brand logo

Sri Lanka’s growing vulnerability to climate risks 

21 Nov 2021

BY Anuradhi D. Jayasinghe  Sri Lanka’s global cumulative contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2019 was 0.03%. However, the country has been ranked among the countries that are most vulnerable to climate change in the global climate change risk index. This shows that Sri Lanka has a comparatively low carbon footprint, but a significantly high climate change vulnerability.  The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) report has shown that the intensified water cycles due to climate change are bringing more intense rainfall and associated flooding, changes in rainfall patterns and monsoon precipitation in many regions of the world. These impacts are frequently visible recently in Sri Lanka.  The damages and losses of lives, livelihoods and damages to the built environment are questioning the country’s development pathways. For instance, not only has climate change caused flooding but also misjudged and unsustainable decisions in the development pathways have caused flooding – e.g.: Central Expressway development projects caused floods in many areas in the Gampaha District in June 2021. The country is coping with continuous climate risks (i.e.: flooding and intense rainfalls) throughout the year 2021 without having time to configure resilience planning. Thus, having contingency planning to enhance resilience to forthcoming climatic risks must be paid the most attention in Sri Lanka’s climate change preparedness agendas.  Next, although there is a lower carbon footprint in Sri Lanka, the current trends in our consumption patterns are about to make significant changes in the per capita emissions in the long run. One of the alternatives for the sector based approach of measuring GHG (e.g.: carbon dioxide – CO2, methane – CH₄, nitrous oxide – N₂O, etc.) emissions is consumption-based accounting (CBA). CBA focuses on the people’s consumption of goods and services and reports GHG emissions by consumption category, not the GHG emission by source category which refers to the production-based accounting (PBA).  The PBA of GHG emissions focuses on emissions from the domestic production of goods and services regardless of whether they are consumed domestically or are exported. The difference between the two accounting systems of GHG emissions indicates the net effect of emissions embodied in trade – the PBA generally refers to the emissions from exports while CBA is for the emissions from imports of goods and services.  The production vs. consumption-based CO2 emissions in Sri Lanka (Figure 1) is showing a significantly increasing trend in the consumption based emissions or the emissions from imports of goods and services. Given the situation, the Sri Lankan food sector is further promoting the importation of food items due to the sudden and rhetorical ban on chemical fertilisers and the decision of switching to organic farming without research and planning. The country is encountering the worst economic crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic, increasing the vulnerability to climate change risks, and meanwhile, people have to cope with the consequences of the erroneous agricultural policies brought up by the Government.  Considering the types of landscape demographics facing these challenges, it is the urban poor and middle class who would suffer the most. Because given the higher food prices, they do not have space to grow their food, and at the same time, they have to cope with the climate risks like flash floods frequently resulting in lowering their resilience.  Thus, the egoistic political agendas in Sri Lanka leave its communities more vulnerable to climate change impacts. Witnessing that communities are being entrapped in the vulnerability loop of climate change, the developed nations are still fuelling the development models of developing nations to work more on climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.  The developed nations, the largest polluters on earth, have the highest climate resilience while the developing nations have to incur the negative externalities from pollution while taking the majority of the responsibility in mitigating and adapting to climate change.  China, the US, and India are the world’s top three emitters that are responsible for 50% of the global CO2 emissions. In contrast, high income oil producers – the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia – are the top two in the list of per capita emissions followed by developed countries – Australia, and the US. Dividing the total emissions of a country by its population gives the per capita emissions. The highest per capita emissions in oil producing countries are attributed to the relatively low population size and the relatively low fuel prices that are prevailing.  However, the more populous countries thus having the highest per capita emissions such as the US, Australia, and Canada, show a positive relationship between income and per capita emissions. This is also evident by the lowest per capita emissions found in many of the poorest African nations.  But higher incomes and high standards of living do not always lead to having higher per capita emissions. For instance, certain European countries with high living standards – Portugal and France – show lower per capita emissions. This is attributed to the source of electricity generated in these countries, the renewable source. Thus, the source of energy plays a key role in determining the emission rates of a country.  Notwithstanding the deliverables and the proposed strategies developed by the climate conventions taking place around the world, this will force the scientists to forecast climate change impacts merely accounting for business as usual. Because setting goals for zero emissions by 2050 and targeting the developing nations to pay respect to emission reduction without cutting off the largest coal power plants within the high income nations (like in China) is preposterous.  Considering the energy transitions, for nations like Sri Lanka, climate change adaptation and mitigation studies must also focus on identifying the willingness of the general public in transitioning to renewables. Continuing willingness studies pave the path to investigate the barriers and prospects of overcoming them for the sustainable energy transition.  The strategies to cope with emission reductions and drafting nationally determined contributions (NDCs) should be followed by public hearings. Or else the conflict of interests would fail the transition projects at the very beginning. The introduction of floating solar power plants is one of the smartest moves that Sri Lanka has initiated to drop down the issues such as population density, agricultural needs, and the declining forest cover and so forth. However, these floating solar power projects must first conduct awareness programmes with the intact communities to convince them that their livelihoods will not be affected by the power plants.  It is essential to subsume culture and cultural trends when considering clean energy transition in Sri Lanka. In terms of low carbon transport and mobility, one must examine the cultural factors affecting aggressive driving, speeding, and eco driving; automated vehicles; and ride sharing and carpooling. The same must be examined in terms of cooking and building energy use; for instance, adapting to energy efficient heating, cooling and the use of improved cook stoves.  Some scholars have identified, in Sri Lanka, a culture of shramadana convinced communities to give their own time or materials for the civil work and construction of micro hydro units. Such cultural trends are possible to retain in the long run only if the communities are included in the energy transition decision making.  The addresses delivered by our country leaders at UN Climate Change Conference 2021 (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland, were merely words prepared to impress the audiences to see a utopia. Thus, the international community, especially the developed nations, has not seen the actual climate battle that Global South nations are going through.  Hence, the spilling of funds from developed nations will continue to be the same for the developing nations to strategise the traditional mitigation and adaptation measures. Achieving set targets of net zero by 2050 needs realistic changes in both developed and developing nations. It is not sustainable for some to struggle in a minimalistic lifestyle in reducing per capita footprints while some continue their higher living standards hoping that someone else could reciprocate and be responsible for others footprints. Starting from the smallest step, the actions towards climate change must first start with oneself.  (The writer is a Researcher at the Law and Society Trust {LST}) The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication.


More News..