Features

Assessing damage of environmental disasters

Published

5 years ago

2021/07/13

By Dr Sirimewan Dharmaratne
, Senior Analyst, HM Revenue and Customs, UK

While Sri Lanka is grappling with wars on many fronts, people are reminded daily of the environmental disaster caused by the sinking of the X-Press Pearl vessel. The scenes of beaching of massive dead turtles, tons of toxic pollutants getting washed ashore, are all ominous signs of a silent killer. These are all precursors to the environmental desecration that is happening out in the deep sea away from human gaze. However, these visceral feelings of despair need to be replaced by realistic expectations on how this can be put right. This invariably leads to the question how to assess the damage that has been caused. Damage itself has no intrinsic cost. The cost comes only in the way of loss of value to humans. Therefore, it is essential that all losses are identified, and appropriate methods are used to value or cost them.

Framework for Assessing the Damage

Unless the government puts forward a compelling case, it is likely to come out short-changed from negotiations with the shipping company. Therefore, it is essential that damages are assessed using internationally accepted methods. Herein lies the difficulty of valuation of environmental goods and services. What is the value of a turtle or a dolphin? They are not bought or sold in markets. Value that we place on the environment is essentially human centric. A resource is valuable only as much as humans are willing to pay for it or how much they are willing to accept for its loss. If it can be replaced, then the cost of replacement to the original level is the value. There is a repertoire of methods that can be applied to capture all types of economic values of the environment.

Clean up costs

Cleaning up of the pollutant prevents further damage. Therefore, clean-up expenses is the minimum cost of any further damage that would have occurred if it had not taken place. For example, Exxon spent over US$2 billion to clean-up the Alaskan coast after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. This implies that if the clean-up was not done, Exxon would have anticipated at least that much more in further damage payments. Sri Lankan government should have closed all affected beaches and done a professional cleaning process immediately after the disaster. This would have given a much more solid case to recover clean-up costs from the polluter. Due to lack of protocol, there was no organised cleaning and it is unlikely that the government would be able to present valid cost estimates. Further, due uncontrolled access to polluted beaches, pollutants are likely to have been unwittingly transported all over the island, which is still happening. There are lessons to be learned here on how the country should be prepared and act when the next such disaster strikes, which may be just around the corner.

Damage Assessment

While clean-up only prevents future damage and loss of value, damage that has already been caused needs to be properly identified, quantified and cost. There are several immediately obvious losses, including loss of wildlife, loss of livelihood of fisherfolk, reduced fish catch and loss of tourism revenue. There may be other damages that are not as obvious, nevertheless, very real, such as damage to the seabed, that would cause enduring losses to wildlife and commercial fisheries. Health risk to those who were exposed to various pollutants is another cost. These may need more expert investigation and assessment. What is important is no final agreement is reached until a comprehensive analysis is done.

Replacement Costs

This method is used when the damaged resource can be replaced. For example, for each sea otter rescued, Exxon paid US$40,000 to US$90,000 for rehabilitation. Further, US$32 million was paid to replace the reported 2,800 sea otters that were lost. The total cost of replacing just four species including seals, eagles and sea birds was about US$113 million. Clearly, this depends on whether the lost resources can be replaced. This method could be used to value numerous turtles that have been killed. But first it is essential to establish how many turtle deaths can be attributed exclusively to this disaster over and above what could have occurred naturally. This requires careful scientific proof and not facetious comments by dim-witted politicians. Not only such conjectures are imprudent but also harmful. They could be picked up by the offending parties to put forward a case against just compensation.

If the replacement cost of a sea otter was about US$47,000 over 30 years ago, one could expect the cost of replacing a turtle, a creature that is much harder to replace, would be much higher. Even with a conservative estimate of US$50,000 per turtle, then for the 140 or so turtles that were reported to have been killed, compensation would be around US$7 million. Further, as most were mature adults, their loss would have a significant impact on the breeding stock of this extremely critical species. This could cause a permanent reduction in the turtle population. Then there is the cost of rehabilitating turtles and other animals that were rescued. Those who are working on damage assessment need to do some investigation to understand how replacement and rehabilitation costs have been calculated in previous similar cases. As these are already established and accepted by such institutions as the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association of the USA, these methodologies have a solid pedigree.

Loss of direct values

These are the losses incurred by all those who based their livelihood on the coastal environment that is now polluted. These are not only the loss of profits of fisherfolk, but losses to all those who are involved in the distribution chain. This is because fish caught generate value at each point they change hands and generate economic rent to someone. In fact, if there is any increase in market prices that causes loss of economic welfare to the final consumer, it is also a direct economic loss. Further, not just a one-time loss, but a stream of future losses until such time that fish stock recovers to pre-disaster level.

Loss of recreational value-tourism

Loss of value from tourism is hard to measure because even if these beaches become unavailable, there will be other substitute beaches that the tourists could go to. However, there are again accepted methods that could put value on a specific beach or a recreational area when individuals have a choice of similar sites. It would be good to have such studies done when the country returns to normal. So that when the next disaster hits, either man-made or natural, the country would be able to accurately estimate economic losses.

While in the current environment, there may not be a strong case for losses from international tourism, there may be a case for loss of value for domestic recreational use. The value of these beaches for those living in the vicinity or within easy commuting distance could be high, especially during these times of travel restrictions. There are well established internationally accepted methods that can be used. While they require extensive data and technical expertise, they have also been successfully applied when data and technical resources are limited.

Loss of non-use values

Demise of numerous and often valuable sea creatures, pollution of pristine beaches and real or perceived long lasting adverse environmental effects human welfare. What is important is one does not have to be directly affected to experience this loss. Hence it is applicable to all Sri Lankans. It is conceivable that even those who may never visit the affected area or see a turtle at a beach or at sea, is ‘worse-off’ after this disaster. While this value is not related to any use, it is nevertheless real. Such values are globally acknowledged and known as ‘non-use’ values.

In the case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, these non-use values were estimated at US$2.8 billion to all US households. Over 30 years ago, the non-use value for each US household was estimated to be about US$ 31. Thirty years later and considering the income differences of the two countries, if one put it at a measly US$5 per household in Sri Lanka, for the 5 million or so households, non-use value would be around US$25 million. Further, turtles are a global resource, which is valued by the global population as a critically endangered species. Therefore, theoretically this value could be even extended to the global population.

This is by no means a theoretical concept. Robust methods, perfect over the years, exist to capture non-use value. This is palpable by the fact that the Exxon Valdez incident led to the US Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990, which held companies responsible for non-use value in the case of future oil spills. This legislation from the major economic power provides a compelling backdrop for Sri Lanka to add non-use values to the mix of economic losses when seeking compensation.

If all different components of the total economic value are added-up, it is likely that the total would far exceed the interim compensation of US$40 million that has been claimed. Because there are so many precedents from all over the world, Sri Lanka does not need to reinvent the wheel. The government could easily draw upon the plethora of literature that is available on this subject and seek advice and help from experts. However, it is better that the country finds homegrown expertise, without being dependent on foreign consultants.

Way forward

The government is well advised to refrain from reaching an immediate settlement in the interest of making a few quick dollars. Although a few million may look extremely attractive to a cash strapped economy, any immediate compensation should be accepted as interim payments until a proper and comprehensive economic valuation is done. There is no hurry to come up with a settlement. In all previous cases it has taken years to properly assess damage and value. What is important is that it is done to internationally accepted standards so that there is little room for dispute. It is more than likely that the polluter, presented with compelling evidence, will agree to out of court settlements to avoid bad publicity and punitive damages.

Policy making process in Sri Lanka is generally reactive. When a crisis happens, a policy is hastily conjured as a temporary solution. This invariably falls by the wayside due to lack of planning or commitment from stakeholders. It is imperative that a highly trained, numerate and technical team of analysts are put together as a permanent task force to take leadership in situations such as these. They should comprise professionals from all relevant disciplines who are willing to work together as a team for the common good.

There is no doubt that the country has many adroit young professionals who could fill these roles. This is clear from the comments expressed through different media. However, this itself is the problem. There is no value to opinions unless they can be translated to real outcomes. Further, most appear to contradict each other and, in some cases, politically aligned. This not only effete their professional conduct, but also provide ample reasons for offending parties against any settlement. What is needed is not a scattered bunch of individuals who are on personal ego trips, or trying to impress with affectation, but a carefully put together team of fastidious individuals, who are willing to work together and produce high-quality, internationally accepted outputs.

All News Advertisement

Features

Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy

Published

6 hours ago

2026/04/6

Thilina Walpola

I. The Constitutional Context

Independence of the judiciary is, without question, an essential element of a functioning democracy. In recognition of this, ample provision is made in the highest law of our country, the Constitution, to engender an environment in which the courts are able to fulfil their public responsibility with total acceptance.

As part of this protective apparatus, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are assured of security of tenure by the provision that “they shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of members of Parliament, (including those not present), has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”[Article 107(2)]. Since this assurance holds good for the entirety of tenure, it follows that the age of retirement should be defined with certainty. This is done by the Constitution itself by the provision that “the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court shall be 65 years and of judges of the Court of Appeal shall be 63 years”[Article 107(5)].

II. A Proposal for Reform

This provision has been in force ever since the commencement of the Constitution. Significant public interest, therefore, has been aroused by the lead story in a newspaper, Anidda of 13 March, that the government is proposing to extend the term of office of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by a period of two years.

This proposal, if indeed it reflects the thinking of the government, is deeply disturbing from the standpoint of policy, and gives rise to grave consequences. The courts operating at the apex of the judicial structure are called upon to do justice between citizens and also between the state and members of the public. It is an indispensable principle governing the administration of justice that not the slightest shadow of doubt should arise in the public mind regarding the absolute objectivity and impartiality with which the courts approach this task.

What is proposed, if the newspaper report is authentic, is to confer on judges of two particular courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, a substantial benefit or advantage in the form of extension of their years of service. The question is whether the implications of this initiative are healthy for the administration of justice.

III. Governing Considerations of Policy

What is at stake is a principle intuitively identified as a pillar of justice.

Reflecting firm convictions, the legal antecedents reiterate the established position with remarkable emphasis. The classical exposition of the seminal standard is, of course, the pronouncement by Lord Hewart: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. (Rex v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy). The underlying principle is that perception is no less important than reality. The mere appearance of partiality has been held to vitiate proceedings: Dissanayake v. Kaleel. In particular, reasonableness of apprehension in the mind of the parties to litigation is critical: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, a reasonable likelihood of bias being necessarily fatal (Manak Lal v. Prem Chaud Singhvi).

The overriding factor is unshaken public confidence in the judiciary: State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak. The decision must be “demonstrably” (Saleem Marsoof J.) fair. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has rightly declared: “The authority of the judiciary ultimately depends on the trust reposed in it by the people, which is sustained only when justice is administered in a visibly fair manner”.

Credibility is paramount in this regard. “Justice has to be seen to be believed” (J.B. Morton). Legality of the outcome is not decisive; process is of equal consequence. Judicial decisions, then, must withstand public scrutiny, not merely legal technicality: Mark Fernando J. in the Jana Ghosha case. Conceived as continuing vitality of natural justice principles, these are integral to justice itself: Samarawickrema J. in Fernando v. Attorney General. Institutional integrity depends on eliminating even the appearance of partiality (Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant), and “open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system”: (Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI).

IV. Practical Constraints

Apart from these compelling considerations of policy, there are practical aspects which call for serious consideration. The effect of the proposal is that, among all judges operating at different levels in the judicature of Sri Lanka, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only, to the exclusion of all other judges, are singled out as the beneficiaries of the proposal. An inevitable result is that High Court and District Judges and Magistrates will find their avenues of promotion seriously impeded by the unexpected lengthening of the periods of service of currently serving judges in the two apex courts. Consequently, they will be required to retire at a point of time appreciably earlier than they had anticipated to relinquish judicial office because the prospect of promotion to higher courts, entailing higher age limits for retirement, is precipitately withdrawn. Some degree of demotivation, arising from denial of legitimate expectation, is therefore to be expected.

A possible response to this obvious problem is a decision to make the two-year extension applicable to all judicial officers, rather than confining it to judges of the two highest courts. This would solve the problem of disillusionment at lower levels of the judiciary, but other issues, clearly serious in their impact, will naturally arise.

Public service structures, to be equitable and effective, must be founded on principles of non-discrimination in respect of service conditions and related matters. Arbitrary or invidious treatment is destructive of this purpose. In determining the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, some attention has been properly paid to balance and consistency. The age of retirement of a Supreme Court judge is on par with that applicable to university professors and academic staff in the higher education system. They all retire at 65 years. Members of the public service, generally, retire at 60. Medical specialists retire at 63, with the possibility of extension in special circumstances to 65. The age of retirement for High Court Judges is 61, and for Magistrates and District Judges 60. It may be noted that the policy change in 2022 aimed at specifically addressing the issue of uniformity and compatibility.

If, then, an attempt is made to carve out an ad hoc principle strictly limited to judicial officers, not admitting of a self-evident rationale, the question would inevitably arise whether this is fair by other categories of the public service and whether the latter would not entertain a justifiable sense of grievance.

This is not merely a moral or ethical issue relating to motivation and fulfillment within the public service, but it could potentially give rise to critical legal issues. It is certainly arguable that the proposed course of action represents an infringement of the postulate of equality of treatment, and non-discrimination, enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

There would, as well, be the awkward situation that this issue, almost certain to be raised, would then have to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, itself the direct and exclusive beneficiary of the impugned measure.

V. Piecemeal Amendment or an Overall Approach?

If innovation on these lines is contemplated, would it not be desirable to take up the issue as part of the new Constitution, which the government has pledged to formulate and enact, rather than as a piecemeal amendment at this moment to the existing Constitution? After all, Chapter XV, dealing with the Judiciary, contains provisions interlinked with other salient features of the Constitution, and an integrated approach would seem preferable.

VI. Conclusion

In sum, then, it is submitted that the proposed change is injurious to the institutional integrity of the judiciary and to the prestige and stature of judges, and that it should not be implemented without full consideration of all the issues involved.

By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka);
Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Integration;
Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.

Features

Ranked 134th in Happiness: Rethinking Sri Lanka’s development through happiness, youth wellbeing and resilience

Published

6 hours ago

2026/04/6

Thilina Walpola

In recent years, Sri Lanka has experienced a succession of overlapping challenges that have tested its resilience. Cyclone Ditwah struck Sri Lanka in November last year, significantly disrupting the normal lives of its citizens. The infrastructure damage is much more serious than the tsunami. According to World Bank reports and preliminary estimates, the losses amounted to approximately US$ 4.1 billion, nearly 4 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Before taking a break from that, the emerging crisis in the Middle East has once again raised concerns about potential economic repercussions. In particular, those already affected by disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah risk falling “from the frying pan into the fire,” facing multiple hardships simultaneously. Currently, we see fuel prices rising, four-day workweeks, a higher cost of living, increased pressure on household incomes, and a reduction in the overall standard of living for ordinary citizens. It would certainly affect people’s happiness. As human beings, we naturally aspire to live happy and fulfilling lives. At a time when the world is increasingly talking about happiness and wellbeing, the World Happiness Report provides a useful way of looking at how countries are doing. The World Happiness Report discusses global well-being and offers strategies to improve it. The report is produced annually with contributions from the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre, Gallup, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and other stakeholders. There are many variables taken into consideration for the index, including the core measure (Cantril Ladder) and six explanatory variables (GDP per Capita ,Social Support,Healthy Life Expectancy,Freedom to Make Life Choices,Generosity,Perceptions of Corruption), with a final comparison.

According to the recently published World Happiness Report 2026, Sri Lanka ranks 134th out of 147 nations. As per the report, this is the first time that Sri Lanka has suffered such a decline. Sri Lanka currently trails behind most of its South Asian neighbours in the happiness index. The World Happiness Report 2026 attributes Sri Lanka’s low ranking (134th) to a combination of persistent economic struggles, social challenges, and modern pressures on younger generations. The 2026 report specifically noted that excessive social media use is a growing factor contributing to declining life satisfaction among young people globally, including in Sri Lanka. This calls for greater vigilance and careful reflection. These concerns should be examined alongside key observations, particularly in the context of education reforms in Sri Lanka, which must look beyond their immediate scope and engage more meaningfully with the country’s future.

In recent years, a series of events has triggered political upheaval in countries such as Nepal, characterised by widespread protests, government collapse, and the emergence of interim administration. Most reports and news outlets described this as “Gen Z protests.” First, we need to understand what Generation Z is and its key attributes. Born between 1997 and 2012, Generation Z represents the first truly “digital native” generation—raised not just with the internet, but immersed in it. Their lives revolve around digital ecosystems: TikTok sets cultural trends, Instagram fuels discovery, YouTube delivers learning, and WhatsApp sustains peer communities. This constant, feed-driven engagement shapes not only how they consume content but how they think, act, and spend. Tech-savvy and socially aware, Gen Z holds brands to a higher standard. For them, authenticity, transparency, and accountability—especially on environmental and ethical issues—aren’t marketing tools; they’re baseline expectations. We can also observe instances of them becoming unnecessarily arrogant in making quick decisions and becoming tools of some harmful anti-social ideological groups. However, we must understand that any generation should have proper education about certain aspects of the normal world, such as respecting others, listening to others, and living well. More interestingly, a global survey by the McKinsey Health Institute, covering 42,083 people across 26 countries, finds that Gen Z reports poorer mental health than older cohorts and is more likely to perceive social media as harmful.

Youth health behaviour in Sri Lanka reveals growing concerns in mental health and wellbeing. Around 18% of youth (here, school-going adolescents aged 13-17) experience depression, 22.4% feel lonely, and 11.9% struggle with sleep due to worry, with issues rising alongside digital exposure. Suicide-related risks are significant, with notable proportions reporting thoughts, plans, and attempts, particularly among females. Bullying remains a significant concern, particularly among males, with cyberbullying emerging as a notable issue. At the same time, substance use is increasing, including tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes. These trends highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to support youth mental health, resilience, and healthier behavioural outcomes in Sri Lanka. We need to create a forum in Sri Lanka to keep young people informed about this. Sri Lanka can designate a date (like April 25th) as a National Youth Empowerment Day to strengthen youth mental health and suicide prevention efforts. This should be supported by a comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategy aligned with basic global guidelines. Key priorities include school-based emotional learning, counselling services, and mental health training for teachers and parents. Strengthening data systems, reducing access to harmful means, and promoting responsible media reporting are essential. Empowering families and communities through awareness and digital tools will ensure this day becomes a meaningful national call to action.

As discussed earlier, Sri Lanka must carefully understand and respond to the challenges arising from its ongoing changes. Sri Lanka should establish an immediate task force comprising responsible stakeholders to engage in discussions on ongoing concerns. Recognising that it is not a comprehensive solution, the World Happiness Index can nevertheless act as an important indicator in guiding a paradigm shift in how we approach education and economic development. For a country seeking to reposition itself globally, Sri Lanka must adopt stronger, more effective strategies across multiple sectors. Building a resilient and prosperous future requires sound policymaking and clear strategic direction.

(The writer is a Professor in Management Studies at the Open University of Sri Lanka. You can reach Professor Abeysekera via nabey@ou.ac.lk)

by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera

Features

Hidden diversity in Sri Lanka’s killifish revealed: New study reshapes understanding of island’s freshwater biodiversity

Published

6 hours ago

2026/04/6

Thilina Walpola

Aplocheilus parvus

A groundbreaking new study led by an international team of scientists, including Sri Lankan researcher Tharindu Ranasinghe, has uncovered striking genetic distinctions in two closely related killifish species—reshaping long-standing assumptions about freshwater biodiversity shared between Sri Lanka and India.

Published recently in Zootaxa, the research brings together leading ichthyologists such as Hiranya Sudasinghe, Madhava Meegaskumbura, Neelesh Dahanukar and Rajeev Raghavan, alongside other regional experts, highlighting a growing South Asian collaboration in biodiversity science.

For decades, scientists debated whether Aplocheilus blockii and Aplocheilus parvus were in fact the same species. But the new genetic analysis confirms they are “distinct, reciprocally monophyletic sister species,” providing long-awaited clarity to their taxonomic identity.

Speaking to The Island, Ranasinghe said the findings underscore the hidden complexity of Sri Lanka’s freshwater ecosystems.

“What appears superficially similar can be genetically very different,” he noted. “Our study shows that even widespread, common-looking species can hold deep evolutionary histories that we are only now beginning to understand.”

A tale of two fishes

The study reveals that Aplocheilus blockii is restricted to peninsular India, while Aplocheilus parvus occurs both in southern India and across Sri Lanka’s lowland wetlands.

Despite their close relationship, the two species show clear genetic separation, with a measurable “genetic gap” distinguishing them. Subtle physical differences—such as the pattern of iridescent scales—also help scientists tell them apart.

Co-author Sudasinghe, who has led several landmark studies on Sri Lankan freshwater fishes, noted that such integrative approaches combining genetics and morphology are redefining taxonomy in the region.

Echoes of ancient land bridges

The findings also shed light on the ancient biogeographic links between Sri Lanka and India.

Scientists believe that during periods of low sea levels in the past, the two landmasses were connected by the now-submerged Palk Isthmus, allowing freshwater species to move between them.

Later, rising seas severed this connection, isolating populations and driving genetic divergence.

“These fishes likely dispersed between India and Sri Lanka when the land bridge existed,” Ranasinghe said. “Subsequent isolation has resulted in the patterns of genetic structure we see today.”

Meegaskumbura emphasised that such patterns are increasingly being observed across multiple freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka, pointing to a shared evolutionary history shaped by geography and climate.

A deeper genetic divide

One of the study’s most striking findings is that Sri Lankan populations of A. parvus are genetically distinct from those in India, with no shared haplotypes between the two regions.

Dahanukar explained that this level of differentiation, despite relatively recent geological separation, highlights how quickly freshwater species can diverge when isolated.

Meanwhile, Raghavan pointed out that these findings reinforce the importance of conserving habitats across both countries, as each region harbours unique genetic diversity.

Implications for conservation

The study carries important implications for conservation, particularly in a country like Sri Lanka where freshwater ecosystems are under increasing pressure from development, pollution, and climate change.

Ranasinghe stressed that understanding genetic diversity is key to protecting species effectively.

“If we treat all populations as identical, we risk losing unique genetic lineages,” he warned. “Conservation planning must recognise these hidden differences.”

Sri Lanka is already recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, but studies like this suggest that its biological richness may be even greater than previously thought.

A broader scientific shift

The research also contributes to a growing body of work by scientists such as Sudasinghe and Meegaskumbura, challenging traditional assumptions about species distributions in the region.

Earlier studies often assumed that many freshwater fish species were shared uniformly between India and Sri Lanka. However, modern genetic tools are revealing a far more complex picture—one shaped by ancient geography, climatic shifts, and evolutionary processes.

“We are moving from a simplistic view of biodiversity to a much more nuanced understanding,” Ranasinghe said. “And Sri Lanka is proving to be a fascinating natural laboratory for this kind of research.”

Looking ahead

The researchers emphasise that much remains to be explored, with several freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka still poorly understood at the genetic level.

For Sri Lanka, the message is clear: beneath its rivers, tanks, and wetlands lies a largely untapped reservoir of evolutionary history.

As Ranasinghe puts it:

“Every stream could hold a story of millions of years in the making. We are only just beginning to read them.”

By Ifham Nizam