Plus

Plus

A response to Dr. Ranjen Fernando by Rohan Pethiyagoda on the Tropical Forest Conservation Act
Not barter but asset for conservation
The article, 'Forests for free: Why do we have to mortgage our natural forests to the USA?' by Dr. Ranjen Fernando in 'The Sunday Times' of August 31 contains many factual errors and conclusions which prevent the reader from making an objective assessment. Here I address some of the issues and try to provide the information readers will need to judge for themselves the merits of the U.S. Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) vis-à-vis the Sri Lankan national interest.

First, it is necessary categorically to refute the claim that TFCA involves a "mortgage", "barter" or "exchange" of Sri Lanka's forests for money that Sri Lanka owes the US. TFCA contains no such condition. Such a course of action would not only be foolish and irresponsible, it would be treason. TFCA involves only an outright grant, by way of cancellation of about US$13 million of debt. In return, we do not have to undertake to do anything except incorporate a Tropical Forest Fund. We do not have to change our laws, give special rights to anyone, or do anything else whatsoever except create a fund.

The facts
What can the fund do? Can it give rights to Americans or anyone else to enter forests, harvest forest produce, benefit from genetic materials or do anything else? No. All the fund can do is provide monetary grants to Sri Lankans to do things that will help protect forests. Here is what TFCA says:

"Amounts deposited in a fund shall be used only to provide grants to conserve, maintain and restore the tropical forests in the beneficiary country, through one or more of the following activities:

Establishment, restoration, protection, and maintenance of parks, protected areas and reserves.
Development and implementation of scientifically sound systems of natural resource management, including land and ecosystem management practices.
Training programmes to increase the scientific, technical and managerial capacities of individuals and organizations involved in conservation efforts.
Restoration, protection or sustainable use of diverse animal and plant species.
Research and identification of medicinal uses of tropical forest plant life to treat human diseases, illnesses and health related concerns.
Development and support of the livelihoods of individuals living in or near a tropical forest in a manner consistent with protecting such tropical forest."

Options
The above list identifies eligible and non-mandatory activities: Sri Lanka can choose from among these and select a list of objects that it wants. TFCA confers no rights on anyone, especially on foreigners, including US nationals, to conduct or perform any activities in Sri Lanka.

Thus, item (5) above, often cited by opponents of TFCA as a threat to sovereignty, is not a threat at all, as it could be excluded altogether or used for example, to fund the sustainable propagation of ayurvedic herbs rather than harvesting these from the wild. Indeed, the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine is just completing a US$ 5 million project, funded by the Global Environmental Facility, that does exactly that.

Similarly, I would also recommend deleting "sustainable use of diverse animal and plant species" as it is difficult to establish how much exploitation of a resource is "sustainable", and this could in turn lead to problems.

Authority
Dr. Fernando states that the “Controlling and policy-defining authority of the TFCA operation in Sri Lanka would be under the directive of the Enterprise for the Americas Board (EAB), appointed under the direction of the President of the US”. Nowhere in TFCA is this stated.

The TFCA does, however, give the EAB, which is a US civil-society entity, the duty of advising the Secretary of State of the USA on the performance of the fund in Sri Lanka. For example, if it were found that the fund had given money to support a political party, or if it were alleged that the Sri Lankan government had appointed to the fund's board someone convicted of (for example) stealing timber, the EAB could take this up with the American (not the Sri Lankan) government. This is made entirely clear in the TFCA, from which I quote the duties of the EAB:

Advise the Secretary of State on the negotiations of Tropical Forest Agreements.
Ensure, in consultation with (A) the government of the beneficiary country;(B) non-governmental organizations of the beneficiary country; (C) non-governmental organizations of the region (if appropriate); (D) environmental, scientific, forestry and academic leaders of the beneficiary country; and (E) environmental, scientific, forestry and academic leaders of the region (as appropriate), that a suitable administering body is identified for each fund.
Review the programs, operations, and fiscal audits of each administering body.

The EAB, therefore, while being a necessary watchdog, has no role as a "controlling and policy-defining authority".

TFCA requires the majority of members of the board of governors of the fund to be from the non-government sector, specifically from NGOs involved in environmental, scientific, academic, forestry or local-community development activities. This is because TFCA seeks to promote forest conservation through non-government initiatives.

It is important to recognize that while government agencies such as the Forest Department and the Department of Wildlife Conservation can protect forests, they have limitations when it comes to conserving forests. This is because many of the threats our forests face are indirect, invisible and come from outside the forest itself.

Reforesting
For example, although Hakgala is a strict natural reserve, it is surrounded by vegetable cultivations, the pesticides from which blow into the forest and cause significant destruction. The fund can give grants to farmers to convert to organic agriculture, thereby helping to conserve the forest. It could pay for the establishment of buffer forestry projects in private lands around key reserves.

In many montane forests (e.g. Horton Plains), canopy trees are dying in large numbers for unknown reasons. The fund could pay for environmental monitoring activities to find out why.

NGO intervention
It is probably because these activities are largely outside the mandate of the government that TFCA seeks to fund conservation actions by civil society. That is also why TFCA requires that the majority of the fund's board be drawn from the non-government sector. Dr. Fernando states, "The track records of the so-called NGOs that have mushroomed in Sri Lanka are suspect...". I worry about this lack of faith in the NGO sector, which I feel has been successful in Sri Lanka.

Apart from international NGOs such as CARE and IUCN, which have done excellent work in this country, organizations such as Sarvodaya have achieved fame far beyond our borders. Likewise, Environmental Foundation Limited has done yeoman service by litigating on environmental causes. Small, community-based NGOs too, have shone in Sri Lanka.

Of course there are examples of NGOs who have betrayed their purpose. There are also a great many "advocacy" NGOs that do nothing but hurl abuse. But I have no doubt that three good people from NGOs with solid records of achievement could be found to help administer Sri Lanka's Tropical Forest Fund. In this respect, Dr. Fernando's statement that the selection of the fund's board of governors "will not be in the hands of Sri Lanka" is completely untrue: all five members of the board, barring the single representative of the US Government, have to be selected, nominated and appointed by our government.

Inevitable risks
The statements made about the risk of exports of biodiversity have nothing to do with TFCA. The Sri Lanka Tropical Forest Fund cannot do anything except give monetary grants that will benefit forest conservation. It cannot authorize anyone to do anything that is regulated or prohibited under any other law. What possible risk can there be, unless of course, the recipients of such monies misuse them? This is like saying Janasaviya should be shut down because recipients will buy liquor and cigarettes with the money they get.

Finally, the statement that Sri Lanka stands to lose "carbon" benefits under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol if it proceeds with TFCA is completely untrue as there is no provision under the protocol for countries to benefit from the carbon assets in natural forests. There is provision for countries to benefit from newly established forests, and here TFCA could actually help Sri Lanka by funding the establishment of new forests.

There are so many factual errors in the article referred to, that it is tedious to refute them individually. For example, the statement that "Sri Lanka is identified as the 12th country among the biological hotspots of the world" is untrue. Sri Lanka is identified as one of the world's 25 biodiversity hotspots, and it certainly has not been ranked 12th (or any other position) in any scientific analysis I am aware of.

Many countries have already benefited from TFCA, including Panama, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Peru and Belize. I have been unable to find a negative experience among them, or a single example of sharp practice as Dr. Fernando fears, in any of these precedents.

In assessing the course our nation must chart in the pursuit of effective nature conservation, we need first to be true to ourselves, to objectively assess the facts and to judge what is best for our country. We need to face the fact that we Sri Lankans have been poor custodians of nature: less than 5 percent of our rainforests remain today.

We need to do what it takes to ensure the conservation of even these wonderful remnants for as long as possible, and TFCA offers a long-term prospect of empowering all the people in this land to do just that. We have a duty not to let this opportunity pass. The author is Adviser to the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.

Back to Plus