The right to survive

Among the concerns that govern global relations today, environment enjoys a pivotal position. According to Environment Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka, the concern for environment and the consequences of climate change constitutes the main political conflict brewing across the entire world. He also says that climate change is a worse disaster than colonialism for the developing world, because it has the capability to wipe out entire civilisations, unlike in the case of colonialism, where only political freedoms were subjugated for selfish gains. In an interview with The Nation, the Minister spoke at length of the need to form a global governance system to resolve the issues that will arise due to climate change. Bringing the issue closer to home, the Minister also says, the failure to rehabilitate the garbage dumps stinking up the country, lies with the problems within the country’s legal system

Following are excerpts:

By Vindya Amaranayake
Q: During the recently held session of the Asia Pacific Network (APN) for global change, you initiated a talk on the need to have a global governance system to protect the environment and the future of the Earth. Could you elaborate on that?
A: The APN mainly consists of representatives from countries in the Asia Pacific region. It is a gathering of scientists. This organisation has been there for a while, but due to lack of funds, it was defunct for a while. We managed to revive it this time. What is meant by global change is that there is a significant demographic transition taking place in the Asia Pacific region. Big cities are coming up and the internal migration towards cities is increasing. But, none of these cities can sustain the influx of the mass migration. After some time, these become ‘sick’ cities. They can be called vertical slum cities.
One of the main issues we focussed on was the coming up of these mega cities. The other was climate change. This is not caused by us – none of us in the Asia Pacific region, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and us, are responsible for climate change. However, we are ones who will have to bear the consequences of this change. The APN is about knowledge sharing between scientists from the region, and to realise possible actions that could be taken to minimise these consequences. Then, we also focussed on marine resources, including rare species of fish and other marine species. There’s massive scale biodiversity degradation taking place when it comes to marine life. We have focussed on this issue as well.

On the other hand, countries in the Asia Pacific region have now become the movers and shakers of the global economy. We are in the driving seat now. We want to avoid what has happened to Europe and North America, in their drive towards development, from happening to us. We also discussed steps that need to be taken to enable a paradigm shift towards achieving a green economy. This is where climate change comes in. When we talk in legal terms, this concept is termed as ‘environmental justice.’ When we talk about climate change, whether I’m a contributor or not, I’m affected by its consequences. Even if I’m extremely green friendly and do not cause any harm to the environment, because of the high emission rate of others, I’m affected by the climate change. For example, nearly 100,000 people died and one million displaced in Myanmar because of Cyclone Nargis. But, this is a country that burns a minimal amount of fossil oil. They make little contribution to global warming. This is the same in Bangladesh. It is believed that, within this century, about 20 million will be displaced. Then there’s a water stress in certain areas in India, Nepal and China. They obtain their drinking water from glaziers. When the glaziers in the Himalayas retreat, they’ll be pressed for fresh water. That’s why they have called for a meeting in Kathmandu to discuss the matter. This is a serious enough problem that it could cause entire civilisations in this region to disappear. But, countries such as Nepal and Bhutan have done nothing to increase global warming.

Global warming is, in fact, worse than colonialism. Although the countries in Asia and Africa were subjugated, the fundamental existence of their civilisations was not threatened. We lost our autonomy in the colonial era. But this, climate change, challenges our mere survival.

Also, every one is talking about human rights, especially civil and political rights – freedom of speech, expression, employment etc. However, our right to live is no longer a subjective condition. It is an objective condition, where no one can interfere with. Also, whether we like it or not, we are destined to die, one day. Therefore, we must bring in human rights into a broad spectrum. For example, what we are saying is that, we must try and include a person’s carbon footprint into that person’s individual rights. This is not included in the UN Human Rights Charter, but something that should be.

Apart from talking of individual rights, group rights or national rights, there has to be a system to address the rights of posterity. That is why we need a global governance system. Just as each and every individual has the right to living space, tomorrow’s generations too, have that right. This equity principle should enjoy a temporal distribution. Otherwise, there’s the danger of present generations usurping the living space of future generations. The United Nations came as a consequence of World War II, to prevent another from occurring. The requirement for a global governance system is somewhat similar to that – where the impact on the environment, in whatever action that is taken by the world authorities, is seriously considered. As an example, let’s take trade. Is it correct to manufacture a good, without considering the need, just because you have the capability to produce that good? How much carbon is spent when producing that good? This is what gave rise to the concept, ‘fair trade.’ We must not purchase goods that have consumed a large amount of carbon and fossil fuel during the process of production. What we want is to include these concepts; fair trade and equity, into a system of global governance.

Q: Has this system already been formed?
A: Not yet. What we are doing at the moment is to create a system of awareness. And we aim to amend the UN Human Rights Charter to include the carbon footprint as a human right. It is all about my right not to let others usurp my living space in this environment. There has to be a mechanism to prevent someone living in America snatching away my right to living space. We must start regarding this as a human right violation. Then we must change the UN system. We need a new governance system, within the UN system, that includes environmental concerns. It has to be something that goes beyond the Kyoto Protocol. And, it has to have an objective criterion. There are no objective criteria in the Kyoto Protocol. It needs to come after many deliberations, conflict of ideas and consensus reached, after much sharing of knowledge. It also requires greater political changes in each country.

Q: Is the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle included in this system?
A: Definitely. During the Rio Convention in 1992, all the representative countries accepted the ‘polluter pays’ principle. But nobody adhered to the conditions. I would like to present a very important example: According to the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which exclusively comprises scientists from across the world, with no political agenda, it says that there has to be a carbon budget for the 21st Century. Accordingly, what each person should emit is 1,456 kT. But, even if we completely stop emitting, the temperature will continue to rise by 0.7 degrees. This, together with the 0.7 degrees increased from the pre-industrial period, will cause a 1.5 degree temperature rise by about year 2100. We can only go up to 2 degrees from the pre-industrial level. Therefore, according to scientists, the probability of humankind being wiped away in a widespread environmental disaster is 50/50. This is the situation now. According to the carbon budget, a single person can only emit 2,170 kT in 2009. A single person in Sri Lanka emits only 600 kT. In the US it is 22,000 kT, in Norway 20,000 kT, Australia 20,000 kT and Canada 21,000 kT. This is how it stands at the moment. Then Great Britain 9,800 kT, India 1,200 kT and China 3,600 kT. Then, we are below the permissible level. We can emit more than we are emitting at the moment. We have the right to do so. But, we can’t do that in actuality, because our space has been usurped by countries with high emission rates. They have reached high development levels by emitting a higher percentage of carbon. Yet, we cannot emit the same amount to reach the same development level. Hence, our right to development has been violated. This is one aspect of the environmental justice principle. Also, they have usurped our space for development without our consent. It is in this sense that we have coined the term ‘carbon debt.’ The question is, who took our remaining carbon emission right? – the amount left unused after 600 kT. It is those developed countries such as the US and Australia. Today, a tonne of carbon is sold at US$ 20. Then, for the past eight years of the new century, the US alone would have to pay us US$ 1.9 billion. This is exactly the amount we requested from the IMF. One way to ensure the prevalence of environmental justice is by paying off this carbon debt. Hillary Clinton has no right to impose conditions on us, because they have violated our rights. We work on this basis. But, what the developed countries are trying to do is trying to stop our emission. This is wrong. Global warming has intensified to the level of it becoming a cold war between the developed and developing worlds. The developing countries say they want to reach better development levels and for that, they need to burn more fossil fuels. But the developed countries object, saying there’s very little space left to emit for everyone. Today, this is the biggest political conflict brewing across the world. It is no longer the debate between liberal and communist economic system. The debate is about who should cut down on their emissions; the developed world or the developing world.

From Sri Lanka, we have presented three proposals to Copenhagen. One is, there has to be an objective criterion. The Kyoto Protocol calls for a 5% reduction from the 1990 carbon level. Nobody knows the reason behind this decision. In 1990, the individual emission rate is 4,200 kT. A reduction of 5% from this is not going to make much of a difference. It should be 50% from this level. Therefore, the Kyoto Protocol is no longer valid. Then, there should be historical responsibility for carbon debt. The developed countries should either pay us this debt, or compensate it for the financial debts that we owe them. The third one has to do with climate change strategies. There are two methods; mitigation and adaptation. It is the developed countries who should fund the adaptation methods across the world. If Myanmar has to face deadly cyclones and it is a direct result of the excess emissions of the US, then, it is the US that has to pay for the adaptation methods. Therefore, we say there should be an adaptation fund. And this should also be based on an objective criterion. They should assess whether the cyclone was a direct result of climate change and assess the damage and make the payment accordingly. These countries accept that there should be an adaptation fund, but they do not give a single penny to the fund. They want the World Bank to manage the fund. The World Bank is an organisation where developed countries hold majority stakes. But the adaptation fund should be instituted for the benefit of the developing world. It is strange how the consequences of climate change are skewed in a way to cause more damage to the developing countries.

When we take the Vienna and Montreal Conventions, there are no big bosses controlling the conditions. There are governing councils, and the countries that cause harm to the ozone layer, pay according to the quantity of the damage they cause. That is an objective formula. Then, we present projects to the governing council and the scientists assess whether the requests are fair and in need, the funds are released. No one can move political muscle at the Vienna Convention. That is why it is successful. Our request is to create a similar rational structure to solve this issue as well.

Q: You also concentrated on the need to control e-waste. What progress have you made in this regard?
A: As a first step, we have approached the mobile telecommunication service providers and informed them that we are ready to provide them with the infrastructure to collect e-waste including phone batteries, chargers, and other parts. I’m happy to say that Dialog Telekom PLC has agreed to this, and you can see that at every Dialog Arcade there is a facility to collect used mobile phones and accessories. However, it was only Dialog that cooperated with us in this regard. They have already established a facility in Piliyandala. We declared it open recently. We request the other mobile telecommunication service providers to follow suite. Nearly 10% of e-waste is heavy metal. This can cause severe damages to our kidneys. Then, we plan to concentrate on other e-material, particularly CDs and DVDs. This is a bigger problem than we realised. We have assessed that 72 million discs are imported into Sri Lanka per year. They ultimately accumulate in garbage dumps. We have also counted the number of personal computers, photocopy machines, washing machines and other electrical appliances in the country. We have already informed the people who import the appliances to take them back once they are no longer in use. We facilitate this through the environmental conservation levy.

Q: The polythene regulation introduced a couple of years ago, failed to bear fruit. What are the new developments to strengthen plans to control the use of polythene?
A: It is like this. We wanted polythene that is less than 20 microns in thickness to be banned from use. It was done so to ease the management of waste. But we understand that this is not being properly implemented. One reason is that polythene production has now become a cottage industry. When we introduced the regulation, there were only about 300 polythene manufacturers. Now, it appears that there are about 3,000-4,000 manufacturers. Therefore, we have realised that it is difficult to control this. There’s a limit as to the number of people that could be arrested for this. Therefore, we have decided that the manufacturer should print their label on polythene packs released into the market. Otherwise, they are not allowed to continue their business.

Q: Then, is polythene, with less than 20 microns in thickness, permissible now?
A: No. That is not the case. People who produce polythene have to have their label on the packet. Then it is easy for us to identify those who produce polythene with less weight. Then we encourage the public not to buy polythene products that has no label on the pack.

Q: You once called Colombo a ‘sick city.’ It has a severe garbage issue and the drains are clogged with waste. What are the steps taken to clear up this matter?
A: In 2007, we identified three issues with regard to waste collection: The lack of funds, technology and space. We solved two of these three problems. We are ready to provide funds to any local authority, if they come to us with a sound project report on garbage disposal. We can also provide them with the necessary technology. Bloemendal, Karadiyan, Porawatte in Kalutara and Guhagoda in Kandy are the four worst garbage dumps in the country. We have already presented a paper and received the approval of Cabinet to rehabilitate them. But due to various problems, especially legal problems – and some Municipalities refused to hand us over the garbage site, such as the Kandy Municipality, we were unable to put it work. But we would like to say, we are ready to take over and rehabilitate these four major dumps and any other dump in the country, if they are handed over to us even today. They only need to hand them over to us. We would rehabilitate them and hand them back to the local authorities. We have the money and the technology. But unfortunately, due to the problems within the legal system, it is being delayed by the day. This is causing severe problems to our children’s health, which is bound to intensify, unless it is addressed immediately.

Q: The two baby tuskers taken from the Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage are now faced with health problems, after being separated from their mothers. As the Minister of Environment, have you looked into what has happened?
A: The Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage does not fall under the purview of the Environment Ministry. It is under Minister Gamini Lokuge’s Sports Ministry. They presented a Cabinet paper to hand over two baby tuskers to the Malwatta and Asgiriya Temples. It was approved. I’m not aware what transpired afterwards.

Q: This issue is causing much concern among wildlife activists and enthusiasts. As the Minister of Environment, are you going to intervene to solve the matter?
A: I do not have the authority to interfere into this matter. The elephants should be held under the supervision of the Department of Wildlife Conservation. The Pinnawela Elephant Orphanage is also operating on a permit given by us. The Directors in charge of Pinnawela must take the responsibility.

****