Features

A Humane Scholar at Oxford

Published

1 month ago

2024/10/27

Thilina Walpola

Oxford University

by Jayantha Perera

I met Barbara Harrel-Bond, an anthropologist, by accident in April 1989. At that time, I was with the USAID-funded Mahaweli Agriculture and Rural Development Project (MARD). One day at lunchtime, an old jeep arrived at the project office. A white woman in her sixties emerged from the jeep. She was in a kurta and was carrying several notebooks in her hands. She smiled and asked me whether I could find someone who knew how Sinhala villagers interacted with Tamil villagers in the war-front area. I told her our professional staff had gone out for lunch, so she should wait until they returned.

With a cigarette on her lips, she introduced herself as Barbara. She was the Director of the Refugee Studies Programme (RSP) and a professor at Oxford University. She was an anthropologist with extensive field experience in Africa. Her book Imposing Aid: Emergency Assistance to Refugees was on international development aid. She was an authority in refugee studies and international refugee law. I told her I am a development anthropologist working on irrigation water management in the Mahaweli. Her eyes beamed with hope, and she shouted, “You are the man I wanted to meet!”

I invited her for lunch at my residence. I offered her a cold beer, which she gulped down in five seconds. She inquired whether it was okay to smoke inside the house. I said yes. I switched on the air conditioner in the sitting room, as it was hot and muggy. She was amused to feel the cold air and said, “It is nice to see an anthropologist who lives in an air-conditioned house in the field.” She thanked me for rescuing her from the scorching sun.

Barbara was interested in the history of rivalries between Tamils and Sinhalese. She asked me about their living conditions, income disparities, gender issues, and political orientation. I told Barbara we could discuss these issues at length if she could stay a few days at Aralaganwila. Barbara said she had planned several meetings and wanted to return to Colombo. She invited me for lunch during the weekend if I were in Colombo.

Our weekend meeting in Colombo was intellectually stimulating. Each time we discussed a new topic, she ordered more tea or beer while typing her notes into her laptop. It was a primitive machine with two cassette spools. One had the WordStar programme, and the other had her notes.

Barbara invited me to the RSP to deliver a few lectures on Sri Lanka, specifically its political structure and ethnic tensions. She told me that I could stay at her place in Oxford. After about two months, I received an invitation letter and a return air ticket from the RSP. When I reached Oxford, she told me she had sent a taxi to Heathrow Airport to bring me to Oxford. But she forgot to tell me where to meet the taxi driver.

Staying at her place in Oxford was an experience. She lived in an old house on St. Giles. I found a sleeping corner on a cosy sofa in her large living room when I arrived. She introduced me to two Ugandan refugees and an undergrad from a European University. The two Ugandans prepared the dinner. They cooked lamb in peanut gravy, and we all had that with rice and a salad.

After dinner, we all met in Barbara’s large bedroom to watch TV and discuss the day’s work and tomorrow’s programme. She lay down on her bed and listened to our discussions. She occasionally asked a question or two. That day, the TV did not work. She asked us whether one of us could check the TV. Only the young European women volunteered to check it. She said the electric plug was not correctly installed, but she quickly fixed it. Barbara laughed and teased others, saying, “I did not expect anthropologists to know how to turn on a TV.”

When I woke up the following day, Barbara had already brewed coffee. We took our cups to her library and settled into two comfortable chairs. Until 8 a.m., we discussed Sri Lanka’s socio-political conditions and the outlines of my upcoming two lectures. Barbara mentioned inviting several professors and lecturers from the law and development faculties to the lectures. She also hinted that I might join her as a research fellow shortly.

Before I left for Colombo, Barbara told me she would raise funds to recruit an anthropologist from the third world as a fellow. She explained the fellowship as teaching a two-term course at the postgraduate level on field methods in social sciences and qualitative data analysis. The fellow would also conduct an annual summer school on refugee studies. Later, she wrote, “We need someone like you who combines research and practical experience and can write well in English.”

Two months later, Barbara informed me that the RSP had raised funds for a Ford fellowship. She asked whether I would be interested in being the first Ford Fellow at the RSP. I did not answer her for two weeks as I was in a dilemma. I was happy at MARD. The Chief-of-Party was also an anthropologist with whom I shared my views on development. He was an amiable fellow. He told me I should stay with him on the project for at least five years. I had finished only 30 months of my contract. Life in the Mahaweli was comfortable, although there were two significant risks: the LTTE and wild elephants.

At that time, an official at the Mahaweli Ministry wanted more control over the project consultants. He complained to USAID I had written a paper criticising the Sri Lankan government’s agricultural policies. He tried to twist the paper’s contents to prove that I was against the MARD Project. The USAID held a formal meeting in which the DAI and the Mahaweli Development Ministry participated. The USAID and the DAI did not find any fault with my paper. However, the official was adamant that some action should be taken against me. I submitted my resignation letter to the Chief of Party. He was relieved to receive my resignation as he did not want to disagree with the government. I accepted the Ford fellowship at the RSP in Oxford. This decision filled me with a sense of accomplishment and inspiration for the future.

Barbara Harrel-Bond

Barbara introduced me to her staff on my first day at the RSP. The Administrative Officer, Belinda, brought a cake and coffee to celebrate my arrival. Soon after coffee, Barbara took about 10 portrait photographs of me at the entrance to the RSP. When I asked her why she took so many photos, she smiled and said that a good photographer should take a dozen photographs before selecting the best one. Barbara had written an editorial about me for the RSP Newsletter and included my photograph. Barbara took me to the Bodleian Library and introduced me to the librarian by saying: “This is Dr Perera, an anthropologist from Sri Lanka, our Ford Fellow for the next 18 months. Unfortunately, he got his doctorate from the radical Sussex University. But I assure you he would behave well and surely not set fire to the library.”

Among the few library rules was the hilarious one that says ‘not setting fire to the library’ in the application form. Barbara got my library membership and showed me its various sections. She then took me to Oxfam Bookshop, where one could buy second-hand books for a fraction of their original prices. Barbara bought most of her books from the Oxfam Bookshop. She said I could borrow any book from her personal library at home.

Barbara invited me to her house whenever she had leisure time, especially on weekends. We discussed family histories, reasons for studying anthropology, and my plans. Barbara said that she grew up as the only daughter of a postman in a remote part of South Dakota, USA. As a young woman, she loved horse riding in the Dakota plains. She married an American pastor in 1951 and accompanied him to Oxford in the mid-1960s. Her husband studied for a doctorate and returned to the USA without completing his studies. Barbara refused to return with him to the USA and stayed in Oxford.

She joined the Institute of Social Anthropology, where she earned a doctorate in Social Anthropology. Barbara called herself a legal anthropologist. She divorced her husband and married Samuel Okeke, a Nigerian engineer, in 1974 while doing fieldwork in Sierra Leone in West Africa. Barbara left him and returned to Oxford to devote her time to refugees. In 1982, she established the RSP at Oxford University.

Barbara worked with many people in her smoke-filled room at the RSP. She listened intently to each speaker. If she had any questions, she would probe them. The discussions prolonged until all agreed on a solution or conclusion. She found time between such meetings, sometimes as little as 15 minutes, to open her unfinished memos and articles to work on them. She gave me her draft memos and papers to comment on. Every month, she received several international journal articles for review. She, with a naughty smile on her face, just palmed them off to me to review. She read and edited each of my draft reviews. Barbara then scanned and emailed it to the concerned journal or the publisher. I remember examining about 10 journal articles.

I prepared detailed notes for each lecture on the field methods course. I distributed them in advance among my students from the Oxford Department of International Development and the Royal Forestry Institute. Barbara read them with interest and encouraged me to include my field experience to substantiate and illuminate my arguments. Sometimes, she attended my classes and initiated lively discussions. Barbara told me that it had been the tradition that the teacher who finishes his/her lecture at 5 p.m. or after should take the students for a beer at a nearby pub. Barbara introduced me to the staff of a large pub. At the bar, I asked her, “Is this the pub where anthropologists meet?” She said, “No, this is a pub where some anthropologists meet.”

She explained that anthropologists were a peculiar and dangerous tribe; one could see many feuds and resentment among them. She said a few of them believed anthropologists should live in primitive societies. She added, “But they smoke pipes and drink whiskey whenever an opportunity arises. They are known for carrying pocket whiskey flasks.” She told me that some of them ridiculed and criticised her for doing refugee studies, which they thought was a field of study in political science.

Barbara was a leader of a local group in Oxford that pressed local authorities to approve an “illegal” structure a sculptor had built in 1986 on a rooftop — a 25-foot colourful fibreglass shark that looked as if it had fallen from the sky and penetrated the roof. The fall symbolised the anger, desperation, and impotence of local people in the wake of the bombing of Libya by American warplanes, which regularly flew over Oxford.

The sculptor also wanted to make a statement against nuclear weapons. The falling shark was a metaphor for a falling atomic bomb. She petitioned local authorities, demanding freedom to protest the state’s follies. Barbara wrote to the House of Commons and House of Lords demanding that the state protect its citizens’ freedom of expression. She emphasised that the state should not encourage aggressors and bullies, such as Americans, to use the UK’s airspace to harm others.

Once Barbara returned from London with four young men and a young woman. They were refugees from Africa who just landed in London. The International Red Cross had received them and handed them over to Barbara to educate and find sources of income for them. She introduced them to the RSP staff, saying they were members of the RSP family. Barbara asked me to meet her at her residence at 6 p.m. on the same day. She wanted to discuss how to accommodate five refugees.

Barbara had a few folded bed frames. She opened a small storeroom in the basement and took out bedding and pillows. The four men and the woman helped her to make temporary beds. Barbara invited the woman to sleep in her bedroom. I asked Barbara about their dinner. She told me, “Let us cook rice and a meat curry. I know you are a good cook.” I cooked rice and beef curry with carrots and made a large salad. Barbara joined the group for dinner. She said, “Today is one of my happiest days. I have you five with me. We can do lots of things together. A refugee is not a burden but an asset, and that is what I always tell the world.”

Barbara enrolled the five refugees at the university as part-time students. She found work for them as an unskilled waiters at a restaurant. Three months later, I visited the restaurant with Barbara to see the four men. They served us tea with dignity, style, and happy faces. Barbara had sent the woman of the group to a fashion house to learn how to make fancy clothes. Once, the woman brought a beautiful long dress for Barbara. At the bottom of the dress was a slogan – ‘Do not mess up with Arizona!’ Barbara loved this dress. One day, Barbara showed me one of the men holding hands with a white woman on the road. Barbara was happy to see them and said, “They have gone native!”

Barbara nominated me to represent the RSP at the American Anthropological Association’s annual meetings in New Orleans. At the meetings, I introduced RSP publications and research and action plans. I discussed with agencies the possibility of getting support for refugee studies and summer refugee training programmes. Two months later, Barbara asked me to go to New Delhi, India, to represent the RSP at the international refugee studies conference. My main task at the meeting was identifying potential research and study fellows and encouraging them to visit the RSP. I read a research article at the conference on ‘social structure and political development in Sri Lanka.’ Later, the Journal of Refugee Studies at Oxford published it.

The most challenging task at the RSP was coordinating its summer refugee studies programme. About 20 participants came from several countries, and their demands varied widely. Some reported that English food could have been better in quality and taste. Many were more interested in visiting university colleges and nearby towns than attending the courses. Barbara’s idea was that if at least a few participants learned about refugee issues and were determined to support them, the world would become a better place for all of us.

A friend at the RSP told me that Barbara was absent-minded. A story circulating at the RSP was Barbara had three cats, and one of them had three kittens. The mother cat kept her babies in the washing machine’s drum. One day, without checking, Barbara threw a few pieces of her clothes into the drum, started the machine, and went away. When she returned home, she opened the washing machine to see the tragedy she had caused. Three kittens were beyond recognition, and their fur and flesh clung to her clothes!

By the end of my stay in Oxford, Barbara frantically looked for more funds to keep me at the RSP. Belinda took me to London and Cambridge for interviews with various sponsors. At that time, a development consultancy company called ITAD UK contacted me regarding a senior position in a World Bank-funded project in Sindh, Pakistan. I told Barbara about the new opening. She was happy to hear the news and advised me to take the job. She wanted me to do fieldwork and write about internal displacement in Pakistan. She also sent a recommendation letter to the ITAD saying that whoever gets my services should consider themselves fortunate.

Barbara was bestowed the Order of British Empire (OBE) in 2005 for refugee and forced migration studies and services. She died in 2018 at the age of 85 years. Tributes and obituaries poured in from around the world. In tributes and obituaries, I saw the words ‘campaigner’, ‘activist,’ and ‘champion. ‘An obituary aptly summarised her life – “She grew up riding horses across the plains. Something of the Wild West never left her.”

All News Advertisement

Features

Now is the time to rethink trade

Published

14 hours ago

2024/12/6

Thilina Walpola

ranil - sajith - anura

by Gomi Senadhira

During the presidential election campaign, the importance of trade, particularly exports, to Sri Lanka’s was emphasised by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) and the other two main contenders in the fray, namely Sajith Premadasa (SP) and Ranil Wickremesinghe (RW) in their manifestos. These three candidates together polled more than 90 percent of the votes at the presidential elections. During the parliamentary elections the political parties which based their campaign on these manifestos – Jathika Jana Balawegaya (NPP), Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and New Democratic Front (NDF) together polled more than 83%. Therefore, the electoral support for these pro-trade policies is undisputed. For the Sri Lankan export community this should be a superb development, as for many years, the trade policy had been, one of the more contentious areas of island’s politics. Our main trading partners and the foreign investors would also welcome this policy convergence.

Pro- trade policies in the policy statements of RW and SJ were not unexpected. But the pro-trade approach in the AKD’s manifesto surprised many, mainly because all other parties had repeatedly warned the people against voting for AKD as he would turn Sri Lanka into another North Korea or Cuba.

For example, during the election campaign, at a conference organised by the National Bankers Association, RW stated, “On September 4th, MP Anura Kumara Dissanayake emphasised the importance of focusing on exports for our country’s businessmen and industrialists. While this principle is commendable, there is a concern. Their policy statement suggests that Sri Lanka plans to cancel its free trade agreements.

This raises a significant question: how can we develop an export industry without these agreements? Such contradictions pose challenges.” Since then, he had repeated these comments at several other meetings. In the same way, SP’s trade policy wonks also had spread similar misinformation on NPP policies. However, the NPP policy statement clearly states its position on Free Trade Agreements, that is “… updating of existing free trade agreements and negotiating new free trade agreements.” The updating of the trade agreements certainly does mean cancelling of these agreements. All FTAs need to be reviewed and updated periodically.

During the election seasons, politicians sometimes manipulate public opinion about the crucial issues by arousing fear. But this is not the time to deliberately mislead the public in general and, more particularly, the business community and our trading partners with false information on trade policy. At this juncture, what we need are facts. Not scare tactics and false information. So, let’s hope our politicians would avoid such scare tactics in the future and join together to strengthen this consensus on export-oriented, outward-looking trade policy.

To those who are familiar with the way the NPP policies evolved in the recent past, their shift towards pro-trade policies is not a surprise. After all, if the NPP and AKD want a socialist model to emulate, they have many examples of socialist governments, other than North Korea and Cuba, to draw lessons from. For example, the success story of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. While cautiously staying away from the labels AKD’s policy statement refers to Vietnam, Bangladesh, and South Korea (and not North Korea) as export success stories, Sri Lanka can acquire lessons from. More importantly, Vietnam’s success story was also highlighted at the top of RW’s policy statement and by the trade experts in the SJB as a success story to follow. What is needed now is to strengthen this consensus further and develop a pro-export national trade strategy approved by the parliament. That would help to attract much-needed foreign investments and export orders.

If we already have a general consensus on pro-trade and pro-export policies, then why do we need to rethink trade policies now?

From export-oriented economy to import dependent economy

Sri Lanka was the first country in South Asia to liberalise trade policies with the ‘open’ economy introduced in the late 1970s. However, the open economy introduced then was not fully open. It had a strong focus on the expansion of the export of goods while discouraging imports, particularly nonessential imports. A special cess was imposed on the nonessential imports to protect local farmers and manufacturers and to collect funds for export development.

The main thrust of the trade policy was exports. During that period, the government proactively managed to get an adequate level of market access to Sri Lankan exports through multilateral trade rules (GATT/WTO rules) as well as the distortions to those rules (textile quotas). These policies worked well, and during the 1980s and 90s, Sri Lanka’s exports registered almost a fivefold increase, from US$1.35 billion in 1981 to US$6.37 billion by the year 2000. The exports-to-GDP ratio increased from 30.46% in 1981 to 39.02% in 2000. During the period, Sri Lanka was slowly but surely progressing into an export-oriented economy.

Unfortunately, during the next two decades, the export growth slowed down and only increased from US$6.37 billion (in 2000) to US$13.03 billion (in 2020). The exports-to-GDP ratio also declined substantially during this period. At 15.46% in 2020, it was the lowest ever recorded. More alarmingly, the growth of exports during the last decade was almost stagnant, and it increased only from US$ 10 billion in 2013 to US$ 12 billion in 2023. During the same period, Vietnam’s exports increased from US$132 billion in 2013 to US$370 billion in 2023.

Hijacking of trade policy by importers and profiteers

The main reason for this decline was the absence of interest in export development by the successive governments and the influence of the importers, the profiteers and perhaps even hawaladars on trade policy formulations. If one analyses the trade policy formulation in the recent years, it is easy to understand how trade policies and even free trade agreements were directed towards import promotion at the expense of export development. After signing Sri Lanka’s first bilateral FTA with India in December 1998 and second with Pakistan in August 2002, and the enhanced GSP arrangement in the EU, no new tangible initiatives were taken by the government to develop market access for Sri Lankan exports.

During the last decade the situation deteriorated further and even the free trade agreements, which countries normally negotiate at the request and on behalf of their exporters to get better levels of market access for them in other countries, were negotiated at the request of the exporters of other countries to provide them with enhanced market access into Sri Lanka without reciprocal concessions for Sri Lankan exporters. The free trade agreements Sri Lanka signed with Singapore and Thailand are clear examples of this approach.

These agreements were negotiated under RW’s leadership, first as the prime minister and then as the president. Despite his rhetoric about the critical need to swiftly transform Sri Lanka into an export-oriented economy, as stabilising the economy alone would not solve Sri Lanka’s problems due to the country’s heavy dependence on imports, it was under RW’s leadership that the trade policy got blatantly hijacked by the importers mafia and profiteers.

Another adverse development during the last two decades was the relaxation of foreign exchange regulations. Due to this Sri Lanka also does not fully benefit even from the limited amount of exports, as a substantial portion of the export proceeds are not repatriated. In July 2022 the Central Bank revealed that less than 20% of export proceeds are being repatriated by the exporters. Though this may have improved since then, the conversion rate remains below accepted levels. In addition to that, a significant amount of money is transferred out through trade misinvoicing by the exporters and importers.

As the elections are over now it is the time for a new beginning. It is the time to intensify analysis and advocacy regarding the numerous ways that trade agreements and po8licies must be reformed and strengthen the consensus on trade policies and adjust them to undo decades of capture by the importers’ mafia, profiteers, and hawaladars.

(The writer, a retired public servant and diplomat, can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)

Features

Navigating Sri Lanka’s economic recovery: Opportunities and risks in the aftermath of Cyclone Fengal

Published

15 hours ago

2024/12/6

Thilina Walpola

by Prof. Chanaka Jayawardhena,
Professor of Marketing, University of Surrey, UK.
Chanaka.j@gmail.com

Sri Lanka finds itself at a crossroads. The devastation caused by Cyclone Fengal, which displaced over half a million people, destroyed critical infrastructure, and claimed numerous lives, highlights the country’s vulnerability to natural disasters. At the same time, the nation is tentatively emerging from its first-ever sovereign debt default, buoyed by a $12.5 billion bond swap and an IMF bailout. Together, these events pose an urgent question: Can Sri Lanka navigate the treacherous path of recovery without derailing its fragile economic stability?

The answer lies in the delicate balance the government must strike. Cyclone Fengal is more than just a natural disaster—it is a stress test for the economic goodwill painstakingly built up over the past year. How Sri Lanka’s policymakers respond could define the trajectory of its recovery for years to come. This is not just about reconstruction; it is about rethinking priorities, leveraging the current crisis as an opportunity to build resilience, and ensuring the hard-won economic gains are not squandered in the process.

Cyclone Fengal: A Catalyst for Change or a Step Backward?

The immediate economic impact of Cyclone Fengal is staggering. Agriculture, one of the backbones of Sri Lanka’s economy, has suffered significant losses, with thousands of acres of paddy fields and tea plantations—critical export sectors—being submerged. Damaged transport networks have disrupted supply chains, delaying the movement of goods and escalating costs for businesses and consumers alike. The government now faces the twin challenges of financing disaster relief and rebuilding vital infrastructure, all within the constraints of a tight fiscal envelope.

The human cost is equally dire. Families have lost homes, livelihoods, and loved ones. The socio-economic fallout of such displacement is long-lasting, with vulnerable communities pushed further into poverty. Moreover, the environmental damage, including soil erosion and the destruction of ecosystems, adds another layer of complexity to recovery efforts.

Yet, there is an opportunity amidst this tragedy. Disasters often serve as catalysts for long-overdue reforms. Cyclone Fengal could prompt Sri Lanka to implement policies aimed at climate resilience, investing in infrastructure that can withstand future storms and floods. Such investments would not only protect lives and livelihoods but also reduce the economic disruptions caused by such events. However, realising this opportunity requires vision, coordination, and a clear commitment to long-term planning—qualities that have not always been hallmarks of Sri Lankan governance.

The risks, however, are equally pronounced. With limited fiscal space and the need to adhere to IMF conditionalities, there is a real danger that recovery efforts might siphon funds away from critical economic reforms. If mismanaged, this could erode investor confidence, putting at risk the progress made in stabilising the economy. The government must guard against the temptation to prioritise short-term relief over the long-term restructuring that is vital for sustainable growth.

Debt Restructuring: The Elephant in the Room

Sri Lanka’s recent $12.5 billion bond swap was a bold move to address its debt crisis, but the relief it offers is conditional. Investors and international institutions are closely watching how the government navigates its commitments to fiscal discipline and structural reform. Cyclone Fengal has now added an unexpected layer of complexity to this equation.

The IMF bailout, which released $333 million in its latest tranche, demands not only fiscal prudence but also tangible progress in revenue generation and state enterprise restructuring. These measures, while necessary, are politically sensitive and require a stable economic environment to succeed. The cyclone’s aftermath threatens to upset this balance, with rising expenditure on disaster relief potentially crowding out these reforms.

Moreover, the bond swap itself is not without controversy. While it offers breathing room, it also raises questions about the sustainability of Sri Lanka’s debt strategy. With global interest rates on the rise, the cost of future borrowing could escalate, particularly if the government fails to demonstrate fiscal discipline. In this context, the pressure to deliver results has never been greater. Successfully managing this dual challenge of recovery and reform will be the ultimate test of Sri Lanka’s political and economic leadership.

Lessons from other economies

Sri Lanka is not the first country to face the dual challenge of disaster recovery and economic reform. Indonesia’s response to the 2004 tsunami offers valuable lessons. By channelling international aid into long-term development projects and maintaining fiscal discipline, Indonesia turned a crisis into an opportunity for economic transformation. Key to its success was the establishment of a dedicated reconstruction agency that ensured transparency and accountability in the use of funds.

Bangladesh, another country prone to natural disasters, has demonstrated how investing in disaster preparedness—through early warning systems, robust infrastructure, and community education—can mitigate economic losses. These measures have not only saved lives but also reduced the financial impact of natural disasters, enabling the economy to recover more quickly.

Sri Lanka would do well to follow these examples. The establishment of a specialised disaster management authority with a clear mandate and adequate funding could go a long way in ensuring a coordinated and effective response. Such an agency could also play a critical role in securing international aid, which is often contingent on transparent governance and accountability. Ensuring such mechanisms are in place will be crucial to sustaining international goodwill and ensuring long-term economic stability.

Investing in Resilience

The case for strategic investment in resilience is clear. Renewable energy projects, for instance, could reduce the country’s reliance on costly fuel imports while aligning with global sustainability trends. Sri Lanka’s abundant natural resources—sunlight, wind, and hydro potential—position it well to transition to a greener energy mix. Such investments would not only lower energy costs but also make the economy less vulnerable to global fuel price shocks.

Rebuilding transport and communication networks with a focus on durability would also yield significant benefits. Modern, resilient infrastructure is essential for economic growth, facilitating trade, tourism, and investment. Furthermore, the construction phase itself could create jobs, providing a much-needed stimulus to the domestic economy.

Public health must also be a priority. The cyclone has triggered a surge in dengue cases, exposing gaps in the healthcare system’s ability to respond to emergencies. Strengthening healthcare infrastructure and preventive measures could yield significant economic and social dividends. Healthier populations are more productive, and the costs of prevention are far lower than those of treatment and lost productivity.

Building on Goodwill

Sri Lanka enters this challenging phase with a degree of goodwill that is rare for a country emerging from economic collapse. The Central Bank’s policy rate reforms and the government’s efforts to stabilise public finances have been cautiously welcomed by investors. Moody’s recent decision to place Sri Lanka’s credit rating under review for a potential upgrade reflects this optimism.

However, goodwill is a finite resource. The government must tread carefully, avoiding populist measures that could derail its reform agenda. Transparency in disaster relief spending and clear communication about the trade-offs involved in balancing recovery with reform are essential. Failure to do so could erode the trust of both domestic and international stakeholders.

The risk of political complacency is real. The government’s recent electoral mandate, while overwhelming, should not be taken as a licence to abandon fiscal prudence. Populist policies, such as unsustainable subsidies or tax cuts, could undo the progress made and jeopardise long-term stability.

A Path Forward

Cyclone Fengal has exposed the vulnerabilities in Sri Lanka’s economic and social fabric, but it has also provided an opportunity to address them. The government’s response must be both immediate and strategic, balancing the urgency of disaster relief with the long-term necessity of economic reform.

First, the government must prioritise investments that yield both short-term relief and long-term benefits. For example, rebuilding flood-damaged roads and bridges with climate-resilient materials can create jobs today while reducing costs in the future. Second, it must strengthen institutions to ensure that recovery funds are used effectively and transparently. Third, it must actively engage with international partners, not only for financial support but also for technical expertise in disaster management and economic planning.

Sri Lanka’s recovery is not just a matter of economics; it is a test of governance, competence, and foresight. By investing in resilience, maintaining fiscal discipline, and leveraging international goodwill, the country can navigate this crisis and emerge stronger. The stakes are high, but so are the potential rewards. This is a moment for bold but measured action—a chance to turn adversity into a turning point for sustainable growth.

The eyes of the world are on Sri Lanka. Let this be the moment when it rises to the challenge.

Features

Protecting blue carbon ecosystems, a key to climate resilience

Published

15 hours ago

2024/12/6

Thilina Walpola

By Ifham Nizam

Blue carbon ecosystems, such as mangroves and sea grasses, are emerging as critical players in global climate mitigation strategies. However, these ecosystems face mounting challenges due to coastal development, climate change, and mismanagement.

Speaking to The Island, renowned expert Dr. Mat Vanderklift, Director of the Indian Ocean Blue Carbon Hub, who is on a short visit to Sri Lanka stressed the urgency of integrating high-integrity principles and sustainable practices to safeguard these vital habitats.

Excerpts of the interview

Q: Dr. Can you elaborate on the unique challenges that blue carbon ecosystems, such as mangroves and sea grasses, face compared to terrestrial carbon sinks like forests?

A:Mangroves and sea grasses are located on the coastal margins, which places them in areas where many activities occur and competition for space is high. Most people live near coasts, so there are pressures from development as well as infrastructure such as ports. They are also spaces where activities like aquaculture and fishing can lead to degradation if they are not done in a sustainable way.

Q: How do you assess the long-term effectiveness of blue carbon ecosystems in carbon sequestration, especially in the face of climate change impacts like rising sea levels and extreme weather?

A: Mangroves and ecosystems can cope with sea level rise well enough as long as there is space for them to retreat to – although seawalls, roads and other infrastructure can block them. In some places that can simply rise vertically by accumulating sediment. Extreme weather events like heatwaves are a growing problem, and can cause death of vegetation over large areas.

Given the complexities of carbon credit markets, what do you believe are the most promising strategies to ensure that blue carbon credits maintain high environmental integrity? We need to follow principles to ensure that our desire to generate credits does not create further damage or infringe on people’s rights. Principles like doing no harm, respecting rights, empowering people, acting and sharing benefits equitably, and using the best available knowledge. We can follow a ‘mitigation hierarchy’ in which we ensure that we protect first, and restore when we need to.

Q: What role do you see for governments in regulating the emerging market for blue carbon credits to ensure its effectiveness in climate mitigation efforts?”

A: Each government will take a different approach, but some regulation can be helpful. Regulations can help ensure that high integrity principles are followed. Regulations can also help ensure that the right kind of knowledge is generated for a national context. Most nations, including Sri Lanka, have international commitments, and regulation can help make sure that those commitments are realised.

Q: What are some innovative financial models or partnerships that have shown success in attracting private sector investment for the restoration of blue carbon ecosystems?

A: Sometimes we don’t need innovation because the mechanisms already exist, we just need to make them work properly. Carbon and biodiversity markets are an example – they have promise, but are not as successful as they could be because there are barriers to effective implementation.

Q: How can smaller nations or communities with rich blue carbon ecosystems access funding or investment to protect and restore these vital habitats?

A: In some situations, there might be potential to engage with the private sector, and building public-private partnerships can help. These are mostly used for infrastructure projects, but could be harnessed towards climate mitigation and nature protection. In other contexts, some international investment might be needed – the recent climate meeting in Baku finalised some of the international rules under which this can occur.

Q: You mentioned the importance of blue carbon ecosystems for supporting livelihoods, particularly in fisheries and tourism. How can we ensure that the restoration of these ecosystems also benefits local communities economically?

A: This is fundamental, and part of building markets with integrity. Local peoples need to be involved all the way through projects and need to receive an equitable share of benefits. This might mean a share in revenue from the sale of credits, but it might also mean new business or livelihood generation opportunities. If lives are not improved, there will be little support for climate action or nature protection.

What are the potential risks or unintended consequences for coastal communities if blue carbon financing schemes are not properly designed or implemented? In some situations, destructive activities are simply displaced elsewhere, so there is no net benefit. In others, locals do not receive an adequate share of benefits, so trust and long-term success is eroded.

Q: What are some of the key metrics used to assess the health and carbon sequestration potential of blue carbon ecosystems? How reliable are these metrics across different regions?

A: Measuring carbon is relatively easy. Measuring other benefits, such as improvements in fisheries or improved resilience of a community, is much harder but just as important. We need to put more effort into measuring these other benefits.

Q: In terms of monitoring blue carbon projects, what are the most significant technical or logistical challenges that need to be addressed?

A: Cost is often the main barrier. The methods and technologies exist but can be expensive. This can be a barrier in two ways. One is that it makes projects so expensive that revenue from sale of credits does not offset the cost of doing the project. Another is that poorer nations and communities can be left behind. Ensuring that we have low-cost methods that work in developing countries is important for international equity.

Q: As we look to the future, do you think blue carbon credits will become as established and integrated into global carbon markets as terrestrial carbon credits?

A:Yes, they already are. The scale is not as great as it is for forests, but blue carbon credits from the protection and restoration of mangroves and sea grasses are being generated in multiple countries.

Q: How do you envision the evolution of blue carbon and biodiversity financing over the next decade, especially in terms of its role in achieving international climate targets like those in the Paris Agreement?”

A:My aspiration is that we continue to break down the barriers that prevent protection and restoration of blue carbon ecosystems. This can include finance, and developing low-cost technologies and building capacity is key. Just as important will be adoption of high integrity principles and development of an enabling regulatory environment. Some things governments and communities can already do, they just need a little help or a clearer mandate. The emergence of broader nature and biodiversity markets also has potential to reward good ecosystem stewards who are currently locked out of carbon markets.