On September 11, I moderated a plenary session on Right to Information (RTI) in South Asia: Staying the Course on a Bumpy Road.
It tried to distill key lessons in RTI implementation from India and Pakistan, especially for the benefit of Sri Lanka that has recently adopted its RTI law. Such lessons could also benefit other countries currently advocating their own RTI laws.
Panel on Right to Information in South Asia, 11 Sep 2016 in New Delhi. L to R – Venkatesh Nayak, Dr Ranga Kalansooriya, Nalaka Gunawardene & Maleeha Hamid Siddiqui
Here is the synopsis I wrote for the panel:
Right to Information (RTI) in South Asia:
Staying the Course on a Bumpy Road
In June 2016, Sri Lanka’s Parliament unanimously passed a Right to Information (RTI) Act, making the island nation the 108th country to have a RTI or freedom of information (FOI) law. That leaves only Bhutan in South Asia without such a law, according to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) in New Delhi.
Sri Lanka’s RTI law was preceded by over two decades of sustained advocacy by journalists, social activists and progressive lawyers. But the struggle is far from over. The island nation now faces the daunting task of ‘walking the talk’ on RTI, which involves a total reorientation of government and active engagement by citizens. As other South Asian countries know only too well, proper RTI implementation requires political will, administrative support and sufficient funds.
This panel is an attempt to address the following key questions:
How do India and Pakistan fare in terms of implementing their RTI laws?
What challenges did they face in the early days of RTI implementation?
What roles did government, civil society and media play in RTI process?
What key lessons and cautions can their experiences offer to Sri Lanka?
Can South Asia’s RTI experience offer hope for other countries pursuing RTI laws of their own?
In this session, experienced RTI activists from India and Pakistan will join a Sri Lankan policymaker in surveying the challenges of openness and transparency through RTI.
Panel:
Dr Ranga Kalansooriya, Director General, Department of Information, Ministry of Parliamentary Reforms and Mass Media, Government of Sri Lanka
Mr Venkatesh Nayak, RTI activist; Programme Coordinator, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), New Delhi
Ms Maleeha Hamid SIDDIQUI, Senior Sub-Editor and Reporter, Dawn, Karachi, Pakistan
Moderator: Mr Nalaka Gunawardene, Science writer and media researcher who is secretary of the RTI Advisory Task Force of Ministry of Mass Media, Sri Lanka
L to R – Ranga Kalansooriya, Nalaka Gunawardene & Maleeha Hamid Siddiqui
Jayanthi Kuru-Utumpala and Johann Peries: Aiming it real high…
An experienced mountaineering duo, Jayanthi Kuru-Utumpala and Johann Peries, are the first Lankans to attempt the summit of Mt. Everest in the forthcoming Spring 2016 mountaineering season.
They have both individually and as a team successfully completed some of the world’s most challenging treks in Asia, Africa and Latin America – not to mention all key peaks in Sri Lanka.
Professionally, Jayanthi is a women’s rights and gender expert while Johann is a hair and make-up designer and performing artist. They are dedicating this climb to their families, to the causes they advocate (conservation, gender equality and healthy living), and to every child, woman and man of Sri Lanka.
They plan to be part of a larger team led by International Mountain Guides (IMG), a globally renowned mountaineering company which has led several successful Mt. Everest expeditions over the past 30 years.
In this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in the print issue of 27 March 2016), I look at the history of Everest exploration and the two Lankans plans to conquer it.
See also my recent English interview with the duo:
Participants of SHER (Science, Health, Environment & Risk) Communication – Role of S&T Communication in Disaster Management and Community Preparedness held in Jakarta, Indonesia, on 8-9 Dec 2015
It was organised by the Association of Academies and Societies of Sciences in Asia (AASSA) in collaboration with the Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI), Korean Academy of Science and Technology (KAST) and the Agency for Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) in Indonesia.
The workshop brought together around 25 participants, most of them scientists researching or engaged in publication communication of science, technology and health related topics. I was one of two journalists in that gathering, having been nominated by the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka (NAASL).
I drew on over 25 years of journalistic and science communication experience, during which time I have worked with disaster managers and researchers, and also co-edited a book, Communicating Disasters: An Asian Regional Handbook (2007).
Nalaka Gunawardene speaking at Science, Health, Environment & Risk Communication Asian regional workshop held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 8-9 Dec 2015
The challenge in disaster early warnings is to make the best possible decisions quickly using imperfect information. With lives and livelihoods at stake, there is much pressure to get it right. But one can’t be timely and perfectly accurate at the same time.
We have come a long way since the devastating Boxing Day tsunami of December 2004 caught Indian Ocean countries by surprise. Many of the over 230,000 people killed that day could have been saved by timely coastal evacuations.
The good news is that advances in science and communications technology, greater international cooperation, and revamped national systems have vastly improved tsunami early warnings during the past decade. However, some critical gaps and challenges remain.
The Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning and Mitigation System (IOTWS) was set up in 2005 under UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. Over USD 400 million has been invested in state of the art equipment for rapid detection and assessment. However, the system’s overall effectiveness is limited by poor local infrastructure and lack of preparedness. Some countries also lack efficient decision-making for issuing national level warnings based on regionally provided rapid assessments.
Warnings must reach communities at risk early enough for action. False warnings can cause major economic losses and reduce compliance with future evacuation orders. Only governments can balance these factors. It is important that there be clearer protocols within governments to consider the best available information and make the necessary decisions quickly.
Now, the proliferation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) is making this delicate balance even more difficult. To remain effective in the always-connected and chattering Global Village, disaster managers have to rethink their engagement strategies.
Controlled release of information is no longer an option for governments. In the age of 24/7 news channels and social media, many people will learn of breaking disasters independently of official sources. Some social media users will also express their views instantly – and not always accurately.
How can this multiplicity of information sources and peddlers be harnessed in the best public interest? What are the policy options for governments, and responsibilities for technical experts? How to nurture public trust, the ‘lubricant’ that helps move the wheels of law and order – as well as public safety – in the right direction?
As a case study, I looked at what happened on 11 April 2012, when an 8.6-magnitude quake occurred beneath the ocean floor southwest of Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Several Asian countries issued quick warnings and some also ordered coastal evacuations. For example, Thai authorities shut down the Phuket International Airport, while Chennai port in southern India was closed for a few hours. In Sri Lanka, panic and chaos ensued.
In the end, the quake did not generate a tsunami (not all such quakes do) – but it highlighted weaknesses in the covering the ‘last mile’ in disseminating early warnings clearly and efficiently.
Speakers on ‘ICT Applications for Disaster Prevention and Treatment’ in Jakarta, Indonesia, 8-9 Dec 2015
I concluded: Unless governments communicate in a timely and authoritative manner during crises, that vacuum will be filled by multiple voices. Some of these may be speculative, or mischievously false, causing confusion and panic.
There are at least three post-1977 introductions that have transformed our society across all social and economic levels. They are: trishaws or three wheelers (came in 1978); broadcast television (started small in 1979 and went nationwide in 1982) and mobile telephony (1989).
According to government statistics, a total of 929,495 trishaws (officially called ‘motor tricycles’) were registered in Sri Lanka by end 2014. That makes it the second most common type of motorized transport (there were 2,988,612 motor cycles by end 2014). In comparison, there were 97,279 buses and 566,874 motor cars.
With 2015 additions to this fleet, we can say that one million trishaws are running on our roads. They have become the leading provider of informal public transport (IPT) services, carrying passengers as well as goods (sometimes well in excess of intended capacity).
An entirely a market driven phenomenon without any state subsidies, they are the lifeline of income to a very large number of families in Sri Lanka.
In in this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in issue of 6 Dec 2015), I look at the social, economic and cultural impacts of this vehicle in the Lankan context.
I ask: Can better regulation streamline the industry and improve the drivers’ social status?
Versatile three-wheelers or trishaws have become pervasive in Sri Lanka. Photo taken in Polonnaruwa by Anomaa Rajakaruna, in 2011
Findings of the survey by Yapa Mahinda Bandara of Moratuwa University based on sample of 342 three wheeler drivers in Western Province, Sri Lanka, 2015
Sri Lanka’s 2012 Census of Population and Housing categorised only 18.2% of the Lankan population as being urban. However, that figure is highly misleading because we currently use a narrow definition.
Currently, only those living in Municipal Council (MC) or Urban Council (UC) areas are considered urban. However, some Pradeshiya Sabha areas (the next local government unit) are just as urbanised.
At the recent LBR/LBO Infrastructure Summit 2015 held in Colombo in early November, Minister of Megapolis and Western Development Champika Ranawaka took on this myth head on. He argued that Sri Lanka’s urban population share is probably as high as 48% — which is two and a half times higher than the current figure.
His concern: misconceptions such as this distort the country’s policy decisions on infrastructure planning and urban development.
The World Bank’s global lead for urban development strategies, Sumila Gulyani, who spoke during the opening session, agreed with the Minister’s contention of nearly half of Sri Lanka’s population having already become urban.
I discuss the matter in this week’s Ravaya column, (appearing in issue of 29 Nov 2015).
South Asia at night – composite satellite image acquired by NASA between April 18 – October 23, 2012 This new image of the Earth at night is a composite assembled from data acquired by the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP) satellite over nine days in April 2012 and thirteen days in October 2012. It took 312 orbits and 2.5 terabytes of data to get a clear shot of every parcel of Earth’s land surface and islands.
After many years of advocacy by civil society groups and journalists, Sri Lanka is set to soon adopt a law guaranteeing citizens’ Right to Information (RTI, also known as freedom of information laws in some countries). With that, we will join over 100 other countries that have introduced such progressive laws.
The first step is already taken. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, passed in Parliament in April 2015, made the right to information a fundamental right. The Right to Information Act is meant to institutionalize the arrangement – i.e. put in place the administrative arrangement where a citizen can seek and receive public information.
RTI signifies unleashing a new potential, and a major change in status quo. First, we need to shake off a long historical legacy of governments not being open or accountable to citizens.
In this week’s Ravaya column, (appearing in issue of 22 Nov 2015), I explore how RTI can gradually lead to open government. I also introduce the 9 key principles of RTI.
L to R – Wijayananda Jayaweera, Gamini Viyangoda, Nalaka Gunawardene, Shan Wijetunge. At Right to Information public forum on 17 Nov 2015 in Colombo. Photo by Sampath Samarakoon
In 2015, the UN is 70 and Sri Lanka’s membership is 60 years
On 24 October 2015, United Nations marks its 70th birthday. A few weeks later, on 15 December 2015, is the 60th anniversary of Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) becoming a member state of this inter-governmental organisation.
In this week’s Ravaya column, (appearing in issue of 25 Oct 2015), I continue my focus on Sri Lanka’s engagement with the UN system. In last week’s column, we recalled how Sri Lanka’s heads of state/government and diplomats engaged with the General Assembly and Security Council.
Today, we look at some eminent Lankan professionals who joined the UN system in expert or management positions and contributed to its intellectual and institutional development over the decades.
As Thalif Deen, a journalist of Lankan origin who has been reporting from the UN headquarters since the mid 1970s, once wrote: “When future historians take stock of Sri Lanka’s enduring contributions during its first 50 years at the United Nations, they may realise that our political legacy spanned both the upper and lower limits of the universe: the sky above and the oceans below.”
The list of Lankans who have excelled within the UN system is long, and I have had to be selective here. The ones mentioned in this column are:
Dhanapala Samarasekera (one of the earliest Lankans to join the UN system, as an expert with ECOSOC);
Neville Kanakaratne (legal advisor to the second Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold);
Nandasiri Jasentuliyana (Director of UN Office for Outer Space Affairs among other positions);
Hamilton Shirley Amerasinghe (President of the UN General Assembly in 1976, and later president of the UN Law of the Sea Conference);
Gritakumar E Chitty (a former Registrar of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea);
Gamani Corea (a former Secretary General of UNCTAD);
Christopher G Weeramantry (Justice of the International Court of Justice and later its Vice President);
Rajendra Coomaraswamy (Assistant Administrator of UNDP and Director of UNDP’s Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific);
Radhika Coomaraswamy (UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict 2006-2012);
Jayantha Dhanapala, President of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference 1995 and Under Secretary General heading the UN Department of Disarmament (1998–2003)
I end with a reference to Lakshman Kadirgamar, who served the ILO and later WIPO in senior positions in Geneva before becoming Sri Lanka’s finest Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1994. I quote from the Foreword that Kadirgamar wrote to a book on the United Nations in Sri Lanka that I wrote for the UN Information Centre (UNIC) in Colombo in 1995 to mark the UN’s 50th anniversary.
The term ‘smart city’ refers to urban systems, and not to the smartness of residents. In fact, there is no universal definition of smart cities: it can mean smart utilities, smart housing, smart mobility or smart design.
Smart cities use information and communications technologies (ICTs) as their principal infrastructure. These become the basis for improving the quality and performance of urban services, reducing costs and resource consumption, and for engaging citizens more effectively.
ICTs – ranging from automatic sensors to data centres — would create ‘feedback loops’ within the complex city systems. If processed properly, this flow of data in real time can vastly improve the design of “hard” physical environment and the provision of “soft” services to citizens.
In this week’s Ravaya column, (in Sinhala, appearing in issue of 4 Oct 2015), I explore the concept of smart cities, which the new government of Sri Lanka wants to develop.
It is a formidable task. India in 2014 announced an ambitious programme to create 100 smart cities. Under this, state capitals, as well as many tourist and heritage cities are to receive funding for upgrading their infrastructure. But Prime Minister Modi and his technocrats have been struggling since then to explain just what they mean by smart cities.
I argue that smart cities need empowered people and engaged city administrators. I have argued in earlier in this column, concrete and steel do not a city make. Likewise, ICT enabled smart infrastructure alone will not create smart cities – unless the human factor is well integrated.
In this Feb. 18, 2011 photo, Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama gestures as he addresses the Mumbai University students in Mumbai, India. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)
In this week’s Ravaya column, (in Sinhala, appearing in issue of 19 July 2015), I salute the Dalai Lama who turned 80 on July 6. One of the world’s best known and admired public figures, the Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader has earned the respect of many non-Buddhists because of his wisdom, tolerance and pragmatism.
Why are Lankan governments so beholden to China? Why isn’t this Buddhist leader allowed to visit the island when three Popes have visited during the past half century? Questions that citizens of Lanka must keep posing to their government…
Tibet’s spiritual leader the Dalai Lama and actor Richard Gere hold hands during the inauguration of the exhibit; Tibet, Memories of a Lost Motherland at the Museum of Memory and Tolerance in Mexico City, Saturday Sept. 10, 2011. On Sunday the Dalai Lama and Gere, a Buddhist, will host a public event titled, Finding Happiness in Difficult Times at the Cruz Azul stadium in which 30,000 people are expected to attend. This is the spiritual leader’s third visit to Mexico. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)
Under the agreement, signed in New Delhi on 16 February 2015 during President Maithripala Sirisena’s first overseas visit, India will help Sri Lanka build its nuclear energy infrastructure, upgrade existing nuclear technologies and train specialised staff. The two countries will also collaborate in producing and using radioactive isotopes.
On the same day, a story filed from the Indian capital by the Reuters news agency said, “India could also sell light small-scale nuclear reactors to Sri Lanka which wants to establish 600 megawatts of nuclear capacity by 2030”.
This was neither confirmed nor denied by officials. The full text has not been made public, but a summary appeared on the website of Sri Lanka’s Atomic Energy Board. In it, AEB reassured the public that the deal does not allow India to “unload any radioactive wastes” in Sri Lanka, and that all joint activities will comply with standards and guidelines set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a UN body in which both governments are members.
According to AEB, Sri Lanka has also signed a memorandum of understanding on nuclear cooperation with Russia, while another is being worked out with Pakistan.
Beyond such generalities, no specific plans have been disclosed. We need more clarity, transparency and adequate public debate on such a vital issue with many economic, health and environmental implications. Yaha-paalanaya (good governance) demands nothing less.
South Asia’s nuclear plans
The South Asian precedent is not encouraging. Our neighbouring countries with more advanced in nuclear programmes have long practised a high level of opacity and secrecy.
Two countries — India and Pakistan – already have functional nuclear power plants, which generate around 4% of electricity in each country. Both have ambitious expansion plans involving global leaders in the field like China, France, Russia and the United States. Bangladesh will soon join the nuclear club: it is building two Russian-supplied nuclear power reactors, the first of which will be operational by 2020.
Both countries have historically treated their civilian and military nuclear establishments as ‘sacred cows’ beyond any public scrutiny. India’s Official Secrets Act of 1923 covers its nuclear energy programme which cannot be questioned by the public or media. Even senior Parliamentarians complain about the lack of specific information.
It is the same, if not worse, in Pakistan. Pakistani nuclear physicist Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy, an analyst on science and security, finds this unacceptable. “Our nuclear power programme is opaque since it was earlier connected to the weapons programme. Under secrecy, citizens have much essential information hidden from them both in terms of safety and costs.”
The bottomline: all South Asian countries need more electricity as their economies grow. Evidence suggests that increasing electricity consumption per capita enhance socio-economic development.
The challenge is how to generate sufficient electricity, and fast enough, without high costs or high risks? What is the optimum mix of options: should nuclear be considered alongside hydro, thermal, solar and other sources?
In 2013, Sri Lanka’s total installed electricity generation capacity in the grid was 3,290 MegaWatts (MW). The system generated a total electricity volume of 12,019.6 GigWatt-hours (GWh) that year. The relative proportions contributed by hydro, thermal and new renewable energies (wind, solar and biomass) vary from year to year. (Details at: http://www.info.energy.gov.lk/)
In a year of good rainfall, (such as 2013), half of the electricity can still come from hydro – the cheapest kind to generate. But rainfall is unpredictable, and in any case, our hydro potential is almost fully tapped. For some years now, it is imported oil and coal that account for a lion’s share of our electricity. Their costs depend on international market prices and the USD/LKR exchange rate.
Image courtesy Ministry of Power and Energy, Sri Lanka, website
Should Sri Lanka phase in nuclear power at some point in the next two decades to meet demand that keeps rising with lifestyles and aspirations? Much more debate is needed before such a decision.
Nuclear isn’t a panacea. In 2003, a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on the future of nuclear power traced the “limited prospects for nuclear power” to four unresolved problems, i.e. costs, safety, waste and proliferation (http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/).
A dozen years on, the nuclear industry is in slow decline in most parts of the world says Dr M V Ramana, a physicist with the Program on Science and Global Security at Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. “In 1996, nuclear power contributed about 17.6% to the world’s electricity. By 2013, it was been reduced to a little over 10%. A large factor in this decline has been the fact that it was unable to compete economically with other sources of power generation.”
Safety issues
Beyond capital and recurrent cost considerations, issues of public safety and operator liability dominate the nuclear debate.
Take, for example, Pakistan’s recent decision to install two Chinese-supplied 1,100 MW reactors near Karachi, a megacity that packs almost Sri Lanka’s population. When concerned citizens challenged this in court, the government pleaded “national security was at stake” and so the public could not be involved in the process.
Dr Hoodbhoy is unconvinced, and cautions that his country is treading on very dangerous ground. He worries about what can go wrong – including reactor design problems, terrorist attacks, and the poor safety culture in South Asia that can lead to operator error.
He says: “The reactors to be built in Karachi are a Chinese design that has not yet been built or tested anywhere, not even in China. They are to be sited in a city of 20 million which is also the world’s fastest growing and most chaotic megalopolis. Evacuating Karachi in the event of a Fukushima or Chernobyl-like disaster is inconceivable!”
Princeton’s Dr Ramana, who has researched about opacity of India’s nuclear programmes, found similar aloofness. “The claim about national security is a way to close off democratic debate rather than a serious expression of some concern. It should be the responsibility of authorities to explain exactly in what way national security is affected.”
Following Fukushima, public apprehensions on the safety of nuclear power plants have been heightened. Governments – at least in democracies – need to be sensitive to public protests while seeking to ensure long term energy security.
By end 2014, India had 21 nuclear reactors in operation in 7 nuclear power plants, with a total installed capacity of 5,780 MW. Plans to build more have elicited sustained protests from local residents in proposed sites, as well as from national level advocacy groups.
India’s Nuclear Liability Law of 2010 covers both domestic and trans-boundary concerns. But the anti-nuclear groups are sceptical. Praful Bidwai, one of India’s leading anti-nuclear activists, says the protests have tested his country’s democracy. He has been vocal about the violent police response to protestors.
Nuclear Power Plants in India – official map 2014
Meanwhile, advocates of a non-nuclear future for the region say future energy needs can be met by advances in solar and wind technologies as well as improved storage systems (batteries). India is active on this front as well: it wants to develop a solar capacity of 100,000 MW by 2022.
India’s thrust in renewables does not affect its nuclear plans. However, even pro-nuclear experts recognise the need for better governance. Dr R Rajaraman, an emeritus professor of physics at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, wants India to retain the nuclear option — but with more transparency and accountability.
He said during our online debate: “We do need energy in India from every possible source. Nuclear energy, from all that I know, is one good source. Safety considerations are vital — but not enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
Rajaraman argued that nuclear energy’s dangers need to be compared with the hazards faced by those without electricity – a development dilemma. He also urged for debate between those who promote and oppose nuclear energy, which is currently lacking.
Any discussion on nuclear energy is bound to generate more heat than light. Yet openness and evidence based discussion are essential for South Asian countries to decide whether and how nuclear power should figure in their energy mix.
In this, Sri Lanka must do better than its neighbours.
Open Minds! (formerly: Moving Images blog) 