Connect with us

Features

An innocent bystander or a passive onlooker?

Published

on

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (C) meeting President of the European Council, Antonio Luis Santos da Costa and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen ahead of the Exchange of MoUs between India and EU, in Hyderabad House, New Delhi, India, on 27 January, 2026.

After nearly two decades of on-and-off negotiations that began in 2007, India and the European Union formally finally concluded a comprehensive free trade agreement on 27 January 2026. This agreement, the India–European Union Free Trade Agreement (IEUFTA), was hailed by political leaders from both sides as the “mother of all deals,” because it would create a massive economic partnership and greatly increase the current bilateral trade, which was over US$ 136 billion in 2024. The agreement still requires ratification by the European Parliament, approval by EU member states, and completion of domestic approval processes in India. Therefore, it is only likely to come into force by early 2027.

An Innocent Bystander

When negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement between India and the European Union were formally launched in June 2007, anticipating far-reaching consequences of such an agreement on other developing countries, the Commonwealth Secretariat, in London, requested the Centre for Analysis of Regional Integration at the University of Sussex to undertake a study on a possible implication of such an agreement on other low-income developing countries. Thus, a group of academics, led by Professor Alan Winters, undertook a study, and it was published by the Commonwealth Secretariat in 2009 (“Innocent Bystanders—Implications of the EU-India Free Trade Agreement for Excluded Countries”). The authors of the study had considered the impact of an EU–India Free Trade Agreement for the trade of excluded countries and had underlined, “The SAARC countries are, by a long way, the most vulnerable to negative impacts from the FTA. Their exports are more similar to India’s…. Bangladesh is most exposed in the EU market, followed by Pakistan and Sri Lanka.”

Trade Preferences and Export Growth

Normally, reduction of price through preferential market access leads to export growth and trade diversification. During the last 19-year period (2015–2024), SAARC countries enjoyed varying degrees of preferences, under the EU’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP). But, the level of preferential access extended to India, through the GSP (general) arrangement, only provided a limited amount of duty reduction as against other SAARC countries, which were eligible for duty-free access into the EU market for most of their exports, via their LDC status or GSP+ route.

However, having preferential market access to the EU is worthless if those preferences cannot be utilised. Sri Lanka’s preference utilisation rate, which specifies the ratio of eligible to preferential imports, is significantly below the average for the EU GSP receiving countries. It was only 59% in 2023 and 69% in 2024. Comparative percentages in 2024 were, for Bangladesh, 96%; Pakistan, 95%; and India, 88%.

As illustrated in the table above, between 2015 and 2024, the EU’s imports from SAARC countries had increased twofold, from US$ 63 billion in 2015 to US$ 129 billion by 2024. Most of this growth had come from India. The imports from Pakistan and Bangladesh also increased significantly. The increase of imports from Sri Lanka, when compared to other South Asian countries, was limited. Exports from other SAARC countries—Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal, and the Maldives—are very small and, therefore, not included in this analysis.

Why the EU – India FTA?

With the best export performance in the region, why does India need an FTA with the EU?

Because even with very impressive overall export growth, in certain areas, India has performed very poorly in the EU market due to tariff disadvantages. In addition to that, from January 2026, the EU has withdrawn GSP benefits from most of India’s industrial exports. The FTA clearly addresses these challenges, and India will improve her competitiveness significantly once the FTA becomes operational.

Then the question is, what will be its impact on those “innocent bystanders” in South Asia and, more particularly, on Sri Lanka?

To provide a reasonable answer to this question, one has to undertake an in-depth product-by-product analysis of all major exports. Due to time and resource constraints, for the purpose of this article, I took a brief look at Sri Lanka’s two largest exports to the EU, viz., the apparels and rubber-based products.

Fortunately, Sri Lanka’s exports of rubber products will be only nominally impacted by the FTA due to the low MFN duty rate. For example, solid tyres and rubber gloves are charged very low (around 3%) MFN duty and the exports of these products from Sri Lanka and India are eligible for 0% GSP duty at present. With an equal market access, Sri Lanka has done much better than India in the EU market. Sri Lanka is the largest exporter of solid tyres to the EU and during 2024 our exports were valued at US$180 million.

On the other hand, Tariffs MFN tariffs on Apparel at 12% are relatively high and play a big role in apparel sourcing. Even a small difference in landed cost can shift entire sourcing to another supplier country. Indian apparel exports to the EU faced relatively high duties (8.5% – 12%), while competitors, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, are eligible for preferential access. In addition to that, Bangladesh enjoys highly favourable Rules of Origin in the EU market. The impact of these different trade rules, on the EU’s imports, is clearly visible in the trade data.

During the last 10 years (2015-2024), the EU’s apparel imports from Bangladesh nearly doubled, from US$15.1 billion, in 2015, to US$29.1 billion by 2024, and apparel imports from Pakistan more than doubled, from US$2.3 billion to US$5.5 billion. However, apparel imports from Sri Lanka increased only from US$1.3 billion in 2015 to US$2.2 billion by 2024. The impressive export growth from Pakistan and Bangladesh is mostly related to GSP preferences, while the lackluster growth of Sri Lankan exports was largely due to low preference utilisation. Nearly half of Sri Lanka’s apparel exports faced a 12% tariff due to strict Rules of Origin requirements to qualify for GSP.

During the same period, the EU’s apparel imports from India only showed very modest growth, from US$ 5.3 billion, in 2015, to US$ 6.3 billion in 2024. The main reason for this was the very significant tariff disadvantage India faced in the EU market. However, once the FTA eliminates this gap, apparel imports from India are expected to grow rapidly.

According to available information, Indian industry bodies expect US$ 5-7 billion growth of textiles and apparel exports during the first three years of the FTA. This will create a significant trade diversion, resulting in a decline in exports from China and other countries that do not enjoy preferential market access. As almost half of Sri Lanka’s apparel exports are not eligible for GSP, the impact on our exports will also be fierce. Even in the areas where Sri Lanka receives preferential duty-free access, the arrival of another large player will change the market dynamics greatly.

A Passive Onlooker?

Since the commencement of the negotiations on the EU–India FTA, Bangladesh and Pakistan have significantly enhanced the level of market access through proactive diplomatic interventions. As a result, they have substantially increased competitiveness and the market share within the EU. This would help them to minimize the adverse implications of the India–EU FTA on their exports. Sri Lanka’s exports to the EU market have not performed that well. The challenges in that market will intensify after 2027.

As we can clearly anticipate a significant adverse impact from the EU-India FTA, we should start to engage immediately with the European Commission on these issues without being passive onlookers. For example, the impact of the EU-India FTA should have been a main agenda item in the recently concluded joint commission meeting between the European Commission and Sri Lanka in Colombo.

Need of the Hour – Proactive Commercial Diplomacy

In the area of international trade, it is a time of turbulence. After the US Supreme Court judgement on President Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs,” the only prediction we can make about the market in the United States market is its continued unpredictability. India concluded an FTA with the UK last May and now the EU-India FTA. These are Sri Lanka’s largest markets. Now to navigate through these volatile, complex, and rapidly changing markets, we need to move away from reactive crisis management mode to anticipatory action. Hence, proactive commercial diplomacy is the need of the hour.

(The writer can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)

By Gomi Senadhira



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

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

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

Trending