SINGAPORE- SRI LANKA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-DEVIL IS IN THE SRI LANKA IMPORT-EXPORT LIST

-->

CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE/FRIENDS OF THE EARTH SRI LANKA

SINGAPORE- SRI LANKA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

DEVIL IS IN THE SRI LANKA IMPORT-EXPORT LIST

Hemantha Withanage

Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice

Sri Lanka is one of the highly indebted country due to its mismanagement in the economy and the governance in the recent years. The issues are interconnected to the 30 year civil war, lack of a national development vision, excessive borrowings, overdevelopment of infrastructure with no feasibilities, high dependence of China and corrupt governance system. Sri Lanka being a strategic location of the China Belt Road Initiative and recent crisis in the global waste management including China’s restriction to import waste for recycling industry, Ministry of Megapolis plan to establish three waste to energy plants in Sri Lanka, Chinese contract for the Arruwakkaru waste landfill and Chinese plan for Hambanthota, lack of proper enforcement of the National Environmental (Protection and Quality) Regulations, No. 1 of 2008 enacted under the National Environmental act No 47of 1980 are few factors to consider when analyzing the recently signed Singapore- Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement.

This appears to be a pretty standard free trade agreement entered into bi-laterally by two countries similar to other Free trade agreements under Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of GATS. GATT 1994 means the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 contained in Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement. It covers, Elimination of Custom duties, intellectual property rights, telecommunications, Health, environment and several other areas. However, in my opinion devil is in the Sri Lanka export and import list in the Appendix 2-A-1 Tariff  Schedule Sri Lanka which has made free importation of the goods and material which are even banned in Sri Lanka for many years ago. The issue seems that when we enter into global agreements, we have not made our policies and regulations corrected and updated adequately and timely manner.

According to the Department of Import and Export control website “Necessary steps have been taken to control or ban critical items that has harmful effect to the environment and public security according to the International Conventions such as Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm’s. Eg. Banning of Glyphosate. Further, two third of the shelf life is an essential requirement for importation of pharmaceuticals and it is a critical step that has been taken to avoid expired drugs”. It further state that Since, Sri Lanka situated in a prime location in the Indian Ocean and mid of the Silk Road, world has identified Sri Lanka is a good trans-shipment point for international trade. Apart from that Chinese and Indian trade expansion policies give us a sign to develop a sound policy framework in the border protection and international trade relations.”

This proves that the FTA signed between Sri Lanka and Singapore has something to do with the transshipment. However, there is high probability of dumping such material in Sri Lankan soil and also using them as raw material in some dirty industries which might come in the proposed industrial zones including one proposed by China in Hambanthota. Perhaps this is the business that China is looking for using Hambanthota harbor. Therefore, having strong customs regulation and cleaning import export list is crucial.

Banned Waste categories are free to import- Some of the items in the Export-Import list are prohibited products. For Eg. Sri Lanka has banned importation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) in 1979. PCB was officially banned worldwide under the Stockholm Convention in 2001. But our Export-Import list still allows them. This FTA allows importation of PCB, PCB contaminated or containing items free under different HS codes including 29039913. Although the Gazette Extraordinary 2044/40  of 9^th November /2017 published under the Import and Export Control Act No 1 or 1969 has banned some of these items, it does not reflect in the FTA annex referring to the Tariff Schedule in Sri Lanka.

Similarly, DDT is one of the banned items in Sri Lanka since 1976. But the FTA allows importing DDT under HS code 29039220 free to Sri Lanka. Endrin, Dieldrin and many other such banned pesticides and weedicides are included in the list of items to import free.

There are various types of wastes in both Sri Lanka Singapore lists. For eg: HS codes 12130010- Waste straw, 26211000-Ash and residues from the incineration of municipal waste, 28053010-Waste and scrap of rare-earth metals, 30069200-Waste pharmaceuticals, 38251000 - Municipal waste, 38252000-Sewage sludge, 38253000 - Clinical waste, 40040020-Waste, - Scrap and waste of Micro cellular, 47079000- Other paper/paper board, including unsorted waste and scrap, 68101110-Building blocks & bricks-concrete cement blocks encasing industrial waste sludge, 68109910-Other - Concrete cement blocks encasing industrial waste sludge, 70010010-Waste and scrap containing lithium-tantalum and lithium niobium, 75030000-Nickel waste and scrap 78020000-Lead waste and scrap, 81019700 Waste and scrap, 81053000-Waste and scrap of cobalt etc. There are many other type of waste included in Sri Lanka list with free of custom duties. Some are harmful to the environment and some are not. Meanwhile some  waste can be used as raw material and some are just waste.  

Environmental regulations in Sri Lanka- The government of Sri Lanka trying to bring market solutions to heals in debt. Yet the proposed solutions may be more damaging to the country’s environment and health of people. This is an issue that needs to be addressed politically as well as legally and economically.

The issues related to the waste dumping and Sri Lanka becoming a dumping yard of Asia is very possible under this highly indebted situation. Lack of waste law enforcement in Sri Lanka is an added factor. Strengthening and enforcing our waste importation and handling hazardous waste regulation is not satisfactory.

In comparison, Singapore has a better regulation and a proper law enforcement. Most items in the Singapore Customs list do not generate within its territories. In fact, Singapore is a transit point being a service provider to shipping lines. Singapore also produce about 60,000 Metric tonnes (MT) electronic waste annually as reported in 2018. The total generation is about 7.5million MT a year which only 4.5 million MT goes for recycling.

Basel convention- It appears that Basel regulations could be the only hope if there is scheduled waste import under this FTA. However, in general there are major gaps in implementing the environmental laws in Sri Lanka due to the unnecessary political interventions. Sri Lanka ratified the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal in 1992 and had taken some steps to ensure implementation of its provisions.  Implementation of the National obligations on Import, Export and Transit of waste listed in the Basel Convention is carried out by the CEA as the National Competent Authority for the Basel convention.  Singapore has a good set of regulations to control transboundary movement of hazardous waste.

As Sri Lanka does not have disposal facilities the importation of List A waste of the Basel convention is not allowed. For the importation of List B waste of the Basel convention a proposal should be submitted by the Importer/ Industrialist to the CEA/BOI. Then the proposal is been circulated among the members of the Technical Committee for the implementation of the Basel Convention for comments. Based upon TEC recommendations Importation is approved under conditions/not approved with reasons. The ports Authority & the Sri Lanka Customs are also informed of the decision taken. But this process is not necessarily follow all the time.

Intellectual property- According to the critiques, most developing countries don't have adequate laws to protect patents, inventions, and new processes. The laws they do have aren't always strictly enforced. As a result, corporations often have their ideas stolen. The FTA between Sri Lanka and Singapore says that “The Parties shall explore cooperation in the granting of patents on the basis of applications filed by applicants of a Party in the other Party, and patent examination and work sharing”. This is an area that Sri Lanka need to be worried as our Intellectual properties are very much vulnerable due to the lack of strong regulations. Sri Lanka being a place with long history, it has many traditional knowledge which can be threatened due to this FTA.

Environment and health- The FTA somehow has a provision to suspend its operation in related to safety. The article 5.14 sectoral annexes state “Where urgent problems of safety, health, consumer or environment protection or national security arise or threaten to arise for a Party, that Party may suspend the operation of any Sectoral Annex, in whole or in part, immediately. In such a case, the Party shall immediately advise the other Party of the nature of the urgent problem, the products covered and the objective and rationale of the suspension”.

The FTA between Singapore and Sri Lanka need to look at as an agreement between a weak and a strong regulator in related to trade, investment and environment. Singapore has no natural environment to save in comparison to Sri Lanka. In my opinion Sri Lanka is more vulnerable to environmental pollution, losing intellectual property rights unless we pay more attention. It’s the time to look at these aspects and adequacy of our laws, regulations and enforcement before moving further. (END)

ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE OF THE COLOMBO PORT CITY PROJECT

Hemantha Withanage

Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice

Centre for Environmnetal Justice is a public interest environmnetal organisation based in Sri Lanka established in 2004. CEJ fied legal action against the Colombo port city in 2015 since it has violated the EIA process in Sri Lanka. This article was produced based on the comments made by Mr. Hemantha Withanage, CEJ  Dr. Mrs. Heidi W. Weiskel, ELAW, and Mr. Indika Rajapaksha,CEJ to be distributed at the symposium organized by the Alliance against the Colombo Port city held on 27^th January 2018 in Negombo.

-->

Colombo port city is a major infrastructure facility in the BELT ROAD PROJECT of China. It is considered as the third strategic point since Sri Lanka is located along the east-west shipping line. It would have been beneficial for the Sri Lanka, if we could   enter into a better deal understanding our significance in this strategy. However, Sri Lanka entered into this deal as a highly indebted nation and therefore Sri Lanka does not have much leverage.

The dream annexed city called Colombo Port City will have a major administrative and benefit sharing issues. It is proposed to run under new regulations and as a financial hub which details are not yet publicly available. Both Rajapasksha regime and Maithree-

Ranil regime have so far failed to become accountable to the public on this annexed city. Despite its legal economic and social impacts, the environmental impacts have not been addressed under the prevailing laws in the country. Infact it is a highly greenwashed project by the respective agencies including the CCD, CEA, UDA, GSMB, and the academic community specially from the university of Moratuwa. This project was highly politicized during the Rajapaksha regime due to the China bias foreign policy in related to the historical relationship during the war period and therefore there was no space for the government agencies or academics to make an independent opinion.

On 16^th December 2014  Prime Minister, Ranil Wickramasinghe, announced that “the new government,  would scrap the Colombo Port City Project, because it would end up destroying the coastal belt from Negombo to Beruwala.” Therefore, he himself aware of the environmental impacts. However, he twisted the situation due to the circumstances.

The project under the previous regime planned to fill an area of 235 Ha, however become 269 under the new proposal. However, the total area of filling will be more than 300 hectare including the 2 canals in the project area and the total “footprint” could be approximately 485 hectares or 1200 acre of the sea.

UNSTOPPABALE SAND MINING

According to the supplementary Environmental Impact Assessment, 65 million m3 of dredged sea sand will be required. It may be minimum 75 million according to experts. However, considering the 15-20% wastage during suction dredging [which will wash away and deposited on the coral reefs in the area destroying the fishing grounds] the total sand mining requirement will be more than 90 million m3. Further to this, once the project completes it will still require sea sand to maintain the proposed beachfront and the marina, which will be amount to 300,000 m3 annually. This is not shown in the above figures including where this sand will be mined.

BIODIVERSITY AND LIVELIHOOD IMPACTS

This location currently provides livelihood for 15,000 fishermen. The sand mining area is approximately 150 sq. km protected by three weathered sandy rocks protecting beach from Colombo to Negombo.  According to the previous studies, the area has four reefs, whose species are generally of low diversity and abundance. All are significantly influenced by sediments from the Kelani River, with high turbidity as well as accumulated sediments on the reef surface. The density and diversity of colonization by corals is generally very low, typically 85% uncolonized. Only one species (damselfish) Pomacentrus proteus is endemic. A total of 53 fish species and 4 shrimp and crab species were identified in commercial catches landed at Modera Fish Harbour.     

EIA report on the building construction produced in October 2017, states that Palagala, Vatiyagala has been recently recovered completely.” However, according to the fishermen in the area this is not true. Further, coral reefs from Colombo to Negombo area has been severely destroyed by the port city project due to sand mining.  

CORAL REEFS

The heavy reliance on reef balls to replace the habitats that will be lost as a result of this massive dredge/fill/build project is concerning. There is not a lot of evidence in the literature that artificial reefs are successful, let alone a successful substitute for a functioning nearshore reef, which is what will be destroyed in this project.

It is evident that no pilot tests were conducted to determine whether and how artificial reefs would perform in this area. The entire section about the usefulness of artificial reefs is pure speculation, which seems irresponsible when the proponents know the high productivity and value of the existing reef.  

COASTAL EROSION

 Coastal erosion has been experienced during the dredging in this area. It is assumed that this project will destroy the beaches in the Western province from Mount Lavinia to Negombo due to the coastal erosion. It will also destroy the coral habitats, nesting grounds and the fish resources in these areas.

ROCK MATERIAL

3.45 million m3 of rock material will be mined from 11 quarry sites in Kaduwela, Korathota, Divulapitiya and will be transported damaging the road and crating nuisance. They will use 300 tipper lories twice a day. This will add 1200 times of trips up and down which all will cross at Kaduwela town daily. These projects have already created many environmental impact and public nuisance.

FLODDING

According to the project design the port city could block drainage from Baire lake outfall and this would cause the accumulation of water on land, increasing the risk of flooding. We should not forget that Baire remains a polluted water body within the city.

SEA LEVEL RISE AND CLIMATE PROOFING

 It is already evident that climate change has resulted 0.8 Centigrade temperature rise and as a result experiencing 40 cm sea level rise. The EIA document has no mention to the sea level rise due to climate change. The recent ADB report suggested that over 6-degree centigrade temperature rise is unavoidable by the end of this century due to climate change. This will result significant sea level rise, strong waves and coastal erosion. Almost one meter sea level rise is evident in some parts of the world. Therefore, all new EIA reports around the world cover a significant assessment of climate change. They also have climate proofing in order to mitigate negative impacts. However, this report has no such study.  Therefore, a serious climate impact assessment is vital for this project.

VALUE OF ROCK AND SAND

The Port City project will use sea sand worth USD 3.2 billion [Rs. 7000/m3].  Similarly, 3.45 m3 millions of rock material will worth USD 1 billion [Rs. 4000/m3]. There is no equivalent equity for Sri Lanka in this project. Therefore, it is not correct to consider USD 1.35 billion Chinese investment in the Colombo port city as a major investment in Sri Lanka.

The marina was the only component of this investment, which Sri Lanka Ports Authority would have operated for making profits. But this has already given to the Chinese company and no profitable operation is now available for Sri Lanka.

JAYA CONTAINER TERMINAL

The operation of the Sri Lankan own Jaya Container Terminal which is the only revenue making entity in the Colombo harbor will be given to the other terminals and the land will be sold to the private corporations.  

DIKOVITA HARBOUR

The EIA is silent on the newly constructed Dikovita fishery harbor. It is Rs.8580 million (Euro 53 million) project. The impact to this harbor is necessary to study.

SOVERGNITY OF THE NATION

Sri Lankan sovereignty is under serious risk due to the Chinese own landmass within the Sri Lankan territories with access to the international oceans. Whether it is fully own or 99 year lease is irrelevant when the country loose its control once. Minister Champika Ranawaka was once very concern about this fact, however ironically, he has to implement the project now.

NO ALTERNATIVES

If the project is for development of Sri Lanka, there are plenty of other acts that the government can propose development projects. Rather, the EIA is for a specific development project is not addressing the issue of local development, but providing business space for the china’s strategy. The same reason the EIA is lacking alternatives related to the locations, technologies including alternative development model for Sri Lanka. The EIA has not identified less environmentally, socially and economically destructive alternative to the country. The project Magapolis once considered filling and area of 80 Ha and keeping it as public beach as there is no public beach in Colombo. We could assume that the pro Chinese advisors of the current regime defeated this proposal.

TRANSPORT IMPACTS

EIA report estimates that daily public transport trips in the Port City will be increased by about 300,000 which will add more vehicular emissions to the air than the existing. Even though emission free modes of transportation are promoted within the port city, still there would be a considerable increase in emission in the others areas. It further states,

“Study carried out by CEA projected that level of various air pollutants viz. SO2, NO2, CO, O3 and VOC have been less than the maximum permissible levels stipulated by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, a comparative analysis on PM10 reveals that the pollutant level has relatively been stable within 70-80 μg/m3. This was found to be much higher compared to WHO guidelines for which the maximum permissible level is 50 μg/m3.”

According to Ambient Air Quality measurements at Fort Railway Station in 2014 even though NO2 and CO maximum concentrations were within local AAQ standard, while that of SO2 and PM10 were occasionally observed to exceed the respective standard. (Table 4.1)

The traffic generated due to the project would make the situation worse, if not properly addressed, this conditions can create photochemical smog which is hazardous to human health. Colombo could even become another New Delhi.

NOISE AND VIBRATION

Phase 1 of the project which consists of high rise buildings are close to the land side. Therefore, within the first few years there will be a considerable noise and vibration. According to table 5.6 of the EIA report, the noise level around this area has already exceeded the permissible level (for medium noise area day time: - 63db night time 50 db) in areas around the project site. Construction activities, noise of machineries and extra traffic would add more noise.  

Vibration was already a major issue during the last few months. Even the H.E. President raised this issue during one of the meeting held in the presidential secretariat.  The EIA suggest that “Interim standards for noise and vibration limits have been implemented.  

SOLID WASTE GENERATION

The estimated production of solid waste in Port City is around 375MT/Day at the year 2040 and at present generation of solid waste in CBD of Colombo is 850MT/Day. Waste separation,3R concept suggested in the EIA are good approaches. EIA states that the collected solid waste (disposable) during operational period will be directed to Solid Waste Treatment Plants at Karadiyana, Muthurajawela, and Aruwakkaru which will be in operation in three years from now. However, Muthurajawela is an ecologically important wetland and disposing waste in the area would destroy the ecosystem and associated biodiversity.  

SOCIO ECONOMIC ISSUES

Fort is considered as one of the major economic center in Colombo. With the creation of port city these economic activities could be diverted into port city area resulting socio economic issues. Small scale Vendors can be affected. This has not been addressed in the EIA report.

WASTE WATER DISCHARGE AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT

The responsibility of maintaining the sewerage infrastructure within the Port City will fall on the CMC, once the internal sewer network of the Port City will be laid by the developer. The Estate Management Company of the Port City needs to discuss on this regard and agree with the GOSL and the CMC in the future. Mixing of waste water with storm water should be avoided.

WATER QUALITY

During the construction period, there is a high potential to generate sediments and other pollutants which can destroy the nearby reefs and aquatic life. Proposed Marina is a non-point source of pollution. It is important that measures suggested in the EIA (table 5.7) to prevent water pollution are implemented. During construction activities; dredging, mining, piling, as well as during construction period; storm water, land runoff and waste disposal can collectively contribute to general degradation of marine area both within and surrounding areas of Port City through a number of impact vectors (e.g. salinity changes, turbid plumes, sedimentation, resuspension, release of contaminants, and bathymetric changes).

Storm water runoff which contains suspended solids, petroleum hydrocarbons and other pollutants can contaminate the lagoon area within Port City and in adjacent waters would resultant salinity change, increase turbidity, sedimentation and in long run bathymetric change. Reefs in adjacent sea area get smothered and burial of macro-benthos as they silted caused by enhanced sedimentation. Sedimentation also results in the formation of sand bars across the sea outlets of Port City (lagoon and canals), reducing water exchange with the sea and leading to an accumulation of pollutants.

Shrimp and fish recruitment and ecosystem productivity may also affect due to reduce light penetration, increase turbidity and siltation as fish eggs, larvae, and early juveniles are more sensitive to pollution than adult fish.” The measures are presented in enough detail that they can be successfully followed.

MARINE WATER QUALITY

 For marine water quality impacts, however, the mitigation measures are considerably less detailed (Ch. 5, p. 39): Site runoff during construction stage might affect the salinity, turbidity and sedimentation of the adjacent seawater. Poor water quality impacts on benthos and other sessile or mobile organisms would be short-termed and localized, and would be self-correcting after rectifying the ill. Mobile organisms affected could return to the area while the nearby benthos and sessile organisms could disperse their offspring through water currents and recolonize the area after water quality gets improved. The following mitigation and compensation measures are recommended in the EIA.

Ø  Erection of silt curtains around the point of impact;

Ø  Timing restrictions/phase of construction;

Ø  Designate specific enclosed area for maintenance activities;

Ø  Introduce conservation measures like rainwater harvesting, use of tap with sensors;

Ø  Restricted corridors of working;

Ø  Proper management of waste water;

Ø  Flood control, clogging of waterways and pollution of beaches;

Ø  Construction of revetments and seawalls;

Ø  Design storm water management plan;

Ø  Optimizing construction methods to minimize the overall construction period.”

These briefly listed measures are unlikely to be effective in reducing impacts for at least two reasons. First, unlike the freshwater recommendations, there is insufficient detail included for practitioners to be able to take the necessary steps to carry out the measures. Simply stating “timing restrictions/phase of construction” and “restricted corridors of working” does not provide instructions for anyone hoping to prevent impacts. Second, in some cases the reasoning is not biologically sound.

Sessile organisms like corals and sponges that are harmed by construction activities are unlikely to reproduce, and more unlikely still to time that spawning and dispersal to precisely coincide with the moment when their offspring might be able to drift back into the area to find conditions improved.

EIA state that “Mobile organisms affected could return to the area while the nearby benthos and sessile organisms could disperse their offspring through water currents and recolonize the area after water quality gets improved.” However, this kind of reasoning shows either ignorance or disregard for the biological considerations of these systems by the consultants. The authors have not adequately addressed the potential impacts on nearshore habitats, which is all the more concerning because the area is known to be a lobster reserve.

CONCLUSION

This Colombo Port City project has multiple negative impacts. The Port City project not even consider the negative impacts ate the construction stage and the operation stage which could include, water supply, waste management, energy supply etc. The so-called Supplementary EIA is not adequate and it has failed to address all those issues correctly and in unbiased manner. Coast Conservation and Coastal Resource Management Department is already bias towards this decision. They have a conflict of interest on this project, which is also violation of the law of the natural justice. According to our analysis and information the Colombo port city project has too many negative, social, environmental, economic and political impacts. The project is burdening the country by committing natural resource beyond the level of replenishment. Use of the main materials i.e. sand and metal will create unnecessary demand for the local construction industry beyond the economic and social benefits of the proposed Port city.