Connect with us

Features

Sound policies a prerequisite for agriculture development –Prof. Marambe

Published

on

By Ifham Nizam

Continued from last Thursday

The Island:  How do you view
the Green Climate Fund?

Prof: The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is an international climate financing mechanism, and is a main implementing entity for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), with a predicted resource of USD 100 billion a year. The GCF operates to transfer finances from the developed countries to the developing countries, and to assist developing countries in their adaptation to climate change and in mitigating actions. Currently, in U.S. dollar terms, the GCF spends one-third on adaptation and two-thirds on mitigation. Sri Lanka considers GCF as an important vehicle for the implementation of national climate action plans and to achieve the targets of UNFCCC and Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Two GCF-funded projects in Sri Lanka have been implemented as of 31st March 2020 with the GCF contribution of USD 77.9 million out of a total project value of USD 101.1 million. Both projects are under climate adaptation category. The Government of Sri Lanka has designated the Ministry of Environment and Wildlife Resources as its National Designated Authority (NDA) to the GCF. The first NDA Readiness and Support Program was implemented in Sri Lanka for the period 2019-2020 with total GCF support to the value of USD 920,000. Despite the above, the GCF is currently facing a problem to support its overall financial targets. The USA has decided to pull out as a contributor to the GCF. Further, the other developed countries have failed to increase the amount of money pledged to the GCF, to mitigate the refusal of USA to provide green finance.   

The Island: When it comes to agricultural practices…are we on the right track?

Prof: Agriculture in Sri Lanka has evolved over the years. The Sri Lankan version of Green Revolution has paid its dividends, especially in the case of the main staple, starting from the development and adoption of famous rice variety H4 in 1958. We now cultivate more than 98% of the paddy land extent using new high yielding varieties. Investments on research and development leading to technological packages have made significant progress. For example, the recommendations made by the Department of Agriculture (DOA) on food crops have been heavily adopted by the farming community in Sri Lanka. High yielding crops always demand more inputs – a natural phenomenon. With the efforts to feed slow but steadily-growing population, new and less-labour intensive agricultural practices have replaced the traditional, more labour-consuming practices. For example, machinery has heavily replaced labour in the front-end (land preparation – use of tractors) and tail-end (harvesting – use of combined harvesters) of paddy. Further, back-breaking weed control efforts using labour has been replaced with the use of herbicides. Commercially available chemical fertilizers have replaced the requirement of large quantities (in many tons per hectare) of organic matter to supply the needed amount of nutrients for the growth of crops leading to richer harvests. Taking paddy as an example, since 1940 where we imported 60% of our rice requirement to feed about 6 million population, Sri Lanka is now self-sufficient in rice thanks to efforts made by scientists as well as heavy adoption rate of technologies by farming community. We have shifted from traditional varieties to new high yielding varieties, use of less labour-intensive practices resulting in high labour productivity and efficiency in agricultural practices, and new fertilizer recommendation. As for science, we have always being in the correct path in terms of food crop production.

However, we were focusing more on quantity than quality. The society is now more conscious on quality aspects and the process in on. The main issue of the agricultural practices has been the misuse of agricultural inputs by practitioners, deviating from the recommendations of the DOA or the responsible entities that make such recommendations. This has been a major problem over the years, which no doubt has had a negative impact on the overall environment.

Fertilizer subsidies granted since 1962 at various levels and with different objectives have made the farming community to use this important input as they wish. The mode of provision of such input subsidy requires a re-visit, understanding the actual requirement, with proper coordination among agencies within the Ministries responsible for the subject of agriculture. More importantly, provision of free-fertilizer is not a request of the majority of the practitioners in agriculture in Sri Lanka. Instead of paying more attention for providing free agricultural inputs such as fertilizer by spending a colossal amount of foreign exchange, timely availability of the inputs at an affordable price is more important. Such an action would ensure higher agricultural productivity. In the case of food crop production, we still import a lot to fulfill our food requirement. However, the progress in terms of productivity of many crops such as rice, maize, chilli, etc. (I do agree that there are many other issues to be solved), has been the key for agricultural development. Such improvement mainly came from our own breeding programmes, thanks to our own scientists, and the private sector that got down technology (micro irrigation to enhance water use efficiency, green houses for continuous production of high value crops, etc.) from elsewhere to enhance productivity and profitability of agricultural enterprises. The technologies are popularized and adopted based on recommendations of the DOA. Research outputs to make such technologies productive, from the Universities and private sector themselves, are commendable under the Sri Lankan scenario.

The extension services have also provided a strong support ensuring the adoption of technologies. Importing dairy cattle or semen seem to have been the key government intervention in the past to improve dairy industry in the country. No or minimum effort has been made to improve fodder production and fodder quality, except the Department of Agriculture trying its level best to provide maize requirement of the animal Industry (mainly poultry). Even when dairy cattle is imported, the rearing of such animals should be done in an appropriate climate for the animal breed. The people involved in rearing imported cattle, should be aware of the requirement of the animal. If better growth and yield is the target, then adequate nourishment, including drinking water is a must. We cannot expect higher yields through/from a malnourished animal. Environmental pollution, such as eutrophication, has been one of the key negative impacts of misuse or overuse of agricultural inputs, especially fertilizers in agricultural ecosystems. Minimum efforts made to conserve soil especially in the sloping lands and in the dry zone is still an issue to be solved. The costs involved in adopting remedial measures is high, but we see the efforts being made in the Central Highland of Sri Lanka. Organic agriculture has been proposed as an alternative to the famous “chemical” fertilizer, however, comes at the cost of losing productivity, absence of large quantities required to support crop growth, transport issues, and at the end, national food security.

The State Department of Agriculture promotes Integrated Plant Nutrient System (IPNS), Integrated Pest Management (IPM), etc., to ensure rational use of inputs. Further, Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) are been recommended for many crops to minimize the negative impacts of current agricultural operations on the environment and to ensure sustainable production system in agriculture at all levels. There is no doubt that we need to have a coordinated effort to re-orient the overall agricultural production to make it more environmentally-friendly. All in all, the current agricultural practices, based on the way the recommended technologies are used, have created issues in the natural and agricultural ecosystems in the country. The popular ‘ban’ theory adopted in the past and now for many imports is not the way out. Making judicious use of such productive technologies with sound policies and strategic interventions with the involvement of all stakeholders will take us towards the ultimate goal of agricultural prosperity.

The Island: What are your recommendations to the government?

Prof: The answer is simple as follows

I have trust in science and scientific evidence, make evidence-based decisions, have confidence in the scientists and researchers in the state system and academia in the field of agriculture – those without biased political motive (identification of such people will be a difficult task in some cases), do not get carried away by myths and fancies of individuals and groups (e.g. fallacies such Sri Lanka is the country that use the highest amounts of fertilizer for agriculture  in South Asia or the world), move towards carefully designed private-public-producer partnerships, make novel technologies available to practitioners at affordable prices, promote organic farming based on its feasibility in meeting national food (and nutrition) security and mainly as a means of export-oriented production based on demand, and adopt a steady and sound policy on agriculture (e.g. the Overarching Agriculture Policy developed by the Department of National Planning with support of large groups of scientists, academia, researchers, administrators, community-based agencies, farmers at all levels including national and provincial set ups).

I fervently hope that this is the way out in the expected new normal during the post-pandemic period.

UNDP’s, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF ) has contributed to a number of Small Grants Programme, in Sri Lanka, with the financial assistance to climate change adaptation.

Under this initiative, a number of programmes were conducted in the Knuckles region.

 

Concuded

 



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

UNHRC’s brand of justice relating to external evidence gathering

Published

on

UNHRC in session (file photo)

by Neville Ladduwahetty

During the 57th Session of the UNHRC, Sri Lanka restated its opposition to HRC Resolution 51/1; a carryover of Resolution 46/1. These Resolutions were “consistently rejected” on grounds that the evidence gathering mechanism within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) “is an unprecedented and ad hoc expansion of the Council’s mandate and contradicts its founding principles of impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity”.

The OHCHR’s mandate under Resolution HRC 46/1 states: “In March 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council, through its resolution 46/1, recognized the importance of preserving and analyzing evidence relating violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes in Sri Lanka with a view to advancing accountability…” (OHCHR, Frequently Asked Questions). This document states that its scope addresses “four specific tasks”. The first task is to: “collect, consolidate, preserve and analyze information and evidence of violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes committed in Sri Lanka”.

FACTORS AFFECTING EVIDENCE ANALYSIS

Since the focus is only on the first specific task, the comments below are based on the following parameters: 1 Armed Conflict and 2 Declaration of Emergency

1 ARMED CONFLICT

During the period February 2002 to May 2009 the conflict in Sri Lanka was categorised as an Armed Conflict by none other than the OHCHR in their report of 2015. Thus, as an Armed Conflict, the report states that the applicable law is Common Article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions, which means that any violations or abuses committed during the armed conflict must be judged under provisions of International Humanitarian Law and to derogated Human Rights Law during an Emergency.

Consequently, evidence gathering and its analysis should take into account provisions of Humanitarian Law as provided in Additional Protocol II of June 1977 relating to Non-International Armed Conflict as part of Customary Law.

“Article 6 of Additional Protocol II of 1977 – Penal prosecutions”

1. “This Article applies to the prosecution and punishment of criminal offences related to the armed conflict”.

2. “No sentence shall be passed and no penalty shall be executed on a person found guilty of an offence except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality. In particular:

(a) The procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence;

(b) No one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility;

(c) No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under the law, at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;

(d) Anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law;

(e)Anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence; (f) No one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt”.

3. “A convicted person shall be advised on conviction of his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised”.

4. “The death penalty shall not be pronounced on persons who were under the age of eighteen years at the time of the offence and shall not be carried out on pregnant women or mothers of young children”.

5. At the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict, whether they are interned or detained”.

2 DECLARATION of an EMERGENCY

Since an emergency operated from May 2000 to June 2010 throughout Sri Lanka, Human Rights are derogated during this period as declared by Article 4 of ICCPR.

Article 4 of ICCPR states: “In times of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the State Parties to the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law…”.

Derogated Human Rights under emergency rules as permitted by ICCPR provisions stated in OISL Report are:

Articles 9 (2); 9 (3); 12 (1); 12 (2); 14 (3); 17 (1); 19 (2); 21 and 22 of the ICCPR.

Article 9 (2): “Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest the reason for the arrest…”.

Article 9 (3): “Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought before a judge….”.

Article 12 (1): “Everyone lawfully within the territory of State shall have the right to liberty of movement…”.

Article 12 (2): “Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own”.

14 (3): “In the determination of any charge, everyone shall be entitled to the following guarantees: to be informed promptly; time to prepare defence; tried without delay; tried in his presence; to examine witnesses against him; access to an interpreter; not to testify against him”.

Article 17 (1): “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to unlawfully attack his honour…”.

Article 19 (2): “Right to freedom of expression …”.

Article 21: “…right to peaceful assembly…”.

Article 22: “…right to freedom of association…”.

The OISL report concludes the list of derogated human rights during the period of the Armed Conflict by stating: “Measures taken pursuant to derogation are lawful to the extent they comply with the conditions set out in international human rights law as provided in Article 4 of ICCPR. In keeping with this provision, successive Sri Lankan Governments have derogated over a period of 10 years, 9 Articles out of a total of 19 Articles in Part II of the ICCPR that the OISL has declared as being lawful.

CONSOLIDATE, PRESERVE AND ANALYSE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE

“The OHCHR Sri Lanka accountability project will collect information and evidence from all sources willing to provide it, including Government authorities, other Member States, victims, witnesses, civil society stakeholders and any other sources. Various UN bodies have already gathered extensive documentation of serious violations and abuses of human rights and violations of humanitarian law committed in Sri Lanka, particularly during and after the conflict, which ended in 2009. Information and evidence collected will be reviewed and analyzed by OHCHR Sri Lanka accountability project…” (Frequently Asked Questions from OHCHR).

Therefore, by OHCHR’s own admission, the sources that gave information and evidence will fade into oblivion and the information and evidence that would be left would only be the “reviewed and analyzed version formulated by OHCHR”.

This in essence amounts to a tampered version of what the witnesses and other source furnished; a procedure that not only trivialises the sanctity of evidence but also denies access to witnesses; a fundamental right called for by Article 14 (3) of the ICCPR. Furthermore, the witnesses and sources that furnished information and evidence are NOT in a position to verify whether the evidence furnished by them accurately reflects the “analyzed” version of the evidence in the possession of the OHCHR. Thus the procedure adopted by the evidence gathering mechanism violates natural justice as understood by the community of nations.

Consequently, those responsible for alleged violations and abuses are denied the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence presented, because the procedure does not provide “for an accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence” as called for by 2 (a) of Part 6 of Additional Protocol II of 1977 that today is accepted as Customary Law. Furthermore, the procedure does not permit whether the evidence presented guarantees that alleged violations assure that no one is “convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility” as stated in 2 (b) of Part 6 of Protocol II. Under the circumstances, the fact that UNHRC Resolution 46/1 followed by Resolution 51/1 was endorsed by the HR Council and the Co-Chairs is not only beyond belief, but has also become jointly a party to what amounts to UNHRC’s Brand of warped justice because it violates International Law.

CONCLUSION

As stated by the OHCHR “the information and evidence collected will be reviewed and analyzed by OHCHR Sri Lanka accountability project ….” However, what is not disclosed is the extent and scope of the analysis undertaken by the OHCHR. For instance, what is not disclosed is whether the information and evidence under the evidence gathering mechanism takes into account the special circumstances associated with the Armed Conflict and the fact that certain Human Rights are derogated during the Emergency that operated from May 2000 to June 2010.

Consequently, the evidence analysed by the OHCHR would drastically differ from the evidence furnished by witnesses and other sources in the event the OHCHR took into account the special circumstances of the Armed Conflict and the imposed Emergency. On the other hand, if the evidence gathered is the raw evidence furnished by witnesses and other sources, the need for the OHCHR to “analyze” the evidence does NOT ARISE.

Therefore, the outcome of the analysis is to tamper with the raw evidence presented; a task that not only far exceeds the mandate under which the UNHRC is authorized to operate but also trivializes the sanctity of evidence on which Justice depends. This makes the evidence gathering mechanism initiated by the UNHRC justified grounds for rejection; a fact that Sri Lanka should bring to the attention of the Member State of the HR Council and take joint action for the benefit of all. Furthermore, co-sponsoring such an exercise casts a deep shadow on the brand of justice that is being attempted jointly by the UNHRC and its sponsors at a time when the credibility, competence and relevance of the UN and its Institutions are in serious question.

Continue Reading

Features

Second step on road to success? Adopt MPH policy

Published

on

Yes, there is a ring of hope in Cass’ title this week. Optimism was obvious in her Cry-s ever since AKD and Harini rose to Head of State and Head of Government positions, ably assisted by trusted Vijitha Herath. Their miniscule Cabinet is in utter contrast to the unwieldy hordes that formed previous government cabinets.

The ‘second step’ in the title is the general election to be held shortly and in true Sri Lankan style of dinana paththata hoiya, the NPP is likely to win. That is inevitable and we have been assured selection of candidates was made on education, trustworthiness and youth. Good, since as a country we have suffered a surfeit of ill-educated, self-seeking old men in Parliament. But we boldly say we do not want a landslide victory resulting in a 2/3 majority for the NPP. We need potential statesmen and good politicians from other parties comfortably winning their seats. I can outright name ten highly educated ex MPs of all three races and religions who have proved to be honest, brilliant and national minded. So, let us hope the second step is achieved of a multi-Party Parliament being elected after 14 November.

Hopes for future of next five years

Yes, let’s concentrate on the next five years – the term of the new Parliament – when we fully expect a change of systems and all round improvement in every aspect of Sri Lanka: as a country well ensconced in the world order; with outstanding leadership; efficiency in government; moving forward to economic stability; reduction of the divide between strata of society, elimination of poverty and of course the oft promised honesty in public, government and political spheres.

Stirring success story

A friend who has worked and lived in Singapore for the past four decades is contemplating returning to live in her birth land, after a very successful stint in her adopted country. She will not be aghast at the contrast between the two countries because she visits each year for a long stay. I remember my last visit to Singapore was around 12 years ago. Everything was fine and dandy but I was told in confidence by Singaporeans, mostly of Chinese descent, they felt stifled through lack of complete independence. One complained the government had too much control over her child’s educational choices. It must be better now since the state is firmly and solidly in place.

While our Pearl in the Indian Ocean was an iridescent paradise of prosperity and happy people living comfortable lives generally, proud of a cultural heritage of 2 ½ millennia. Singapore was founded by Stamford Raffles in 1819 and was then a fishing village of a thousand Malay fishers and a few Chinese farmers.

When it was forced to leave the Federation of Malaysia, it became an independent state in August 1965 leaving British colonial rule. Lee Kuan Yew took charge of the country but was concerned about its very survival; so precarious it was. We all know how he turned it around so that in 53 years under his orders of staying clean, dismissing the venal and corrupt which had been present during colonial rule, Singapore came to be a country to reckon with.

Yew gathered alongside him Malay, Chinese and Indian men of education, commitment and stature and finally elevated Singapore to be one of the Four Asian Tigers aka Four Asian Dragons, undergoing rapid industrialisation and maintaining exceptionally high growth rates. He placed the country among Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan. He had no magic wand; he and the country were not exceptionally lucky; fortuitous world circumstances did not propel them forward.

It was determination and sheer hard work, honesty and loyalty to country, with the elimination of racial or religious biases that brought Singapore from Third World status to First World stature. Government was conducted according to the policy of MPH – meritocracy, pragmatism and honesty. Thus, this country with no natural resources has become one of the richest and safest in the world. Standard of living is highest in world and it is 5th least corrupt. The city state rose and flourished due to its strategic location, visionary leadership of PM Yew and astute governance by those who succeeded him.

The failure

Sri Lanka which Lee Kuan Yew wished to emulate in the 1950s in developing Singapore, is now in contrast an abject failure, due to government mismanagement, venality which includes corruption, stealing and decadent living styles of political and administrative persons at all levels. The country is a failed state and bankrupt.

Both countries enjoyed strategic positions in world routes, were small, used the lingua franca of English, had mixed race intelligent people and internationally recognised education systems from early on. Our independence was about 20 years previous to Singapore’s. And where are we now in relation to that country? Off and on our leaders have tried to use it as a model in development – (JRJ) – but our latter leaders being vile, we are in the dumps, while the Lion City rubs shoulders with the most developed.

But my goodness, fate or the gods looking after us, or as some say the power of the most sacred Buddha relics and Bodiya and fervency of other religions, the country has been given a chance, a break to make good.

President A K Dissanayake was labeled Marxist when the world announced he was Sri Lanka’s new Head of State. Mercifully he has shaken off that label. He has promised much and we expect him to deliver.

This little island, which visitors rave over and knowledgeable persons have pronounced to have potential, is, most believe, poised to realise at least a part of that potential. It can be brought above indebtedness and living standards made better for people. Now led by AKD and Harini who are honest and love the country, and following the policies of honesty, wise practicality and wiping out and banning cronyism and family favouritism, Sri Lanka can be improved.

‘What happened to Sri Lanka?’

This investigative daily reporting on MTV Channel One of grave mismanagement and corruption of the past is a necessary reminder of crimes that pushed the country down. We are shocked and saddened by crass over-spending and some earning millions through corrupt or foolish projects. Recently we saw the harm done by the fertiliser ban and import of organic manures; the damage to paddy cultivation in the Walawe area due to water being syphoned out for electricity generation – the tussle being the two ministers in charge being at loggerheads.

We Ordinaries hope fervently these will be things of the past.

Continue Reading

Features

Sri Lanka to probe ‘corruption’ in handling of 2021 cargo ship disaster

Published

on

By

(FILE PIC) Smoke rises from a fire onboard the MV X-Press Pearl vessel as it sinks while being towed into deep sea off the Colombo Harbour in Sri Lanka on June 2, 2021

Sri Lanka’s new government, led by left-leaning President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, will launch a fresh investigation into the handling of the MV X-Press Pearl cargo ship disaster that devastated marine life along swaths of the island nation’s coastline three years ago, a senior minister has told Al Jazeera.

The announcement came amid allegations of corruption, delay tactics and mismanagement in dealing with the aftermath of the disaster, and a lack of compensation for the affected fishermen.

In May 2021, the Singapore-registered cargo ship caught fire  near Negombo, a popular tourist destination off the Sri Lankan west coast, spilling tonnes of hazardous substances, including nitric acid and microplastic granules, into the Indian Ocean.

The fire on the ship, heading to Sri Lanka’s main city of Colombo from the Indian state of Gujarat, was believed to have been caused by a nitric acid leak. The toxic leak  from the ship killed a large number of fish, turtles and other marine mammals, and devastated the livelihoods of more than 20,000 fishing families.

Sri Lanka
In the sweltering heat of western Sri Lanka, nearly 200 women are still busy collecting plastic nurdles washed ashore from the X-Press Pearl disaster [Aljazeera]

Three years after the fire and oil leak on the ship, people are still awaiting justice in the form of compensation and accountability.

Dissanayake’s government now plans to investigate the incident after the country’s parliamentary elections conclude on November 14. His National People’s Power (NPP) is expected to win the vote.

“There are many allegations about the X-Press Pearl disaster,” Vijitha Herath, the country’s public security minister told Al Jazeera and Watershed Investigations, a United Kingdom-based nonprofit investigative journalism organisation focusing on water issues

“I am personally committed to finding out the truth. We will leave no stone unturned.”

Based on an estimate by a 40-member committee of experts appointed by the country’s Marine Environmental Protection Authority (MEPA) soon after the disaster, Sri Lanka is seeking $6.4bn from London P&I Club, the UK-based insurers of the X-Press Pearl, as compensation for the environmental damage  caused by the disaster. The lawsuit was filed in Singapore in April 2023 under the then government, headed by President Ranil Wickremesinghe.

In September this year, a report by the country’s Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC), formed to investigate the handling of the cargo ship disaster and mitigate future risks, said Sri Lanka has so far received nearly $12.5m from London P&I Club.

In addition to that, over the last three years, the MEPA received 3.5m rupees ($11,945), while the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources accepted about 3bn rupees ($10.5m) from London P&I Club – all in local currency, a fact that has raised suspicions of corruption and will now be investigated by the new government.

Sri Lanka
The incident occurred approximately 9.5 nautical miles (17.6km) from the shore. Locals recall the ship’s enormous fireball, which led to a temporary fishing ban in the lagoon [Al Jazeera]

Darshani Lahandapura, the former head of MEPA, had led the beach cleaning operations following the disaster. She told Al Jazeera that she had come under government pressure to accept the compensation payments in local currency at a time when the country was going through its worst economic crisis as inflation had soared and the Sri Lankan rupee was depreciating.

“Government officials from Wickremesinghe’s administration exerted pressure on me several times to accept the payment in Sri Lankan rupees,” Lahandapura said.

By asking to pay the compensation in local currency, “I believe the shipowners were trying to take an undue advantage of the economic crisis and some government officials were supporting their demand,” she added. The value of the Sri Lankan rupee slumped by almost 50 percent against the US dollar in 2022 when the economic crisis started.

Lahandapura told the PSC she had “strongly resisted” accepting payments in rupees. But the insurers still made two payments in the local currency.

“In her view, accepting payments in rupees might pose a risk of money laundering,” the PSC said in its report, referring to Lahandapura’s statement.

Al Jazeera reached out to the London P&I Club to comment on the allegations, but did not receive any response.

The PSC report concluded that the disaster “exposed critical gaps in the country’s ability to prevent and manage maritime pollution incidents”.

“The Committee found that delays in legal proceedings and inadequate coordination between government agencies had exacerbated the environmental and economic damage,” it said.

Moreover, the lawsuit demanding compensation from the London P&I Club was served by the Sri Lankan authorities 23 months after the disaster occurred, just days before the deadline, stipulated under international law, was set to expire. The law mandates that a claim for compensation in case of a marine accident must be made within two years of the incident. The lawsuit was filed under then-Attorney General Sanjay Rajaratnam.

“There seemed to be some lethargy or intentional delay from the Attorney General’s Department (AGD) in handling the X-Press Pearl vessel disaster case,” Lahandapura, the former head of MEPA, told the parliamentary committee.

Sri Lanka
The X-Press Pearl was carrying nearly 1,680 metric tonnes of plastic nurdles. Even three years later, mainly women workers continue to separate and collect the nurdles by hand [Aljazeera]

However, the then minister of justice, Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, blamed the MEPA for the delay in filing the lawsuit, saying the marine agency submitted its environmental impact report late.

According to an anonymous official source in the Sri Lankan government, the Attorney General’s Department responded promptly to requests from the shipowners, but took a long time to respond to MEPA’s queries.

“I don’t have evidence to suggest anyone at the AGD received any financial benefit, but if the country’s AGD was lethargic in handling such an important case, it certainly raises suspicion,” the source told Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera reached out to the Attorney General’s Department for its response to the allegation, but it has not yet received a response. Al Jazeera also sought a response from Rajaratnam, under whom the lawsuit was filed, but he refused to comment.

Another contentious issue likely to be investigated is the decision for the compensation case to be heard in Singapore, where the ship was registered, instead of Sri Lanka, where the accident occurred.

“What we recommended was to litigate the legal case in Sri Lanka,” Dan Malika Gunasekara, a legal expert appointed by MEPA, told Al Jazeera. “However, the Attorney General’s decision to file it in Singapore raises severe questions as to how he arrived at such a decision considering all the surrounding circumstances, especially concerning the consequences.”

Gunasekara was referring to a problem, also highlighted in the PSC report, that due to Singapore being a signatory to the Convention of Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC Convention), the compensation could be limited to approximately 19 million GBP ($24.7m). As the government had estimated the legal costs could reach $10m, it would leave just about $14m for cleanup and compensation.

Sri Lanka
Each woman earns about 3,000 rupees ($10) a day separating the nurdles [Al Jazeera]

Critics say the decision to move the lawsuit to Singapore cost the government of Sri Lanka dearly.

“The cabinet of ministers had initially estimated $4.2m as legal costs in Singapore but it was later amended and now $10m has been allocated for the Attorney General’s Department,” said Asela Rekawa, who succeeded Lahandapura as MEPA chairman.

“We were told that we ended up spending precious foreign currency reserves at a time when Sri Lanka was facing bankruptcy because of the foreign currency deficit,” said Professor Ajith de Alwis, co-chair of the MEPA-appointed scientific committee. “In addition, precious little support was available to study the issue in many ways.”

However, according to the PSC report, the London P&I Club had expressed concerns about coming to Sri Lanka “due to the adverse publicity and security fears” and preferred to join the negotiations over the compensation in Singapore.

The then Sri Lankan minister of justice, Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, also defended the choice of Singapore to litigate the issue.

“Singapore is home to thousands of shipping companies and no company would risk damaging their business by ignoring a ruling from a Singaporean court,” he told Al Jazeera, adding that the decision was made following advice from an Australian legal firm.

“In any case, it might have been difficult to enforce the judgement on a UK company by a Sri Lankan court,” he said.

According to the country’s Fisheries Department, nearly 20,000 fishermen have been paid a total of nearly $10m, but a leader of the fishing trade union said it was not enough.

“The fishermen received different amounts of money as per the area, between 10,000 rupees ($66) and 270,000 rupees ($900) but some had to submit appeals and nearly 2,000 ‘indirect’ fishermen are still hoping to get any compensation,” Roger Peiris, a leader of a fishing trade union, told Al Jazeera, referring to people who sell fish, own boats, or those involved in the dry fish industry.

“But I don’t even count this as compensation, it was just for lack of an immediate income. Compensation for fishermen is something that needs to be discussed separately. Fishermen would only get proper compensation after the legal issues are over.”

(Aljazeera)

Continue Reading

Trending