• Fishermen in court over compensation issues, lack of transparency
• All affected fishermen have been paid: Fisheries Ministry

As Sri Lanka attempts to claim damages for the ecological disaster caused by the MV X-Press Pearl, a container ship carrying hazardous chemicals that caught fire off its coast on 20 May 2021, the compensation process for victims of the disaster remains uncertain. 

According to the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), the MV X-Press Pearl’s cargo contained 1,486 shipping containers. Of those, 81 were classified as dangerous goods, such as nitric acid and caustic soda. The others have been reported to contain a mixture of several tonnes of potentially toxic epoxy resin, plastics, and oil, as well as metals such as lead and copper.

As the contents of the containers started to leak out following the fire, fishing was prohibited in large areas along the coast, with palpable damage and destruction caused both to marine life and the ecosystem. 

In addition, the impact on the lives of those in the coastal communities and the livelihood of fishing communities was manifold, with repercussions ranging from a complete loss of income to the destruction of equipment. 

Fishermen in the lurch

Almost three years after the incident, a number of fishermen affected by the disaster have claimed that they are yet to receive compensation for the damage caused to their livelihood, having filed Fundamental Rights petitions in this regard, which were taken up for hearing on Monday (18). 

According to the All Ceylon Fisher Folk Trade Union, four parties have filed cases over the matter, and one party has been instructed to present a list of those who were yet to receive compensation. The union claimed that there was a lack of transparency on the part of the Government in dealing with the compensation process, as well as a lack of involvement of actual fisher community leaders. 

Speaking to The Sunday Morning, All Ceylon Fisher Folk Trade Union President Aruna Roshantha explained: “Firstly, we have not received a fair amount as compensation. Secondly, there was no transparency in the process, which is a serious concern. For instance, there is a question as to how much money has been received, how much has been distributed, how many received the money, and who received the money. 

“We also have information that certain politicians have given the money to their helpers who do not belong to the fishing community. What we require is for the process to be undertaken transparently.”

He noted that fisherfolk had received compensation on three or four occasions, with one fisherman generally receiving around Rs. 300,000.  

However, Roshantha also revealed the disparity in compensation received between fishermen, with those fishing in lagoons receiving Rs. 15,000, while those who used a certain type of boat received Rs. 80,000. “On what basis has this decision been made? There are no separate shops for different fishermen to buy equipment from at different prices; it is a question of livelihood and this livelihood is common to all. What we have said from the beginning is that all fishers should receive an equal amount as compensation.”

He further pointed out that additional compensation was still to be received by fisherfolk due to the long-lasting impact of the disaster. “It is said that fish will disappear from our seas in 10 years due to this disaster. Even now, the fish harvest has reduced significantly.”

Moreover, Roshantha noted that the compensation committee formed by the Government was composed of individuals who did not belong to the fisher community, who nevertheless represented fishermen of certain districts. Instead, he claimed that those on the committee were individuals who had been selected by the Government, who came from Government-appointed organisations. 

“We have not been selected to the compensation committee, despite being involved in activities regarding fishers’ rights while actively engaging in fisheries,” he said.

Accordingly, the compensation process had been undertaken based on erroneous decisions taken by this committee, he pointed out, adding that the body was less than transparent in its functions: “The compensation committee does not reveal to the public how much was received, how much was distributed, and who received the money.”

Roshantha also highlighted a lack of transparency in the facts available to them, noting that there was no information on how many containers remained amidst the wreckage, how many had been salvaged, and what was inside the submerged containers. “Our problem is that there is no transparency in this process, and neither does the Government divulge any information.”

Govt. data on compensation

As per data provided by Ministry of Fisheries Secretary K.N. Kumari Somaratna, all 15,032 claims from directly affected fishermen, amounting to 10,715 persons, have been honoured, with all affected fishermen being paid compensation. Moreover, there are 4,888 claims from indirectly affected fishermen as well. 

According to the breakdown of the amounts received, $ 1,000,000 (approx. Rs. 205 million) had been received as the first interim payment, although the Government had decided to allocate a total of Rs. 420 million using funds given for other agencies. Moreover, Rs. 352,788,936 had been received as the second interim payment, Rs. 911,526,476 had been received as the third, and Rs. 1,604,279,391 as the fourth. 

In terms of distribution, a total of Rs. 2,767,820,684 has been distributed through the relevant Divisional Secretariats in four rounds, while the pending compensation amount stood at Rs. 705,493,580 as per the data available for Thursday (21). 

Department of Fisheries Director General Susantha Kahawatta said: “We are waiting for the resolution of the case that has been filed. Moreover, we have been informed that another round of compensation has been approved, but the amount has not been officially conveyed.”

On 22 May 2021, the first fishing bans were issued due to the disaster. The extension of the fishing ban area has varied, but at one point more than 175 square miles were closed to all fishing activities. 

Kahawatta noted that since the Government had prevented fishermen from certain areas, such as Negombo, Colombo, Kalutara, and Panadura, from engaging in their livelihoods during this period, the Government was only paying compensation to these particular fishermen, in addition to those who depended on the activities of these fishers for their own livelihoods and had suffered an indirect impact. 

Environmental concerns 

Meanwhile, The Pearl Protectors Coordinator Muditha Katuwawala, whose organisation has been spearheading coordinated efforts through the ‘Nurdle Free Lanka’ campaign to mitigate the pollution caused by plastic pellets/nurdles released into the ocean due to the disaster, noted that nurdles were once again washing up on the beaches, showcasing the long-lasting impact of the disaster. 

“We recently undertook a nurdle cleanup and collected about 1-2 kg of nurdles from the beaches,” he said, adding: “The ‘Nurdle Free Lanka’ campaign has been taking place since the disaster, and so far we have collected metric tonnes of nurdles over the past three years. We didn’t do any cleanups during the previous months, but at present a lot of nurdles are washing back out to sea from the beaches due to the inter-monsoon, etc.”

Describing the present aftermath of the disaster as “dire,” he noted: “A large compensation has been requested but nothing has come through. Despite being one of the worst maritime disasters in the world, it is also one of the least compensated. The only thing we know regarding compensation is that the case has been filed in Singapore, but there hasn’t been any update since.”

MEPA stance 

Sri Lanka initially filed for a compensation claim of $ 40 million, but a 40-member expert committee convened by the Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA) priced the environmental disaster at $ 6.4 billion in its second interim report.  

Speaking before Parliament on 25 April 2023, Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe  announced that legal action had been filed before the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) to claim compensation for the environmental damage. 

Activists have questioned the decision to file for compensation in Singapore instead of Sri Lanka, since a Singaporean court can limit the amount of compensation that Sri Lanka can claim. 

Meanwhile, the Colombo High Court on Friday (22) served an indictment on eight accused including the Captain of the MV X-Press Pearl in connection with the damage caused to the environment following the fire. The Attorney General charged the accused on eight counts in terms of Section 26(a) of the Marine Pollution Prevention Act No.35 of 2008.

MEPA Chairman Asela B. Rekawa told The Sunday Morning that the Attorney General’s (AG) Department was handling the case: “All the other litigation work is handled by the AG’s Department, so they have filed action in Singapore. There has also been a limitation of liability claim in London, through which the claim the Singaporean court can issue has been limited. It was limited to about $ 25 million initially, so the AG’s Department has filed papers to get the limitation lifted, since otherwise we will not be able to receive a significant amount.”

He further noted that following the damage assessment report compiled by the local team of experts, the AG’s Department had appointed another international expert, who would be visiting Sri Lanka in the latter part of March to undertake the compilation of another report, after which the claim would be submitted. 

He added that the MEPA was in readiness to assist the AG’s Department: “We have given all the documents to the AG. We have collected all the test reports and we are ready with everything to support the AG. Whenever they request it, we are prepared to give it.”

Explaining the nature of compensation, he stressed that it was not compensation per se, but money being paid by the ship’s company to restore the damaged sectors to their original position: “The ship’s company, having identified that our beaches have been affected due to the accident, is paying us money to clean up our beaches – about $ 7-8 million. It’s an ongoing process; they have agreed to pay until the beaches, seabed, etc. are clean – this is what the agreement is for. Secondly, they have identified the impact on the fishing communities, so they have paid about $ 15 million for this.”

Meanwhile, National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA) Director General Dr. Kamal Tennakoon noted that the agency continued to collect data and provide it to the AG’s Department and the MEPA following analysis.