Ministry of Finance did not play its role when screening the suitable projects for the country. As a result, the Sri Lankan public pay heavy cost to pay back unnecessary and illegitimate debts.

Central Environmental Authority failed to stop massive environmental destruction of these projects. It is not necessarily lack of the regulations but due to the serving of political interests. In the recent years CEA lost its grip on environmental conservation. This is mainly due to the politicizing of the top seat.

Sri Lanka’s total net external debt exceeded $50 billion in 2017. Sri Lanka’s large external debt repayments total US$ 4 billion per year between 2019 and 2022. Under the previous government from 2004-2015 has borrowed 5.17 trillion rupees of total loans including 2.16 trillion rupees ($14.06 billion) of foreign loan. According to the Central bank’s latest records show Sri Lanka’s total outstanding debt was 10.3 trillion rupees as of the end of September 2017.

Considering the failed projects such as Mattala Airport, Hambanthota Harbour, Uma Oya diversion and some other partly successful projects such as Moragahakanda, Yan Oya etc., half of the Sri Lanka’s debt could be considered as illegitimate debt.

Illegitimate debt includes loans that: were knowingly given to oppressive regimes and dictators; caused harm to people, environment and communities; violated human rights; violated basic notions and rules of fairness, and basic assumptions of public contracts; violated democratic principles and exploited the vulnerability, impoverishment and misfortune of others. The accumulation of both legitimate and illegitimate debt in Sri Lanka in the recent times have caused enormous pressure on the country and the citizens which often see as tax increase and increase of the price of food and services.

In recent months Sri Lanka has been cited by several politician in other countries and the media as the latest victim of the China debt trap diplomacy. There are many African and Asian countries who struggle to pay the debt accumulated with Chinese investments overseas. China Belt Road Initiative is one of the mechanisms to get countries to this debt trap. However, it is the ruling regimes of each country has the right to engage or avoid.

It is unfortunate that development decisions in Sri Lanka has no much public acceptance or not even referred for public opinion. There is no such an educated voice in the Parliament or such a dialogue happening in the country to select the development we need for the national development.

Unfortunately, development decision making is in the handful of corrupted politicians. The past experience shows bureaucrats have no say on these decisions or either they are corrupt too. It is paramount to correct the system and clean the politics before Sri Lanka get drowned into this deep debt crisis. [END]

ejustice 1.1 - Open letter to the President TIME TO BAN SINGLE USE PLASTICS

Open letter to the President

TIME TO BAN SINGLE USE PLASTICS

Around the World Plastics have become a major threat to the existence of life. Sri Lankan soil, coast line, rivers, lakes have already become the dumping ground to plastic material and microplastics. Our beaches, oceans and ecosystems are very much affected and the beach cleaning and waste management has become a really unaffordable to the nation.

Killing of the ocean will have much negative impacts on the fisher communities around the country. According to the 2010 data Sri Lanka is among the five counties that badly managed its plastics. We are losing tourism due to the dirty beaches around the country.Scientist have found fish and human body already have microplastics which will have serious health impacts unidentified so far. We also know that plastics have become a serious impacts on the wildlife due to the mismanagement of garbage and the contents of the garbage. Wild elephants, Deer, Samba Deer, Wild boar, Cattle, dogs and many other wild and domesticated animals are in great danger.

Plastics also become the breeding grounds for mosquitos and increasing the risk of Dengi and other vector borne diseases.

Burning plastics, especially PVC emits very toxic fumes including Dioxins and Furans which are responsible for lung diseases and Cancer. There is no safe methods of burning plastics in Cement Kilns, Incineration or open air.

We understand that the temporary solutions such as using plastic for the road construction, plastics (eco)bricks etc., continue to increase microplastic in the environment, and do not bring any solution to this problem. It is very clear that there is no 100% effective recycling industry worldwide for plastics.

Packaging industry is responsible for 90 % of the single use plastics 50% of the total plastics around the world and in Sri Lanka.

According to the United Nations Environmental Programme and many other scientists, only nine per cent of the nine billion tonnes of plastic the world has ever produced has been recycled.

Most ends up in landfills, dumps or in the environment. If current consumption patterns and waste management practices continue, then by 2050 there will be around 12 billion tonnes of plastic litter in landfills and the environment.

Most plastics do not biodegrade. Instead, they slowly break down into smaller fragments known as microplastics. Studies suggest that plastic bags and containers made of expanded polystyrene foam (commonly referred to as “Styrofoam”) can take up to thousands of years to decompose, contaminating soil and water.

The most common single-use plastics found in the environment are, in order of magnitude, cigarette butts, plastic drinking bottles, plastic bottle caps, food wrappers, plastic grocery bags, plastic lids, straws and stirrers, other types of plastic bags, and foam take-away containers. These are the waste products of a throwaway culture that treats plastic as a disposable material rather than a valuable resource to be harnessed.

In 2017, government brought regulations to mitigate plastics. However, it has been ineffective and inadequate in many ways. The initiative to ban plastic bags less than 20 microns was not effectively enforced. It is not adequate to resolve this crisis.

Understanding that there is a global crisis related to plastics with no scientific or political solutions exists Centre for Environmental Justice believe that Sri Lanka need to take a more appropriate solution. Understanding that plastic pollution in Sri Lanka do not have a local solution or single solution, Sri Lanka need to implement very stricter approach based on avoid, minimise, mitigate approach and the polluter pays principle.

Therefore we propose immediate ban of single use plastics including plastic bags, lunch sheets, biscuit wrappers, plastic straw, cutlery, yoghurt cups, cotton buds and use of plastic bottle in the water and beverage industry etc. Plastic bottles (PET Bottles) an lids use in the water and soft drink/beverage industry such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Elephant house, American water and many other similar companies is a greater challenge to resolve the plastic crisis.

The data shows that year 2012 huge amount of plastic stoppers, lids and caps have imported to Sri Lanka. These companies are well known for charging heavy cost for the plastic bottles which is very cheap for production. They have promised to use that money for the recycling of the bottles which never happened in the past 2 decades.

These bottles can be easily transferred to glass bottles which was the case before. Therefore we demand that use of plastic bottles in the water and beverage industry should be banned immediately.

The small plastic packets of shampoo, toothpaste, washing powders, Samahan, herbal medicines, also known as Sachet packet and small packets of peanuts etc., has identified as one of the greatest challenge to solve the plastic pollution. Therefore, CEJ demand that all Sachet packets should be completely banned immediately.

We also understood that biscuits wrappers of the Munchee, Maliban and others have become a big part of the plastic pollution. They are even found in the places such as Horton Plains, Sri Pada etc .

Plastics toys have also become a serious plastic polluter in Sri Lanka. They are also contaminated with heavy metals such as lead. Such companies and importers should make accountable for cleaning their plastic waste.

Meanwhile we believe there are sustainable options for the packaging industry based on the natural material, which are not going to be developed without providing a reasonable space in the market.

Based on the polluter pays principle the packaging industries should develop a mechanism to collect all their plastic material and recycle them in an environmentally sound socially responsible manner. Its very urgent to revisit the ban imposed in September 2017 and correct the regulatory measures adopted and build a proper implementation mechanism to impose the regulation.

It is now understood that, even bioplastics derived from renewable sources (such as corn starch, cassava roots, or sugarcane) or from bacterial fermentation of sugar or lipids (PHA) do not decay do not automatically degrade in the environment and especially not in the ocean. Therefore, Sri Lanka should not encourage such bioplastics.

Extended Producer Responsibility is a mechanism accepted worldwide. Such process is widely in operation in other countries by the Transnational corporations operate in Sri Lanka and they should have equal treatment for Sri Lankan environment and people too.

It is highly unacceptable that the green washing of these companies under the Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) initiatives and such other programmes. It is highly unacceptable to mislead and misdefine Extended Producer Responsibility for the corporate interest. Consumer Affairs Authority and the Central Environmental Authority should be accountable for directing the Industries and the corporation towards this process.

There should be an ongoing dialogue to advocate the new approaches and introduction of a suitable model of Extended Producer Responsibility as a national priority for Sri Lanka. The relevant national agencies, Ministries, corporations, Police, CSOs and people should build a partnership to find a sustainable solution for the plastic pollution in the country.

There should be a nationwide awareness to educate people around the country to change their attitude on plastics. We believe that all media should play a role in educating people and change the attitude on the plastics on pro bono basis.

CEJ believe that Sri Lanka should play a critical role to manage plastics as part of the global effort to manage increasing plastic crisis in the world. It is also important to completely ban importation of plastic waste for Waste to Energy plants, landfilling or reuse.

Sri Lanka government should support the international efforts to bring plastic waste under Basal convention so that it will be treated as a hazardous waste and handle with care. CEJ believes discouraging overproduction, banning single use plastics, bring legislations to regulate plastic production and usage, look for alternatives to the plastics and get public support through awareness is the way forward to minimize the plastic pollution in Sri Lanka and around the world.[END]

ejustice 1.1 - Editorial- Environmentalism

EDITORIAL

Environmentalism

One can see that dozens of environmental struggles are happening on the streets. Sometime thousands of activists join them. Perhaps one will think this could be the best time of the environmental movement in Sri Lanka. Unfortunately not. The truth is many others are fighting invisible local environmental struggles. They lack strength, popular support and most ends with no victory.

Some blame that the environmental movement has been hijacked by the racist movement. I believe it is not true. When there is a mass movement its obvious various fractions come together with different interests. It’s not easy to build a clean movement when there are thousand of people coming together with diverse opinions. If you are successful you will definitely win the struggle.

Environmentalism is an evolving concept. It is hard to give a definition for an environmentalist. Same time some one who devote his or her time for protection of environmental rights of own species, fights for the rights to life of other species and habitats and broadly the health of the planet are considered as environmentalists.

Such environmentalist cannot be a racist. But we know in the real world some fighting for water, land rights are sometime deny access to water and land for some other communities. It’s too complex to understand who is right.

Recently, a major conservation organisation has been accused for paying the forest guards who engage in torturing local people to stop entering the forests in Nepal. It is certainly against environmental justice concept.

Local people are the owners of the natural resource located in their surroundings. They have right to land, right to natural resources and to decide how they can consume. There is very delicate balance between the conservation and the rights of the local communities. It is best if the local people become the conservationists.

To do this everyone need to understand the importance of nature and other life forms equal to our own. This does not happen when others consume more and more resources by force.

In todays world, governments, corporation and powerful engage in looting such community resources and leave pollution for the local people. This is the result of capitalism. There is no environmentalism without understanding how the neoliberal model works and fighting against it.

Therefore ones environmentalism should focus more and more on justice, equity and democracy. Unwise environmentalism might bring more harm rather than protection.

Editorial team