RSF TO FACILITATE DRAFTING AN “INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION ON INFORMATION AND DEMOCRACY”

RSF to launch groundbreaking global Information and Democracy Commission, 70 years after the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

11/09/2018

Seventy years after the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris, the Paris-based international NGO Reporters Without Borders (RSF) announces the formation of a panel of 25 prominent figures with the aim of drafting an International Declaration on Information and Democracy.

Co-chaired by Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi and RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire, the “Information and Democracy Commission” includes Nobel economics laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, Peruvian novelist and Nobel literature laureate Mario Vargas Llosa and Nigerian human rights lawyer Hauwa Ibrahim, a recipient of the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize.

This independent panel is being created at a time when “the crisis of trust in democracies and the growing influence of despotic regimes pose a major threat to freedoms, civil harmony and peace,” the co-chairs say in the letter defining its mission. Political control of information in a globalized public space, the influence of private interests, the growing power of corporate actors who escape democratic control and the undermining of quality journalism are the leading causes.

“The Declaration’s function will be to state principles, define objectives for decision-makers and propose forms of governance,” the mission statement says. It must “constitute a point of reference that will mobilize all those who are committed to defending a free and pluralistic public space, which is essential for democracy.”

Panel with 25 members from 18 countries

As well as the above-mentioned members and co-chairs, the Commission includes Abdou Diouf, a former president of Senegal and former secretary-general of the International Organization of the Francophonie; Navi Pillay, a South African lawyer and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; Francis Fukuyama, a US political scientist, essayist and Stanford University professor; Mireille Delmas Marty, a French jurist and Collège de France honorary professor; and Teng Biao, a Chinese human rights lawyer.

It includes these leading journalists: Can Dündar (Turkey), Maria Ressa (Philippines), Ulrik Haagerup (Denmark), Ann Marie Lipinski and Marina Walker (United States), Aidan White (United Kingdom) and Mikhail Zygar (Russia) and Adam Michnik (Poland), as well as the following technology specialists: Harvard professor Yochai Benkler; Emily Bell, the director of the University of Columbia’s Tow Center; Antoine Petit, the head of France’s National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS); Eli Pariser, the founder of the website Upworthy and co-founder of Avaaz; the Italian researcher Primavera de Filippi; and Nighat Dad, the founder of Pakistan’s Digital Rights Foundation.
Towards an International Pledge on Information and Democracy

This initiative’s ultimate goal is an international commitment by governments, private-sector companies and civil society representatives. To this end, RSF expects a political process to be launched at the initiative of the leaders of several democratic countries on the basis of the Declaration, and that this will lead to an “International Pledge on Information and Democracy.” Letters have already been sent to leaders in all continents of the world, and RSF hopes that they will commit as early as mid-November, when dozens of heads of state and government meet in Paris for the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War (11 November), for the Paris Peace Forum (11-13 November) and the Internet Governance Forum 12-14 November).

The Commission is meeting for the first time the 11th and 12nd September in Paris and has set itself the goal of completing its work within two months. RSF, which is acting as its general secretariat, initiated a discussion several months ago that is intended to contribute to the Commission’s own debates. International consultations with a wide range of stakeholders have also been launched. Any persons or entities that would like to participate can send their contributions in English or French to informationdemocracy@rsf.org. The role of rapporteur is being performed by Antoine Garapon, the editor of the magazine Esprit and secretary-general of the Institut des Hautes Études sur la Justice (IHEJ).

RSF initiatives

Registered in France as a public interest entity, RSF is an independent non-profit that has consultative status with the UN, UNESCO, the Council of Europe, the International Organization of the Francophonie, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Headquartered in Paris, it has bureaux, sections or representatives in 17 cities (Berlin, Brussels, Geneva, Helsinki, Istanbul, Karachi, Kiev, London, Madrid, Mexico, Rio de Janeiro, San Francisco, Stockholm, Taipei, Tunis, Vienna and Washington), correspondents in 130 countries and 15 local partner organizations.

RSF’s vision is for “all human beings to have access to the news and information they need in order to be aware of and understand the challenges posed by the world and the environment.” Its mandate is to promote “journalistic freedom, pluralism and independence” and defend“those who embody these ideals.” Its work is “inspired by article 19 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the leading Declarations and charters about journalistic ethics.”

Although supported by RSF and created at its initiative, the Information and Democracy Commission is independent of RSF and is not bound by its mandate.

RSF launched a Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI) in April with the aim of promoting journalistic methods, editorial independence, media transparency, and respect for journalistic ethics by giving concrete advantages (especially technological and economic ones) to news media that adhere to standards defined collaboratively in a process of self-regulation. Around 100 media organizations – including publishers, media unions, press freedom NGOs and other international organizations – are participating in the JTI. Its partners include Agence France Presse, the Global Editors Network and the European Broadcasting Union.

The JTI is focused on news media of all kinds and sizes and is designed to defend journalistic values in the face of changing economic realities. The Information and Democracy Commissionhas a complementary aim, which is to define the intellectual and legal bases of the public space in the era of the Internet and globalized news and information. 

Tributes: Remembering, celebrating and missing Sunila Abeysekera

Today marks the fifth death anniversary of the renowned human rights activist

BY RUKI FERNANDO-9 September, 2018

Ever since Sunila passed away five years ago, I have wanted to write about her, but found it difficult to articulate my experiences and feelings. There’s much that has been said by many about her. Among these, what Dayapala Thiranagama wrote about her two years ago has remained in my memory, as it captures much of the Sunila I knew, remember, celebrate and miss.
Below are some excerpts of how Dayapala, describes his first encounter with Sunila which led to their long years of friendship.

“I was waiting in my cell for yet another excruciating round of torture, which I had been subjected to since I had been abducted two weeks ago from my university boarding house. All of a sudden, a young, smartly dressed woman, of middle class appearance was standing in front of my police cell. She called me by name. This was the first visitor I had seen since my capture. CID had not recorded my abduction or my presence in the police station and did not allow anyone to see me. My torturers told me that I would not be going home this time. Sunila and I started our friendship in these extraordinary circumstances. Her courageous presence before my police cell, even for a few minutes, ensured that there was a witness to my abduction and torture.”

He goes on to say “She used to visit detainees at police stations, prisons and other places such as those who were living underground, to offer vital support to them when necessary. Such visits had a profound effect on those she helped. Much of the help she gave others was not widely known but was invaluable to those people. One such example was her support and help when my wife Rajani was assassinated by the LTTE. I was still underground and Sunila undertook the most difficult task of organising my safe passage to Jaffna to attend Rajani’s funeral. Sunila also led a group of activists from the South to join a protest march in Jaffna town one month after Rajani’s assassination. In Colombo Sunila organised a commemoration meeting around that time.”

Sunila was probably the most sought after, celebrated and well known Sri Lankan human rights and women’s rights activist nationally and internationally in recent times. She won prestigious awards and held many positions. But that is not what I remember her for.

Her approach to activism – and I mean practice, not preaching or teaching – has had a profound influence on me. I consider Sunila to be one of my two main mentors ( the other being Fr. Tissa Balasooriya) and I’ve been fortunate to have been with Sunila and watched her “in action”. As she confronted military personnel on frontlines of the war in the East in 2007, trying to reach populations in areas that were cut off. As she negotiated with Police who were trying to disrupt a protest in front of the Fort railway station. When she was talking to the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Diplomats in Colombo and the then Minister of Human Rights. When she was asking uncomfortable and thought provoking questions during a training on gender and sexuality.
And maybe most importantly, when she spent time visiting and talking to families of disappeared persons, displaced and others affected by war and violence.

Much of what I have learnt about fact finding in dangerous and difficult circumstances, doing documentation and sharing personally sensitive and politically explosive stories, providing protection to those whose lives were at risk and engaging in lobbying and advocacy comes from Sunila. It was about ethics, principles and attitude, as much as it was about skills. It was about why we were doing these as much as how.

Looking back now, I also fondly remember the scoldings I got from her, with a strong flavor of love and care – for me and others. For instance, the wrath I had to face when she found out that a pregnant colleague had gone with me to Jaffna at the height of the war in 2008.

I remember how comforting it was to have been able to call and talk to her when I was being held up for hours at an Army checkpoint one evening in 2008, near the frontlines of the war in Mannar. She insisted on staying on the phone most of that time. And she took the opportunity to scold me for having ventured there, for dragging others into danger and returning at a time she considered to be too late. Later in 2009, I came back to Sri Lanka, after a colleague was arrested while I was in India, disregarding a SMS from Sunila suggesting for me to stay on there. She didn’t say anything afterwards. But weeks later, when threats were getting serious and imminent, she called from overseas and instructed me to leave Sri Lanka immediately. I obeyed. While I was in exile, we talked regularly and she helped me assess the security situation and challenged me to return to Sri Lanka after a few months, without ever pressuring me. Among the many times I wished she was alive was on the lonely and scary night that I was arrested and detained. Later, after my release, as I was discredited and marginalised by friends, relatives and even some activists, I felt sure she would have been among those who would have warmly embraced and welcomed me.

Memories of Sunila also consist of some good times even during the worst of times. Good food, drinks, stories – in her house in Maharagama, in Batticaloa, Geneva and Bangkok. When I was living in Bangkok, she was the most frequent visitor from Sri Lanka. She regularly brought me ginger beer, arrack and Sinhalese newspapers, and rarely did we miss watching a movie together. The few days I spent with her in her apartment in Kuala Lumpur while I was in exile in 2009 and the week I spent with her in The Hague in 2013, as she was battling cancer, will remain as the most precious days I’ve spent with her.

Today in Sri Lanka, there are changing ground realities, shifting political positions and alliances, debates on compromises and realism, and blurring of lines. As we search for meaningful, principled and relevant ways of activism, meeting up to different expectations of diverse survivors and families of victims, Sunila is greatly missed. Trying to carry forward even a small part of her legacy remains a great challenge.

Compared to many other activists, I’ve only known Sunila for a short period. But it has given me much to remember and much to celebrate about Sunila. Enough to miss her greatly.

[This article was first published on the citizen journalism website www.groundviews.org in 2016 and is reproduced at the request of the author, who is a human rights activist to mark Sunila Abeysekera’s death anniversary]

Part II: Central Bank Anniversary Oration 2018 Hawks, doves, swingers and pigeons in Central Banks

Previously …


Monday, 10 September 2018

In the previous part (available at: http://www.ft.lk/columns/Revisiting-Central-Bank-s-independence/4-662019 ), it was presented that Central Banks are required to use their power to print money responsibly, so that people who hold those moneys have the assurance that its value would not be eroded over time. To do this job, there should a degree of independence afforded to Central Banks by their creators, the Governments which have done it on behalf of the public. However, in practice, there have been attempts at compromising the

 independence of Central Banks by political powers both overtly and covertly. In Sri Lanka, the contentious issue has been the placement of the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance as a vote-carrying member of the Monetary Board, whose objective has been to serve his Minister and not the public. The architect of Sri Lanka’s Central Bank – John Exter – expected the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, who at that time held the post as a permanent Government official, to function as a conduit to convey the wishes of his Minster to the Monetary Board, so that the Board could decide on monetary policy taking those wishes into account. Today, we look at how far this wish has been realised.
Permanent Secretaries are no longer permanent

The Exter report testifies to the fact that the independence of the Central Bank should be attained and maintained by people in both the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance. They should work with a ‘moral consciousness’ regarding the well-being of the whole society. Any attempt at seeking narrow self-interests will be contrary to this moral consciousness. Exter had a noble objective that the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance will guide his Minister appropriately and independently. But that objective was defeated by the 1972 Republican Constitution, which abolished the post of Permanent Secretary in the public service. Instead, the constitution created a post of Secretary which was under the control of the Cabinet of Ministers. Hence, in today’s context, the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance sitting on the Monetary Board is not an independent member. He is a public official who will seek to lead the Monetary Board in accordance with the wishes of the Minister of Finance. Hence, a serious question has arisen today with respect to the independence of the Central Bank.



Maturity of Central Bankers

Exter’s point was that the maturity of people and growth of guiding conventions were needed for the success of the Central Bank. This is in accord with the role of institutions in making a Central Bank a successful outfit, as presented by Daron Acemoglu and others in a paper they wrote in 2008 for the National Bureau of Economic Research under the title ‘When Does Policy Reform Work? The Case of Central Bank Independence’. According to them, the presence of a supporting institutional structure was a sine qua non for economic policy to work in an economy.  Institutions in institutional economics are not just organisations. As Nobel Laureate Douglas North had argued in a paper published in 1989 in Economic Development, titled ‘Institutions and Economic Growth: An Historical Introduction’, institutions refer to “rules, enforcement characteristics of rules and norms of behaviour that structure repeated human interactions”. Accordingly, a society with strong institutions has members with high values and ethos that are built into a self-governing governance system. When the Central Bank as well as the Ministry of Finance is run by such people, as envisaged by Exter, the question of Bank’s independence does not arise. The presence of such a perfect situation not only leads to the development of a cohesive policy infrastructure but also helps both the Government and the Central Bank to achieve their respective objectives without running into conflicts and battling with each other.
Central Banks’ challenge to remain relevant

It is, therefore, clear that the independence of a Central Bank cannot be ensured just by a legal arrangement. It is dependent on how those in the Central Bank view independence as a necessary safeguard, on the one hand, and the appreciation of that stand of the Bank by all others, on the other. At the core of this independence, therefore, lies the bank’s freedom to decide on the appropriate level of money which it has to produce and supply to the economy. The experience throughout the globe has shown that the Central Banks which have produced more money than necessary have got into trouble by causing inflation to destroy their economies and having to go through painful currency reforms. In the past, it was just writing off a few digits from the face value of currency notes or introducing a new series of currency notes at new values. But today, with the proliferation of crypto-currencies competing with Central Bank produced money, the challenge has been for Central Banks to remain relevant in their respective economies.

The latest case in point is that of Venezuela, which had to write-off not only five digits from its currency, but also to introduce its own crypto-currency named Petro to fight hyperinflation in the country. Thus, the management of a Central Bank – Governor and the Board – should be careful about those who have an interest in getting it to compromise its independence. There are three groups falling into this category: the political authorities, pressure groups in the market place and its own employees. Political authorities may need the bank to print more money to keep the electorate satisfied so that they could win elections. Pressure groups seek to earn a rent by getting a Central Bank to offer a favourable credit policy, a situation known as ‘regulatory capture’. Employees may agitate for enhanced compensation packages over and above the increase in labour productivity in a Central Bank. Since the only power enjoyed by a Central Bank is to print money, acceding to the demand of any of these groups will be disastrous for fulfilling its mandate.

The main stakeholder of a Central Bank is the public, who holds on to the entirety of money it has created, prudently or otherwise. Hence, the obligation of the Governor and the board members is to the public, and not the political masters who have appointed them to their respective posts.

A society with strong institutions has members with high values and ethos that are built into a self-governing governance system. When the Central Bank as well as the Ministry of Finance is run by such people, as envisaged by Exter, the question of Bank’s independence does not arise. The presence of such a perfect situation not only leads to the development of a cohesive policy infrastructure but also helps both the Government and the Central Bank to achieve their respective objectives without running into conflicts and battling with each other.

Political authorities acting in self-interest have a natural inclination to abuse the power of a Central Bank to print money just by making book entries. If the managements of Central Banks, guided by prudential monetary policy considerations, make objections to such demands, politicians resort to levelling charges against Central Banks and their senior officers in public. The objective has been to intimidate Central Bank officers and convert them from conservative hawks to accommodative pigeons. The way to check such behaviour of politicians is to get the civil society to raise its voice against attempts at undermining Central Banks’ independence. 

Hawks, doves, swingers and pigeons in Central Banks

What this means is that Central Bankers should be people of stature – or as Exter had pointed out, people of maturity – to withstand the pressure coming from any of these groups. But going by the experience in the past, writers on Central Banking have taken liberty to identify the Central Bankers by the behaviour of a selected set of birds. The list not exhaustive and it is expanding with the emergence of new evidence regarding the behaviour of Central Bankers. It first started with doves – those who believe in accommodative monetary policy – and hawks – those who are conservative and in the opposite. But then, hawks and doves did not remain being hawkish and dovish forever; there was a change in attitude moving from one end to another. It led to name vacillating Central Bankers as ‘swingers’ who would at one point be in one end of the swing and at another, in the other end. They have now been joined by pigeons, who are peacemakers and would choose a hawkish or dovish policy depending on which way the pendulum would move. This inconsistency in approach by Central Bankers has a direct bearing on the independence of a Central Bank. When outsiders feel that the position taken by Central Bankers can be changed, they too have an incentive to penetrate the walls of the hard fortresses which Central Bankers have built around them and spoil their independent standing permanently.
New developments affecting Central Bank independence

There are two developments in the recent past, which have made the independence of the Central Bank somewhat a blurred phenomenon. One is the inability of a Central Bank to raise a groundswell of public opinion to support it whenever there are attempts by political authorities to compromise its independence. Second is the wider role which Central Banks have assumed in addition to their main mandate of establishing price stability in the respective economies.
Scandals and loss of trust and reputation

Political authorities acting in self-interest have a natural inclination to abuse the power of a Central Bank to print money just by making book entries. If the managements of Central Banks, guided by prudential monetary policy considerations, make objections to such demands, politicians resort to levelling charges against Central Banks and their senior officers in public. The objective has been to intimidate Central Bank officers and convert them from conservative hawks to accommodative pigeons. The way to check such behaviour of politicians is to get the civil society to raise its voice against attempts at undermining Central Banks’ independence.

However, Central Banks are unable to do so due to two reasons. One is the apathy of civil society on matters that do not have an immediate impact on its members. Even though inflation might hit them destroying the value of the financial assets they hold, its cost has to be borne in the future and not immediately. As such, the civil society makes the inter-temporal choice in favour of the current period’s illusive prosperity.

The other is the hostility already built among civil society members against well-publicised scandalous occurrences that have happened in certain Central Banks. Some noted occurrences in the recent past have been worthy of mention here. The Governor of the Bank of Latvia has been arrested by Police for alleged bribe taking. The Governor of the Bank Negara Malaysia was forced to resign from the post, for his alleged involvement in a land sale during the previous administration of the country. The Governor of the Central Bank of Afghanistan is reported to have fled the country, after his alleged involvement in a scandal in a major commercial bank. The Governor of the Bangladesh Bank had to resign from the post, after hackers had siphoned off $ 81 million out of the Bank’s foreign reserves. The former Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka is reported to have defied an order by the Magistrate Court for him to appear before the Police to give a statement in a case involving alleged insider dealing in the Government securities market.

Need for caution

When this type of news hits the headlines, the public en masse revise their opinion on the Central Bank from respectful trust to angry hostility. Then it becomes a tedious task for those who remain behind a Central Bank to implement quick damage control measures. But, human tendency has been, according to those who have studied human behaviour, to blow up errors and downplay good work. Hence, even when a Central Bank has done hundred good things, it is not those good things which are fresh on the minds of the public. One mistake it may have done is sufficient to tarnish its good image and erode its reputation permanently. This is why it is necessary for boards managing Central Banks to take extra care to prevent the occurrence of scandalous incidents ex-ante.

But, some of the scandals are difficult to be detected before they occur. In such instances, quick ex-post action to bring order back to a Central Bank would save it from a lot of embarrassment and public hostility. It then boils down to quality and stature of people who manage Central Banks. John Exter made this qualification about the Governor when he said that Governor should be a “man of recognised and outstanding competence in and understanding economic and financial problems and of unquestioned integrity and responsibility”. Though Exter had not qualified the competence and ability of board members, corporate governance requires them to be “suitably qualified, effective and exercise their ‘duty of care’ and ‘duty of loyalty’ to the stakeholders of the institution.

The main stakeholder of a Central Bank is the public, who holds on to the entirety of money it has created, prudently or otherwise. Hence, the obligation of the Governor and the board members is to the public, and not the political masters who have appointed them to their respective posts. They hold those positions as trustees and not as owners of Central Banks, as I have discussed elsewhere in my 2017 book ‘Central Banking: Challenges and Prospects’. Hence, their failure on both counts will result in disaster for a Central Bank, especially in relation to maintaining its independence in the eyes of the public.

(To be continued.)
(W A Wijewardena, a former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, can be reached at waw1949@gmail.com )

IT’S HOBSON’S CHOICE FOR THE UNP Why the UNP needs the same coalition to win at the 2020 Presidential Election

 

 

“Real generosity towards the future lies in giving all to the present.” ~Albert Camus

2018-09-12

How and what Ranil Wickremesinghe is strategizing is anyone’s guess. But given the man’s shrewd yet hereunto unsuccessful attempts at being seen as a winner, if Ranil Wickremesinghe is the candidate from the United National Party (UNP), only by being triumphant at elections can he be established as a successful politician.

• The candidate of the UNP has no chance at the forthcoming Presidential Election
• Coalition partners- Maha Sangha, Civil Organizations and Maithripala-led SLFP absent
• The Political entity created by SWRD seems to be nearing its end

A close analysis of the Presidential Elections held up to date, would reveal that, given the progressive erosion of the UNP vote base since 1994, a candidate representing the Grand Old Party of Sri Lanka without the willful and proactive assistance of the other members of the grand coalition that got together in 2015, he or she representing the UNP alone would have no chance whatsoever at the forthcoming Presidential Election in 2020.

To further illustrate this argument, I submit the tables.
Now let us see these results in a line chart:

The UNP candidate by himself scored over 50% only in 1982 and 1988. In 2015, the UNP-backed candidate, Maithripala Sirisena the current President, scored barely over 50% with the backing of a carefully established anti-Rajapaksa coalition, spearheaded by the late Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera and a fair number of Buddhist, Christian, Hindu and Muslim clergy.

Maithripala, himself could boast only of the Polonnaruwa District while districts where Sinhalese Buddhists dominated, especially the Deep South, the hinterland of Moneragala, Ratnapura, Kalutara and Anuradhapura overwhelmingly chose the corrupt Rajapaksas.

Ever since the demise of Sobitha Thera, the Buddhist element of that anti-Rajapaksa coalition has nothing but the adamant and vocal denunciation of the governance and government of that coalition run by the duo of Maithripala and Ranil.

The recently held Local Government elections exposed the miserably deficient political and social awareness of those who run the two factions of the
coalition Government.

The scandalous ‘Bond-Scam’ precipitated the latent fissures in the coalition to surface out, and the potential breakup of a delicately-bonded relationship between Ranil and Maithripala threatened to demolish all hopes and expectations of those who loyally supported the coalition government.

Ironically enough, both Ranil Wickremesinghe and Maithripala Sirisena seem to be bogged down in losing attempts at buttressing the positions in their respective parties, UNP and SLFP.

Absent a charismatic leadership at the top, the United National Party meandered towards certain defeat at the local government elections in 2018.

The ember that was oozing to attract a mere flicker of flame to catch uncontrollable fire was rekindled in the UNP.

The leadership of Ranil Wickremesinghe is being talked about in closed circles of the UNP, although those who whisper about such a change in leadership dare not come out in the open solely because they are in power.

Those who are seriously concerned about the fate of their Grand Old Party would not gamble; the powerful portfolios they hold within the government ranks and the glory of being close to the throne, access to the coffers and power-machinery of Government seem to have affirmed the age-old saying that ‘those in power will not allow any potential damage to that power’.

It is that power and its grip on their life and their political journey that keeps them from speaking or taking action against the current leadership of the UNP.

That indeed is a tragic circumstance in any political dynamic, anywhere else in the world. Whatever the field or subject they disagree on, they always agree that they should remain in power, at least for the time being. Shortsighted allegiance to the raw elements of power precludes them from being adventurous and daring!

Now, have a peep into the following line chart that also includes the recently held Local Government elections as an expression of the voters in a ‘Presidential Election’ for ease of comparison.
The picture is alarmingly precarious. There is no way a UNP candidate by him or herself could secure any ‘respectable’ second position at a Presidential Election.

With the virtual departure of Maithripala Sirisena from the coalition that defeated the Rajapaksas in 2015 and the dismal performance of the traditional Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) led by President Sirisena, the emerging blooming of the Pohottuwa, pun intended, seems to overshadow any partner in the current coalition Government.

If this reality does not penetrate the closed mindset of the inner-conclaves of the current UNP leadership, they are indeed in for a sure and pathetic performance at the next Presidential Election.
If they want to be successful, the UNP needs to get the same coalition-forces that propelled Maithripala to Presidency. What are those forces and who are the most qualified and deserving candidates who could muster such a force?

Non-UNP partners in the coalition:

1. The Maha Sangha

2. Civil Organizations

3. Maithripala-led SLFP

It is almost certain that Maithripala Sirisena has written himself off of the UNP-led coalition candidacy. The gulf between the President and the coalition forces that empowered him is widening by the day.

That sad and lamentable story is behind us. No notable political mind seems to be preoccupied with the nuances of the breakup. The Maha Sangha’s backing for a UNP-backed coalition candidate is almost absent. Although the incarceration of the notorious Galagodaaththe Gnanasara failed to galvanize an anti-UNP wave in the country, the results of the Local Government elections show a marked loss for the UNP amongst the Sinhala-Buddhist voting bloc.

Ranil Wickremesinghe being at the helm of his party seems an enormous disadvantage for the attraction of any more Sinhalese Buddhists than what is already there. However, one of the biggest plusses Ranil enjoys is his being accepted and trusted, at least by the leadership, of the Tamil community in the country. In that particular regard, Ranil has no equal.

Districts where Sinhalese Buddhists dominated, especially the Deep South, the hinterland of Moneragala, Ratnapura, Kalutara and Anuradhapura overwhelmingly chose the corrupt Rajapaksas.

Lack of activity in the pursuit and conclusion of the Rajapaksa-ridden corruption deals weighs heavily on the shaping of minds of the leaders of those civic organizations, which backed Maithripala Sirisena’s candidacy in 2015.

These creators of the Yahapalanaya concept are thoroughly frustrated by the lack of activity in the sphere of the pursuit of justice against those who are alleged to have committed corrupt practices of historic proportions.
Apart from the apathy shown by some powerful Cabinet Ministers, what has been apportioned to Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is having a telling effect on the electorate.

The emphasis by Sri Lanka’s civil organizations whose premier aim is purported to be a peaceful country with social, ethnic and economic harmony cannot be overstated and their visible withdrawal from the Ranil/Maithri Government would amount to a large number of independent voters staying at home come the Election Day.

Furthermore, their agitation-prone activities are now aiming at destabilizing the very government they helped to create.

Maithripala-led SLFP is a very sad story. The political entity created by SWRD Bandaranaike seems to be nearing its end at an exceedingly fast pace.

That elementary constituency of the SLFP seems to have departed, instead of greener pastures, in search of bluer waters- Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP). President gambled a lot on his ability to lead an SLFP without the Rajapaksas and he lost very badly.

The SLFP or whatever that is left of it is a far cry from what SWRD launched and unleashed.

In such a wide and varied context of political uncertainty, the only silver line is a faint hope on the part of some UNP stalwarts that a change in leadership of the UNP is in the offing.

Its second tier seems to be well settled and ready but the absence of even one single person to ‘bell the cat’, would eventually cost them lock, stock and barrel.

Wishful thinking could be damaging both in the short and long run. It will be harmful in the short run as a damaged and a seemingly un-united party would not be ready for an election.

In the long run, such a change would be treated as a redundancy as everyone would surmise that the train has already left the station! It’s a Hobson’s Choice, Take it or Leave it.

The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com

The Joint Opposition’s show of force

By C. A. Chandraprema-September 7, 2018, 

On Wednesday, as I left my house at around 2.30 pm to see how the Joint Opposition’s protest was working out, the streets of Colombo had about the same amount of traffic as one would see on holidays. Yet Wednesday was a normal working day with workplaces and schools all functioning. The mere announcement that the JO was planning a protest was enough to shut down the entire city. Workplaces in Colombo’s central business district, Fort, Union Place, Nawam Mawatha etc. had closed by lunchtime and sent their staff home. The government made a futile attempt to get three Magistrate’s Courts to issue orders banning the protest to no avail. This despite the experience they had earlier during the 2017 march from Kandy to Colombo of unsuccessfully trying to get four Magatrate’s Courts along the route from Kandy to Colombo to ban the march on the grounds that it was obstructing traffic on that most important highways. From that experience it should have been obvious to the police that no Magistrate will block a public protest by the main opposition.

When the march from Kandy to Colombo took place, the Joint Opposition was just a group in Parliament with a demonstrated capacity to mobilise large numbers of people. They had no legal standing as the main opposition. But today after the local government election, the JO has amply demonstrated that they are not only the main opposition party but also by far the largest political party in Sri Lanka and it was highly unlikely that any Magistrate would look upon a protest organized by such a group as they would a student demonstration. Despite this, for the police to make an attempt to get the demonstration banned by Courts shows how desperate they were. In terms of the sheer number of protests that have taken place since this government came into power, this government by now should be totally inured to the effects of any demonstration. For the past three years we have been seeing protests almost on a daily basis.

Lotus Road in Colombo is kept almost permanently closed as protestors tend to come down that road literally on a daily basis. This writer has been saying regularly that under this government protests had become so numerous that even the media has completely lost track of who protested against what! Since no one remembers who came and asked for what, the government takes no notice of any demonstration. In such circumstances, simply making this government even acknowledge that a demonstration was to take place was no small victory for the JO. When the JO said that they were going to hold a demonstration, the government certainly took notice. Thousands of special police contingents were brought to Colombo despite past experience as during the Galle Face show last year, that it was not really necessary.

Speaking of the rally itself, as I left my house on Wednesday and made my way towards the venue that had been announced by that time, the first thing I noticed was that the buses carrying demonstrators to the protest were all jam packed which was an early indication that there would be a large crowd. In contrast to this, in 2016 when I observed the UNP May Day rally, the buses coming for that were half empty. I parked my car some distance away, I approached the venue in a trishaw on the agreement that the driver would take me as far as he could. Even though the TV Channel drones mostly captured the scenes in Pettah near the Bo tree as former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa were to join the demonstration from there, most of crowd came along D.R.Wijewardene Mawatha. As they came along D.R.Wijewardene Mawatha and congregated at the Lake House round about, the crowd got pushed down Sir Chittampalama A.Gardiner Mawatha. I reached the Lake House roundabout at around 3.30 pm but even at that time, it was not possible to walk past the Lotus Road junction to see what was happening on the Pettah side. So what I saw of the procession that came from Pettah was only from the drone footage in the evening news bulletins.

*D.R.Wijewardene Mawatha

* At its peak between around 5.00 to 5.30 pm, the Lake House round about, D.R.Wijewardene Mawatha, Sir Chittampalam A.Gardiner Mawatha, the Lotus Road roundabout and the extension of Lotus Road going towards Pettah was one sea of heads as far as the eye could see. The JO’s target of having assembled the largest crowd ever, for a demonstration was met. The crowd present was perhaps the same as that which came for the Joint Opposition’s 2016 Kirullapone rally. The threat to stay overnight was obviously meant just to frighten the government. Nobody that I met at the demonstration had come prepared to stay the night even though they had been told that they were retuning late. All the buses had obviously been booked on that understanding.

When the demonstration ended at midnight the buses were on hand to take them away, and the cleaning parties were on standby to clean up after them. This was supposed to be a protest, a demonstration against certain issues. The biggest weakness in the organization was that nobody was shouting slogans on the issues that were to be highlighted. They were supposed to be demonstrating against the proposed new constitution, against the Singapore-SL FTA, the high cost of living, the increasing tax burden, and many such issues. The whole purpose of a demonstration is to display banners and placards highlighting the issues and to shout slogans. Given the media coverage received, all the issues would have received a great deal of publicity. But as it turns out, even the slogans that were shouted out were lost in the crowd, the placards and banners were rendered ineffective. Having been at the venue, this writer can’t remember a single slogan written on the placards or banners.

This is one of the weaknesses as well as the strengths of the JO. It is a weakness because all the public events of the JO become demonstrations of strength and public participation. It is a weakness because no issue that matters to the public ever gets highlighted at these shows of strength. The Joint Opposition is completely dependent on their press conferences to highlight public issues. The JVP however has mastered the art of having small demonstrations of manageable proportions where people hold banners and placards which are picked up by the media and where one or two people give ‘voice cuts’ to the TV crews that also receive wide publicity over the media so that the issue at hand is highlighted. In contrast to this, what the JO organizes are mainly shows of strength and Wednesday’s one was no different. When he was a young opposition MP in the 1980s and early 1990s Mahinda earned a name for himself by organizing demonstrations against the then UNP government. Those days, just one percent or less of the crowd at Wednesday’s demo would be considered an excellent showing.

Today, once again as an opposition MP demonstrating against a largely UNP government, Mahinda is still in his element. As I made my way around the Transworks House project to get to Pettah after 6.00 pm because Lotus Road was impassable, I noticed that just the crowd in front of the Hilton Hotel would have sufficed for a very well attended public meeting by any political party including the JO. Another major shortcoming was that nobody had thought of hiring a mobile stage so that the crowd could be addressed as was done after the march from Kandy to Colombo ended at Town Hall in 2016. Later in the night a makeshift public address system appears to have been set up but by that time most of the crowd had gone back. This show of force by the Joint Opposition had been announced some time ago. The UNP also knew that they would be marking their 72nd anniversary the very next day. In this political competition, one would have expected the UNP to organize a massive show of strength for their 72nd anniversary celebrations to counter that of the JO. In other countries, when one side puts up a show of strength, the other side customarily responds – otherwise you lose face.

However the UNP’s tame 72nd anniversary celebrations held at party headquarters which cannot accommodate even the crowd that JO parliamentarian Pavithra Wanniarachchi brought down D.R.Wijewardene Mawatha just by herself last Wednesday, seems to indicate that they have given up trying to compete.

Trapping the ace rogues begins..! Gota served with charge sheet ; Second special court soon !

(Lanka e News -10.Sep.2018, 7.15PM) The case filed against the seven accused including former defense secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse based on charges of misappropriation of state funds when constructing the mausoleum of late D.R. Rajapakse at Weeraketiya , Medamulana pradeshaya , was called up on the 10 th before the panel of three judges of the special high court , Colombo.

The Attorney General (AG) has filed the case against the seven accused including Gotabaya on charges of misappropriating a staggering sum of over Rs. 49 million ( nearly 50 million!) when constructing the Rajapakse memorial museum during the period of Mahinda Rajapakse ( last )regime. It is to be noted during the investigations , the Rajapakses returned part of the money ( this is obviously an admission of guilt by the crooked Rajapakse plunderers ).

Mind you , not even the cabinet approval was obtained to waste such a colossal amount of public funds by the Rajapakses who treated the country as their ‘dowry property’ during their corrupt murderous era.

The charge sheets were handed over today (10), and Gotabaya (the elusive bandicoot) as well as the six suspects who appeared before the three judges were enlarged on bail. A cash bail of Rs. 100,000.00 and two surety bails in sums of Rs. 1 million each were imposed on each of the suspects .The fingerprints of all the suspects including Gotabaya were also recorded.

The case is to be heard again on October 9 th , and this is in keeping with the usual court practice of granting one month time to the accused to file answers.

The accused in this case are : Liyanarachige Prasad Harshan De Silva the former chairman of Sri Lanka land reclamation and development corporation(SLLRDC) ; Badra Udalawathie the former General Manager of SLLRDC,; and the former members of the board of directors of SLLRDC , namely , Sudhamika Keminda Attygalle , Saman Kumara Galapathhi, Mahinda Saliya and Srimathi Mallika Kumari Senadheera .

Romesh De Silva P.C.and a team of lawyers appeared on behalf of Gotabaya.

Second special high court comprising a panel of three judges to commence …

Meanwhile a special gazette (extraordinary) notification to establish another permanent special high court comprising a panel of three judges to hear cases of grave frauds and corruption was established by minister of judiciary and prison reforms Thalatha Atukorale.

With that , the permanent three judges panel special high courts have risen to two. The new special high court is to be established in Colombo.

The special gazette extraordinary was issued under order No. 2087 /92. The Parliament approved the establishment of three such courts some time ago.

---------------------------
by     (2018-09-10 13:47:27)

Janabalaya Kolombata: A Failed Popularity Stunt

By Ameer Ali –SEPTEMBER 10, 2018

Dr. Ameer Ali

The Joint Opposition’s September 5th Janabalaya Kolombata, under the aegis of the Rajapaksa clan was nothing more than a popularity test, which failed miserably. JO has been trying to bring down the government from the time it achieved a landslide victory at the local council elections. In a short piece that I published in Colombo Telegraph on 13 February 2018, I said that, “Landslide Does Not Mean Endorsement of MR”. However, that victory no doubt raised high hopes among MR supporters within the SLFP-half of the ruling coalition, which prompted fifteen of its members cross over and sit with the opposition. This did not help MR even to oust the TNA leader, Mr. Sampanthan, as leader of the opposition. The government survived the turbulence and still limping towards finishing its full term of office. It is in this background that the Rajapakse clan organized JC with mercenary participants to test MR’s popularity.

All eye witness accounts confirm that the crowd was not in hundreds but tens of thousands and that too in lower digits. The test was a grand failure. Already there is finger pointing at the failure of the chief organizer, who is none other than MR’s son Namal. Who will be the organizer at the next Janabalaya is yet to be announced. While MR is ageing there is obviously an emerging struggle within the family regarding the possible successor.  The real drama is yet to unfold. One is reminded of the recent bloody struggle for succession in Nepal. 

One of the criticisms levelled by JO at the yahapalana rulers is that the country is currently descending towards dictatorship and that democracy is endangered. JO is also accusing the government for selling the country to foreigners. May we ask how democratic was MR regime when in power and what happened to those who spoke and wrote against that regime? May we also question which regime started giving the Chinese and Indians outright ownership or renewable long term leases over chunks of Sri Lanka’s commanding heights? Which regime started borrowing from foreigners recklessly and spent lavishly on projects that are now standing as white elephants? JO’s criticism of the current government on these issues is like pot calling the kettle black. 

There are two other emotive and dangerous issues on which JO is pointing its finger at the government: one is an accusation that the government is attempting to divide the country through a new constitution; and the other is that the regime is hounding the Buddhist monks for raising concerns about the nation’s security. These accusations are a signal that in its desperation to capture power JO will rekindle the anti-minority emotions of gullible Sinhala-Buddhists to create havoc and damage the tenuous ethno-religious equilibrium prevailing in the country. Such a move will deprive JO of any support from the minorities as happened to MR in 2015. 

The real vacuity in the JO campaign is the absence of any credible policy package to tackle the real issues facing the country. To start with, how is JO planning to bring down the rapidly rising cost of living, which is driving ordinary householders resort to extreme measures to make both ends meet? Secondly, how is it going to eradicate corruption, which is so endemic and cancerous that it kills any hope of achieving economic and administrative efficiency and social justice, besides adding to living cost? Where are its remedies to bring down a crippling national debt and achieve budget surplus?  How is it going to approach the issue of national reconciliation? Without convincing proposals to present JO cannot expect people to rally behind it just to oust the government.   

Read More

An elite-led Jana Balaya didn’t engage the masses

MP and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa at the 'Jana Balaya' protest - Pic by Lasantha Kumara 

Monday, 10 September 2018 

“The video of the youngster, fully intoxicated and fallen by the wayside pains my mind and reminds me of the callousness and heartlessness of projects like this led by politicians for the politicians. How could one human do this to another?”
Elite-led

The Janabalaya Colombata campaign of the JO on 5 September was essentially a mass-ferrying of humans in buses from outstations. Organised by Namal Rajapaksa and other JO leaders, the project was led and driven by a Mahinda Rajapaksa elite or coterie and remained that way until it came to a lack-lustre closure with the former President himself making an aimless and senseless speech from a vehicle. One could observe, Mahinda was tired and jaw-dropped.

It is hard to sustain a project by cajoling and rewarding people to get into buses and remain crammed up like cattle being transported. Outstation people find it uncomfortable to be away from their homes like this and let off in Colombo to fend for themselves until brought back.

If a mass protest were to be successful that has to generate from the masses themselves who perceive a compelling necessity to get mobilised and to sacrifice for a cause. An individual’s choice is generally based on a hidden processing of costs and benefits. We observed that in Arab Spring. Janabalaya Colombata was a far cry from Arab Spring. The inability to comprehend the difference in the two situations led to a wasteful exercise. The Daily Mirror editorial referred to Mahinda as a ‘sharp thinker’. Oh my God! What sharpness was that?

A well-known Sri Lankan web news editor located in London sensed the situation very well when he remarked on Facebook on the eve of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Janabalaya: “I am going to sleep. Please call me if the Government falls!”
Sources

One could notice what happened visibly from the numerous videos transmitted instantaneously by mobile cameras by those on the ground. Thanks to mobile phones, these days one can comment from far away of the events occurring anywhere in the world. One could even sense the emotions of people! Supplemented by independent evidence coming from other observers over there, an analysis can be completed with reasonable veracity.
The mission

The project had a serious mission to accomplish. Mahinda promised that the masses coming from different directions in the island will converge in Colombo and force the Government to quit. “We would surround Sri Lanka’s capital city, camp in the city and stay put until the Government is evicted.”

In effect the threat represented a serious breach of the constitution, which Mahinda had sworn to abide by. Our constitution lays down the procedure for a change in government and a forced physical eviction by the masses isn’t one of them. On the score of this breach itself the Government had every right to ban the procession and the meeting and even to arrest the leaders including the former President.

The Government didn’t do it because they never took the event seriously. Ranil Wickremesinghe, savvy with his vast experience, sharp with his intelligence and controlled with emotional intelligence of a high order, joked in Parliament: “Please come. You are welcome so long as you do not damage property or disrupt the lives of other citizens.” When the procession finally did enter Colombo and circuited around Lake House the Prime Minister remarked: “You can stay as long as you want. I know you will have to go back to your homes. Stay, and return as soon as possible because the Government will not fall.”

The promised outcome was never ever in sight.
Size of the crowd

There is no denying that the crowds were big but there isn’t any agreement about the size of that attendance. I guess that the selection of the Lake House roundabout as meeting centre could not have been made if the crowds had been huge like in the last May Day of the JO. In the Lake House roundabout area even a crowd of around 3,000 can impress.

A noticeable spill into outside areas was not observed in the videos I saw. The JO claim of hundreds of thousands seems a definite exaggeration. JO Member of Parliament Aluthgamage, who shines by his low incredibility, made that claim. Some videos transmitted in the internet showed the May Day Galle Face audience in order to mislead. However, Galle Face is easily identified.

On the other hand, Chathuri Dissanayake, writing to the Financial Times Daily FT (06/9), reported:

“Nearly 3,000 loyalists of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa yesterday occupied the Lake House Roundabout in Fort and held a ‘sathyagraha’ after the ‘Janabalaya Colombata’ protest march organised by the Joint Opposition (JO) was wrapped up.”
Poor coordination and pathos

Some videos taken and transmitted through mobile phones indicated that parts of crowds had gone to other spots since no clear instructions had been given. The event had not been properly coordinated.

The missing hand of Basil Rajapaksa was conspicuous. Namal Rajapaksa is said to have been the chief organiser as apparently the former President wanted him to show his metal in order to establish his credibility for Presidential candidacy. Namal hardly qualifies for that responsibility. Namal will have to go back to the working board and learn his sums.

Scattered incidents were reported of abandoned souls fallen down dead drunk. The crowds were given milk packets to drink along their march. Several are reported to have entered hospital after drinking the milk. Wimal Weerawansa counter accuses that the UNP had distributed spoilt milk! Knowing Wimal, we can let the ball pass to the wicket keeper.

One youngster from Hatton, 38 years old, had a heart attack and died.  Drowning the pathos of souls lost in drink, fallen by the wayside had been the dominantly celebratory mood of large blocks of people who kept dancing and merrymaking with the Papara Papara band fully in action. Obviously the masses who attended hadn’t taken the event with the seriousness of a rebellion to overthrow the Government. They had a real go at it and returned home.

The roads were full of rubbish and Municipal officials would have had a hard time the following day cleaning and mopping up.
Spirit at the rally

This is the thing I want to say: The spirit of the people hardly evinced a seriousness or tension that rebels would necessarily exhibit. In general terms, there was no mood of potential violence, urgency or anger noticed. Nobody seemed keen to tear down the Government – except the organising elite – the Rajapaksa family and cohorts.

This is why Janabalaya could never achieve its goal of overthrowing the Government. This is why it did not evidently involve broad mass participation. The residents in Colombo themselves largely stood aloof like spectators observing a happening. Many were, however, bitter about their inability to get about normal business. Parents did not send kids to school for fear of threats to the latter’s safety. Offices largely remained closed for business. Normal civil life had come to a halt.

All for no purpose and to make space for a mad event!
A lesson for Government

I like to pause here and raise a question for the Government: Should these kinds of protests be allowed to be carried out this way with disruptive impact on peace-loving citizens? Should there be no preconditions and regulations laid down before permission is granted? For instance, the organisers had not announced the routes that were planned. This is clear violation. Routes to be taken must be announced. This would enable the police to be in readiness to ensure the protection of both protestors and civilians simultaneously. No Government can carry on in this fashion and the whole rough business drives the wrong messages to business circles. The Government wasn’t overthrown but the Government loses its hold in the public imagination in some unspeakable fashion.
Why Janabalaya remained largely trivial

There is also a lesson for the Joint Opposition: The latter got to consider why Janabalaya did not engage the population at large. The answer is simple: The people perceived no reason to join in. Janabalaya did not excite the public imagination as it was perceived as something done by a Rajapaksa elite for their benefit. Even the large numbers of supporters that Mahinda Rajapaksa still has in the country did not get stimulated by any prospect of the Government getting ousted. The fundamental thing is that this Government is in no sense an oppressive government ever ready to crush dissent. One of the principal achievements of Yahapalanaya is the liberal atmosphere and freedom of the individual that it has provided. There are no more stories of hit squads roaming about to pick and to punish arbitrarily.

I am sure, the organisers were inspired by the Arab spring. This uprising in the Middle East astonished the entire world when a volcano of human patience erupted there, taking start from Tunisia this wave of change took the neighbouring countries into its folds. In the case of these governments they were monarchies, sheikdoms or some other forms of oppressive dictatorship. Such a situation does not hold in Sri Lanka today. People in our island are conscious that there is a way to throw out an unpopular government. Janabalyas aren’t wanted unless to press for enterprise-level micro demands.
Conclusion

Thus ended a rally that wasn’t wanted by the people in the first place. The parallel to the Arab Spring stands by contrast and not by any similarity. The video of the youngster, fully intoxicated and fallen by the wayside pains my mind and reminds me of the callousness and heartlessness of projects like this led by politicians for the politicians.

How can one human do this to another?
(The writer can be reached at sjturaus@optusnet.com.au.)

Roots as communication channels

Forests: Beyond the wood – VI

By Dr. Ranil Senanayake-September 9, 2018, 9:47 pm 

Living soil and tree roots have a dynamic relationship. Roots have three main roles. Anchoring trees in the ground to supply the tree. Acting as the collector of minerals, oxygen and moisture. Acting as an information exchange network. Roots of trees are always, exuding or releasing organic matter into the soil, approximately 20-30% of the total root weight is given to the soil each year. This is to feed and maintain a healthy soil ecosystem around their roots. Most trees have specific mycorrhizal fungi living as mutualists that grow in and around the fine, hairlike root tips of trees and help extend the mineral and moisture collecting capacity of the root by hundreds of times the length of that root hair

These mycorrhizal networks join the hairlike root tips of trees to form the basic links of the network, which appears to operate as a symbiotic relationship between trees and fungi. It has been demonstrated that trees are capable of exchanging chemicals and information along these networks. Studies of nutrient flows suggest that trees of the same species are communal, and will often form alliances with trees of other species. They also suggest that, forest trees have ‘evolved to live in cooperative, interdependent relationships, maintained by communication and a collective intelligence similar to an insect colony.’

The phenomenon of plants using their roots to communicate have been demonstrated often. In 2010, South China Agricultural University’s Ren Sen Zeng found that during attacks by nefarious fungi, plants would release chemical signals into the mycelia to warn other plants and in 2013 David Johnson of the University of Aberdeen and his colleagues showed that broad bean seedlings that were not themselves under attack by aphids, but were connected to those that were via fungal mycelia, activated their anti-aphid chemical defences. Those without mycelia did not.

Trees require three things for good rooting: water, oxygen, and soil compaction levels low enough (or with void spaces sufficiently large enough) to allow root penetration. Trees root in different in patterns, some have very deep roots often over 10meters , some are shallow laterally rooted others fibrous, thus a profile of the root zone of a forest demonstrates a complexity as great as the branching patterns above. This complexity not only acts in interspecies communication, but also helps to anchor the whole forest mass against episodic storms. It has been shown that for young saplings in a deeply shaded part of the forest, this network is literally a lifeline. Lacking the sunlight to photosynthesize, they survive because big trees, including their parents, pump sugar into their roots through the network. The behaviour ensures the survival of the forest, when a large tree falls, there are many juveniles to quickly fill the space.

Tree roots also affect the preferential flow of water in soil by creating root channels that are formed by dead or decaying roots, channels formed by decayed roots that are newly occupied by living roots, and channels formed around live roots. Rainwater reaching the ground moves along these channel to recharge the shallow aquifer. The different root systems such as the tuft root systems typical of grasses and bamboos, the taproot system typical of broadleaved trees like Mango etc. effect the flow of water in the soil. Further the direction of growth or architecture of the root have differential the effects on preferential flow. For instance, a downslope root orientation is more efficient for transporting excess water but hard root extremities can represent dead-end paths for water flow. Often, root branching may divide or concentrate flow or (Clusters of roots act as sponge-like structures and concentrate high water pressures. Thus the difference between even aged monoculture plantations that do not firm a diverse rooting system and a forest becomes obvious.

At the other end of the forest is the canopy. The canopy of mature tropical forests contains a distinct ecosystem comprised of plants and animals that do not live on the ground, but spend their entire lives high above it. This epiphytic canopy ecosystem develops and matures from the early seral stages found on young trees to mature diverse ecosystems which have been recorded to attain over sixteen tones of dry matter per hectare in some areas. Restriction to the tops of tall trees places unique constraints on the distribution and life strategies of the plant inhabitants of this ecosystem. The way that these constraints are overcome is analogous to the life strategies adopted by reefs and reef dwellers. Important decisions need to be made when choosing species and location for reforestation.

Coral reefs are specialized ecosystems that can only colonize suitable locations or substrates in the ocean. The major coral dispersal mechanism is the ocean current. Organisms that comprise the reef produce vast quantities of spores or propagules that are ejected into the water. These propagules travel in currents until they arrive at a suitable substrate where they settle and begin to grow. The early colonizers in turn create favourable conditions for the spores of more specialized organisms which settle in the maturing reef ecosystem. Sometimes fish and other large organisms transport the propagules of reef organisms as they visit different reef areas. All transport occurs via the water column.

Epiphytic communities in the canopies of forests use similar strategies to coral reefs in order to spread their propagules and colonize new areas. Most of the plants that make up the epiphytic canopy ecosystem, that is Bromeliads, Begonias, Peperomias, Gesneriads, lichens, mosses, ferns and orchids, have seeds or spores that are transported by the wind, some by animals. The plants release their seeds and spores to air currents, just as coral organisms release their spores into the water currents. These propagules travel in the wind until a suitable substrate is found. Further, just as certain species of animals whilst travelling from one reef area to another transport reef propagules, so do birds and mammals, moving from tree to tree and forest to forest, transfer seeds and spores.

Many species of epiphytes require trees with a specific bark character or chemistry to settle and begin growth. Thus planting unsuitable tree species is not sufficient to assist with the re-establishment of these ecosystems. The tree species have to be selected with care. There is likewise a succession of species, and species diversity, as the forest matures, with mature trees hosting the greatest number of ephiphyte species.

Each host tree species supports a particular set of epiphytes and each epiphyte reproduces at a certain time of the year. The propagules of wind-transported epiphytes travel on the prevailing wind at that time of year. The prevailing wind direction is therefore important when choosing the location, in relation to an existing forest, for planting any host tree species. If the conservation of a particular ephiphyte is the goal, then the time of year that it sends out propagules and the direction of the prevailing wind need to be known. Host tree species should be planted in a location downwind of the existing colonies of epiphytes.

To be continued…