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

‘The devil is in the details’ in West Asian peace

Published

6 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

President Donald Trump at the current G7 summit in France. Evelyn Hockstein/Getty Image

It is obviously too early for an outpouring of joy over the seeming cessation of hostilities between the main antagonists in West Asia. While the prospect of there being a measure of calm in the region is being welcomed by considerable sections of the international community, what is ‘on the table’ currently is only a Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Iran to give peace a chance. The hard part in the peace effort remains to be achieved.

In the Middle East of today we have one of the most complex conflicts to break out in modern international politics and the observer would be naive in the extreme to expect a facile and early closure to the tangle. Yet, for the sake of the world’s publics who have been hurting badly in the prolonged hostilities one could only hope that the US-Iran MoU that is expected to be signed by the sides on Friday would lead eventually to a substantive peace. The world’s thanks are due to Pakistan in this connection for its sustained support in the peace drive.

While the sides have agreed to a ceasing of hostilities in the most general terms and have reached accord on the facilitation of uninterrupted oil and gas supplies to the rest of the world, for instance, the ‘devil will prove to be in the details’ in an envisaged comprehensive peace settlement. It is these details that would make or break peace if the negotiations go on in earnest.

Nevertheless, the details would need to be worked out consensually in a spirit of compromise with an eye to the greater good of the world community. Realpolitik or a narrow focus on solely the national interest among the protagonists, for example, would need to give way to a measure of humanity that would encompass within it a consideration of the overall well being of the world. In other words, it is statesmanship that would crucially matter.

The next few weeks would establish whether humanists are ‘asking for far too much’ when they broach the questions at issue in these terms. Yet it is essentially self interest and national security considerations of the first importance that drove the conflict from even prior to February this year and these questions would need to be taken up and resolved to the satisfaction of the US and Iran in the main if some headway is to be made towards a durable settlement.

The nuclear issue would prove to be the proverbial Gordian Knot. From a realistic viewpoint, Iran could not be expected to be without a potential nuclear deterrent in the face of perceived nuclear threats emanating for it from the West and Israel. In the short term, Iran would need to possess this deterrent to a measure, within a mutually agreed international legal framework maybe, until wide agreement is reached on the nuclear tangle. Specifically, Iran’s immediate threat perceptions with regard to her nuclear-powered rivals would need to be defused during initial negotiations.

Ideally it is a world free of nuclear weapons that must be aimed at but since this goal cannot be achieved in the near or medium terms, unfolding negotiations would need to ensure Iran’s absolute security in a world of powers that continue to swear by the nuclear deterrent, if it is to give up the suspected latter capability.

However, it is to the degree to which the present nuclear powers divest themselves of this capability that Iran could be put at ease on this score. Accordingly, it is nothing short of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the world that could dissuade keenly security conscious states from developing nuclear weapons of their own with a mass destruction capability.

This is the number one dilemma the international community needs to grapple with going forward and it is to the extent to which it resolves it that a nuclear weapons free world could be envisaged. No doubt, an uphill challenge.

Compelling Israel to support the present negotiatory process constitutes another grueling challenge for the US. Currently the Iranian position essentially is that a Middle East peace is inseparable from a normalization of the security situation in Lebanon. That is, the present Israeli attacks on the Hezbollah presence in Lebanon must cease if a comprehensive peace is to be realized in West Asia.

However, Israel is showing no signs of drawing back from its attacks on Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon since the security of the Israeli state is being seen as threatened by the militant group. Co-opting Israel into the negotiatory effort therefore would turn out to be a matter of paramount concern for the US.

Moreover, elements in the rightist administration in Israel are seeing the current peace efforts as a ‘sell out’ to the enemies of Israel. They would have none of it. It is left to be seen how the US would be managing these virtual storm centres in the diplomatic process that could very well bring down the overall purported peace drive.

A recent pronouncement by US Vice President J.D. Vance points to yet another problem area in the US’ current peace overtures. He said that, ‘Regional peace and stability includes stopping the funding of terrorist organizations.’ He was obviously referring to the support extended by Iran to Hezbollah when he mentioned ‘terrorist organizations’ but he has given fresh life to the age-old conundrum of ‘Who is a terrorist?’ by these words.

To the Netanyahu government the Hezbollah and other militant organizations fighting Israel are ‘terrorists’ but from the viewpoint of the Iranian regime they are ‘freedom fighters’. This seemingly insurmountable definitional issue would not only stubbornly bedevil the peace effort but could even figure in bringing about its collapse, unless judiciously handled.

Thus, it’s the thorny details that need to be watched to keep the West Asian peace process afloat, once it gets going in earnest. There is no doubt that US President Trump would be receiving a considerable amount of support from the G7 in this historic peace undertaking and his personal appeals to the grouping currently meeting in France for continuous support are likely to elicit a positive response from it.

Likewise, Trump would need to appeal to also the BRICS countries if almost total global support is to be garnered for the peace drive in West Asia. BRICS’ solidarity with the US and the West is likely to carry considerable weight with Iran and other Eastern actors who are key to a sustained peace drive in the Middle East.

Features

Sri Lanka’s elephant paradox: Govt. counts tourism dollars while playing a dangerous numbers game: Expert

Published

6 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

At a time when Sri Lanka is enjoying a resurgence in wildlife tourism, with elephants remaining the undisputed stars of the country’s national parks and one of its most marketable natural assets, elephant conservationist Supun Lahiru Prakash has sounded a stark warning: the nation is in danger of losing the very species that helps attract millions of tourism dollars while sustaining some of the island’s most important ecosystems.

Supun says repeated claims by authorities that Sri Lanka’s elephant population is increasing, despite the absence of a final survey report and amid continuing elephant deaths, risk creating a misleading narrative that could undermine conservation efforts and encourage retaliation against elephants.

According to Supun, the issue is not merely about numbers. It is about political priorities, scientific credibility and the future of one of Sri Lanka’s most iconic species.

“Repeatedly claiming that the elephant population is increasing appears to be an attempt to hide the Government’s inability to manage the rising annual elephant death rate and the complications of human-elephant conflict,” Supun said.

For decades, the Sri Lankan elephant has been a symbol of the country’s rich natural heritage. It is the centrepiece of wildlife tourism, drawing visitors from across the globe to national parks such as Yala, Udawalawe, Minneriya, Kaudulla and Wilpattu. International wildlife documentaries, tourism campaigns and social media promotions frequently place elephants at the heart of Sri Lanka’s nature tourism brand.

Yet, according to Supun, the country’s conservation policies do not reflect the value of the species.

“On one hand, the Government is enjoying increasing tourism revenue, and elephants remain one of Sri Lanka’s most important wildlife attractions. On the other hand, narratives are being promoted that could encourage retaliation against the very species that contributes significantly to the country’s tourism industry,” Supun said.

According to the First Countrywide National Survey of Elephants conducted in 2011, Sri Lanka had 5,879 elephants. However, official statistics show that 4,167 elephants died between 2012 and 2024.

Supun stressed that these figures represent only the deaths officially recorded by the Department of Wildlife Conservation.

“In a context where more than 70 percent of the country’s elephant population reported in 2011 has died within 13 years, it is difficult to accept claims that the population has increased,” Supun said.

The conservationist pointed out that elephants have the longest gestation period among land mammals and that scientific studies have reported increasing interbirth intervals among female elephants together with high calf mortality.

“When such biological realities are taken into consideration, claims of a dramatic increase in elephant numbers become difficult to understand,” Supun said.

Supun believes that repeated references to increasing elephant populations risk fuelling public hostility towards elephants, particularly among farming communities already affected by crop raids and property damage.

“Such claims can create the impression that elephant populations are exploding and thereby promote retaliation against elephants as well,” Supun said.

According to Supun, Sri Lanka’s elephant crisis cannot be understood solely through population estimates. The real issue lies in the country’s failure to address human-elephant conflict through long-term, science-based solutions.

Sri Lanka continues to record among the highest levels of human-elephant conflict in the world. Every year, hundreds of elephants and dozens of people lose their lives as competition for land and resources intensifies.

Despite the scale of the crisis, Supun says authorities continue to rely on strategies that have repeatedly failed.

Lahiru Prakash

These include driving elephants into protected areas, strengthening electric fences to confine them there and allocating additional manpower to maintain fencing systems.

Supun was also critical of several proposals that emerged from district-level discussions on conflict mitigation, including the sowing of paddy and corn using Air Force drones and the planting of fruit orchards within protected areas.

“Such proposals fail to address the real ecological and social dimensions of the conflict,” Supun said.

While welcoming reports that the Government intends appointing a national-level mechanism to tackle human-elephant conflict, Supun said the challenge required intervention at the highest level of government.

“Given the gravity, complexity and geographical spread of human-elephant conflict, appointing any committee other than a Presidential Task Force is not useful,” Supun said.

He argued that a Presidential Task Force chaired by either the President or the Secretary to the President would be better positioned to overcome the bureaucratic delays and institutional fragmentation that have hindered previous efforts.

Supun also stressed the urgent need to restore and protect elephant corridors and home ranges that allow elephants to move safely across landscapes.

He cited the Koholankala elephant corridor in Hambantota as one example where removing obstacles could help reduce conflict while improving habitat connectivity.

At the same time, Supun questioned policies that permit the allocation of forest lands in areas identified by environmental assessments as crucial elephant ranges and movement corridors.

“The opening of elephant corridors and the protection of elephant home ranges must be carried out scientifically and consistently if they are to succeed,” Supun said.

Beyond tourism, Supun emphasised the ecological importance of elephants.

“Elephants are ecosystem engineers. Through their feeding habits and movements, they help maintain habitats that support numerous other species. In many ways, they create safer and healthier environments for wildlife,” Supun said.

According to Supun, protecting elephants means protecting entire ecosystems and the biodiversity upon which Sri Lanka’s wildlife tourism industry depends.

“By protecting elephants, we are also protecting the biodiversity that makes Sri Lanka one of the world’s premier wildlife tourism destinations,” Supun said.

As Sri Lanka seeks to expand tourism earnings and strengthen its reputation as a wildlife destination, Supun believes the country faces a defining choice: continue with policies that have failed to stem elephant deaths and human-elephant conflict, or embrace a science-based conservation strategy that safeguards both people and wildlife.

Without a fundamental shift in policy and political will, Supun warned, Sri Lanka risks losing not only one of its most iconic species but also the ecological and economic benefits that elephants continue to provide.

“The suffering of both farmers and elephants will only intensify unless meaningful action replaces rhetoric,” Supun said.

By Ifham Nizam

Features

Top Model of the World 2026

Published

6 hours ago

2026/06/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

Back-to-back victory for Colombia

Katherine Castaño of Colombia claimed the Top Model of the World 2026 crown, securing a historic back-to-back victory for her country. Angelica Sanchez of Puerto Rico was named first runner-up, and Eunice Deza of the Philippines finished as second runner-up.

Katherine was crowned by outgoing titleholder Natalia Garizabal Vera of Colombia.

Several special category awards, and subsidiary titles, were also presented during the Top Model of the World 2026 pageant.

These awards recognised excellence in modelling, peer support, and regional representation.

Primary Subsidiary Titles

Sri Lanka’s Netalie Withanage: Top 16 at
the grand finale

Miss Globe 2026: Valentina Tabares (Ecuador) — Awarded to the contestant who perfectly balances fashion modelling with traditional beauty queen qualities.

Queen of Europe 2026: Mia Danielle Williams (United Kingdom) — Given to the highest-ranking candidate from a European nation.

Special Awards Recognition

Audience Iconic Award: Charly (Dominican Republic) — Won via the official public online vote, granting her a fast-track direct entry into the Top 6.

Exotic Model of the World: Angel Emeka (Nigeria) — Awarded for exceptional editorial presence and strong runway performance.

Best Body Award: Thailand — Voted directly by fellow contestants at the Flow Spectrum Hotel. The highest-ranking runners-up for this category included Zambia, South Africa, Colombia, and Ghana.

Angelica Sanchez (Puerto Rico): 1st Runner-up

Final Placement

Winner: Katherine Castaño (Colombia)

1st Runner-Up: Angelica Sanchez (Puerto Rico)

2nd Runner-Up: Eunice Deza (Philippines)

Top 6 Finalists: Included contestants from the Dominican Republic, Romania, and Germany.

The pageant, known for focusing on professional modelling careers over just beauty, brought together 36 models from around the globe for two weeks of runway, photoshoots, and cultural events.

Sri Lanka’s Netalie Withanage walked among 36 of the world’s best and powered her way into the Top 16 at the grand finale.