ONCE CORONA LOCKDOWN IS OVER

We should not go back to pre Corona situation once Corona lockdown is over. We have many learnings during Corona. This article proposes the need to address root causes of environmental degradation while respecting human rights and planetary limits, restore natural ecosystems including local initiatives for transformation, support sustainable agriculture and peoples responses to healthy food systems leading and supporting people responsive climate actions.

Hemantha Withanage,

Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice

Corona has infected 4.5 million people around the world and about 300,000 people are dead by mid-May 2020. Only 1.6 million people have been recovered. Millions of others so far safe from Corona are suffering from lockdown. Lack of food, access to livelihood, health facilities, discrimination,  human rights violations, domestic violations, loss of small businesses are few issues. Meantime digital world has a boom through online marketing, online education, online meetings etc. Some experts forecast that world online market giant Amazon will make their first  trillion and even Bill Gate will increase his wealth exponentially. Although world is going to lose few hundred thousand people, WHO forecast at least 7 million unintended pregnancies during the lockdown.

Learn from Spanish Flu

It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with H1N1 Spanish flu or Influenza virus between 1918- 1919. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States. Corona could be equally harmful according to the medical experts.

Spanish flu killed that many people during the peak of the first world war. Although the environmental pollution was very low, poverty was very high during that time. More than 60 percent American lived below the poverty line then. The poverty incidents around the world was some 80 percent. Some research suggests that over 300,000 Sri Lankans died from Spanish flu although official figures are approximately 90,000 persons.

Since the second world war the industrialization began and the poverty situation got better in the Europe and other developed countries, but about 736 million people still live below the poverty line. As of 2018, 55 per cent of the world’s population have no access to at least one social protection cash benefit. Using the most recent data, the World Bank has predicted coronavirus is pushing 40-60 million people into extreme poverty. So called growth has not reached everyone and  Worldwide, 780 million people do not have access to an improved water source. Estimated 2.5 billion people lack access to improved sanitation which is more than 35% of the world’s population or 1 in 3 people.

Industrialization make some people rich. But it made many people poor and working class all the time. Some sustainable economies were disrupted by this industrialization by pollution and over exploitation. Spanish flu in 1918-1919  changed the business world too. Many small and big business lost and some new businesses emerged. Global coal production reduced by 20 percent. Companies such as Coca-cola boomed after this flu. There was no much discussion about the pollution and emissions during Spanish flu.

How Corona made environment cleaner?

During Corona, many people noticed the cleaning of the nature. BBC reported that in China, emissions fell 25% at the start of the year as people were instructed to stay at home, factories shuttered and coal use fell by 40% at China’s six largest power plants since the last quarter of 2019. The proportion of days with “good quality air” was up 11.4% compared with the same time last year in 337 cities across China, according to its Ministry of Ecology and Environment. In Europe, satellite images show nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions fading away over northern Italy. A similar story is playing out in across the world.

In Sri Lanka Central Environmental Authority claims Kelani river is more cleaner due to the non-operation of the factories. More than 7000 factories operate along the Kelani river with less than half hold an environmental  license.  In a survey CEJ conducted during Corona, 85% of the respondents perceive the environmental changes and impact caused by COVID-19 as moderate to high. Among them most people have noticed reduction of noise pollution, better air quality and regular clear blue skies and reduction of river pollution.

One can imagine the reduction of transport emissions once Sri Lanka’s  7.5 million vehicle fleet is out of the streets and over 20,000 industries are  not in operation for 2 months. But at least 1.4 million people work in these industries. We don’t know how many of them would lose jobs from Corona lockdown. It seems millions of jobs will lose by the time of ending Corona around the world.   In tourism sector alone, up to 75 million jobs are at immediate risk  due to the coronavirus pandemic, according to the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC).

In April, Oil prices crashed due to Corona. More than 30 million US citizens filed unemployment benefits. US Senate passed a $2 trillion coronavirus aid bill to help workers and businesses. Chinese economy also lost due to the impact of the production sector. World governments started claiming China to pay for the losses. Governments around the world have urged employees to work from home where possible. Shares in technology companies such as Zoom have shot up.

Post COVID 19

According to the medical experts it will take some to regulate Corona. Some believe it will be endemic such as HIV/Aids. It’s a big question how the world will move once the Corona is over.

Most probably every production sector will go back to the pre-corona mode. They will do everything to gain the loses  during corona period. Industries will make more money exploiting natural resources and man power. More forest will be damaged to produce more food, more mining for energy and industrial material. People will forget Corona pandemic such as in the case of Spanish flu. There are 320,000 unknown viruses that infect mammals. Climate change, forest and wildlife destruction will result more future pandemics.

More organized industrial and production sector giants will get ready to such future risks. Sooner more people will lose jobs due to automatization of the production cycles to face those future pandemics. It is possible they will continue to promote 5G technology to operate industries, farming, mining and many other sectors to reduce human jobs. Boom in the IT sector during Corona is a good motivation for using new technologies. Perhaps unemployment will be a major issue in post corona period. Except in the IT sector, is hard to believe there will be  new jobs. Tourism sector jobs will take longer time to recover.

I believe the drop in the fossil burning will not grow much due to availability of alternatives including solar power.  Yet the nuclear power seems still in the rise. Although there is a resting time, Corona will not end over exploitation and pollution.

At the national level there will be more land grabbing as already seen even during the corona time in Sri Lanka or in the Amazon. There are some countries moving into the local production and consider about circular economy. At least for a short period local people will try to produce own food, but I don’t expect this will happen in the long run. It will be hard to maintain local production with high production costs. Unless the supermarket giants fail seriously, there will be no gain in the local economy. They produce cheaper food and other items due to the overexploitation.

Corona lockdown shows how the inequity affect people differently. It showed how the poor and lower middle income families are vulnerable to environmental, health shocks. It proved that lack of local sustainable  food and basic production can pressure the local population. It has also proved that big multinational food chains are not the solution for majority. This also proved that how the lack of social and economic security for majority can leads to discrimination.

Transform the world to make it more livable and sustainable

Corona is a moment to think how we can overcome these issues. It’s time to make our future plans. We have already identified the importance of sustainable development goals which encompasses every sector. We have identified, how strong our health system, but how hard to manage it with few undisciplined people. We have learned that drug addiction is beyond a heath and social issue. We saw that how people easily adapt to the situation and even started growing own food.

Making village units sustainable is a way forward to face future pandemics. Building cities and urban centers will be a mistake in the future. If we are serious about water the industrial pollution should be moved outside the river banks.  They should be moved to the highly regulated industrial zones. Ad-hoc industrial development will make us more vulnerable to the future shocks. Forest only can save humans from future virus pandemics  and climate change. We should let the wildlife to stay in their habitats as they balance the nature.  They should not be destroyed for human settlements or food production. Abandoned agricultural fields can serve food production with new technology. Of course small home gardens is the best way to support the local economy. Although people stared farming there are no local seeds available. Promotion of local seeds  and agoecology is a way forward for food production.

Corona proved that most products in the market are luxury items. It proved that people can easily survive without many of them. Stopping the production and importations of those unnecessary items is vital for the local sustainability and stop overconsumption and over exploitation.

Finally, Globally and locally we should address root causes of environmental degradation while respecting human rights and planetary limits. We have to respect nature unconditionally and restore natural ecosystems including local initiatives for transformation. Governments should support sustainable agriculture and peoples responses to healthy food systems leading. Governments also should support people responsive climate actions. |Photo Credit Ajith Etugala| (END)

Durban Package serves Corporate interests

After two weeks of painful process “Durban package” was delivered by the COP 17 at 5 am in the 11^th December 2011. Last 48 hours of the negotiations was non transparent similar to Copenhagen and Cancun climate negotiations. Many national delegations were not inside some negotiations which were happen in the green rooms. Many decisions have been rushed through in the last minute. Many negotiators were not in the room due to the extension of the COP 17 for an extra day. While many spectators and the civil society still believed the UN multilateral process, it was evident that multilaralisms is not functioning in the UN system.

The so called “Durban Package” has come to a number of controversial decisions around many of the major issues written in the Cancun Agreements, yet many of the elements have been postponed. Countries such as Russia was not sure what was just signed onto, as many of the final decisions involving relatively new texts were rushed through.

India played a major role in bringing equity and Common but differentiated responsibility in to the next commitment period of the Kyoto protocol but lost in the last minute. Final plenary discussions on both the Kyoto Protocol and Long Term Cooperative Action were noisy due to the disagreements on the disputed texts forwarded to the main COP plenary despite objections.

Despite the disagreements, parties were successful in agreeing to a 2^nd commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol, which is rather weak and unambitious. Yet, it does not include major polluters such as US, Canada, Japan etc. It was decided that quantifiable emission reductions targets to be decided in May 2012, which will be “an agreed outcome with legal force”. Second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol shall begin on 1 January 2013 and end either on 31 December 2017 or 31 December 2020. However due to the lack of ambition in emission reduction targets the KP second commitment period, it will cover less than 15% of global emissions. According to the  CMP decision “the aggregate emissions of greenhouse gases by Parties included in Annex I are reduced by at least 25-40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and a review to be concluded by 2015.

Many countries felt that unless ambition is increased, KP second commitment period could potentially lock the world onto a pathway of dangerous climate change to 3-3.5 degrees, as opposed to the 2 degrees currently aimed.

One of the serious problems under the KP second commitment period is with monitoring and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from Land Use and Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), which is a critical structure under the Kyoto Protocol. As it was discussed the LULUCF loopholes in forest management would allow developed countries to increase their emissions by up to 6 gigatonnes by 2020.

One of the most contentious issues in COP 17 is the establishment of the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The private window of the GCF was heavily criticized by the civil society and by Venezuela.  The Fund however was approved without funds as an empty shell. The World Bank will remain as the interim trustee, but and independent board will be formed by March 2012. However, Fund is suppose to produce safeguard, disclosure and accountability mechanisms. The Durban package invites Parties, to submit to the Board expressions of interest for hosting the Green Climate Fund by 15 April 2012. The independent nature of the GCF is therefore uncertain at this stage. Among other disappointment the programme on National Adaptation Plans decision has been postponed until COP18.  

The Durban Package hasn’t delivered much on the need for immediate action and ambitions to cut the GHG emissions in time. While developing country negotiators were struggling to keep the multilateral process, rich countries, had green room discussions to influence selected countries and groupings with bilateral financial packages.

Following the Copenhagen and Cancun processes,  once again the people been let down by the governments in Durban. US, EU and developed nations have won by allowing the polluters to profit from the climate crisis. As pointed out by Sarah Jayne Climate Coordinator of the Friends of the Earth International “It is clear in whose interests this deal has been advanced, and it isn’t the 99% of people around the world. The noise of corporate polluters has drowned out the voices of ordinary people in the ears of our leaders”.

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/

System Change Not Climate Change

Yesterday (12 December 2009) over 100,000 people got to the streets in Copenhagen demanding system Change Not climate Change. They carried the placards stating
Climate Justice NOW!
Change the Politics not the Climate,
Planet Not Profits
Nature does not Compromise
There is no PLANET B
Bla Bla Bla Act now!
Don't Nuke the Climate!
Greenwash Warning NO False Solutions!
Stop Climate Change Not Refugees!

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 reason 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. The 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.

Red lines for REDD

Hemantha Withanage
Centre for Environmental Justice - Sri Lanka

May 2009

The UN initiated Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD) in Developing Countries is one of the latest approaches for reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. A multi-donor trust fund was established in July 2008 in collaboration with FAO, UNDP and UNEP for this purpose.

As per the IPCC estimates the cutting down of forests is now contributing close to 20 per cent of the overall greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Forest degradation and land use change also make a significant contribution to emissions. Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and approaches to stimulate action” was first introduced at the Conference of the Parties (COP11) in December 2005 by the governments of Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, supported by eight other Parties.

There are opposing and supporting views for this. One of the opposing views is because REDD text agreed in COP 14 in Bali did not include the rights of the indigenous people who are living in the forests. Largest forests in Asia, Africa and Latin America are inhabited by the local indigenous people for thousands of years. “Adivasi” people live in Dambana, Sri Lanka are also a good example. However, most of the forests in Sri Lanka are not inhabited by people as they have been removed under conservation programmes or development projects more than two decades ago. Yet there are many local communities who live near the forest areas protect, and depend on the forests resources and the services.

Forests in all tropical countries play a major role in the life of the communities living around them. It is not just a carbon sink but also it is the source of food, water, fire- wood, medicines, building material, non timber forest products, raw material for household appliances. It also controls erosion and floods, maintains the seed banks. It is our life.

On one hand Annex I countries which are supposed to reduce their GHG emissions owe a huge debt to countries which maintained good forests which absorbed CO2 since the industrial evolution began. Those who lived inside and protected forests should be entitled to get the repayment for those services. However in practice this may not be easy. All Sri Lankan forests were vested with the Crown by the British colonials under the Waste Land Ordinance which are now under government control. In practice, the REDD programme will mainly enter into agreement between the [so-called] forest owners, which is the Government, and the parties that seek emission cuts. The Government can only gain benefits in this case.

If the forests are included in a contract by the governments it will have serious control and will limit access to local people. Many of them are local poor who are rely on the forest. So, protecting the rights of those people living in poverty and those who are relying on forests for subsistence is an utmost important aspect in this business. Is the REDD program ready to compensate those people and find alternate livelihood for them?

REDD will cut emissions if we keep those forests healthy. As we know Sri Lankan forests have many threats. The illegal cutting of timber, encroachments, massive destruction for development projects are some of them. In many countries they are the government itself, forest and energy industries, road development and big agri-businesses, tea cultivation etc., are responsible for the forest degradation. Involvement of these sectors in both economic and political structures, needed for a successful implementation of REDD, which will have serious cost involvement too.

If we are to receive REDD funds we have to maintain healthy forests. According to the UN “The UN-REDD Programme is aimed at tipping the economic balance in favour of sustainable management of forests so that their formidable economic, environmental and social goods and services benefit countries, communities and forest users while also contributing to important reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

It is the opinion of many activists that forests should not be treated as carbon sinks. it has multiple values. The above explanation shows that REDD has been proposed as not only for Climate Change Mitigation, but also the conservation of eco-diversity and continue to give other forest services such as water regulation. For local people living by the forests is much more important than getting control by the climate mitigation mechanisms ( such as emission traders) who are far away from them. Therefore we believe that REDD should not be included in the emissions market. Further, if REDD is considered under emission market, the developed countries could by themselves be out of their own obligations to reduce CO2 emissions in their own country by buying cheap forest certificates. According to the Rain Forest Foundation ,UK “REDD would potentially be using for the carbon offsetting and the it would subsidy the loggers.”1

On the other hand, since developed countries are not willing to accept emission cuts, the REDD will be mostly voluntary. They will prefer some countries where they can find cheap credits. This may create a cold war between Annex II countries and it might weaken the Annex II countries’ positions. Specially this is more possible in the case with the global financial crisis. Some countries will have more to offer which means they will offer cheaper CO2 absorption.

Conservation of forests is not cheap in countries such as Sri Lanka where the threat is so much compared to some countries which have more lands with low population pressure. So the cost of maintenance is not equal in all the countries. This means the cost of CO2 absorption is also not the same. Therefore if those countries are to maintain healthy forests they need more funds. On the other hand too much focus on some forests in order to respect the REDD agreements will limit attention on some not so important forests which means the total forest degradation might still go up.

As we always believe real emission cuts should be done at home by controlling their own life style by the developed countries. However, there should be a mechanism to stop further degradation of tropical forests. With the REDD funds it will not be possible to stop all deforestation within a country at once. But, the conservation of existing natural and well managed forests should have priority over reforestation and afforestation under any mechanism. Although we can see that we are losing our natural forest cover in Sri Lanka, overall forest cover has gone up since it includes the new plantations. So it is sometimes hard to depend on the national statistics about degradation.

Consideration of biodiversity is a important aspect in REDD approach. Monoculture and Plantations have little or no contribution to biodiversity compared to natural forests. Undoubtedly, natural forests could store more carbon than forest plantations. Therefore REDD should not waste its funds for plantations which are economically so attractive.

Countries such as Sri Lanka has contributed to the conservation of forests for thousands of years. That should be rewarded in order to discourage future deforestation. There is a trend in Annex II countries, such as Sri Lanka, to destroy some forests disregarding climate impacts for development projects. If they are to save them, it needs attractive income generation from those global forest services.

One big problem with REDD is the consideration of the rights of the Indigenous and local communities whose rights must be fully respected. This is undeniable specially when UN has already accepted the rights of the indigenous people. Therefore, REDD should respect the good governance principles and democratic decisions making including Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC). Participation of the people on site is indispensable to make forest conservation permanent and socially just. In my opinion there won’t be conservation to the forest unless people have access to the funds earned under the REDD.

Nevertheless, if the REDD are going to be successful it needs dedicated funds rather than support going through the general ODA accounts. The ODA funded activities are not successful in many countries. Neither the carbon market managed activities. It will need serious management. The good governance, compensation for local right owners, poverty elimination, fair treatment of all forests, should be included in designing implementation and in post activities.

The project is normally looked after only during the implementation. If the REDD is to be successful the forests should be managed not only during the short term project period but for a long term i.e 100- 200 years. It is a question whether this is going to happen and whether those developed countries are going to put funds for such a long period.

The Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 by the United states proposed something similar to „debt for nature swap“ which was under heavy criticism. Yet some 16 countries including Indonesia, Peru, Philippine are part of this programme. It allows countries to put debt payment to United States into a fund which manage national forests in the way United States want to control. US president has veto power over the use of the fund money. It is my fear that the REDD could be another face of the same.

With all pros and cons of REDD, more importantly REDD programmes will include forests’ ability to absorb CO2 emissions in future. However, our forests have already fixed carbon and they are already carbon stocks. If the REDD considers forest carbon stock roll, it may be easier to respect forests’ roll and continue the services without conflicting the local interests.

Unlike many countries Sri Lanka has home gardens. They are not forests but they have canopies similar to a rain forests with timber and non timber species. They act as carbon sinks and reduce erosion and control floods too. If you look at these home gardens and carbon stocks rather than forest carbon sinks it can greatly increase the carbon absorption. While forests are still with much higher diversity, if the REDD consider home gardens as carbon stocks which are done by the ordinary people they may look as an alternative. For the carbon absorption. Sri Lanka has 818,000 Ha of home gardens approximately which is about 1/3 of the total natural forest and Plantation cover in Sri Lanka. This may be the case in many tropical countries.

*****







1 http://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org/Carbon_Sunk