Generating clean energy at cost of nature
Sri Lanka’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) propose to promote Mini and Micro Hydro Power generation projects as an environmental friendly power generation option to national economy. Mini hydro power plants with 176 MW capacity will be established in the coming years. They expect to reduce 20 percent of GHG emission (approximately 36,010.2 Gg) in energy sector by 2030 against the Business-As-Usual scenario as unconditionally 4 percnt (approximately 7,202.04 Gg) and conditionally 16 percent (approximately 28,808.16 Gg) as a solution for climate change.However, we have to address the issue whether we want to develop clean energy at the cost of nature, social and cultural needs.
Sri Lanka’s energy mix
The average per capita electricity consumption in 2014 was 535 kWh per person in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan power system has a total installed capacity of 3500 MW by end of 2014 including 1285 MW thermal power. The maximum demand recorded in 2014 was 2152 MW. Therefore, one does not see major issues with installed capacity.
The CEB’s own generation mix has changed dramatically in recent years. In 2014, it generated around 3600 GWh from hydropower plants, 3200 GWh from coal-fired power plants and 1800 GWh from oil-fired power plants. The CEB’s generation mix was quite different in 2013, when it generated almost 6000 GWh from hydro, 1500 GWh from coal and 1300 GWh from oil. The government has taken a policy decision to develop hydro-power plants below 10 MW capacities by the private sector – the reason for this mini hydro controversy.
Since 1996 many small hydro plants and a few other renewable power plants have been connected to the grid. Total capacity of these plants is approximately 350 MW. These plants are mainly connected to 33 kV distribution lines. The CEB has signed standard power purchase agreements for another 249 MW. Shifting production at the CEB over the years has been due to a wide range of factors, including the lack of rainfall, introduction of coal, the growing amount of power generated by private companies and reach of the transmission grid, which currently serves more than 98 percent of the population.
Mini-hydro is one of the best sovereign and renewable energy sources to combat climate change. This was certainly in the era that Sri Lanka was promoting village hydro/pico hydro to provide electricity to the rural villages with no grid connection. This is a better option for rural electrification without depending on the imported coal, oil or gas and large grid as long as they are not connected to the national electricity grid.
Things changed when the multi-million companies got into the business with developing mini-hydro connected to the national grid. The so called mini hydro experts started selling potential locations to rich companies backed by politicians, even the Sustainable Energy Authority started providing provisional approval for the project with no scientific analysis done on the impacts to the river ecosystem and society.
Aesthetic beauty and biodiversity
Sri Lankan landscape has over 700 waterfalls, and over 150 have vanished by the mini hydro projects. Over 200 km of streams are now flowing through the pipelines and the river sections are dried up. River users are completely helpless and the river biodiversity including the fish species have gone forever. Diyagalla Ella in Watawala, Kurundu Oya Ella, St Clairs are some famous falls destroyed for hydropower. Ali Hatha, Atha Mala Ella, Hath Male Ella, Athwelthota Ella and many others will also disappear soon. The CEA has a list of 546 waterfalls to be gazetted for conservation. This list does not include those project already approved and under construction. Some of the bigger falls are among those have removed from the list by the CEA officers.
Unfortunately, the Central Environmental Authority, Forest Department, Wildlife Department, Geological Survey and the Mines Bureau got officials sympathetic with the project developers but not on the environment or the affected people. The most recent example is that approval of the 1 MW mini hydro-power project in Morapitiya-Athwelthota waterfall where the National Aquatic Resource and Research Agency found that 15 fish species out of 25 are in danger. The location is home to two point endemic fish species i.e Martenstyne’s Goby and Rasboroides nigomarginatus. The EIA consultants however, only reported 18 fish species in this location in 2014 whereas the Wildlife Conservation Society, Galle found 32 fish species. This shows that we cannot depend on EIA consultants, who make reports to justify the projects in favour of the developer who pay the consultancy fees.
(Mini hydro in Ramboda Falls)
Corrupt approval process
Sadly, the EIA process in Sri Lanka is corrupt and misleading. Its process has lost the glory days due to the political interventions, lack of EIA law enforcement, unqualified project staff approving agencies and corrupt EIA experts/ academics. Therefore, current EIA process has failed to control the damage done to the river systems by the Mini hydro developers.
So far the CEA has approved over 100 mini hydro power projects. Fish ladders and environmental flow has given as an important conditions among many others. But none of these dams are operating the fish ladders or release adequate environmental flow. The truth is that the CEA does not monitor these projects and they have no capacity to do so. Therefore, the CEA has no idea what these dams done to our river network.
The condition on fish ladders is an attempt of green washing of mini-hydro dams by the CEA and rest of the project approving agencies. None of them have the expertise on how the fish ladders are working in Sri Lankan context. We do not even have good research on which species are migrating and which time of the year. Most threatened fish species in Sri Lanka cannot use fish ladders. Therefore, fish ladders are not the solution for many migratory species. A river study in the US Northeast has found that many fish species are unable to use standard passageways to swim past dams on their spawning runs . They also found even if they go upstream, they cannot swim downstream. Why these officers still fool people by giving fish ladders as a condition is a question.
Similarly, no dam operators provide adequate environmental flow, which is the second lie in approving the dams. Only about 4-inch diameter PVC pipe has used as the e-flow where the river is more than 30 meter wide.
In the case of Athwelthota and In Gatambe mini hydro projects, a condition has also given to translocate these threatened fish species, which is not practical and studied yet at all. Why do the CEA officers and developers fool the nature and people with such conditions? It should be noted that fish is not the only biodiversity living in these microhabitats. Thousands of other fauna and flora species may lose survival due to this destruction.
Sustainable Energy Authority is a problem
The problems in the mini hydro is a procedural issues too. The Sustainable Energy Authority (SEA) is the main culprit for the damage done by the mini hydro projects. They issue the provisional approval without any information on the negative environmental impacts of the project which then developer use to obtain rest of the licences. Those other ignorant agencies such as local authorities, divisional secretariats provide their approval without much worry. The CEA and other project approving agencies satisfy the documentary need by requesting Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and very rarely an EIA. IEE documents are not open for public comments. People learn the projects in the last minute and too late for any intervention. By the time the developer has spend significant amount of money for the EIA consultants and the officials and they are not ready to be defeated in this process. To allow this process, the SEA has issued a gazette notification declaring that 500-meter of the riverbank each side may be given for mini hydro development. They have also declared certain rivers as hydro-power potential rivers without even basic environmental assessment or strategic environmental assessment produced.
What should we do
We are now in the era of climate change. Humans are not the only species in trouble due to this man-made disaster. Running rivers are very much important for river life and people. Once lost these ecosystems cannot recover at all. It took almost a decade to understand the wrong doing by the mini hydro projects. It is too late in certain rivers. The river ecosystem in the Kuru Ganga, the Mahaweli Ganga upstream are almost dead now.
We have no protected rivers for fish, fresh water crabs and others species of fauna and flora. The latest Red Data List reports Sri Lanka has 50 endemic crab species out of 51 species, 256 endemic spider species out of 501 species. It also reports 205 out of 253 land snails are endemic to Sri Lanka and 50 fish species out of 91 species found in Sri Lanka are endemic. The data shows that protecting the terrestrial ecosystems is so important. Unfortunately, the CEA and other project-approving agencies are so ignorant about this data and approve project in such sensitive habitats.
It is time to fight against destructive mini hydro projects and stop them. It is also time to demolish those mini hydro projects which are not productive and built in sensitive ecosystems. It is not a sustainable climate solution anymore. Let the non-traditional renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, tidal power take the place of mini hydro to mitigate climate change. We request Climate Change Secretariat to remove the reference to the mini-hydro projects from Sri Lanka’s Nationally Determined Contributions.
Source : 29/11/2016 Daily News http://www.dailynews.lk/2016/11/29/features/100499
jumbo solution needed for EP human-elephant conflict
Minister of Sustainable Development and Wildlife Gamini Jayawickrama Perera has received Cabinet approval in March to set up Wildlife Administration Units in areas where the conflict was rampant. This was to allow officials to take immediate action when such incidents are reported. In July, Cabinet further granted approval
to set up five more units to review their progress, so that they could be replicated around the country. This was a short term measure to resolve the conflict
Sixty-year-old Athamlebbe Abdul Gaffoor was riding his bicycle on the way to his paddy field in Illukuchenai, Ampara in the morning when an elephant attacked him, trampling him to death.
A father of five from the Addalaichenai, Division No. 9, Meenodaikaddu area, he was only one of the many victims of the human-elephant conflict in the Eastern Province.
Villagers of Ampara, Batticaloa and Trincomalee districts complain that wild elephant attacks in recent times have intensified and that the elephants are braving their way further into these villages in search of food and water.
The people have also resorted to setting fire to forests in the area to keep elephants away causing environmental harm.
“Earlier these elephants used to enter our villages only during the night. But now they are entering our villagers even during the day,” said Mohamed Abbas.
Abbas explained that the villagers live in fear and at times, many leave the villages at night to sleep elsewhere.
“Most of our time is spent chasing these wild elephants from our areas or our fields. The men keep watch at night while the women take on that role in the daytime. Because of this, we have very little time to improve our livelihoods,” he said.
The Eastern Province has the most profitable paddy cultivation in the island but many farmers have suffered losses over the years because of the wild elephants’ rampage. Even they invade their home gardens causing great losses to many households.
Their children have to sit for the O/L exam in this December but they fear that they would not be able to acquire sufficient knowledge of the subjects as a wild elephant often interrupt their studies by entering their school compound.
“Our children cannot study. When they are studying, wild elephants come in. We are all under severe stress,” said 35-year-old Fathima Rauff.
The villagers claimed that the Eastern Province authorities neglect their pleas and not to take steps to resolve the issue.
Every year about 50-60 people and 200 elephants die as a result of the human-elephant conflict, they claim.
However, Minister, Sustainable Development and Wildlife Gamini Jayawickrama Perera has received Cabinet approval in March to set up Wildlife Administration Units in areas where the conflict was rampant. This was to allow officials to take immediate action when such incidents are reported. In July, Cabinet granted approval to set up five more units to review their progress, so that they could be replicated around the country. This was a short term measure to resolve the conflict.
In addition, Cabinet in October granted approval to erect 800km of electric fence around villages with elephant threats. Around 3,300 km of electric fence has already been erected in areas where the conflict causes severe damages. In this year alone, the government has built 275 km of fence and in 2017 it plans to add 800km of fence in seven wildlife zones. However, who would be in charge of monitoring these fences and to ensure that they work as planned is yet to be decided. The fences have to continuously monitored and repaired since elephants do break them from time to time.
At a recent Ampara District Secretariat meeting, it was proposed to erect electric fences.They have even announced the decision to the villagers.
The villagers have also requested to extend the fences to the interior of villages since the elephants have now made it a habit to enter further inwards.
The human-elephant conflict make havoc in the East. A farmer traveling to his paddy field at around 5.30 am was trampled to death by an elephant at the 4th mile post along the Ampara- Akkaraipattu road in the Akkaraipattu DS division.
A wild elephant attached a teacher from Sammanthurai area when she was on her way to school.
Ibralebbe Kamarudeen (69), was rushed to the Oluvil district hospital having suffered an elephant attack when he was going to the Jummah mosque in Ashraff Nagar to attend Friday prayers.
Katheeja Ummah (52) was attacked by an elephant while at home in Ashraff Nagar, a re-settlement village in the Addalaichenai DS division. She was admitted to the Akkaraipattu Base Hospital with serious injuries.
These ‘every day’ attacks beg the question of compensation. With unplanned development worsening the conflict by the day, naturally the people demand compensation from the government for their losses. The compensation however does not often reach them or when it does, it comes very late.
In September, Cabinet granted approval to amend the compensation payment for damages caused by wild elephants. As of September 2016, the total compensation payment made was about Rs. 25-35 million.
However, Cabinet approval was granted to increase the compensation for deaths and permanent disabilities (irrespective of victims’ age) caused by wild elephant attack to Rs. 200,000 – Rs. 75,000 for physical injuries and Rs. 100,000 for house and property damages.
A committee chaired by the District Secretary receive the payments to prevent delays in payment. Moreover, a Committee of Appeal chaired by the Director General of Wildlife will consider the appeals of those who are not satisfied with the decisions taken by the former committee.
However, the villagers are yet to witness the efficiency of these committees in awarding compensation to the victims of the conflict..
Source : 21/11/2016 Daily news http://www.dailynews.lk/2016/11/21/features/99637
2016 ‘very likely’ to be world’s warmest year
2016 looks poised to be the warmest year on record globally, according to preliminary data.
With data from just the first nine months, scientists are 90% certain that 2016 will pass the mark set by 2015.
Temperatures from January to September were 1.2C above pre-industrial levels, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
The body says temperatures should remain high enough for the rest of the year to break the previous record.
El Nino has had an impact, but the most significant factor driving temperatures up continues to be CO2 emissions.
What is climate change?
The provisional statement on the status of the global climate in 2016 has been released early this year to help inform negotiators meeting in Morocco, who are trying to push forward with the Paris Climate Agreement.
The document says the year to September was 0.88 above the average for the period between 1961-90, which the WMO uses at its baseline.
The whole of 2015, which broke the previous record by a significant amount, was 0.77 above the 1961-90 average.
While there are still a couple of months to go this year, a preliminary analysis of the October data indicates that 2016 is very much on track to surpass the 2015 level, which in turn broke the previous high mark set in 2014.
“Another year. Another record. The high temperatures we saw in 2015 are set to be beaten in 2016,” said WMO secretary-general Petteri Taalas.
“In parts of Arctic Russia, temperatures were 6°C to 7°C above the long-term average. Many other Arctic and sub-Arctic regions in Russia, Alaska and north-west Canada were at least 3°C above average. We are used to measuring temperature records in fractions of a degree, and so this is different,” said Mr Taalas.
The report highlights the fact that other long-term climate change indicators are also breaking records. The amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere continued on its upward march in 2016.
Arctic sea ice continued to melt in significant amounts, while the Greenland ice sheet displayed very early melting this year.
Experts believe that the El Nino weather phenomenon played a role in the record warm temperatures seen in 2015 and 2016.
They quantify it as roughly 0.2 of a degree – but the bulk of the warming is coming from the accumulation of greenhouse gases. And the impacts of that warming are being widely felt.
“Because of climate change, the occurrence and impact of extreme events has risen,” said Petteri Taalas.
“‘Once in a generation’ heatwaves and flooding are becoming more regular. Sea level rise has increased exposure to storm surges associated with tropical cyclones,” he said.2016 set to be world’s warmest year
The surprise election of Donald Trump as president of the US has increased expectations that he will bring a more sceptical view of climate change to the White House.
Scientists are stressing that the evidence for the reality of climate change is getting stronger all the time.
“We are seeing the impacts of climate change on extreme weather,” said Dr Peter Stott, who leads the climate attribution team at the UK Met Office.
“One degree may sound a relatively small number but in the context of such a stable climate that we’ve had over the past millennia, and the rapidity of that warming, we are seeing this real world evidence that doesn’t come from a model or a projection.”
According to the WMO analysis, 16 of the 17 warmest years have been recorded this century. The only exception was 1998.
Source : 15/11/2016 : Ceylon Today ; http://www.ceylontoday.lk/article20161101CT20161231.php?id=2801
International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict
Working to Protect the Environment in Armed Conflict
(Measuring depleted uranium contamination with gamma meter. Djakovica, Kosovo.)
Protecting the environment in times of armed conflict is not a new idea. Even in ancient times, rules existed to ensure that natural resources essential for people’s survival, such as clean water, were protected. Unfortunately, the need to protect the environment in the context of armed conflict is more urgent today than ever before. Observing the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict — which falls on this Sunday, November 6 — is a way of recognizing and striving to address the impacts of war on the environment.
During the 1900s, technological developments in weaponry carried with them unprecedented threats to and effects on the environment. In addition to the risks presented by conventional means and methods of warfare, environmental damage in connection with the testing or use of nuclear weapons loomed. The long-lasting effects of such testing became particularly visible to me when I visited the Marshall Islands earlier this year, as did the effects of remnants of war at sea for the small island states in the Pacific.
From the Vietnam War in the 1970s to the Iraq-Kuwait war in the 1990s, awareness of the environmental risks and damage grew slowly but surely. Many of us remember the shocking images of environmental destruction, such as “Agent Orange” in Vietnam or the burning oil wells in in Kuwait. In Kuwait, approximately 600 oil wells were set on fire, with some wells burning for more than eight months and causing severe damage to the environment in their wake. Iraqi areas and lands were also affected by the warfare. The efforts of Dr Mishkat Al-Moumin, Iraq’s first Minister of Environment, were critical in establishing governance structures for environmental protection in Iraq during her tenure in 2004–2005.
The burning of oil wells and other environmentally disastrous effects of the war once again awoke the international community to the effects of modern warfare on the environment. Similarly, more recent conflicts in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Lebanon and Liberia all demonstrated the high environmental costs for war-torn societies.
(Spilled mercury in Pancevo, Serbia.)
In stride with the advances in warfare technology, the 1970s saw the birth of modern international environmental law, in particular through the Stockholm Declaration on the Protection of the Environment, concluded in 1972 at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. This conference also led to the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment).
The environmental concerns raised in the wake of the Vietnam War and subsequent to the 1972 Stockholm Declaration were reflected in two important legal documents, namely the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD, 1976) and the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1977). Attempts to further codify and strengthen the protection of the environment during armed conflict were made in the aftermath of the Iraq-Kuwait war in the 1990s. The United Nations General Assembly discussed the matter, resolutions were adopted but in the end these attempts failed to arrive at any new legally binding protection measures.
However, one important and lasting result was the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC) Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict. Without formally approving these guidelines, the United Nations General Assembly invited all States to “give due consideration to the possibility of incorporating them into their military manuals and other instructions addressed to their military personnel” at its 49th session in 1994. The Guidelines were a recognition of the need to address the protection of the environment in operational terms.
(Remnants of war in Sudan.)
In 2009, UN Environment, the ICRC and the Environmental Law Institute made one of the first comprehensive analyses of how the many different areas of international law could protect the environment during armed conflict. This analysis examined not only international humanitarian law, but also environmental law, human rights law and international criminal law. It presented twelve recommendations available in the publication: “Protecting the environment during armed conflict: An Inventory and Analysis of International Law”.
Among the recommendations in the 2009 UN Environment report, the United Nations International Law Commission (ILC) was recommended to “examine the existing international law for protecting the environment during armed conflict and recommend how it can be clarified, codified and expanded”. Partly due to the fact that the recommendation came from another United Nations entity, the ILC examined it and as a result considered it apt for being placed on its long-term program of work in 2011. In 2013 the topic “Protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts” was placed on the current program of work and I was honoured to be appointed Special Rapporteur for the topic.
The International Law Commission, set up in 1947, consists of 34 legal experts representing the principal legal systems of the world, that report to the General Assembly on topics where it identifies a need to codify or progressively develop international law. Over the years, the Commission has addressed topics such as the law of the sea, treaty law, international criminal law, and protecting persons in the event of disasters.
After having placed the topic Protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts on the agenda our first challenge was how to deal with such a complex topic. The Commission decided to structure the topic into three temporal phases in order to examine the legal rules applicable before, during, and after the armed conflict. In my capacity as Special Rapporteur, I have presented the Commission with three reports that address the three temporal phases. The Commission has considered all three reports and as a result a set of draft ‘principles’ have been outlined. These principles gather existing obligations under international law, addressing gaps and allowing the Commission to provide a holistic set of draft principles to be considered by the General Assembly. The principles do not aim at re-writing the present law of armed conflict, but rather focus on preventive and post-conflict measures.
The principles include the need for post-conflict environmental assessments and remedial measures, the sharing and granting of access to information, to name just a few. They also address the environmental impact of peace operations, as well as the need to address matters relating to the restoration and protection of the environment damaged by an armed conflict in peace processes. The need to remove or render harmless toxic and hazardous remnants of war on land and in the sea is recognized, as is the important role of relevant international organizations.
In addition, the principles also encourage the establishment of protecting zones of major environmental and cultural interest. As we know, these areas can have a critical importance, both for protecting fragile ecosystems, and for ensuring the rights of local communities and indigenous peoples.
The work in the Commission is on-going and it is encouraging to note that our efforts come at a critical time, when concurrent efforts from other organizations are emerging. For instance, the ICRC guidelines are currently being revised to better reflect the developments since 1994. Indeed, one of the recommendations of the 2009 UN Environment report addressed the need to update the ICRC Guidelines, for instance to define key terms and examine protection of the environment during non-international armed conflicts. This suggestion and other recommendations were given further momentum by the fact that the 2011 ICRC report on Report on strengthening legal protection of victims of armed conflicts recognized environmental protection as one of the four areas of international humanitarian law that needed to be reinforced. That same year, Nordic countries issued a pledge on protection of the natural environment in times of armed conflicts at the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.
In addition, the resolution on the protection of the environment in areas affected by armed conflicts agreed by consensus at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-2) in May this year was a major signal of the commitment of United Nations Member States to confront the issue.
Not only is this resolution a positive signal in itself, but it will also establish synergies for the future between the on-going work of UN Environment, the ILC, as well as the important work undertaken by the ICRC on this topic. In addition, the engagement by civil society organisations contributes to develop these issues further. One example of such contributions comes from a partnership between UN Environment, academia and civil society to share best practices on environmental protection and peacebuilding through a knowledge platform.
In parallel, an important development for protection of the environment is happening in international criminal law. In September of this year, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) published a policy paper on case selection and prioritisation, which clearly signals that environmental crimes are to be regarded as priority areas for the court in terms of determining the gravity of the crimes.
In summary, this year is set to be a milestone in our global efforts to protect the environment in connection with armed conflict. As the path for increased protection of environment in relation to armed conflicts continues, it is my hope that the momentum established by these concurrent tracks within the United Nations, the ICRC, the ICC and the ILC might serve to provide a holistic and integrated protection, for existing and future generations.
Source : 7/11/2016 UN Environment ,https://medium.com/@UNEP/working-to-protect-the-environment-in-armed-conflict-ce9aff1aa479#.v4kecldq3
Development At A Cost To The Environment
Environmentalists have opposed moves by the government to encroach 99 acres of land from the Sripada (Adam’s peak) sanctuary to build cable wire cars and luxury hotels under an Urban Development Authority (UDA) project.
Out of 12, 329 acres, the project proposes to construct cable wire cars and hotels in 99 acres in the holy grounds of Sripada but environmentalists and the environmental protection organisations raised concerns ever since the plan was proposed in 2013 by the previous government.
The Center for Environment and Nature Studies (CENS) stated that the project has taken a fresh start under a new name in the claim of boosting the tourism industry in Sri Lanka. The initial construction work for the tourist hotel being built in Marewattha, Sripada began in 2013.
A cabinet paper was brought to parliament by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2014 to allocate 99 acres from the Adam’s peak sanctuary for cable car and tourist hotel projects.
The proposed projects were approved without clearance from the Central Environment Authority (CEA), Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC), Agrological Department and the Ministry of Environment, most importantly without any Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA).
The construction was put on hold by the previous government following objections and protests staged by politicians, environmentalists and conservationists. According to gazette notice 8675/1940/Oct/25 Adam’s peak has been declared as a sanctuary under the Flora and Fauna Act.
The surrounding areas and the road leading from Sripada to Nallathanni were declared as a world heritage site of UNESCO in 2010 which means no construction or renovation can take place here without a valid reason and appropriate approvals from the authorities concerned, especially from the UNESCO committee.
It was declared as one of the UNESCO world heritage sites in Sri Lanka for the ecological and biological diversities which need to be protected and reserved without any harm being done to the site.
“A place that already has alot of tourist attraction and was supposed to be protected by the government, being damaged and threatened in the expectation of boosting the tourism industry in the country is not an appropriate plan by the government. It is crystal clear the projects aren’t sustainable nor will they be a contributing factor to the tourism industry. The government needs to understand the reality before allowing such projects in such a holy place where all people of all religions worship ,” the Director for CENS Ravindra Kariyawasam told The Sunday Leader.
No private and domestic buildings were allowed in close proximity of Sripada for over several years and the government that needs to protect the place is trying to build up unnecessary constructions in false claims by the developers should be seriously looked into, the environmentalists said. The project however claims to provide facilities for the devotees who visit the place from various places all around the country and also to foreigners.
“According to the Flora and Fauna Act they cannot even cut down a single tree in the site how can they clear an area of 99 acres for the construction? Who has the authority to allow such projects in a UNESCO protected site,” protested the environmentalists.
“A visit to the place by the CENS had revealed that the construction had been done secretly under the new government even after it was put on hold. The construction and the development in the area undoubtedly will endanger the natural bio diversities and the species which live in the area. Most importantly the value of the land will be destroyed ,” lamented Kariyawasam.
Adam’s Peak is worshipped by all people of the country, the Sinhalese Tamils and Muslims by giving various names for the mountain and the sacred footprint. “Adam’s Peak is important also as a watershed. The districts to the south and the east of Adam’s Peak yield precious stones, emeralds, rubies and sapphires, one thing the island has been famous for. The development projects and the luxury hotels will endanger the sanctuary which is filled with natural ecological provisions. We are not against building luxury hotels and cable wire cars to boost tourism in Sri Lanka but Sripada is a place for worship and a UNESCO world heritage site, the government should put in place immediate measures to stop the ongoing project and to conserve the reservation,” Kariyawasam added.
Source : 7/11/2016 Sunday Observer http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2016/11/06/development-at-a-cost-to-the-environment/
Sustainability now: Sustainability and value systems
(REDD+ economics advisor of UNEP, Ivo Mulder, says that changes to our natural environment through activities like deforestation will affect many businesses in a number of ways – Reuters )
n early October Ivo Mulder, a REDD+ economics advisor of UNEP, wrote an article titled ‘Valuing the Invaluable in Business’ where he elaborated on the difficulty of putting an economic value on our natural environment and links the reader to different kinds of tools with which businesses can prepare for the effects environmental challenges pose.
Given the difficulty of applying financial values to nature, often the environment’s value is considered ‘0’ or ‘priceless Nevertheless, it is also commonly understood by many that given the way humanity is currently progressing there will be a negative impact on society and businesses at a certain point in time; real economic and financial impacts.
The author describes different examples where unsustainable environmental conduct has already negatively affected the costs and revenues of businesses, such as the IOI Corporation and a Malaysian palm oil producer who faced a severe share price decrease linked with illegal deforestation in Indonesia.
Such developments influence not only the company itself but everyone who has put money into it such as stock and bond holders as well as banks and other investors.
“The takeaway message is that changes in our natural environment – deforestation, water scarcity and greenhouse gas emissions building up in our atmosphere – are real and if left unaddressed will affect many businesses in a vast multitude of ways. On the other hand, those who are well prepared and know how to navigate changes in consumer and investor preferences related to natural capital will be much better positioned to weather the storm,” the article states.
There are a number of tools out there which can guide and help businesses to evaluate their status and find customised solutions. Ivo Mulder mentions the “Natural Capital Coalition” and their protocol and sector guides, the “Natural Capital Declaration” or Bloomberg’s and NCD’s “Water Risk Tool”. “What these tools have in common is that they are Excel-based, free to download from the internet, focus exclusively on the financial impact of natural capital risks, and are customisable, meaning that anyone can override the assumptions in the model and add new companies,” asserts Mulder.
Evaluating opportunities
Besides the direct influence of environmental challenges on the balance sheet, companies are advised to have a proactive look at their corporate conduct and assess in which way it needs natural and social resources to run profitably.
Corporate leaders should in addition evaluate the opportunities arising from the changing world in developing businesses which as a basic understanding do not make things worse but are able to deal with natural and societal changes and further than that, create business models which improve the current situation our planet is in.
They can reap business opportunities based on these challenges, which include resource scarcity, greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, agriculture and land use, rising energy and food demand, and have profitable companies facilitating change in the right direction.
There are various companies which already understand these opportunities. In Sri Lanka for example, a renewable energy company which is focusing on biomass has in recent years built up a supply chain including more than 40,000 small farmers who grow Gliricidia, a sustainable, rapidly growing short rotation tree, within a triple fence around their land. Within a multitude of farmer trainings they were able to reach trusted and committed suppliers who were in turn reaping additional benefits such as being able to make organic fertiliser, pesticide and fungicide from the Gliricidia leaves and small branches which help them to save the Government’s subsidy for fertilisers.
How to make this organic fertiliser is also taught in the same farmer training. With this out grower model the company was able to plant 60 million trees across the North of Sri Lanka. To produce biomass only the large branches of the trees are cut, the stem however remains and is used as carbon sink. With this business model, the company is able to make money by facilitating environmental protection (fewer chemicals used in agriculture), increasing forests, increasing farmers’ incomes and skills and facilitating renewable energy to the country.
Earlier the opinion prevailed that companies were looking after jobs and profits and civil society was looking after society and environment. However this assumed often that companies were “excused” when they had a negative impact on both of the other two dimensions.
We as a society cannot afford such behaviour anymore. The time is gone when there was enough forest to be cut down and the only desire was to build a skyscraper or highway. We are going to lose out in the end if we continue to think that development goes hand-in-hand with construction and “getting rid of nature and anything which is considered old and out-fashioned”.
Green bonds
In Sri Lanka we look at the West and its “development” and in turn the West looks at Sri Lanka and its resources and still intact ecosystems. Yes, a society will always strive to develop, however we have to change the approach or we will end up in the same position the West now finds itself in – it might have the infrastructure we desire, however it faces a multitude of other issues which we have in common globally, and which are linked to the natural environment. The world is changing and with it its many industries as we have understood them so far.
“The market for green bonds is rapidly expanding with close to $ 700 billion of climate-aligned bonds outstanding in 2016. There are plans to issue the first green bond that would specifically finance commercially viable projects that have a positive effect on the sustainable landscape management,” wrote Mulder.
By June 2016, 579 companies had made pledges to remove forest destruction from their supply chain. This means that a company does not only need to show that it is not harming the environment to achieve finance from a green bond but it also needs to show the positive effect it has on the environment and this is one crucial game changer. Now it is not only about voluntary reporting. Now we talk about large-scale financing opportunities.
To measure one’s own impact there are a number of tools available such as the GRI guidelines, UN Global Compact, OECD guidelines, ISO standards, etc. where a company can measure its footprint. In addition, environmental and societal changes have to be considered in core management decisions depending on the nature of a company’s linkages with these dimensions.
Where such tools offer guidance and evaluation systems, rankings and ratings are often flawed based on the research method they apply. When looking at Forbes’ most sustainable companies in 2016, we have 50 global companies ranked with a large car company leading the group. Where the assessment looked into waste management, resource efficiency, human resource management and so on it did not evaluate the very core activities of companies from the angle outlined above.
Where for sure these companies invest significant time and resources in their sustainability activities their main business activities do not often reflect the sustainable development agenda. A company which needs large amounts of water in their factories does not only need to invest in small water projects in the country within CSR projects; it needs to ensure that the water it takes does not lead to shortages somewhere else. It needs to put systems into place that balance out the water demand of their production. Therefore, to look at the research method of such rankings is crucial.
Finally, as understood from Mulders’ article, whether being ranked or not, a company nowadays has to evaluate its impact as well as its dependence on the natural environment and society and set up its core business accordingly. A few years down the line no one is going to care about rankings anymore but rather about how to sustain their company in a world which is facing a multitude of challenges and there is no indication yet that these are going to reduce within societies and the natural environment. –
Source : 2/11/2016 Daily FT http://www.ft.lk/article/577477/Sustainability-now–Sustainability-and-value-systems#sthash.VtGYMl7c.dpuf
Sri Lanka cracks down on owners of elephants taken from wild
(In this July 5, 2016 photo, a Sri Lankan mahout rests his hand on an iron chain that is used to tie his tamed elephant, in the backyard of his home in Baduraliya, )
In Sri Lanka, an elephant in the back yard has long been a sign of wealth, privilege and power. But these days it may also be a sign that someone is breaking the law.
Capturing wild elephants has been banned for decades here. Registration records indicate there should be only 127 elephants in captivity, most of them older. Yet they are a staple of the South Asian island nation’s 400 or so yearly processions — traditional ceremonies honoring a marriage, calling for peace or praying for rain — and in each there are always a few young elephants clumsily cantering to keep up.
“In Sri Lanka, people measure the success of the processions by the number of elephants,” said the Rev. Magalkande Sudantha, a Buddhist monk.
Despite concerns that the animals may be abused, spectators always expect a parade of elephants wearing jangling ornaments, and babies are a special attraction.
“There is no beauty in processions without elephants,” said Janaka Alwis, a 48-year-old city council employee in Gampaha, north of Colombo. “People go to watch because of the elephants, and to count them.”
(In this July 5, 2016 photo, a Sri Lankan female mahout and her husband walk with their tamed elephant across a waterway in Baduraliya)
Aware of the ongoing elephant racket, authorities have been cracking down. In the last two years, the government has confiscated 39 elephants whose owners produced either false permits or none at all. Some had paid as much as $200,000 per captured animal when a previous government was in office, according to Wildlife Minister Gamini Jayawickrama Perera.
Those facing prosecution for illegally keeping elephants include one judge and a Buddhist monk. Police are also considering charges against people suspected of rounding up wild elephants for profit.
The practice of taming wild elephants includes starving, beating and scaring them into submission, while keeping them chained up at all times, conservationists say.
(In this Oct. 20, 2016 photo, Sri Lankan traditional dancers escort a tusker known as “Nadungamuwe Tusker,” who is famous for carrying the sacred tooth relic of the temple of tooth during its annual procession, during a felicitation to the animal for his services to Buddhist temple processions in Kirindiwela village)
Taming a wild elephant is an extremely cruel experience for the animal,” said Prithviraj Fernando, who runs the Center for Conservation and Research in Sri Lanka. “Whether it’s a temple or a private person, that’s how it is done.”
The Sri Lankan elephant is one of three subspecies of Asian elephant and is found only on the teardrop-shaped Indian Ocean island. In the 19th century there were believed to be up to 14,000. That number fell to fewer than 3,000 before hunting and capture were banned. But while the population has grown since then to nearly 6,000, according to the island’s first official elephant census in 2011, they are still considered endangered and under threat from habitat loss and degradation. They are confined to small, isolated pockets of jungle and pasture in the north and the east.
For Buddhists, who make up 70 percent of the island’s 20 million population, elephants are believed to have been servants of the Buddha and even a previous incarnation of the holy man himself. Sinhalese kings rode elephants into battle. And every year, colorfully decorated tuskers carry an ornate box containing a replica of one of the Buddha’s teeth.
(May 19, 2015 file photo, Sri Lankan police officers march with a ceremonially dressed elephant calf during a Victory Day parade in Matara)
“The elephants carrying sacred relics are very fortunate. Even we don’t have that opportunity,” said housewife Kanthi Sriyalatha, 53. She said the sight of the animals is also a thrill. “Children wait in anticipation to watch processions because they want to see the elephants. ”
Conservationists said that, given the importance given to using elephants in religious ceremonies, the government should be stepping in to manage their care while ensuring no more are captured in the wild.
“We need to impose some restrictions on ourselves. There are about 30,000 Buddhist temples,” Fernando said. “If every temple wants to have a procession with an elephant, it is not possible.”
The government is planning to set up its own pool of captive animals to be hired out to temples for ceremonies.
“We have to create a pool of elephants” for processions, said Perera, the wildlife minister. “We are creating a process now for how to issue permits, how to release some of the elephant babies” to temples for their upkeep and use in processions.
Under the plan, some would be kept in a so-called elephant orphanage. But some would go to families or temples that are financially capable of feeding and caring for them.
(July 30, 2007 file photo, mahouts and others stand after controlling an elephant called Choti Mahattaya, or Little Master, who ran berserk while taking part in a religious pageant in capital Colombo)
Some elephant owners say those who claim mistreatment are acting on Western notions of conservation and animal welfare.
“Elephants living with us do better than the animals in the wild,” said Harsha Dharmawijaya, whose family has kept at least one elephant for 96 years. “We scrub their bodies and bathe them, feed them and treat their illnesses. … In a way this is a noble act.”
Some critics, however, note that Buddhism is a faith that preaches compassion for nature.
“If the Buddha was alive, would he condone what’s going on? I don’t think he would,” said Sumith Pilapitiya, a former World Bank environmental specialist who argued that the government should focus on the animals’ welfare rather than religious norms.
“In the name of Buddhism … we are ill-treating animals,” he said.
(Oct. 31, 2016 photo, Sri Lankans watch a heard of elephants at the elephant orphanage in Pinnawala)
Source : 01/11/2016 , SF GATE http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Sri-Lanka-cracks-down-on-owners-of-elephants-10426669.php#photo-11680974
Coping With A Changing Climate
A recent report issued by the UN Development Program, the Global Environmental Facility and the Government of Australia, evaluating the preparedness of Sri Lanka to deal with Climate Change pointed out the a lack of “awareness about climate change impacts on the livelihood among farmers and local government officials, especially those engaged in water management and agriculture extension”. This is not the first warning; we have had plenty of time to deal with this need. An article titled; Climate Change’ published in 2011 asked of the outcome of the Durban meeting that our climate change experts went to:
“While awaiting to hear of the brilliant contributions that Sri Lanka has made to the just concluded United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), conference in Durban, the view from Durban is somewhat clouded. The global polluters are demonstrating extreme disdain of accepting any responsibility they have to the rest of humanity who share a common atmosphere with them. The unilateral move by Canada in withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol, a move endorsed by the fossil energy industry, demonstrates how much public interest has been eroded from political enclaves.
The UNFCC itself is a lame duck, it is still unable to recognize or identify the difference in value of carbon originating from biotic sources and fossil sources. This fact is commonsense; that while a diamond, petroleum, a lump of coal, piece of wood or piece of fruit is comprised of carbon, they are not the same, and they have different values. So in burning them up we have to recognize the value (cost) of each. The carbon dioxide that emanates from them by burning is also different. The carbon dioxide from biotic carbon will always have the carbon isotope C14, while carbon dioxide from fossil carbon will never contain C14. In time, the differences are in millions of years. This much is common knowledge, most high school children are already aware of these facts. Then why has the UNFCC chosen not to ‘see’ that there is a value and temporal difference between biotic and fossil carbon cycles? A cynic might say that many are in the pay of the energy industry. But, what about our Sri Lankan scientists who attended Durban? Surely they will never sell out to the energy industry! Perhaps they have already identified these fundamental structural flaws within the UNFCC and we might see this stand reflected in their reports.
In the meanwhile, apart from the innumerable conferences and workshops that we could have, what should we do in Sri Lanka? This question has come sharply into focus with the news that Russian scientists have discovered hundreds of plumes of methane gas, some over 1,000 meters in diameter, bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean. Methane is about 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Dr.Igor Semiletov of the Russian Academy of Sciences stated in a recent interview “ Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of meters in diameter. This is the first time that we’ve found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 meters in diameter. It’s amazing.”
All this points to the need for immediate action. Landscapes are slow to respond to rapid changes. The effect of the increase in storm force was apparent all last year. By now we should have had some national adaptation strategies. Yes, there has been a plethora of conferences around the subject, but what do I do if my drinking water runs out? What do I do if there is salt intrusion into my field? How do I deal with sudden windstorms? If the years spent on discussing adaptation had borne any fruit, we would now be seeing public education programs on climate change preparedness by now. “
Sadly, today, in 2016 we have the UNDP stating that in Sri Lanka there is a lack of “awareness about climate change impacts on the livelihood among farmers and local government officials, especially those engaged in water management and agriculture extension”
It is now patently clear that we will face a scarcity of food as the global temperatures rise. Chlorophyll, the primary material of life begins to denature as the 39degree threshold is passed. We are already witnessing 40 degree plus temperatures in many nations with the probability of exposure times increasing (fig 1). Should we not have been conducting tests on heat resistant crops or adaptive landscapes ?
Compounding the hypocrisy that is being foisted on us. There is the spectacle of Sri Lanka signing the Paris Accord to keep global temperatures under control by limiting out carbon output while gleefully promoting the construction of mega cities with no concern of their carbon footprint. When we consider that for every ton of concrete we emit 800 kgs of CO2 and every ton of steel is responsible for 1.2 tons of CO2, who has reported on the increase in CO2 emissions by this giant city building exercise? If the climate change secretariat has failed to account for both the construction and operational CO2 costs of construction in Sri Lanka, we would be cheating in our international obligations.
The impact of climate change is serious, there is a universal need to be educated and prepare for the consequences. We have been very delinquent in this regard as stated by the UNDP study. Hiding our heads in the sand will not make the problem go away. Increasing our carbon footprint in the name of ‘economic development’ is certainly an act of shooting ourselves in the foot and increasing the impact of climate change!
Source : 30th October 2016; Colombo Telegraph https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/coping-with-a-changing-climate/
Sri Lanka Advocates Climate Change Mitigation Through Humane Lifestyle
At present, climate change has become one of the major challenges faced by mankind. In view of the adverse impacts of climate change, cuts in global emission levels are considered to be an imperative and immediate need. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) has noted that livestock supply chains, the meat production industry in particular, are among the most significant contributors to climate change with emissions estimated at 7.1 gigatonnes CO2-eq per annum, representing 14.5 percent of human-induced GHG emissions. In addition, animal agriculture also results in more dire consequences as seen in the deforestation for grazing purposes, the loss of biodiversity, and pollution of water sources due to animal waste disposal.
Mitigation efforts should therefore take into account the greenhouse gas emissions of the livestock industry. As such, the campaign for meatless food consumption has significant implications as an ecologically conscious, alternative lifestyle pattern. It is clear from the facts that a sizeable reduction in terms of daily meat consumption would contribute immensely towards reductions in emission and in country’s reaching their emission targets as promised in the Paris Agreement. This would not only ensure healthy living but also would help fulfil the individual and collective responsibility in contributing to the reduction of the carbon footprint. Further, the rescaling of meat industry would lead to more sustainable patterns of livestock production which incorporates humane farming practices that would ensure the welfare of animals.
The recently ratified Nationally Determined Contributions of Sri Lanka (NDCs) include climate actions that focus on the sectors pertaining to livestock sector. This would also have impacts of co-benefit based actions as livestock industry would feature under adaptation as a sector mentioned within the NDCs, though it will also contribute to the reduction of emissions if focusing on reducing the scale of animal agriculture, and reduce the meat production. It is important that in the implementation of these NDCs, that the country adopts a humane approach, as all beings are impacted by climate change, not only humans.
Speaking at the Global Youth Forum on Climate Change, Bhagya Wickramasinghe, who works with SLYCAN Trust with animal welfare related issues, commented on SLYCAN Trusts’s new initiative- Meatless Monday- which advocates change of lifestyle towards the meatless/vegan option by recognizing the impact of meat on the health and environment through conscious eating habits. She mentioned that mindful eating, and meatless food consumption are important in fulfilling our individual contribution to mitigating climate change impacts.
As part of the Sri Lankan government’s agenda in addressing the issue of climate change, the Ministry of Mahaweli Development and Environment of Sri Lanka recently organised the ‘Sri Lanka Next – A Blue Green Era’ Conference and Exhibition, and the 5th Asia- Pacific Climate Change Adaptation Forum, which took place from 17th – 19th October at Bandaranaike Memorial International Convention Hall. The forum focused on the theme of “adapting and living below 2*c: bridging gaps in policy and practice”. As a token of the significance of vegetarianism in mitigating climate change issues, the inauguration reception for Sri Lanka NEXT conference was held as a meatless dinner. The reception which was held on the eve of the 17th of October was attended by over 1000 international and local delegates participating in the APAN forum. The array of food which included many different types of cuisines, served as a tangible reminder of the alternative lifestyle options that are more environmentally friendly and sensitive to animal welfare. On the whole, the reception which marked the commencement of the Government’s official campaign in addressing climate change, reiterated an important message in highlighting the significance of meatless food consumption in fulfilling our individual and social responsibility towards creating a better environment.
Source : Colombo Telegraph https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/sri-lanka-advocates-climate-change-mitigation-through-humane-lifestyle/
Land grabbers eye unprotected forests around Sinharaja
Protect these LRC forests immediately – environmental organisations urge president
(School children learn importance of protecting environment at BLUE – GREEN event)
Environment organisations fear there is an ongoing attempt to grab forest lands in the vicinity of the Sinharaja forest by individuals and groups..
The scheme came to light when a group commenced surveying around 400 acres of the Delgoda Forest located near the Sinharaja Forest last week. The group claimed they possessed deeds to the land.
The Sunday Times learned the Forest Department’s Range Forest Office in Kalawana was able to stop the activity as no proper documentation regarding land ownership was provided.
Sriyantha Perera of the ‘Rainforest Protectors of Sri Lanka’ said many fraudulent attempts are being made to grab forest land. In one instance an individual claiming rights to the forest land based on ‘Nindagam Oppu’ claimed to have been issued during the British colonial era in 1940.
According to this old ‘nindagam’ document the individual claimed he owned an extent of 800 ‘vee kuraniya’ – an old unit of measure used to quantify amount of harvest. This roughly equivalent to 2000 acres according to Rainforest Protectors.
The reality however is that no individual can legally own over 50 acres of land.
Another ruse of the land grabbers is to peruse documents of the Land Registry in an effort to identify land owners who may have died and those who have left the country, create fake documents and claim ownership. Perera added that with the advent of nature-based tourism, land value in the area had sky-rocketed and this was another reason behind the rush to grab land illicitly.
The Kalawana Divisional Secretary refused to comment on the issue when the Sunday Times contacted her. The Conservator General of Forest, Anura Sathurusinghe said that he also got to know about the attempts to grab forest lands adjacent to Sinharaja and the matter is under investigation.
Meanwhile, the ‘Rainforest Protectors’ has called on government to take over all forest lands adjacent to Sinharaja because the high value of its endemic biodiversity. They added these patches of forest also act as corridors linking the larger rainforest complex, and if destroyed, the already fragmented fragile ecosystem would be adversely affected.
The environmentalists said they recognised difficulties faced regarding forest lands claimed by private individuals. However they pointed out that forest lands belonging to the Land Reclamation Commission (LRC) are forests which can be immediately brought under the protected area network as the LRC had agreed to transfer the lands to the Forest Department several years ago.
Unfortunately boundary demarcation disputes have slowed the process of transferring the said lands for protecting under the control of the Forest Department.
Forest Conservator General Mr. Sathurusinghe said these LRC lands were now being surveyed, but said that Forest Department has to wait until the survey Department finalised its demarcation.
Environmentalists point out that as there were attempts to grab forest lands in these areas with blessings of the local politicians, it was very important to expedite the process of protecting LRC forest lands.
“There have been instances where lands are grabbed overnight. Why can’t work to protect these forest lands be expedited? especially when the Environment Minister is the President of the country who enjoys executive powers environmentalists ask.
Meanwhile the month of October is earmarked as ‘Tree Planting Month’ with the campaign spearheaded by the President Maithripala Sirisena himself.
As Environment Minister, the President also aims to increase Sri Lanka’s forest cover up to 32 percent from the current 29 percent.
Environmentalists are thus urging the President to expedite the process of bringing these LRC lands under the protected area network to give them the much needed legal protection necessary to ensure their safety.
Sri Lanka NEXT – Blue Green Era
Speaking at the opening ceremony of the “Sri Lanka NEXT – Blue Green Era” policy initiative, held at the BMICH, President Sirisena emphasised that should any individual or institution take action to upset the balance of the environment, government would not hesitate to enforce the laws against the wrongdoers.
While welcoming these sentiments, environmentalists said action rather than words were necessary. They pointed out that approval had been given for the implementation of environmentally harmful projects such as mini hydro power plants.
Activists who have a joint stall in the “Sri Lanka NEXT – Blue Green Era” exhibition, are using the opportunity educate people on how sensitive environments are being destroyed for a negligible amounst of power generated by mini hydro power projects.
The ‘Rainforest Protectors’ also handed over a letter President Sirisena emphasizing need to take timely action to ensure Ministry of Environment, Central Environmental Authority and Sustainable Energy Authority cease issuing permits for future mini hydro projects and urgently appoint a team to investigate issues connected to existing mini-hydro projects.
The organisation accused unnamed government politicians of attempting to get permission to restart currently halted mini hydro projects which allegedly harm the environment.
Source : Sunday Times http://www.sundaytimes.lk/161023/news/land-grabbers-eye-unprotected-forests-around-sinharaja-213439.html
