Connect with us

Features

Development of renewable energy projects: President’s concerns

Published

on

BY Dr Janaka Ratnasiri

Proceedings of a meeting held by the President on 15.12.2020 with the Power Minister, Renewable Energy Minister, officials of the two ministries as well as officials of institutions coming under the two ministries to discuss issues pertaining to the development of renewable energy (RE) were shown in newscasts of TV channels as well as reported in the print media recently. The purpose of this write-up is to elaborate on some issues raised by him.

 

PRESIDENT’S CONCERNS

According to a report in The Island of 16.12.2020, the President has said that “he is exploring the possibility of rapidly adding power from renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, to the national grid, and that many countries are turning to renewable energy sources for power generation. As per the “Saubhagyaye Dekma” Policy Statement, by 2030 the government expects to meet 70% of the total electricity demand from renewable energy sources”. He has further said that “the generation of renewable energy should be carried out expeditiously in a systematic manner with short-term as well as long-term objectives”. He was also heard saying that officials should be sincere and honest in this exercise.

 

REALIZING THE PRESIDENT’S TARGET

It may be recalled that the President first announced his target of achieving 70% of energy consumed for generation of electricity from renewable sources by 2030 at a meeting he had with the same audience on September 14th, more than three months ago. This was given in a press release issued by the President’s Media Division on the same day. See the website http://www.pmdnews.lk/70-of-electricity-demand-will-be-generated-using-renewable-energy-by-2030/.

In this press release, the President has emphasized that institutes with the authority to approve Development Projects should have feasibility reports stand by and the approval process should be expedited and that the Government has made the promotion of renewable energy a top priority. The President advised the Secretary to the President to issue a gazette calling for all the institutes to assist in this endeavour. But it appears that the President’s instructions have not been carried out.

The President would have convened the meeting on the 15th, probably because there has been no follow up on his announcement initiated during the last three months. Though he said once at a public meeting where officials were present, to take his word as a circular, things do not happen that way in the system. To give effect to the President’s target, the Secretary to the Ministry of Power, being the Cabinet Ministry, has to prepare a Cabinet paper seeking approval of the Cabinet for amending the Cabinet approved Guidelines for Electricity Industry by changing the target given in it from 50% to 70% as decided by the President.

This amended Guidelines document has to be presented to the Cabinet by the Minister and once approved, it has to be communicated to the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL), who will in turn direct the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) to prepare its Generation Plan to conform with the amended Guidelines. The writer’s understanding is that this process has not happened to date, for which the Secretary to the Ministry of Power should take the responsibility. Incidentally, the PUCSL was a notable absentee at the President’s meeting.

After the President made this announcement in September, the writer published an article in The Island of 02.11.2020 under the heading “Will CEB make an effort to comply?” referring to the President’s target. In this article he wrote “Being a matter concerning RE share in power generation, the relevant Cabinet paper will have to be presented to the Cabinet by the Power Minister. The general practice is for the Secretary to the Ministry to draft the paper in concurrence with the Minister. The question is how long the Power Ministry will take to attend to this” (https://island.lk/will-ceb-make-an-effort-to-comply/).

It appears that the Secretary to the Ministry of Power has failed to take any action towards incorporating the President’s target into the Guidelines to the Electricity Industry during the last three months which is a pre-requisite for adding RE systems into the grid. Hence the first thing the President should do to see that “generation of renewable energy should be carried out expeditiously” is to have a more efficient and dynamic person as Secretary who can take decisions independently. If he had a Secretary like that, the PUCSL by now would have directed the CEB to revise its Generation Plan to conform to President’s target.

 

RENEWABLE ENERGY SHARE IN THE POWER SECTOR

The CEB’s Statistical Digest for 2019 reports the total electricity generation in 2019 as 15,922 GWh, of which major hydro had contributed 3,784 GWh (23.8%), coal, 5,361 (33.7%), petroleum oil, 5,061 GWh (31.5%), Mini hydro, 1,011 GWh (6.3%) and other RE sources including wind and solar adding to 750 GWh (4.7%). This gives the RE share in the power sector as 35% in 2019. The challenge is to raise this share to 70% by 2030. According to the CEB’s draft Generation Plan for 2020-39, to meet the demand in 2030, approximately 31,700 GWh of electrical energy need to be generated. This means 70% of this amount or 22,000 GWh of electricity will have to be generated from RE sources in 2030. With the 2018 RE generation standing approximately at 5,545 GWh, this has to be quadrupled by 2030 by adding 16,400 GWh units of RE. However, this is subject to output from the major hydropower plants which varies with the rainfall. For example, in 2018, this share was 45% with the major hydro contribution of 5149 GWh and the shortfall was about 15,000 GWh.

The total committed solar power systems as announced by the government from time to time amounts to about 1,400 MW and assuming a plant factor of 20% based on the performance of existing systems, they could generate about 2,400 GWh of energy a year. Similarly, the committed wind power systems will add up to 650 MW yielding about 2,000 GWh of energy assuming a plant factor of 35%. Dendro and waste to energy projects could add another 1,300 GWh of energy. This makes a total of 5,700 GWh of RE energy to be generated within a few years’ time beyond the existing plants. This means there will be a shortfall of about 10,000 GWh of RE energy for generating 16,400 GWh by 2030 to meet the President’s target.

One problem here is that the quantities of RE generation from such sources as hydro, wind and solar have hourly, daily, seasonal and annual variations. In particular, the hydro power contribution, both from major and mini, could vary widely depending on whether the year is a dry year or a wet year. If the 70% target is achieved in a wet year, it does not mean the target is achieved in a subsequent dry year. Hence, it is necessary to have a surplus of energy from other sources such as wind and solar to accommodate any drop in the hydro contribution due to adverse weather conditions. This could issue could become prominent in the future under climate change.

 

CEB’S RESPONSE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PROPOSALS

A previous regime launched in 2017 a programme named “Soorya Bala Sangramaya” (SBS) to be implemented in four phases, with a view to accelerate the utilization of solar power in the country. Under Phase I, it aimed to generate 1 GW from one million solar rooftops, each with capacity of 1 kW. Phase II of the programme relates to building 150 solar power plants each with capacity 1 MW to be built by the private sector on build, own and operate (BOO) basis in two stages of 60 and 90 plants each of 1 MW capacity. The entire cost including land acquisition and extension of the grid as well as getting clearances has to be met by the investor and tenders were called in 2017/18. However, there is no information as to how many of these projects were accepted and commenced.

In 2020, another tender was floated inviting investors to build solar power plants with capacities in the range 3-10 MW amounting to a total of 150 MW at specified locations where gid substations are available, under Phase III of SBS programme. Though in 2017 the Cabinet approved building an aggregate of 1,000 MW of large solar power plants under Phase IV of the SBS programme, comprising 800 MW solar park at Pooneryn, 100 MW solar park at Siyambalanduwa, 100 MW solar system on Maduru Oya Reservoir, no firm action has been initiated by the CEB to proceed with these proposals during the last three years. The lack of enthusiasm to develop RE projects is understandable as the fuel, that is, solar radiation and wind, are available freely for RE projects unlike for thermal power plants for which the CEB has spent in 2019 a sum of LKR 50 Billion for oil and LKR 46 Billion for coal (CEB’s SD 2019).

The CEB publishes once in two or three years a Long-Term Generation Expansion (LTGE) Plan incorporating the capacities that need to be added annually for the 20-year period to the future to meet the future demand for electricity and specifying the type of corresponding generation units including their fuels that would generate electricity at least cost. The RE capacities to be added up to 2030 as included in the CEB Plan are 165 MW of mini-hydro systems, 555 MW of wind systems, 880 MW of solar systems and 55 MW of biomass systems. These are far below the capacities already approved by the Cabinet from time to time for installation in the short term which means that the CEB’s Plan does not fall in line with the government requirements. The CEB is not even responding to requests made by PUCSL to revise its Generation Plan to conform with the Cabinet approved present Guidelines which says that minimum of 50% of electricity has to be met from RE sources. Obviously, this calls for a change in management of the CEB.

 

SRI LANKA SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AUTHORITY

Sri Lanka commenced its RE programme in early seventies, about 50 years ago, when it established an integrated RE village at Pattiyapola in the Hambantota District with the assistance from UNDP. Its objective was to provide energy requirements of the village from RE sources including wind, solar and biogas generated from cow-dung amply available in the village. However, with the extension of the grid to the village a few years later, the project was abandoned.

 

The availability of international funding for the development of solar-home systems and the large number of sites suitable for setting up of mini-hydro systems associated with waterways in the Central, Sabaragamuwa and Uva Provinces, prompted the expansion of the RE systems in the country in an ad-hoc manner.

In order to regulate and promote the RE industry, the Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority Act, No. 35 was passed in 2007. Though the Board of the Authority comprises 21 members, mostly Secretaries to various Ministries, surprisingly there is no representation of the CEB in its Board. Under the following Articles in the Act, the SLSEA is required to prepare a comprehensive RE Development Plan and have it gazetted after receiving comments from the public and stakeholders.

7. (1) The Director-General shall within six months of the appointed date, cause a survey and a resource assessment to be commenced of all renewable energy resources in the country and prepare a renewable energy resources inventory and a renewable energy resource map in respect of each Development Area.

8. (1) The Director-General shall not later than three years after the appointed date, submit to the Board a comprehensive Renewable Energy Resource Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as “the Plan”) based on the results of the survey and the renewable resource assessment carried out under section 7.

(5) Upon approval of the Plan by the Cabinet of Ministers, the Minister shall cause such Plan to be published in the Gazette and it shall come into operation on the date of such publication or on such later date as may be specified therein.

It is interesting to find out whether such a Plan has indeed been prepared by the SLSEA and gazetted, and if so, the President should be aware of it. Otherwise, it is time its management too is changed if the President wishes to see that “generation of renewable energy should be carried out expeditiously”.

 

SRI LANKA’S POTENTIAL FOR RE SYSTEMS

Sri Lanka has a large number of reservoirs both ancient and recently built. Those in the North, North Central and Eastern Provinces where the solar insolation is high with area more than 1000 ha add up to more than 50,000 ha. Since solar PV panels require about 1 ha for every 1 MW of installed capacity, installation of solar panels covering at least 10 % of the area of the reservoirs has the potential to install 5,000 MW of capacity generating about 8,800 GWh of electricity annually.

An all-island Wind Energy Resource Atlas of Sri Lanka developed by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) of USA in 2003, indicates that nearly 5,000 km2 of windy areas with good-to-excellent wind resource potential exist in Sri Lanka. Using a conservative assumption of 5 MW per km2, this windy land could support almost 20,000 MW of potential installed capacity (SLSEA Website). Even if 10% of this amount or 2,000 MW capacity is utilized, it will generate about 5,200 GWh of energy annually.

It is clear therefore that Sri Lanka has the resources to develop more than 14,000 GWh of energy from RE projects, solar and wind alone above what has been already committed. In addition, it is possible to develop modern technologies to utilize biomass energy more efficiently in industries reducing the demand for oil. With these RE resources, the amount required to meet the 70% share in total electricity generation by 2030 could be achieved comfortably. Coordination and cooperation among stakeholder institutes such as the CEB, SLSEA, PUCSL, Irrigation Department and land authorities are prerequisites for realizing this target.

 

FUNDING FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS

The CEB has not shown any interest in utilizing funding for the development of RE systems offered by foreign sources. Under the International Solar Alliance, India has offered a USD 100 million credit line for the development of solar projects and has assigned a company in India to help Sri Lanka to build a solar park. This is a good opportunity to get one of the two planned solar parks built. Apparently, the CEB has not expressed any willingness to accept this offer.

Under the Paris Agreement, funding is available to developing countries for building RE projects that will save Carbon emissions. However, it is necessary for the host institution to prepare a suitable project proposal and submit it to the Secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) through the Ministry of Environment, which is the National Focal Point of UNFCCC, to seek the funding. The Writer’s understanding that neither the CEB nor the SLSEA has taken any initiative to prepare a proposal to seek funding for this purpose. The Environment Ministry’s Climate Change Secretariat is partly responsible for this lapse.

 

CONCLUSION

The President has clearly given his targets for achieving RE share by 2030 as 70% in the power sector. In order to achieve this target, the country has to generate 22,000 GWh from RE sources in 2030. Regrettably, the CEB or the SLSEA has taken only a lackadaisical attitude towards developing RE projects rather than an aggressive approach necessary to meet the President’s target. However, the country has enough RE potential to meet this shortfall comfortably, provided necessary regulatory system is in place and the responsible professionals are enthusiastic in developing them.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

World Cup Football, Trump’s War and Peace Chaos, and Obama’s Serene Legacy

Published

on

Barak Obama and Michelle Obama statue at the new Presidential Centre

President Trump is constantly exceeding expectations about his ability to spread chaos in his country and around the world. To the chaos and destruction of the war against Iran that he began on February 28, he is now adding the chaos of peace. The 2026 World Cup has crashed into the chaotic world of both. In the midst of all of Trumps’ chaos, the US is anchoring the hosting of 2026 World Cup Football, flanked by Mexico to the south and Canada to the north. In the midst of it all, former President Obama held the opening ceremony for the Obama Presidential Centre in southside Chicago on Thursday, June 18.

It was a beautiful ceremony that was full of grace and elegance and a call for future action to stop America’s aberrational detour of the last 10 years and restore its historical march towards being a more perfect union as stipulated in the constitution. Trump was not mentioned but the contrast was clear. In attendance were all former US Presidents and world leaders of the Obama era, including Germany’s Angela Merkel and Canada’s Justin Trudeau. The Presidential Centre is a massive campus with a 225-foot behemoth tower, a museum, library and a basketball gym.

The project has been controversial with initial community backlash about its location in a public park and the threat of gentrification that may drive modest households in the area out of their homes. The actual implementation of the project and the choreographing of its opening ceremony would seem to have responded well to the early concerns. The City of Chicago has passed an ordinance to preserve affordable housing in the area, and a University of Chicago study has projected that the Centre would create 1,900 new permanent jobs and an annual $220 million economic spin-off for the City.

The timing of the opening could not have been politically more apt than being midway through Trump’s rapidly unravelling second terms in office. Local and national artists provided politically immersive entertainment, and the speeches were by President Obama and the former First Lady Michelle Obama, the two finest of speakers in contemporary America. Neither of them mentioned Trump, but both left no doubt of their concern with Trump’s America and “fierce urgency” of the moment to start undoing all of Trump’s misdoings in America and around the world. Obama insisted that Centre is not meant to be a monument to his presidency but a “vibrant, living celebration of community,” and hoped that it would inspire Americans now experiencing “anger and vision” to look “for fairness and common sense and mutual respect,” at the same time.

The Centre and its opening ceremony are a perfect foil to the Trump’s presidency and its grotesque ways. This year Trump is presiding over the 250th anniversary of American Independence. And he is doing it in his own way – inviting the King of England to mark the occasion and then hosting an evening of wrestling, of all places on one of the White House lawns, featuring only badass white male pugilists. The latter was also in celebration of his 80th birthday. A good majority of Americans including Republicans do not approve of Trump’s vulgarization of American culture.

Trump signing the MOU at Chateâu de Versailles

Trump wants to transform Washington to entrench his name and image in perpetuity, to elevate him to the same status heights of presidential greats such as Lincoln and Kennedy, and to leave everywhere the maximalist mark of his obsession with gold and its colour. But the courts, certainly those below the Supreme Court, would have none of them. One after the other, the Courts have disallowed his bizarre efforts at narcissistic exhibitionism. A US District Court Judge in Washington has declared that Trump’s directive to change the name of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts be known as the “Trump-Kennedy Center” is unconstitutional, and he ordered the restoration of the original name along with the removal of the name of Trump from all of the Centre’s venue names, websites, records and documents. The courts have also stopped Trump’s construction ball to build a new oversized ballroom devouring one of its historic lawns. The president went ahead without license or permit excavating a foundation cavern, and now his legacy after he leaves the White House could be a gaping hole in front of the main building. It will fall to his successor to bury Trump’s legacy and back-fill the hole.

World Cup Antidote

It turns out that after 18 months of Trump’s chaotic and traumatic second term, the World Cup is a welcome antidote to the convulsions that only the current US president is capable of causing for others. For sports fans in general, the World Cup is crashing into a crowded midyear sports agenda, that includes the French Open and the Wimbledon tournaments in tennis and majors in other sports. With technology enabling the simultaneous coverage of the global and the local, sports like other entertainments is catering to the local and global interests of fans.

Forty eight countries, including Iran, are in the bowl, and their supporters and flags are overflowing the streets and stadia of the 16 cities in the US (11), Mexico (three) and Canada (two), where the matches are being played. FIFA oligarchy could not have found a better free market host than Donlad Trump. Ticket prices have gone through the roof, for unlike in Europe and South America where there are limits on prices, there is none in the US but only limited restrictions in Canada and Mexico. FIFA is reaping the American free market and keeping the national football associations quiet against fandom pressure by sharing the ticket bounty proportionately with each national outpost.

On the other hand, it is also remarkable to see massive crowds filling up the stadia and other public venues to watch their favourite game. For all the talk and reality of inequality in wealth, there is also money in the pockets of many to splurge on tickets for a world cup football game, the modern opium of the masses. As with the old religion, there is a hierarchy among spectators and their seats, the latter rising from the close-up seats at the pitch level, where the price is at its highest, and reaching to the skies above from where one can steal a bird’s eye view of the action below at much lower but still high prices.

For American sports fans, the World Cup came crashing into the finals of the National Basketball Championship, which was especially remarkable this year because the New York Knicks whose home base is the storied Maddison Square Gardens, the Mecca of basketball, in the heart of New York, won the national championship after an interval of 53 years. For basketball aficionados, the victorious 1973 Knicks team included such national figures as Phil Jackson and Bill Bradely. Jackson would later coach Michael Jordon and Chicago Bulls, and Kobe Bryant and LA Lakers, guiding them to multiple championships. Bradley went on to become a long serving US Senator from New Jersey for the Democratic Party and was an unsuccessful presidential contender in 2020. Bradley was often compared to the similarly unsuccessful Adlai Stevenson whom President Kennedy appointed as his envoy to the UN, calling him “the most articulate statesman of our time.”

The Knicks’ long awaited victory may inspire hope among contenders at the World Cup. Only eight countries have won the World Cup so far – Argentina, Brazil, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Uruguay. Netherlands has been to three finals but never won the cup. Italy that has won four World Cups has twice failed to qualify – in 2022 and again in 2026. Germany, another four-times winner is looking to return to its winning ways and end its dismal record since 2014. Mexico and Portugal are leading soccer countries but have never won the cup or been in the finals.

England who invented the game has won the cup only once – way back in 1966 – and is hoping to win again. “Coming home … football is coming home”, the 1996 song is now being sung everywhere England is playing in North America. First sung to mark England’s hosting of the Euro Cup in 1996, the song has become England’s veritable football anthem blending nostalgic joy for the 1966 win and pathos, with hope, for the country’s successive losses ever since. The English team this year parades an impressive array of young talent. Fans are both hopeful as well as resigned as has been their wont. They have reason for hope as pundits have short listed England among the top four contenders.

As the opening matches are being played out, the favoured teams are acquitting themselves well. Argentina, the reigning champions, has sent perhaps the strongest message with its 3-0 victory over Algeria. More than the scoreline, it is Lionel Messi’s masterclass of a hat trick that has electrified the fans and alerted the other teams. France is not far behind with its 4-1 win against Senegal. England registered a stirring 4-2 win against Croatia, the country that defeated it in the semifinals in the 2018 World Cup in Russia.

The most favoured country Spain was totally out of sorts in its opening game and was held to a goalless draw by Cabo (or Cape) Verde, the little West African island and part of the Dutch Kingdom. Other contenders, Brazil, Portugal and Netherlands were held to 1-1 draws respectively by Morocco, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Japan. At the same time, Mexico, South Korea, USA, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Austria have scored impressive opening match victories. Iran played well against New Zealand in a 2-2 tie. No one is expecting any country that has never won the World Cup before to become champions now. The last time it happened was in 2010 when Spain won for the first time and only time so far. But that does not dampen fan enthusiasm over every match that will be played until the finals on Sunday, July 19, in New York City.

The paradox of Peace

American attention to world matters has never befitted the country’s superpower status. And the chasm have never been wider than under President Trump. The level of awareness ranges from total ignorance to absolute indifference. The attention to the war against Iran has been no different. The people, politicians and the media have almost singularly been focused on the price at the pump and the cost of groceries. These are fundamental concerns in politics, no doubt, but the economic havoc that the war is causing for the Middle East and the rest of the world has never been an equal concern in the US public discourse and media commentaries. Of course, American experts will lead the way analyzing and writing about the global effects of the war on Iran, but that will be a postmortem and it will not compensate for the real time failure of the Trump Administration to give due weight, as a superpower must, to the global effects of its war making decisions.

Trump admitted in France that he signed the MOU with Iran to avoid “economic catastrophe” in the US. That says it all even though he will likely never say it again. The MOU is officially called – Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran. So, Pakistan gets its place in history and deservedly so. And Trump crafted his own history by signing a hard copy of the MOU at the Palace of Versailles, of all palaces, following his G7 summit attendance in the French Alps. Will the same hard copy be ever signed by an Iranian leader is an open question. That will be for future museums to explain, among many other leftovers of Trump. Trump may also use a certified copy of the document, if not the original itself, for the next application on his behalf for the Nobel Peace Prize.

This MOU has been signed by multiple times by both sides, but perhaps its strongest endorsement came with the approval of direct negotiation between Iran and the US given by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mujtaba Khamenei and read out on state television. The paradox of this peace is that while the MOU is universally welcome everywhere in the world, it is receiving the harshest scrutiny within the US. There is no palpable enthusiasm for it in the country. The war hawks are not at all pleased. Republicans are confused about Trump going to war for no reason and signing an MOU that gives Iran a control over the Strait of Hormuz that it never had before.

Democrats have no interest in welcoming the MOU, and they are focused on the overall failure of Trump in the Middle East. The powerful Israeli lobby has gone mute, fully realizing that their Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has overreached himself with his war zealotry and made Israel unwelcome among a majority of Americans and a virtual pariah state in the world. Vice President Vance, who is doing damage control to save his own presidential plans for 2028, has warned that Israel must realize that President Trump is “the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time.”

The 14-point MOU is a finely worded and compact document, but it would have received universal support even in America had Trump achieved this without going to war and as an extension of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the P5 + 1 (US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany) that was facilitated by President Obama. Trump tore up that agreement and has been personally vindictive in criticizing Obama for allegedly reaching a deal that was only advantageous to Iran. It was not, and Trump’s irrational criticisms of the JCOPA are now coming back to haunt him as US critics are picking apart Trump’s MOU by comparing it to Obama’s JCPOA and taking into account the war-cost of the new MOU. Overseas, the G7 leaders who have been insulted by Trump all along, are welcoming the MOU as a “game changer,” perhaps hoping that flattery is the only way to keep Trump’s antics to be minimal for the rest of his presidency.

by Rajan Philips

Continue Reading

Features

Sri Lanka’s Marine Frontline: Dr. Samantha Gunasekara’s Battle Against Plastic Pollution and Transboundary Waste

Published

on

Dr. Gunasekara with Environment Minister Dr Dhammika Patabendi at the First International Conference on Marine Science & Sustainability

For decades, Sri Lanka’s coastline has been celebrated for its pristine beaches, rich marine biodiversity and vibrant fishing communities. Yet beneath the beauty lies an escalating environmental crisis that threatens ecosystems, fisheries, tourism and coastal livelihoods.

At the forefront of the battle against marine pollution is Dr. Samantha Gunasekara, Chairman of the Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA), who has spearheaded some of the country’s most ambitious coastal restoration and pollution mitigation programmes in recent years.

In an interview with The Island, Dr. Gunasekara outlined the scale of the challenge facing Sri Lanka’s marine environment, from locally generated plastic waste to transboundary pollution washing ashore from beyond the country’s borders.

He also spoke about the ongoing clean-up following the MV MSC Elsa 3 maritime incident and the urgent need for regional cooperation to tackle marine litter in the Indian Ocean.

“The issue is much bigger than what people see on a beach,” Dr. Gunasekara said. “When the public notices plastic bottles, polythene bags or other debris on the shoreline, they are only seeing the final stage of a problem that begins many kilometres inland.”

According to him, more than 80 percent of marine plastic pollution originates from land-based sources.

“What is found in the ocean is largely a reflection of what happens on land. Waste discarded into canals, streams and rivers eventually reaches the sea. Unless we address waste management within the country, marine pollution will continue regardless of how many clean-up programmes we conduct.”

He noted that household waste, industrial refuse, improperly managed dumpsites and littering remain major contributors to marine pollution.

Over the past year, MEPA has intensified its coastal clean-up operations, restoring numerous beaches that had been heavily contaminated by plastic and polythene waste.

The results have been dramatic.

Photographs documenting several restoration projects reveal coastlines once buried beneath layers of plastic debris transformed into clean and attractive public spaces.

“The President himself expressed concern after seeing the scale of pollution in some areas,” Dr. Gunasekara said. “That support has enabled us to move forward with several restoration initiatives.”

Yet, despite local efforts, Sri Lanka continues to face a challenge largely beyond its control—transboundary marine pollution.

Dr. Gunasekara was particularly concerned about the volume of waste washing ashore in the Northern Province and surrounding islands.

He said islands such as Delft, Nainativu, Punkudutivu and Eluvaitivu receive enormous quantities of foreign-origin debris every year.

“The quantities are unbelievable. If someone visits these locations after a rough sea period, they will immediately understand the magnitude of the problem,” he said.

According to observations made during numerous clean-up operations, a significant proportion of the debris appears to originate from across the Palk Strait.

“Based on the labels, packaging, language markings and the nature of the waste, it is evident that much of the material comes from India. In some locations, nearly all the debris collected can be traced to Indian sources,” Dr. Gunasekara said.

He stressed that the issue should not be viewed as an attempt to assign blame but rather as a regional environmental challenge requiring regional solutions.

“The ocean does not recognise political boundaries. What enters the sea in one country can easily end up on the shores of another. This is why cooperation among neighbouring countries is essential.”

Nevertheless, he believes stronger action is required.

“Sri Lanka invests considerable resources in cleaning its coastlines. When foreign-origin waste continuously arrives on our shores, it places an additional burden on our economy and our institutions.”

Recognising the seriousness of the issue, MEPA has prepared policy proposals and submitted recommendations through the relevant ministry seeking higher-level government engagement.

A Cabinet paper addressing transboundary marine debris has also been prepared for consideration.

“The intention is to facilitate discussions at government-to-government level. We need practical mechanisms for prevention, monitoring and mitigation,” he said.

Dr. Gunasekara pointed out an apparent contradiction.

“Several coastal areas in India have received international recognition for beach cleanliness and environmental management. Therefore, there is no reason why similar standards cannot be maintained more broadly. The challenge is ensuring that waste generated inland does not eventually enter the marine environment.”

Another major challenge facing Sri Lanka has been the aftermath of the MV MSC Elsa 3 incident, which released large quantities of plastic nurdles into the marine environment.

Nurdles are tiny plastic pellets used as raw material in plastic manufacturing and are considered among the most difficult forms of marine pollution to remove because of their small size and tendency to disperse over vast distances.

Dr. Gunasekara recalled that the first signs of contamination emerged in Delft Island before spreading rapidly along the coastline.

“Initially there was little evidence of significant contamination. Then, within weeks, large quantities began washing ashore,” he said.

The pellets eventually spread across numerous northern islands and along extensive sections of the western coastline.

MEPA responded immediately, deploying personnel and mobilising local communities.

For the first three months, the authority led much of the clean-up effort directly.

However, the scale of contamination soon required additional resources.

Discussions were initiated with representatives of the shipping company and its insurers.

“The company agreed to support the clean-up operation under MEPA’s supervision and technical guidance,” Dr. Gunasekara said.

Today, thousands of workers continue to participate in the recovery effort.

At its peak, nearly 1,700 labourers were engaged daily in collecting nurdles and associated debris from affected coastal areas.

The operation remains one of the largest marine pollution response exercises undertaken in Sri Lanka.

Workers have been provided with protective equipment, water, welfare facilities and logistical support funded by the responsible parties.

“The objective is not simply to remove visible pollution but to minimise long-term environmental impacts,” Dr. Gunasekara said.

The task has proven far more complex than initially anticipated.

Changing ocean currents and rough weather have redistributed pollution into previously unaffected locations.

“Areas that were relatively clean months ago are now receiving fresh deposits. Therefore, the operation remains dynamic and requires constant monitoring.”

The volume of recovered material has been staggering.

According to MEPA estimates, approximately 47 shipping containers have already been filled with collected debris.

“These containers include nurdles, bottles, packaging material and other plastic waste recovered from beaches and coastal habitats,” he said.

The authority is now examining environmentally responsible disposal options.

Recycling remains difficult because prolonged exposure to seawater often contaminates plastic materials and reduces their suitability for conventional recycling processes.

Adding another mystery, MEPA recently detected coloured nurdles among the recovered pellets.

“We have found red, blue and green pellets. Traditionally, nurdles are colourless. We are investigating the source and significance of these findings,”

Dr. Gunasekara said.

Despite the immense challenges, he remains encouraged by the support received from local communities.

Fishing families, religious leaders, schools and volunteer groups have joined restoration efforts across the country.

In the North, villagers welcomed clean-up teams with garlands and handmade gifts as expressions of gratitude.

“These gestures demonstrated how much these communities value their environment,” he said.

Religious institutions have also become important partners.

“In several coastal regions, churches and temples helped coordinate volunteers and identify the most vulnerable communities requiring assistance.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Gunasekara believes Sri Lanka must adopt a broader vision of marine environmental protection.

He argues that marine pollution should no longer be regarded solely as an environmental issue.

“It affects fisheries, tourism, public health and national development. Every plastic bottle thrown into a canal ultimately becomes someone else’s problem.”

He also advocates stronger regional cooperation within South Asia to address marine pollution, improve waste management and establish joint monitoring mechanisms.

“The future of the Indian Ocean depends on collective action. No country can solve this problem alone.”

As Sri Lanka continues its struggle against mounting environmental pressures, Dr. Gunasekara’s message is both urgent and hopeful.

“The sea has sustained our civilisation for generations. Protecting it is not merely an environmental obligation; it is a responsibility we owe to future generations.”

For the chairman of MEPA, the mission extends beyond cleaning beaches. It is about safeguarding an entire marine heritage—one that remains central to Sri Lanka’s identity, economy and future prosperity.

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Features

Meththa Rehabilitation Foundation:Restoring Mobility, Dignity and Hope Across Sri Lanka

Published

on

For thousands of Sri Lankans living with limb loss and physical disabilities, access to quality rehabilitation services remains a significant challenge. Yet, for more than three decades, our organisation has quietly transformed lives through innovation, compassion and community-based care. The Meththa Rehabilitation Foundation Guarantee Limited (MRFGL), supported by the Meththa Foundation-UK has emerged as one of Sri Lanka’s most effective voluntary rehabilitation service providers, restoring mobility, independence and dignity to some of the country’s most vulnerable citizens.

The Foundation’s roots stretch back to 1994, when a group of expatriate Sri Lankan professionals in the United Kingdom recognized the severe shortage of rehabilitation services available to disabled persons in Sri Lanka. Drawing upon their expertise in rehabilitation medicine and allied healthcare professions, they established the Meththa Foundation-UK with a simple but powerful vision: to provide affordable, high-quality prosthetic and rehabilitation services to those who needed them most.

What began as an effort to recycle and repurpose high-quality prosthetic components donated by the UK’s National Health Service has evolved into a comprehensive rehabilitation network serving communities across the island.

Clinical services commenced in Sri Lanka in 1995 through a mobile outreach programme that initially supported injured soldiers and later expanded to civilians affected by conflict and disability. The majority of them were victims of land mines. In 2010, the Sri Lankan arm of the organisation was formally registered as the Meththa Rehabilitation Foundation Guarantee Limited, strengthening its ability to deliver sustainable services nationwide.

Today, the Foundation operates four modern rehabilitation centres located in Mahawa, Mankulam, Balapitiya and Kilinochchi. These centres provide prosthetic and orthotic services, posture and mobility support, limb repairs, and rehabilitation assistance to patients from diverse social and economic backgrounds.

Recognising that many disabled individuals live in remote areas with limited access to healthcare, Meththa Foundation also established a mobile outreach service in 2011. Through a successful “Hub and Spoke” model, rehabilitation teams travel regularly to underserved communities, ensuring that patients are not denied care simply because of distance or financial hardship.

The scale of the Foundation’s work is impressive. During 2025 alone, the organization recorded approximately 2,000 patient contacts, including the provision of 350 new artificial limbs, 850 limb repairs and around 800 other rehabilitation devices. For many beneficiaries, these interventions represent far more than medical treatment; they offer a pathway back to employment, education and social participation.

Innovation has become a hallmark of the Foundation’s approach. Through an active research and development programme, MRFGL has developed affordable prosthetic technologies specifically suited to Sri Lankan conditions. Among its achievements is the development of a modular below-knee artificial limb system manufactured largely from locally sourced materials. The Foundation has also designed low-cost prosthetic knee components that significantly reduce the financial burden on patients while maintaining quality and functionality. These developments are funded by generous International Grants facilitated by affluent members of the Meththa Foundation-UK. Service users are encouraged to donate whatever they can but for those who cannot, which is a majority the services are entirely free.

These innovations not only make rehabilitation more affordable but also strengthen local manufacturing capabilities and reduce dependence on imported components.

Equally important is the Foundation’s commitment for building local expertise. Recognizing the shortage of trained rehabilitation professionals in Sri Lanka, Meththa Foundation established an apprentice-based vocational training programme that recruits and trains young people as prosthetists, orthotists and rehabilitation technicians. Several locally trained staff members are now employed across the Foundation’s centres, helping to create a sustainable workforce for the future.

The organisation’s work has attracted growing recognition within the healthcare sector. Discussions have already taken place with health authorities regarding the potential use of Meththa-designed prosthetic components within Government hospitals. Such collaboration could significantly expand access to affordable rehabilitation services throughout the country.

Beyond its clinical achievements, the Foundation’s impact is measured in restored confidence and renewed independence. Surveys conducted among beneficiaries indicate that many educated amputees successfully return to productive lives after receiving rehabilitation support. However, the Foundation also highlights an ongoing challenge among poorer and less educated amputees, many of whom struggle to access follow-up care due to transportation difficulties and financial constraints.

To address this issue, the organization hopes to expand its mobile services and community outreach programmes. Additional funding would allow rehabilitation teams to reach isolated communities more frequently, ensuring that vulnerable patients continue to receive the support they need.

Operating on an annual expenditure of approximately Rs. 30 million in Sri Lanka, supplemented by overseas fundraising and donations, the Foundation remains heavily reliant on the generosity of donors, charitable trusts and well-wishers. Every contribution directly supports the provision of artificial limbs, mobility devices, training programmes and outreach services for those who might otherwise be left behind.

As Sri Lanka continues to strengthen its healthcare and social welfare systems, organisations such as the Meththa Foundation demonstrate how innovation, volunteerism and dedication can create lasting social impact. By helping individuals regain mobility and independence, the Foundation is not merely providing artificial limbs—it is rebuilding lives and restoring hope.

For many beneficiaries, every step they take is a testament to the life-changing work of the Meththa Foundation.

www.meththafoundation-sl-uk.org

Chairman’s WhatsApp contact number +94 77 788 6119

Prof S P Lamabadusuriya, Chairman

Dr B Panagamuwa, First Trustee

Continue Reading

Trending