Features
‘Place of refuge’ – the international debate
By Capt. Ranjith Weerasinghe
Ships are built to conform to highest safety standards under the guidelines of the International Maritime Organisations (IMO). The stringent regulatory regime is further reinforced by the latest technology in modern day ships in ship design, building, operations, maintenance, management and competency of crew. However, there will always be ships in distress, regardless of what stringent regulatory regimes are followed as has been the case ever since man took to water transportation even before the invention of the wheel. When a ship is in distress, absolutely helpless at sea, help is inevitably sought by the ship’s captain. A distressed vessel struggles to get to the nearest coastal state for a place of refuge, and the denial of entry can lead to disaster. If a ship’s captain requested assistance in case of a peril at sea, and all the ports in the world decides not to take the ship to a place of refuge, what would the world expect the ships’ crew to do?
Historically and traditionally, ships in distress have been given whatever help by vessels in the vicinity and the coastal states authorities when they happen to be in coastal waters. Help includes providing a sheltered place to manage the problem, to prevent it from further deterioration, assist the crew, provide repair facility, transfer cargo, firefighting, salvage, towage, or assistance to save lives and property and protect the environment. But with notable oil tanker disasters resulting in unprecedented environment pollution incidents, by mid 70s, the coastal states became more concerned about granting place of refuge to vessels in distress in danger of fire, explosion, grounding, sinking, etc,. As a result, there is an ongoing international debate and a proposal for introducing an international law to grant ‘place of refuge”. This debate received international attention in early 2000 when several incidents took place due to the “refusal or denial of place of refuge”. One was Motor Tanker Erika in Dec 1999; it broke in two and sank off the coast of France and the other was MT Prestige in 2002, which broke up and sank off the coast of Spain; both vessels had been denied place of refuge and they caused extensive environmental damage. Similarly, a tanker named MT Castor with a structural failure could not find a place of refuge and was towed around in the Mediterranean Sea for more than a month. Finally, the Salvors removed the cargo oil at sea by ships to ship transfer and saved the vessel.
Against this backdrop, there was a compelling need for IMO to seek an agreement amongst member states to make a law with respect to “place of refuge”. Up to date it has not materialised due to concerns of coastal states. Short of such an agreement, the best the IMO could do was to adopt two resolutions in 2003, and they relate to vessels in distress or needing assistance:
1. A949 (23);
Intended for use when a vessel is in distress and cannot be left in the place without moving to safety
2. A950 (23)
Requiring all coastal states to establish a Maritime Assistance Service.
CONTAINER CARGO FIRES
Besides oil tanker fires, in recent times there have been fires on board container ships. The international insurance industry says one container ship fire occurs every two weeks somewhere in the world. In recent times, container ships MSC Flaminia, Maersk Honam, and Yantian Express suffered heavy damage and loss of life due to fire, and a long time was taken to find a place of refuge for it to discharge the cargo. A fire on board a container vessel is first a risk to the seafarers and the environment and secondly entails a very heavy economic cost–first, the cost of firefighting, salvage, towage and damage to the ship and cargo, and secondly, the cost of the ‘cargo related business interruptions’, which affects industries dependent on ‘just-in-time’ logistics.
Although there has been no instance of denial of ‘place of refuge’ in Sri Lanka, ships passing through its territorial waters are always in probable, unintended “place of refuge”. We also have had a few incidents of vessels in distress off our coast over the years. Whether we offer a place of refuge or not, as a coastal state, we have an obligation to be prepared to assist any distressed vessel. Such preparedness is critical and essential not only in view of the assistance sought by the vessels in trouble but also to avert probable environmental disasters that follow if the timely and effective assistance is not provided. In the said international context, Sri Lanka’s emergency preparedness for such contingencies is to be examined in response to MAS 950(23) Resolution.
The case of the fire-stricken X-Press Pearl at Colombo anchorage and the fire on board MT New Diamond tanker off the East coast of Sri Lanka provide lessons. In both cases it was so sad to see two marvelous ships being engulfed in a fire for days and the crew members suffering injury. Fortunately, New Diamond with 300,000MT crude oil did not lead to an environment disaster. But X-Press Pearl did.
In the case of X-Press Pearl, the following have been reported in the media:
Long before the vessel arrived in Sri Lanka its crew had noticed an acid leak from a container after leaving Jebel Ali in the UAE for Hamad in Qatar. In Hamad, the ship’s captain requested the discharge of the container, but his request was turned down.
Leaving the Hamad port, the Captain asked the ship owners to arrange for return to Jebel Ali to discharge the container, but the owners thought such action was not necessary as arrangements were expected at next port Hazira in Gujarat. The Port of Hazira refused to discharge the container at issue. Finally, the vessel arrived in Colombo as the next scheduled port and not as ‘a port of refuge’.
Some of the questions that Sri Lanka should ask in general are as follows;
In the case of vessel requesting a ‘a place of Refuge’, do we have an evaluation mechanism to make right conclusions? Do we have a well thought-out emergency response plan in place?
In the case of vessel needing assistance, are we ready to honour our international obligations to provide assistance as regards fires, imminent danger of grounding or sinking, preventing actual or probable environmental disasters, salvage and towage, calls for urgent medical emergencies.
While promoting Sri Lanka as a ‘maritime hub’, have we given serious thought to these aspects.
As for the X-PRESS PEARL incident, we should examine the following:
At the time the X-Press Pearl reported a presence of Nitric acid leaking container, and subsequently signs of fire inside container, did the authorities concerned carry out any assessment and evaluation with a view to taking necessary action?
Did the authorities have the information about the cargo on board the distressed ship—argo manifest and stowage plan – reference bay plan)?
Did the fire erupt in the container with 25MT of Nitric acid, which by nature is not flammable by itself but a highly corrosive oxidant in the Class 8 in the “International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code” (IMDG Code); if it leaks into other combustible materials, that can catch fire and become explosive.
If the Captain of the vessel had reported that the particular container identified from cargo manifest with nitric acid was leaking and there was a yellow fume, what should have been the evaluation? For example, in India, dangerous cargo cannot be handled without the approval of the DG Shipping as the highest state official of the sector, but in Sri Lanka it is left to the Ports Authority to take the relevant action
The vessel arrived at the Colombo Anchorage in early hours of 20 May 2021, and for two three days a yellow smoke had been emanating from the ship, according to media reports. Nitric acid must have leaked and mixed with something else, causing the fire.
If it is true that the issue was initially confined to that particular container with a manageable nitric acid leak, what prevented the SLPA from taking action to berth the nearly brand new vessel on priority basis and remove the container without waiting for her scheduled berthing slot? If we lack facilities to do so, we have to acquire them. If not, ships will face disasters for no fault of theirs as no ship crew or master inspects the stowage of cargo inside a container; it is left in the hands of shore authorities.
MT NEW DIAMOND AND THE LESSONS (NOT) LEARNT
As for MT New Diamond, when the incident took place about 20 miles off East Coast of Sri Lanka, with 300,000 MT of crude oil, we realised a few shortcomings, but do not seem to have learnt any lessons as can be seen from the following among others:
* Absence of a “responsible authority” prescribed by Merchant Shipping Act to take charge of the situation in the event of any maritime emergency
* Absence of an effective Emergency Response Plan,
* Absence of defined roles for DGMS, MEPA, SL NAVY, SLPA, NARA, etc.,
* Absence of Defined Emergency Facilities from other agencies such as Airports, Customs, Immigration, local government authorities, etc.,
* Absence of proper and sufficient facilities for such emergency response.
(Notably we did not have firefighting capability, especially with large volume high expansion foam system with high pressure pump that could be fitted on a tug with storage of at least 100 CBM foam in 1CBM Intermediate Bulk tanks that can be loaded on to supporting vessels).
* Lack of trained salvage team and equipment at the disposal of the responsible authority
* Non-availability of a mechanism to mobilise enlisted supporting vessels, equipment and personnel.
* Absence of a responsible communication mechanism
* Lack of rewarding structure for all involved in the rescue effort
Most of all, action must be taken to enhance the reputation of the country as a capable maritime nation which in turn helps the Sri Lankan maritime industry.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
