Market-driven solutions for climate resilience

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

It is disheartening to see many areas and lives in Sri Lanka affected by severe weather conditions. The postponement of Advanced Level exams and the broader impact on human lives impose costs that cannot be measured in purely economic terms.

Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka, discussions on climate-related solutions tend to occur only during extreme events like floods or droughts. This article, admittedly, follows a similar trend.

The approach to solving natural disaster challenges in Sri Lanka has often been fragmented, relying heavily on the expertise of individual professions rather than adopting a holistic perspective. For instance, lawyers may frame the issue solely within a legal context, IT professionals may focus on technological solutions, and economists often emphasise financial and economic aspects. This siloed approach overlooks the need for an integrated strategy.

Additionally, many solutions in Sri Lanka depend heavily on Government intervention, creating inefficiencies due to limited governmental capacity and placing a burden on taxpayers. Unfortunately, market-driven solutions for climate and environmental challenges receive inadequate attention in public discourse. There are misconceptions that market-based systems are at odds with climate action, whereas, in reality, markets offer numerous innovative solutions.

Immediate vs. long-term solutions

In the short term, the Government must provide support to those affected by climate-related disasters. Generally, funds are allocated for this purpose in every national budget. However, for long-term solutions, incorporating climate risks into pricing mechanisms is crucial. The market system is not inherently complex; it simply needs to reflect the scarcity value of resources through proper pricing.

Currently, there is no effective way to associate climate risk with specific high-risk areas in Sri Lanka. If we had a digital land registry, we could assign risk values to lands based on factors such as flood, drought, or tsunami risks.

Similar to how platforms like Booking.com rate accommodations for cleanliness, food, and accessibility, land prices could reflect natural disaster risks. This would enable individuals to make informed decisions when selecting locations for agriculture or residence, ultimately reducing property damage and loss of life on a macro scale.

This approach could also encourage financial markets to extend quality credit for low-climate-risk properties within the existing collateral-driven credit system.

Infrastructure and investment prioritisation

The Government could prioritise infrastructure investments in canals and irrigation based on areas with the highest impact, rather than acting on an ad hoc basis. With risk data, disaster relief support could be incentive-based, aligning resources with identified risks.

The concept of property rights and reflective pricing for climate-resistant land can encourage optimal use and sustainable development. Ideally, integrating social safety net information and national identity cards would streamline rescue efforts and improve the efficiency of reaching the most affected people.

Catastrophe bonds

Catastrophe bonds (CAT bonds) represent another market-based solution. These bonds are typically issued through a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) by insurance companies to cover large-scale natural disaster risks.

Investors purchase CAT bonds, which provide funds to cover damages in the event of a disaster. If no disaster occurs during the bond’s term, investors receive higher returns. Returns and coupons vary depending on the type of natural disaster covered.

In the event of a catastrophe, investors may lose some or all of their capital. However, the relatively high returns reflect the associated risks. The issuance of CAT bonds also incentivises extensive research and investment in climate event analysis. Early identification of potential disasters not only minimises property damage but also saves lives by enabling timely alerts and evacuations.

With CAT bonds, investors have a financial incentive to invest in areas prone to climate risks, as they see potential returns. For investors, CAT bonds offer diversification opportunities and returns that are less affected by traditional stock market fluctuations or macroeconomic changes. Additionally, CAT bond returns are comparatively higher than those of other types of bonds.

The role of insurance and data

A mature insurance market can significantly mitigate climate risks. One of the main challenges for Sri Lanka’s insurance and capital markets is the lack of comprehensive data.

A digital land registry that integrates weather patterns and risk factors would enable insurance companies and banks to better assess investment risks for businesses and agriculture, in addition to considering the applicant’s credit history.

This would enhance the productivity of the financial sector and improve access to capital. Importantly, it would encourage businesses and agriculture to relocate to low-risk, high-productivity areas, enhancing overall efficiency.

Addressing climate challenges in Sri Lanka requires support from multilateral organisations, particularly for developing markets. However, it is crucial to avoid relying solely on Government interventions or over-regulating productive sectors.

By setting the right incentives and disincentives, and focusing on fundamental, long-term strategies, Sri Lanka can create sustainable solutions beyond ad hoc responses to climate events.

Competition: The way forward

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

The recent conversation on taxi services at the Bandaranaike International Airport brought back memories of one of the times I travelled overseas as a youth. The Colombo-Katunayake Highway construction was not yet completed and I had just finished university.

I did not have the means to hire a vehicle to travel from Moratuwa to Katunayake in order to catch a flight, nor did Sri Lanka have the infrastructure or many affordable choices for a poor boy like me to reach the airport quickly at a reasonable cost. There was no PickMe nor Uber, and neither did I have a smartphone.

I left home early with my borrowed luggage from a friend and came to the Moratuwa Railway Station. I took the train from there to Pettah. From Pettah, I took an air-conditioned bus, paying extra to keep my luggage in the front of the bus and took a tuk from the bus depot to the airport departure terminal. I think the time I took to travel from home to the airport was just about 30 minutes less than the travel time of my flight.

All that I went through was due to unaffordability as well as the unavailability of affordable choices to travel. If there had been proper modes of public transport available connecting trains and airports, the lives of people like me, who could not afford a taxi to the airport, could have been easier. In the context of the availability of choices, we have to evaluate whether to allow mobile app-based and registered taxi services at the airport.

It is obvious why registered taxi services at the airport charge a higher rate. Their reasons to charge a higher rate include the cost to operate at the airport by paying rent for their operating offices and keeping an adequate fleet of vehicles. Further, their cost also includes licence fees and bribes that they have to pay to obtain the licence to operate at the airport.

However, their business model has been challenged by a more technologically-advanced operation where customers can choose the type of vehicle they want and are given the ability to check the rate for the journey prior to booking the taxi. This offers many more options including safety measures, such as the ability to contact the driver after the ride in case something is left behind after long hours of travel time.

While the operation of registered taxi services is perfectly reasonable, preventing someone else with an alternative solution from entering the market will make the lives of people more difficult. In a competitive world, competition should be encouraged.

The solutions suggested by our policymakers are absurd. Certain policymakers have wished to prevent the operation of mobile app-based taxi services at the airport. Others have suggested that the airport registered taxis should also register with mobile app-based taxi services. While the second option is somewhat reasonable, a business model being rendered uncompetitive due to the development of technology is not a problem for policymakers in the first place. Imagine bullock cart owners claiming that they are being impacted by engine-driven vehicles?

Simply, this is the evolution of the world and we have to adapt or we will lose in the market. Unfortunately, airport-based taxi services are becoming uncompetitive and more importantly, customers do not see any value in their services. If a customer sees the comparative value of one service being better than the other, they should be given the opportunity to make a choice based on the available options. This service should be valid even for customers whose hotel travel is coordinated directly.

Once we look beyond this and decide to connect our airport to multimodal transportation systems (such as connecting railways and highway buses to the airport), the airport-registered vehicles as well as Uber and PickMe taxis will witness an impact on the number of hires they receive.

Will policymakers delay connecting the airport to multimodal transport systems merely in order to protect our taxi services and drivers, overlooking affordable options for consumers?

In most airports around the world, the terminals are connected to some form of public transport while any type of taxi service is allowed. In fact, the infrastructure and signage enables mobile app-based taxis and other taxi services to pick up and drop off passengers at specific points. All modifications have been undertaken to make the lives of travellers easy, affordable, and safe, instead of protecting a group of politically-affiliated rent-seekers.

The manner in which our policymakers treat this issue is a good indication of how the majority’s choices have been compromised for political reasons, for the benefit of a few who are unproductive and uncompetitive.

This norm is not only seen in this particular scenario, but everywhere in our economy, including the State sector. Similar to how registered taxi drivers are objecting to mobile app-based taxi services, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation wishes to keep other private companies out of the market. Some tile and bathroom fitting manufacturers wish for import bans on tiles and bathroom fittings, simply for their own benefit, as do aluminium manufacturers.

Things are the same in politics. They are all basically asking Sri Lankans and tourists who arrive in the country to take long journeys, wasting a lot of their precious time and call it a ‘beautiful life in the paradise island or Asia’s little miracle’.

‘So Sri Lanka’; is it actually a miracle?