2.6 billion People worldwide still do not have access to proper toilet facilities. 1.2 billion People continue open defecation. About 737 million people in the South Asia region still practice open defecation. In Sri Lanka approximately 200,000 people still practice open defecation. In Sri Lanka hundreds of schools do not have proper and adequate toilets including the western province. It was reported that 17 schools in the North Central province doesn’t have a single toilet. Girl students and female teachers especially suffer from this situation. In most cities, public places such as railway stations, bus stands, long distant bus stops have very dirty toilets. Many toilets build in the dry zone are not in operation due to lack of water. They have converted the toilets into an animal shelter. Most plantation workers and families share only one or two toilets for many lines houses. More shockingly, number of tsunami settlements has over flowing toilet pits due to the bad design. Many public toilets release excreta into the lagoons, canal and rivers. These are just few issues highlighted during the preparation of the public perspectives study conducted by the Centre for Environmental Justice in the last few months. The United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) aims at achieving a 50% reduction in the number of people without “proper sanitation by 2015”. Further, the year 2008 was declared the ‘International Year of Sanitation’ by the UN General Assembly in 2006 because progress by governments to achieve the MDG goals was so slow. South Asian Conference on Sanitation is an initiative to mobilize achieving MDGs and monitoring its progress. The Fourth South Asia Conference on Sanitation (SACOSAN) IV will be held in 4-7th April 2011. The previous SACOSAN conferences we held in Islamabad, Dhaka and Delhi in 2003, 2006 and 2008 respectively. Third SACOSAN produced the Delhi Declaration and the Road Map to achieve its targets. One of the main objectives of the Road Map was to enable countries to identify gaps and issues, and record the lessons learnt from past experiences. The ROAD MAP identified five factors that each country needs to plan and fulfill to achieve the MDG targets for sanitation by 2015. These are (i) country commitment, (ii) enabling policies, (iii) effective and accountable institutions, (iv) financing and (v) monitoring and sustaining change”. It is expected that participating countries will prepare and share information and knowledge based on these during SACOSAN IV and work towards strategies for the future. Civil Society also plays key role in achieving sanitation target. According to the survey conducted by CEJ approximately 58% of the toilets have been directly provided by the CSOs in Sri Lanka. They engage in onsite sanitations in the rural and Estate sector. They promote eco sanitation and school sanitation too. CSOs play a major role in organizing SACOSAN IV. In planning for this event WaterAid, Freshwater Action Network South Asia (FANSA) and Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) has embarked upon a programme to carry out research in South Asian countries through partner CSOs and synthesize the results to develop a “Peoples’ Perspective” for the region. The research aims at collecting information at the grass roots on people’s ideas and views on how to achieve better sanitation, the success and/or failure of sanitation projects, who will be involved in it and what is the course of action for implementation. It is in the light of this background that the Sri Lanka report has been prepared. As a result of the survey conducted by the Centre for Environmental Justice it was found many obstacles for achieving sanitation targets in Sri Lanka. The following are the recommendations made based on the same. Carryout awareness and education programmes on sanitation and hygiene: Awareness and education programmes on sanitation needs to be carried out along with the implementation of sanitation projects for (i) schools, (ii) estate communities, (iii) household affected by Tsunami and (iv) other beneficiaries of such projects. These programmes should cover a number of aspects including the following: • The correct use of a toilet • The manner and methods of disposing of sanitary towels • The cultivation of good toilet habits • Health infections that can be caused by the use of unclean toilets • Health problems that can arise due to non-urination and/or defecation for long periods • The proper maintenance and cleaning of toilets • Diseases that can be caught and spread through OD, unhygienic sanitation conditions and lack of personal cleanliness Awareness creation of the general public is also essential in relation to; • The responsibility and ethics of using public toilets • Health problems caused by the use of unclean toilets • Health problems arising from non-urination and/or defecation when required • Smoking and other undesirable practices such as graphity in public toilets Sanitation projects must be well planned and designed: To achieve greater success sanitation projects must be well planned and designed taking a number of aspects into account - such as soil and environmental conditions, availability of water and appropriate technology - prior to implementation. Ensure supervision and monitoring: Supervision and monitoring throughout the project cycle is an absolute requirement. Post project support and maintenance in terms of services, advise and funds particularly for the poor is also desirable. Obtain community participation from the beginning: Obtaining community participation from the beginning to end of a project is an absolute necessity. Further, involving the community in construction and maintenance of sanitation projects is important. Urgent attention to be given to the Estate sector: Special and urgent attention must be given to the sanitation and water requirements of the communities in the Estate sector both in terms of funding and education. The government and Estate companies should take the main responsibility in this effort. Fresh evaluation of Tsunami areas required: Re-visiting the Tsunami areas and carrying out an appraisal of the status of existing sanitation projects, and embarking on a course of action to address the problems is essential. In fact, periodic reassessment is recommended. This is particularly so as the objective of sanitation projects soon after the Tsunami were to cater to the immediate situation and not the long term sustainability of it. Drawing up and implementing a comprehensive plan for Schools: A comprehensive plan of action is required for improving the sanitation facilities and conditions in schools which either don’t have facilities or have problems with existing ones. As a practice separate toilets must be maintained for males and females in relation to both students and teachers. The government should take a lead role with the support of parents, teachers, student and past pupils. CSOs can also play a vital role as was the case in the Southern Province where all school toilets in the sample were built by them. Make an assessment and action plan for areas which have no sanitation facilities: An assessment should be made of areas which don’t have sanitation facilities at all and those which have very poor facilities. Draw-up a plan of action and fund raising strategy to provide sanitation facilities in these areas based on the assessment. Establish transparency and accountability mechanisms for funds: Creating mechanisms for transparency and accountability in the channeling and utilization of funds for sanitation projects is required for good governance and successful projects. Nationally, it could be seen as a pre-requisite for achieving good sanitation in the country. It will lead to minimizing political interference and the wrongful use of funds by the various stakeholders and actors. Make water supply mandatory for sanitation projects: Sanitation projects must be built together with water supply projects for it to be successful. Experience shows that implementing sanitation projects without planning for the supply of water sets the stage for failure. Local Authority and Provincial Council officers and the public must supervise public toilets: In relation to public toilets built by Local Authorities and Provincial Councils both public participation and continued supervision by officers of these agencies vis-à-vis the functioning and maintenance of the system (including the supply of water and electricity) must be ensured. It is noted that the absence of this results in a host of problems including the wastage of funds. Provide individual water taps in public toilets: Providing separate water taps for each toilet will help to keep the public toilets clean. Usually people do not like to use common water tanks and buckets for washing. Placing clean disposal bins in female toilets with instructions for the disposal of sanitary towels is essential. Bins should be operable by foot as women hesitate to open the lids of bins particularly when they are unclean. This results in sanitary towels being thrown on the ground or dumped into flush toilets. Often flush toilets get blocked due to this. Government and CSOs should play a key role in the implementation of projects: It was evident in the study that the CSO’s played a major role in the provision of sanitation and water projects in all provinces. CSOs have been able to operate quite well at the ground level. Hence, it is important for the government to support and engage CSOs in this effort. The government should play a greater role in improving sanitation in the government schools. More attention can also be given to joint ventures with CSOs. Local Authorities and Provincial Councils must introduce solid waste management programmes: The Local Authorities and Provincial Councils with the assistance of CSOs must introduce solid waste management programmes in their respective areas. Solid waste can be turned into a source of income generation. People must be encouraged to separate waste at source. Separated organic waste can be composted while the paper, polythene and glass can be sold for recycling. Carryout awareness and education programmes on solid waste disposal and management: There is an urgent need to conduct awareness and education programmes (with special attention to housewives) in all locations on a number of common issues such as the following: • Composition of solid waste • Environmentally sound methods of solid waste disposal • Health impacts related to various practices of solid waste disposal • The need for waste separation • Composting, re-use and recycling • Establishment of community waste management methods • Working towards zero waste management Sanitation is not just a government business. All the citizens and every agency should pay a vital role in achieving sanitation targets. As a middle income country Sri Lanka cannot continue open defecation and maintain dirty school and public toilets. We hope SACOSA IV will open the eyes of all to achieve sanitation targets early.
Showing posts with label Centre for Environmental Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Centre for Environmental Justice. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
How to achieve better sanitation in Sri Lanka?
2.6 billion People worldwide still do not have access to proper toilet facilities. 1.2 billion People continue open defecation. About 737 million people in the South Asia region still practice open defecation. In Sri Lanka approximately 200,000 people still practice open defecation. In Sri Lanka hundreds of schools do not have proper and adequate toilets including the western province. It was reported that 17 schools in the North Central province doesn’t have a single toilet. Girl students and female teachers especially suffer from this situation. In most cities, public places such as railway stations, bus stands, long distant bus stops have very dirty toilets. Many toilets build in the dry zone are not in operation due to lack of water. They have converted the toilets into an animal shelter. Most plantation workers and families share only one or two toilets for many lines houses. More shockingly, number of tsunami settlements has over flowing toilet pits due to the bad design. Many public toilets release excreta into the lagoons, canal and rivers. These are just few issues highlighted during the preparation of the public perspectives study conducted by the Centre for Environmental Justice in the last few months. The United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) aims at achieving a 50% reduction in the number of people without “proper sanitation by 2015”. Further, the year 2008 was declared the ‘International Year of Sanitation’ by the UN General Assembly in 2006 because progress by governments to achieve the MDG goals was so slow. South Asian Conference on Sanitation is an initiative to mobilize achieving MDGs and monitoring its progress. The Fourth South Asia Conference on Sanitation (SACOSAN) IV will be held in 4-7th April 2011. The previous SACOSAN conferences we held in Islamabad, Dhaka and Delhi in 2003, 2006 and 2008 respectively. Third SACOSAN produced the Delhi Declaration and the Road Map to achieve its targets. One of the main objectives of the Road Map was to enable countries to identify gaps and issues, and record the lessons learnt from past experiences. The ROAD MAP identified five factors that each country needs to plan and fulfill to achieve the MDG targets for sanitation by 2015. These are (i) country commitment, (ii) enabling policies, (iii) effective and accountable institutions, (iv) financing and (v) monitoring and sustaining change”. It is expected that participating countries will prepare and share information and knowledge based on these during SACOSAN IV and work towards strategies for the future. Civil Society also plays key role in achieving sanitation target. According to the survey conducted by CEJ approximately 58% of the toilets have been directly provided by the CSOs in Sri Lanka. They engage in onsite sanitations in the rural and Estate sector. They promote eco sanitation and school sanitation too. CSOs play a major role in organizing SACOSAN IV. In planning for this event WaterAid, Freshwater Action Network South Asia (FANSA) and Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) has embarked upon a programme to carry out research in South Asian countries through partner CSOs and synthesize the results to develop a “Peoples’ Perspective” for the region. The research aims at collecting information at the grass roots on people’s ideas and views on how to achieve better sanitation, the success and/or failure of sanitation projects, who will be involved in it and what is the course of action for implementation. It is in the light of this background that the Sri Lanka report has been prepared. As a result of the survey conducted by the Centre for Environmental Justice it was found many obstacles for achieving sanitation targets in Sri Lanka. The following are the recommendations made based on the same. Carryout awareness and education programmes on sanitation and hygiene: Awareness and education programmes on sanitation needs to be carried out along with the implementation of sanitation projects for (i) schools, (ii) estate communities, (iii) household affected by Tsunami and (iv) other beneficiaries of such projects. These programmes should cover a number of aspects including the following: • The correct use of a toilet • The manner and methods of disposing of sanitary towels • The cultivation of good toilet habits • Health infections that can be caused by the use of unclean toilets • Health problems that can arise due to non-urination and/or defecation for long periods • The proper maintenance and cleaning of toilets • Diseases that can be caught and spread through OD, unhygienic sanitation conditions and lack of personal cleanliness Awareness creation of the general public is also essential in relation to; • The responsibility and ethics of using public toilets • Health problems caused by the use of unclean toilets • Health problems arising from non-urination and/or defecation when required • Smoking and other undesirable practices such as graphity in public toilets Sanitation projects must be well planned and designed: To achieve greater success sanitation projects must be well planned and designed taking a number of aspects into account - such as soil and environmental conditions, availability of water and appropriate technology - prior to implementation. Ensure supervision and monitoring: Supervision and monitoring throughout the project cycle is an absolute requirement. Post project support and maintenance in terms of services, advise and funds particularly for the poor is also desirable. Obtain community participation from the beginning: Obtaining community participation from the beginning to end of a project is an absolute necessity. Further, involving the community in construction and maintenance of sanitation projects is important. Urgent attention to be given to the Estate sector: Special and urgent attention must be given to the sanitation and water requirements of the communities in the Estate sector both in terms of funding and education. The government and Estate companies should take the main responsibility in this effort. Fresh evaluation of Tsunami areas required: Re-visiting the Tsunami areas and carrying out an appraisal of the status of existing sanitation projects, and embarking on a course of action to address the problems is essential. In fact, periodic reassessment is recommended. This is particularly so as the objective of sanitation projects soon after the Tsunami were to cater to the immediate situation and not the long term sustainability of it. Drawing up and implementing a comprehensive plan for Schools: A comprehensive plan of action is required for improving the sanitation facilities and conditions in schools which either don’t have facilities or have problems with existing ones. As a practice separate toilets must be maintained for males and females in relation to both students and teachers. The government should take a lead role with the support of parents, teachers, student and past pupils. CSOs can also play a vital role as was the case in the Southern Province where all school toilets in the sample were built by them. Make an assessment and action plan for areas which have no sanitation facilities: An assessment should be made of areas which don’t have sanitation facilities at all and those which have very poor facilities. Draw-up a plan of action and fund raising strategy to provide sanitation facilities in these areas based on the assessment. Establish transparency and accountability mechanisms for funds: Creating mechanisms for transparency and accountability in the channeling and utilization of funds for sanitation projects is required for good governance and successful projects. Nationally, it could be seen as a pre-requisite for achieving good sanitation in the country. It will lead to minimizing political interference and the wrongful use of funds by the various stakeholders and actors. Make water supply mandatory for sanitation projects: Sanitation projects must be built together with water supply projects for it to be successful. Experience shows that implementing sanitation projects without planning for the supply of water sets the stage for failure. Local Authority and Provincial Council officers and the public must supervise public toilets: In relation to public toilets built by Local Authorities and Provincial Councils both public participation and continued supervision by officers of these agencies vis-à-vis the functioning and maintenance of the system (including the supply of water and electricity) must be ensured. It is noted that the absence of this results in a host of problems including the wastage of funds. Provide individual water taps in public toilets: Providing separate water taps for each toilet will help to keep the public toilets clean. Usually people do not like to use common water tanks and buckets for washing. Placing clean disposal bins in female toilets with instructions for the disposal of sanitary towels is essential. Bins should be operable by foot as women hesitate to open the lids of bins particularly when they are unclean. This results in sanitary towels being thrown on the ground or dumped into flush toilets. Often flush toilets get blocked due to this. Government and CSOs should play a key role in the implementation of projects: It was evident in the study that the CSO’s played a major role in the provision of sanitation and water projects in all provinces. CSOs have been able to operate quite well at the ground level. Hence, it is important for the government to support and engage CSOs in this effort. The government should play a greater role in improving sanitation in the government schools. More attention can also be given to joint ventures with CSOs. Local Authorities and Provincial Councils must introduce solid waste management programmes: The Local Authorities and Provincial Councils with the assistance of CSOs must introduce solid waste management programmes in their respective areas. Solid waste can be turned into a source of income generation. People must be encouraged to separate waste at source. Separated organic waste can be composted while the paper, polythene and glass can be sold for recycling. Carryout awareness and education programmes on solid waste disposal and management: There is an urgent need to conduct awareness and education programmes (with special attention to housewives) in all locations on a number of common issues such as the following: • Composition of solid waste • Environmentally sound methods of solid waste disposal • Health impacts related to various practices of solid waste disposal • The need for waste separation • Composting, re-use and recycling • Establishment of community waste management methods • Working towards zero waste management Sanitation is not just a government business. All the citizens and every agency should pay a vital role in achieving sanitation targets. As a middle income country Sri Lanka cannot continue open defecation and maintain dirty school and public toilets. We hope SACOSA IV will open the eyes of all to achieve sanitation targets early.
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Don’t Nuke Sri Lanka Please!
Hemantha Withanage Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice
Sri Lanka is becoming a power hungry nation. Unnecessary lighting and unsustainable electricity consumption need more and more power generation. Despite the protest against coal power, Sri Lanka is building several coal power station with 3200 MW generation capacity. 1000 MW by the China and another 1000 MW by India are on the way. New Energy Minister (Former Environmental Minister) Champika Ranawaka now wants to become the nuclear champion by building a Nuclear Power plant by 2025. It is pity that Minister Ranawaka who started his environmental carrier as an activist against the coal power has now playing this role to supply power for energy hungry and unsustainable development paradigm.
A year ago, in the time of annual meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency Professor Tissa Vitarana Minister of Science and Technology was somehow become convinced that Nuclear power is the future power option for Sri Lanka. He said that Thorium deposits available in some parts of Sri Lanka can be a source of energy. Minister Ranwaka who attended the 54th annual meeting in this year suddenly becomes vocal on the same plan. It seems now Minister Tissa Vitarana found another Minister to back his idea.
The news appeared in the Daily Mirror of 5th September 2009 reporting that Minister Tissa Vitarana has invited Indian scientists to conduct a feasibility study to search for Thorium deposits in the Southern coastal belt for use as an energy source for nuclear power generation in Sri Lanka with the assistance from the Indian Government. However, Minister Ranawaka is looking for the assistance from the Russian scientist.
There is very much protest to the promotion of nuclear power by the general public in worldwide. The meltdown in Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April 1986 was the world's worst nuclear disaster. The explosion of the nuclear reactor killed at least 32 immediately. However, thousands more have died since 1986 due to related diseases. Over 100,000 people were evacuated from the region following the blast. Radiation is still a problem in the region.
According to Benjamin K. Sovacool that worldwide there have been 99 fatal accidents at nuclear power plants from 1952 to 2009, totaling US$20.5 billion in property damages. Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster and almost two-thirds (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in USA which has access to latest technology.
As we have seen in other countries, nuclear power is a risky and dangerous source of power. It needs pre-processing, maintenance, waste disposal and decommissioning involving very high risks and sensitivity.
One of the foremost facts of nuclear power plants is the construction cost. Recently built nuclear plants in some countries cost more than several billions of US dollars. In the Sri Lankan scenario, this will lead to a big financial risk. Also it takes more than one decade to construct such a plant. Therefore considering the financial constraints and the time involved, a nuclear power plant is not the best solution to meet the present growing demands of energy of the country. According to some economists nuclear power plants involve very high construction costs with low fuel cost. While the cost is from the government, the risk is for the people and benefits go to the construction companies rather than the public.
Thorium deposits exhaust and will not last more than 50-60 years according to the researchers. The problem arising here will be supplying of energy source when deposits are drained. If the material has to be imported (from Russia or elsewhere), the proposed targets will not be achieved and will be another burden on the country’s finances.
The environmental hazards due to mining of Thorium have to be addressed widely. Extraction of radioactive elements, such as Thorium, gives rise to considerable amounts of radioactive waste which cannot be under estimated. The safe disposal and transportation of residues of such plants also have to be given substantial considerations. Also social, economical and environmental measures need to be adopted to prevent possible nuclear disasters. There are many residents living around and working in Indian Uranium mining sites facing death and other health problems.
It is true that the countries who developed Nuclear power should consult the neighbouring nations. India did not follow this agreement when they develop number of nuclear station in the southern tip of India. Any disaster in these plants may also cause risks to Sri Lanka too.
As we have learned, Nuclear power is not carbon neutral. According to some researches, “the nuclear fuel cycle is responsible for emitting 84 to 122 grams of carbon dioxide for every KWh, mostly from mining, plant construction, and plant decommissioning.
Another factor that may be of interest is the issue of liability. As experienced in other countries, nuclear equipment suppliers will expect an immunity clause before providing equipment or services. The clause(s) will either limit liability to a ridiculously low amount and/or immunize private equipment manufacturers, service providers altogether from any liabilities arising from a meltdown or nuclear disaster.
These are few reasons that we must consider before thinking nuclear power in Sri Lanka. It is hard to understand why we go for these risky and unsustainable options when we have sustainable sources such as wind, solar, dendro, small hydro and wave. Hope ministers don’t forget that Energy sovereignty when dealing with energy security.
Photo Credit: http://www.time.com/
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Deadly lead in all house paints available in Sri Lanka
Hemantha Withanage
Science still does not play its role in protecting people. Among various cases a study found that new household paints sold in Sri Lanka contained large amount of deadly lead. Those decorative paints with Yellow and green color contain very high lead levels. The study conducted by the Toxics Link together with IPEN together with Centre for Environmental Justice found lead in 33 paint samples out of 33 tested (100%). Fifteen paint samples exceeded permitted lead levels for paints in the Sri Lanka. The study also found safer paints with identical colors that did not contain lead.
Among the key findings of the study, 69% samples exceeded the current Sri Lanka lead in paint standard of 600 ppm. The highest sample contained 137,325 ppm lead, 1526 times greater than the US limit and 228 times higher than SLS standards.
Lead causes irreversible nervous system damage and decreased intelligence at extremely low doses. Lead exposure in childhood has been associated with lower vocabulary and grammatical-reasoning scores, increased absenteeism, poorer eye-to-hand coordination, and lower class standing in high school.
The U.S. EPA has determined that lead is a probable human carcinogen. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) Healthy Environments for Children Alliance, “There is no known safe blood lead level but it is known that, as lead exposure increases, the range and severity of symptoms and effects also increases.” One of the largest causes of lead exposure is lead-contaminated dust from decaying paint. Lead ingestion and poisoning typically occurs through hand-to-mouth activity.
Lead threatens a child’s brain development and health. Child lead poisoning should be taken seriously and parents should be aware of possible pathways of exposure including lead paint in one’s home.
The question remains why those authorities who are responsible for regulating those products were unable to play their role.
Science still does not play its role in protecting people. Among various cases a study found that new household paints sold in Sri Lanka contained large amount of deadly lead. Those decorative paints with Yellow and green color contain very high lead levels. The study conducted by the Toxics Link together with IPEN together with Centre for Environmental Justice found lead in 33 paint samples out of 33 tested (100%). Fifteen paint samples exceeded permitted lead levels for paints in the Sri Lanka. The study also found safer paints with identical colors that did not contain lead.
Among the key findings of the study, 69% samples exceeded the current Sri Lanka lead in paint standard of 600 ppm. The highest sample contained 137,325 ppm lead, 1526 times greater than the US limit and 228 times higher than SLS standards.
Lead causes irreversible nervous system damage and decreased intelligence at extremely low doses. Lead exposure in childhood has been associated with lower vocabulary and grammatical-reasoning scores, increased absenteeism, poorer eye-to-hand coordination, and lower class standing in high school.
The U.S. EPA has determined that lead is a probable human carcinogen. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) Healthy Environments for Children Alliance, “There is no known safe blood lead level but it is known that, as lead exposure increases, the range and severity of symptoms and effects also increases.” One of the largest causes of lead exposure is lead-contaminated dust from decaying paint. Lead ingestion and poisoning typically occurs through hand-to-mouth activity.
Lead threatens a child’s brain development and health. Child lead poisoning should be taken seriously and parents should be aware of possible pathways of exposure including lead paint in one’s home.
The question remains why those authorities who are responsible for regulating those products were unable to play their role.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Reparations for Climate Debt
Statement by Climate Justice Now!
Delivered by Hemantha Withanage of Sri Lanka, December 12, 2009
1. Thank you for the opportunity to address this meeting.
2. We are movements gathered under the Climate Justice Now! Network – many from the South, from developing countries. Thousands of our members are here in Copenhagen, joining thousands of other citizens in a historic march towards Bella Center.
3. We are calling for Reparations for Climate Debt, the debt that is owed by northern countries (Annex 1 countries), multinational corporations, and International Financial Institutions to the peoples and countries of the South. This debt is owed by the North for using up more than their fair share of the earth’s capacity to absorb greenhouse gases, and in the process depriving the peoples of the South of their share, thus creating this climate crisis. Yet it is the people of the South who bear the worst effects.
4. What developed countries have put on the table, however, is nothing less than an insult to the dignity of the peoples of the South. It demonstrates complete disrespect for the value of our lives.
5. 2.4 billion Euros a year until 2012! No long term financing! This a mockery. Where are the reparations by developed countries for the damage they have done so far in the developing world?
6. We are not asking for aid or assistance, but for the North to make good on their climate debt. We are their creditors.
7. We do not require – or want - the existing multilateral financial institutions. They are part of the problem and the plunder. Climate finance must be provided in a democratic manner-at every level- through a multilateral fund under the authority of the COP.
8. Finance must be public, not private. It must not involve carbon markets. Such markets are part of the problem, not the solution!
9. We demand nothing less than climate justice now!
Delivered by Hemantha Withanage of Sri Lanka, December 12, 2009
1. Thank you for the opportunity to address this meeting.
2. We are movements gathered under the Climate Justice Now! Network – many from the South, from developing countries. Thousands of our members are here in Copenhagen, joining thousands of other citizens in a historic march towards Bella Center.
3. We are calling for Reparations for Climate Debt, the debt that is owed by northern countries (Annex 1 countries), multinational corporations, and International Financial Institutions to the peoples and countries of the South. This debt is owed by the North for using up more than their fair share of the earth’s capacity to absorb greenhouse gases, and in the process depriving the peoples of the South of their share, thus creating this climate crisis. Yet it is the people of the South who bear the worst effects.
4. What developed countries have put on the table, however, is nothing less than an insult to the dignity of the peoples of the South. It demonstrates complete disrespect for the value of our lives.
5. 2.4 billion Euros a year until 2012! No long term financing! This a mockery. Where are the reparations by developed countries for the damage they have done so far in the developing world?
6. We are not asking for aid or assistance, but for the North to make good on their climate debt. We are their creditors.
7. We do not require – or want - the existing multilateral financial institutions. They are part of the problem and the plunder. Climate finance must be provided in a democratic manner-at every level- through a multilateral fund under the authority of the COP.
8. Finance must be public, not private. It must not involve carbon markets. Such markets are part of the problem, not the solution!
9. We demand nothing less than climate justice now!
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Can We expect Climate Justice in Copenhagen?
Hemantha Withanage
Executive Director/ Senior Environmental Scientist
Centre for Environmental Justice
Climate change is very high in the global political agenda at the moment. 15th Conference of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol will begin on December 7th, 2009 in Copenhagen. COP 15 will be a very crucial event in the history of human race. However, we cannot have much hope since the developed countries so far very hesitant to accept their historical responsibility to the climate change and enter to a genuine deal.
It’s not a fiction. Intolerable heat, unpredictable high intensity rains and floods, cyclones, increased beach erosion are some symptoms of changing climate. Perhaps, Sri Lanka has a little understanding about the climate change. However, neighboring Maldives, Bangladesh or pacific islands such as Tuvalu, Kiribati already feel the rising sea level. Cyclone Nargis killed over 100,000 Burmese and affected more than 2.5 million people in 2007. Floods and cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh killed over 3000 people and affected over 900,000 families in year 2007. Floods in Sri Lanka in 2008 affected over 200,000 people and killed few. During the drought of 1999-2001 in Afghanistan FAO suggest that about half of the population was directly or indirectly affected by drought. About 3 to 4 million people were severely affected and another 8 to 12 million were under the threat of famine and stranded. There are similar stories across South Asia, Philippines, United States and across the globe.
Science is clear. Although there is a dispute about the temperature rise, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) report published in 2004 shows that rising temperature has a direct relationship with the increase of Green House Gases such as CO2, Methane, NO2, CFC and even water vapor. Methane emits from the nature as well as animal husbandry. One of the most famous climate thought appeared in the UN COP 15 thoughts are “Meatless Mondays Keep the Warming Away” and “Be a Vegan-Save our Beautiful World”. It is true that meat industry needs lost of energy and release methane. But CO2 which is result of burning “fossil Fuel” is a major reas
on to trap heat within the atmosphere which results global warming.
It is estimated that the temperature rise will be 2 – 5 degrees Centigrade at the end of the century. Some believe of a more severe temperature increase and 40 cm sea level rise by 2080. Some assessments state that the rise of average temperature by 4-5 degrees Centigrade will raise the sea level by 3-5 meters which leads to break up of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. Greenpeace says the breakdown of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) alone contains enough ice to increase the sea level by 5 meters and if all ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melt entirely, the sea level will rise by 70 meters. Although the countries except the United States signed the Kyoto protocol, which agreed to reduce 5.2% of CO2 emissions of the 1990 levels, none of the countries have fulfilled this obligation yet.
It is expected that he Obama administration will unveil the target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions at next month's climate conference in Copenhagen. The United States has been under great pressure from the international community to present its target at the summit, because it is the only industrialized country that still hasn't revealed a plan to reduce emissions. United States present its domestic targets in August 2009 which is 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.This is only less than 4% by 1990 levels which is far less than what other countries have been pushing. Meanwhile, total emission cuts so far agreed by the entire Annex I countries excluding US are only 14 percent to 17 percent from 1990 targets. However the US and other annex I countries argue that China, India and Brazil need to bring its CO2 level down too. Although US is responsible for the highest historical carbon emission, China’s per capita CO2 level is number one at the moment.
This is a very clear politics of the developed countries in this very divisive issue, the climate catastrophe. According to the climate scientists at least 40% of the 1990 levels of emission cuts should be done by 2020. This level is necessary if we are to maintain the 2 degree centigrade temperature rise and keep the CO2 level at 350 ppm. Any further increase of the CO2 level in the atmosphere will severely affect the sea level rise and other climate disasters.
Where this politics will lead us? It is estimated that over 200 million people become climate refugees at the end of the century due to impacts of climate change. In a conservative estimate, it is calculated that the inaction of cutting emission drastically by developed countries would cost the climate impacts around 40-70 billion annually. I believe the question is not where to find this money. During the US recession the United States bailout package for its corporations was over 3 trillions. Th
e total fund requirement to reduce CO2 level is 250 billion only.
The more important issue for the people in the developing world is how the climate debate will affect our genuine development. The reason I use the term genuine development is only because I see that the current development in Sri Lanka is not correct and not sustainable. The Electricity Generation plan recently unveiled by the Ceylon Electricity board has over 3200 MW coal power plants which will be totally based on imported Coal from Cheaper sources. This cheaper coal has more than 1 percent sulphur and more ash content. These coal power plants will emit CO2 1.9 Metric Tonnes per capita which almost same as the sustainable level of CO2 emission by 6.5 billion people living in the world today.
The easy argument of the Coal power agents today is that Sri Lanka’s per capita CO2 emission is only 600 Kg and we have ample space to increase the Co2 emission. But we have increased 230 percent since the Kyoto protocol signed. Burning coal which is imported from other countries cannot be justified as sustainable. On the other hand the problem today is the wrong development paradigm of the industrialized countries. Copying the same would be a complete disaster for us.
We have the right for development as same as like any other nation. As part of the environmental justice the developing nations now fight for climate justice. The developed countries owe ecological debt for the developing countries for overconsumption of our atmosphere, environmental space and natural resources. It is clear that their development has deprived us from development. Climate debt is owed for the historical overproduction of GHG emissions by developed countries that saturated the atmosphere – considered to be a ‘global common’ – thereby reducing the environmental/survival space available for developing countries. The climate debt is also owed for the impacts of climate change that is suffered in past and present in developing countries, and for future generations.
Sri Lankans position in the climate debate is also requesting the ecological debt that developed countries owe us. Sri Lanka Government has signed to the Bolivian proposal to request ecological debt. As we believe, ecological debt asserts that wealthy nations have generated a huge debt through centuries of exploitation of the natural resources of poorer nations. The ecological debt, including the climate debt must be paid not only in terms of financial means. This has to include the unconditional cancellation of all the unfair debts that the impoverished countries have – generated through the implementation of colonial and neoliberal policies. Liberalization practices imposed through the international financial institutions causes the degradation of environment; local social and economic system thus exacerbates vulnerability to climate change. Liberalization creates unequal access to natural goods which reducing opportunities for the poor to build resilience to climate change.
Being part of the G77 cluster, Sri Lanka also strongly support the request from Annex I countries to cut emissions, mitigate the damages, assist adaptations, request climate finance through a United Nations manage funds and transfer technologies to combat climate change. The African nations and the small islands states have almost similar approach. Yet the negotiation is not easy.
Any solution to climate change should be people centered. The government can do very little either to reduce everyone’s carbon footprint, to reduce industrial emissions or adapt to the climate disasters. The climate negotiations need to bring the opinion of the public, small enterprises or academics to the big picture. However, Sri Lankan climate bureaucrats have a phobia to meet the civil society and dialogues on public expectations and opinions. I have attended many civil society initiatives on climate change. Unfortunately, I failed to meet the national delegation in those local meetings.
Internationally, many developing governments are in corporation with the civil society thoughts. Many government delegations have included civil society representatives in the delegation too. There is nothing to lose in this case since we all in the southern believe that our final goal is climate justice. Climate justice can only achieve by developed nations taking responsibility for historical emissions and pay their climate debt. We must have climate bailout.
In a worst case there would be no deal in Copenhagen. Annex I countries are trying to kill Kyoto Protocol and they will likely to discuss the shared long-term vision only. There is a great debate on climate financing. Developed countries are planning to distribute climate finance through the climate criminals such as ADB and World Bank who has increased more than 100 percent its funds to the coal based power generations in the recent years. Much opposed carbon trading due to the failures in the recent past may still continue since that is the only way for the business corporation s to make money. Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries (REDD), much opposed carbon Offset mechanism supported by the UN will continue since that is the only money available for development countries.
The per capita emission is US 19.5, Canada 18.8, Australia 20 and United Arab Emirates 35 and China is only 4.58 by 2006 in Metric tonnes. The total emission china leads with 21.5% and United States 20.2% and European Union 13.8%. Except the United States, all other countries have committed some emission cuts even though it is very small with total 14 percent to 17 percent.
There is a very little chance that Annex I countries agree some emission cuts close to 20 percent by 1990 levels. There will be no deal without US committing to reduce its emissions. US domestic emission cut is 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels which is only 4% reduction by 1990 levels. Also there will be no deal without China, India and Brazil take actions to cut domestic emissions. China offered 40%-50% reduction by 2020 from 2005 levels. Any deal to reduce less than 40 percent by 1990 levels by all Annex I countries will not give hopes to developed countries. Yet, there is no walk out.
Executive Director/ Senior Environmental Scientist
Centre for Environmental Justice
Climate change is very high in the global political agenda at the moment. 15th Conference of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol will begin on December 7th, 2009 in Copenhagen. COP 15 will be a very crucial event in the history of human race. However, we cannot have much hope since the developed countries so far very hesitant to accept their historical responsibility to the climate change and enter to a genuine deal.
It’s not a fiction. Intolerable heat, unpredictable high intensity rains and floods, cyclones, increased beach erosion are some symptoms of changing climate. Perhaps, Sri Lanka has a little understanding about the climate change. However, neighboring Maldives, Bangladesh or pacific islands such as Tuvalu, Kiribati already feel the rising sea level. Cyclone Nargis killed over 100,000 Burmese and affected more than 2.5 million people in 2007. Floods and cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh killed over 3000 people and affected over 900,000 families in year 2007. Floods in Sri Lanka in 2008 affected over 200,000 people and killed few. During the drought of 1999-2001 in Afghanistan FAO suggest that about half of the population was directly or indirectly affected by drought. About 3 to 4 million people were severely affected and another 8 to 12 million were under the threat of famine and stranded. There are similar stories across South Asia, Philippines, United States and across the globe.
Science is clear. Although there is a dispute about the temperature rise, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) report published in 2004 shows that rising temperature has a direct relationship with the increase of Green House Gases such as CO2, Methane, NO2, CFC and even water vapor. Methane emits from the nature as well as animal husbandry. One of the most famous climate thought appeared in the UN COP 15 thoughts are “Meatless Mondays Keep the Warming Away” and “Be a Vegan-Save our Beautiful World”. It is true that meat industry needs lost of energy and release methane. But CO2 which is result of burning “fossil Fuel” is a major reas
on to trap heat within the atmosphere which results global warming.It is estimated that the temperature rise will be 2 – 5 degrees Centigrade at the end of the century. Some believe of a more severe temperature increase and 40 cm sea level rise by 2080. Some assessments state that the rise of average temperature by 4-5 degrees Centigrade will raise the sea level by 3-5 meters which leads to break up of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. Greenpeace says the breakdown of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) alone contains enough ice to increase the sea level by 5 meters and if all ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melt entirely, the sea level will rise by 70 meters. Although the countries except the United States signed the Kyoto protocol, which agreed to reduce 5.2% of CO2 emissions of the 1990 levels, none of the countries have fulfilled this obligation yet.
It is expected that he Obama administration will unveil the target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions at next month's climate conference in Copenhagen. The United States has been under great pressure from the international community to present its target at the summit, because it is the only industrialized country that still hasn't revealed a plan to reduce emissions. United States present its domestic targets in August 2009 which is 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.This is only less than 4% by 1990 levels which is far less than what other countries have been pushing. Meanwhile, total emission cuts so far agreed by the entire Annex I countries excluding US are only 14 percent to 17 percent from 1990 targets. However the US and other annex I countries argue that China, India and Brazil need to bring its CO2 level down too. Although US is responsible for the highest historical carbon emission, China’s per capita CO2 level is number one at the moment.
This is a very clear politics of the developed countries in this very divisive issue, the climate catastrophe. According to the climate scientists at least 40% of the 1990 levels of emission cuts should be done by 2020. This level is necessary if we are to maintain the 2 degree centigrade temperature rise and keep the CO2 level at 350 ppm. Any further increase of the CO2 level in the atmosphere will severely affect the sea level rise and other climate disasters.
Where this politics will lead us? It is estimated that over 200 million people become climate refugees at the end of the century due to impacts of climate change. In a conservative estimate, it is calculated that the inaction of cutting emission drastically by developed countries would cost the climate impacts around 40-70 billion annually. I believe the question is not where to find this money. During the US recession the United States bailout package for its corporations was over 3 trillions. Th
e total fund requirement to reduce CO2 level is 250 billion only.The more important issue for the people in the developing world is how the climate debate will affect our genuine development. The reason I use the term genuine development is only because I see that the current development in Sri Lanka is not correct and not sustainable. The Electricity Generation plan recently unveiled by the Ceylon Electricity board has over 3200 MW coal power plants which will be totally based on imported Coal from Cheaper sources. This cheaper coal has more than 1 percent sulphur and more ash content. These coal power plants will emit CO2 1.9 Metric Tonnes per capita which almost same as the sustainable level of CO2 emission by 6.5 billion people living in the world today.
The easy argument of the Coal power agents today is that Sri Lanka’s per capita CO2 emission is only 600 Kg and we have ample space to increase the Co2 emission. But we have increased 230 percent since the Kyoto protocol signed. Burning coal which is imported from other countries cannot be justified as sustainable. On the other hand the problem today is the wrong development paradigm of the industrialized countries. Copying the same would be a complete disaster for us.
We have the right for development as same as like any other nation. As part of the environmental justice the developing nations now fight for climate justice. The developed countries owe ecological debt for the developing countries for overconsumption of our atmosphere, environmental space and natural resources. It is clear that their development has deprived us from development. Climate debt is owed for the historical overproduction of GHG emissions by developed countries that saturated the atmosphere – considered to be a ‘global common’ – thereby reducing the environmental/survival space available for developing countries. The climate debt is also owed for the impacts of climate change that is suffered in past and present in developing countries, and for future generations.
Sri Lankans position in the climate debate is also requesting the ecological debt that developed countries owe us. Sri Lanka Government has signed to the Bolivian proposal to request ecological debt. As we believe, ecological debt asserts that wealthy nations have generated a huge debt through centuries of exploitation of the natural resources of poorer nations. The ecological debt, including the climate debt must be paid not only in terms of financial means. This has to include the unconditional cancellation of all the unfair debts that the impoverished countries have – generated through the implementation of colonial and neoliberal policies. Liberalization practices imposed through the international financial institutions causes the degradation of environment; local social and economic system thus exacerbates vulnerability to climate change. Liberalization creates unequal access to natural goods which reducing opportunities for the poor to build resilience to climate change.
Being part of the G77 cluster, Sri Lanka also strongly support the request from Annex I countries to cut emissions, mitigate the damages, assist adaptations, request climate finance through a United Nations manage funds and transfer technologies to combat climate change. The African nations and the small islands states have almost similar approach. Yet the negotiation is not easy.
Any solution to climate change should be people centered. The government can do very little either to reduce everyone’s carbon footprint, to reduce industrial emissions or adapt to the climate disasters. The climate negotiations need to bring the opinion of the public, small enterprises or academics to the big picture. However, Sri Lankan climate bureaucrats have a phobia to meet the civil society and dialogues on public expectations and opinions. I have attended many civil society initiatives on climate change. Unfortunately, I failed to meet the national delegation in those local meetings.
Internationally, many developing governments are in corporation with the civil society thoughts. Many government delegations have included civil society representatives in the delegation too. There is nothing to lose in this case since we all in the southern believe that our final goal is climate justice. Climate justice can only achieve by developed nations taking responsibility for historical emissions and pay their climate debt. We must have climate bailout.
In a worst case there would be no deal in Copenhagen. Annex I countries are trying to kill Kyoto Protocol and they will likely to discuss the shared long-term vision only. There is a great debate on climate financing. Developed countries are planning to distribute climate finance through the climate criminals such as ADB and World Bank who has increased more than 100 percent its funds to the coal based power generations in the recent years. Much opposed carbon trading due to the failures in the recent past may still continue since that is the only way for the business corporation s to make money. Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries (REDD), much opposed carbon Offset mechanism supported by the UN will continue since that is the only money available for development countries.
The per capita emission is US 19.5, Canada 18.8, Australia 20 and United Arab Emirates 35 and China is only 4.58 by 2006 in Metric tonnes. The total emission china leads with 21.5% and United States 20.2% and European Union 13.8%. Except the United States, all other countries have committed some emission cuts even though it is very small with total 14 percent to 17 percent.
There is a very little chance that Annex I countries agree some emission cuts close to 20 percent by 1990 levels. There will be no deal without US committing to reduce its emissions. US domestic emission cut is 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels which is only 4% reduction by 1990 levels. Also there will be no deal without China, India and Brazil take actions to cut domestic emissions. China offered 40%-50% reduction by 2020 from 2005 levels. Any deal to reduce less than 40 percent by 1990 levels by all Annex I countries will not give hopes to developed countries. Yet, there is no walk out.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Adaptation for Sri Lankan communities
How Climate change will impact livelihood?
Hemantha Withanage
Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice
Climate change is visible in most parts of Sri Lanka. Majority of the people believe this climate change is unfavourable to living beings and livelihood. However, local climate changes in certain areas are better compared to 30 years ago. For example, Mahaweli water feeding areas in the dry zone gets more water, are more favourable to people and the environment.
However, local people cannot distinguish these local climate changes from the global climate change. On the other hand some impacts can be explained as the impacts of local environmental changes. For example some water related impacts have direct links to the destruction of forests in the local environment. These unfavourable conditions are varying from community to community.
Most nature dependent livelihoods such as farming, fishing, different types of labour including labour involved in Tea and Rubber industry, natural resources based sustainable livelihoods have negative impacts. There are unfavourabe conditions due to the spread of vector borne diseases and also quick weather change including heat. These communities have made very, very negligible contributions to the GHG emissions except the farmers engaged in slash and burn cultivation or animal husbandry. So they have nothing to mitigate.
However, a survey conducted by the CEJ shows that people, especially those engaged in nature based livelihoods, are somehow suffering from climate change. They need alternative livelihoods and living conditions have to adapt to the new climatic conditions.
Adaptation is a need of changes for the survival of the living beings in order to respond to the natural changes. This is part of the natural evolution too. However, sudden natural changes due to climatic impacts are detrimental to the other living beings. Many of these species might disappear from the earth before they adapt to the changing climate. As the human species, we have a better ability to adapt to the changing situations. Yet, human species also suffer from unexpected cyclones, floods, sea level rise, heat waves etc.
Building awareness among the civil society is an immediate requirement in Sri Lanka. Meantime those policy planners can learn from the local communities. As we were going through the survey we found that the following areas need adaptation.
The farmers have to adapt to the increased intensity of floods and the dry seasons. Change of the rain pattern has negatively affected farmers, especially those engaged in slash and burn cultivation. This may need moving the cultivation seasons or change of crops and cropping pattern. They will have to consider moving away from Chena cultivation to permanent cultivation. They may also need to find plant varieties that suit the changing rainfall pattern.
Adaptation to water conservation, rain water harvesting is also important.
People living in the low lying areas need to adapt to the increased level of flooding. Some affects are due to the lack of climate proofing of the old and newly built infrastructures. For example, Kukule Ganga dam has created increased flooding in the low lining areas in the downstream. Some people might have to move their houses to the high ground to avoid increased floods in the surroundings of those mega development projects. Coastal low lying areas face salt water intrusion which destroys the agricultural lands, traditional livestock, grazing lands, and the water table.
Fisher folk face loss of coastal houses due to see level rise or due to heavy erosion by increased size of waves. They also have to face the loss of fish caused due to the destruction of mangrove forests, sea grass beds, acidification, coral degradation or other unknown reasons.
Some water intakes are vulnerable to sea water ingression. This affects water facilities including the Kaduwela water intake. As the ground water table is going down in certain areas, the water scarcity is becoming a major problem. People in general have to adapt themselves to the mosquito menace as it is increasing in the areas that were considered as more cold. The earth slides have increased in some wet areas due to high rainfall over an extended period. People living in slopes and earth slide prone areas need actions.
Some houses may need stronger construction to adapt to the increased intensity of winds. Perhaps older structures are more vulnerable. Certain locations might not be suitable for house constructions anymore.
Lack of climate proofing in mega development projects makes people and environment vulnerable to the climate damage. Most of the infrastructure projects have not considered climate change in designing and implementation. While some adaptations are part of the learning curve of the local people who have specialized in their locations, some adaptations need proper authority but careful and cautious intervention. As many people engage in nature related livelihoods are losing jobs there is a need of creating green jobs in the future.
The result also shows that climate change is not only a business of the environmental agencies of the government. It needs to be a crosscutting issue for many other authorities including agriculture, water and irrigation, fisheries, meteorological, coastal, disaster mitigation and academics. The research team felt that even the provincial and local authorities have a role to play.
Local communities have lot to contribute to the climate plans. Keeping them out of climate business will create unnecessary damage to life and livelihood as we have seen in some Asian countries in the recent past. Bringing them to the climate planning will allow them to understand and contribute to the mitigation and adaptation. Therefore, democratizing of climate plans and action should be done without further delay.
Hemantha Withanage
Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice
Climate change is visible in most parts of Sri Lanka. Majority of the people believe this climate change is unfavourable to living beings and livelihood. However, local climate changes in certain areas are better compared to 30 years ago. For example, Mahaweli water feeding areas in the dry zone gets more water, are more favourable to people and the environment.
However, local people cannot distinguish these local climate changes from the global climate change. On the other hand some impacts can be explained as the impacts of local environmental changes. For example some water related impacts have direct links to the destruction of forests in the local environment. These unfavourable conditions are varying from community to community.
Most nature dependent livelihoods such as farming, fishing, different types of labour including labour involved in Tea and Rubber industry, natural resources based sustainable livelihoods have negative impacts. There are unfavourabe conditions due to the spread of vector borne diseases and also quick weather change including heat. These communities have made very, very negligible contributions to the GHG emissions except the farmers engaged in slash and burn cultivation or animal husbandry. So they have nothing to mitigate.
However, a survey conducted by the CEJ shows that people, especially those engaged in nature based livelihoods, are somehow suffering from climate change. They need alternative livelihoods and living conditions have to adapt to the new climatic conditions.
Adaptation is a need of changes for the survival of the living beings in order to respond to the natural changes. This is part of the natural evolution too. However, sudden natural changes due to climatic impacts are detrimental to the other living beings. Many of these species might disappear from the earth before they adapt to the changing climate. As the human species, we have a better ability to adapt to the changing situations. Yet, human species also suffer from unexpected cyclones, floods, sea level rise, heat waves etc.
Building awareness among the civil society is an immediate requirement in Sri Lanka. Meantime those policy planners can learn from the local communities. As we were going through the survey we found that the following areas need adaptation.
The farmers have to adapt to the increased intensity of floods and the dry seasons. Change of the rain pattern has negatively affected farmers, especially those engaged in slash and burn cultivation. This may need moving the cultivation seasons or change of crops and cropping pattern. They will have to consider moving away from Chena cultivation to permanent cultivation. They may also need to find plant varieties that suit the changing rainfall pattern.
Adaptation to water conservation, rain water harvesting is also important.
People living in the low lying areas need to adapt to the increased level of flooding. Some affects are due to the lack of climate proofing of the old and newly built infrastructures. For example, Kukule Ganga dam has created increased flooding in the low lining areas in the downstream. Some people might have to move their houses to the high ground to avoid increased floods in the surroundings of those mega development projects. Coastal low lying areas face salt water intrusion which destroys the agricultural lands, traditional livestock, grazing lands, and the water table.
Fisher folk face loss of coastal houses due to see level rise or due to heavy erosion by increased size of waves. They also have to face the loss of fish caused due to the destruction of mangrove forests, sea grass beds, acidification, coral degradation or other unknown reasons.
Some water intakes are vulnerable to sea water ingression. This affects water facilities including the Kaduwela water intake. As the ground water table is going down in certain areas, the water scarcity is becoming a major problem. People in general have to adapt themselves to the mosquito menace as it is increasing in the areas that were considered as more cold. The earth slides have increased in some wet areas due to high rainfall over an extended period. People living in slopes and earth slide prone areas need actions.
Some houses may need stronger construction to adapt to the increased intensity of winds. Perhaps older structures are more vulnerable. Certain locations might not be suitable for house constructions anymore.
Lack of climate proofing in mega development projects makes people and environment vulnerable to the climate damage. Most of the infrastructure projects have not considered climate change in designing and implementation. While some adaptations are part of the learning curve of the local people who have specialized in their locations, some adaptations need proper authority but careful and cautious intervention. As many people engage in nature related livelihoods are losing jobs there is a need of creating green jobs in the future.
The result also shows that climate change is not only a business of the environmental agencies of the government. It needs to be a crosscutting issue for many other authorities including agriculture, water and irrigation, fisheries, meteorological, coastal, disaster mitigation and academics. The research team felt that even the provincial and local authorities have a role to play.
Local communities have lot to contribute to the climate plans. Keeping them out of climate business will create unnecessary damage to life and livelihood as we have seen in some Asian countries in the recent past. Bringing them to the climate planning will allow them to understand and contribute to the mitigation and adaptation. Therefore, democratizing of climate plans and action should be done without further delay.
Can “Biochar” make a country carbon Neutral?
Hemantha Withanage
Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice
Several patent applications have been made for industrial charcoal use in soil and for “Pyrolysis” for charcoal production. Industrial Charcoal or “Biochar” is one of the solutions suggested by the corporations to mitigate climate change. The promoters suggest “biochar” is similar to the “Terra Preta” a mixture of charcoal and varieties of biomass developed by the Central Amazonians thousands of years ago.
These “biochar” producers suggest that this is the “silver bullet” for reducing global greenhouse gases thereby mitigating climate change. This has been already proposed to the UNFCCC and for clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Several African governments also proposed this in order to promote private sector involvement in climate Mitigation.
The Maldivian Government is targeting to become the first Carbon Natural nation by developing three small islands producing waste into “Biochar”. The company involved in this business is Carbon Gold, a UK based entity.
However, many environmentalists disagree with this approach and suggest not including “biochar” in climate mitigation proposals. One argument is that industrial “Biocharcoal” is not close to “Terra Preta”. New science has so far not unveiled the techniques used by the ancient people to produce it. If the new companies granted patents, those will ensure that any future profits from the technology will go to companies, not communities. According to the FOEI and other groups, given that successful strategies for combining charcoal with diverse biomass in soils were developed by indigenous peoples, ‘biochar’ patenting raises serious concerns over bio piracy. The inclusion of soils in carbon markets, just like the inclusion of forests in carbon trading will increase corporate control over vital resources and the exclusion of smallholder farmers, rural communities and indigenous peoples.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has perpetuated, rather than reduced fossil fuel burning by permitting industries to purchase “rights to pollute” and further delaying the social and economic changes which are essential for addressing climate change. The climate impacts of fossil fuel burning are irreversible, yet so-called ‘soil carbon sinks’ are highly uncertain and impermanent.
“Biochar” producers suggest production of gigatones on “biochar” will reduce the CO2 into pre industrial levels. However environmentalists state that it will require millions of hectares of lands to convert into biomass production which will be mostly monoculture plantations which are already problematic. This is not different from the controversial “Agrofuel” production. A UNEP report found that industrial charcoal release most of its carbon content in 30 years time, although the “Biochar” producers suggest that this carbon will remain in soil for thousands of years.
There is no consistent evidence that charcoal can be relied upon to make soil more fertile. Industrial charcoal production at the expense of organic matter needed for making humus could have the opposite results.
Combinations of charcoal with fossil fuel-based fertilizers made from scrubbing coal power plant flue gases are being marketed as ‘biochar’, and those will help to perpetuate fossil fuel burning as well as emissions of nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. According to the experts the process for making charcoal and energy (pyrolysis) can result in dangerous soil and air pollution.
Using waste for composting is the best solution for carbon minimization. However, turning waste into “biochar”, perhaps will be better than burning them. However, carbon in waste is not the problem for climate change. The biggest problem is burning fossil fuel. However “biochar” is not an alternative to fossil fuel. There are many scientific uncertainties over “biochar”. It is not a proven technology for making a country carbon neutral.
end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)