The IMF has said it will have to look at the budget for 2026 before it could release the next tranche of aid to Sri Lanka. This means the government has to act according to IMF policy and advice and abide by its conditions which so far have been bitter for the poor as could be seen from poverty statistics and voices of protest emanating from some sectors.

The poverty level, which was 14% in 2022, rose to 24% during the economic crisis and since has not shown any signs of improving despite claims of economic recovery and IMF endorsement of economic management. Health services available to the poor people are woefully inadequate. The proposed education reforms, which probably are being planned under the advice of the IMF, appear to be inimical to poor rural children, particularly the intended closure of state schools and the extension of school hours.

The development of a country must, by definition, means the equitable distribution of wealth that is created mainly by the poor people. Under the present economic system, based on neo-liberal policies that uphold the maxim of market forces, the bulk of the wealth created by the poor people in the estates, garment factories and expatriate workers in West Asia, are siphoned off by the rich, under the nose of the government as well as the IMF. A larger budget allocation for health and education is antithetical to IMF policy.

Sri Lanka’s 2026 national budget has allocated Rs. 654 billion for the health sector and Rs. 704 billion for the education sector which is approximately 1.25% and 0.68% of the GDP respectively. Whereas 5-6% for each of these two sectors is the desirable amount for developing countries if meaningful long-term benefits are to be achieved. Investment in these sectors must be considered the best investment a developing country could make. Countries like Mauritius and the Seychelles have benefited from investments in health and education, leading to higher quality of life and human development. Other countries such as South Africa, Tunisia, Botswana, Algeria, and Kenya have also shown progress due to their focus on these sectors.

Health and education are vital for the development of a country. If one out of four is left behind in health and education the country will be doomed. Already child malnutrition has risen beyond acceptable levels. Though health is supposed to be free most of the essential drugs, materials and facilities are not available. Doctors and other health workers have complained about these problems but without sufficient fund allocation an improvement cannot be expected in the near future. It appears that the government has more pressing issues that the IMF would want resolved according to its plans, most crucial one being the debt servicing that has to begin in 2028. The IMF, if it is genuinely interested in Sri Lanka’s future, must help the government solve these acute problems instead of forcing it to adopt policies geared for debt servicing at the expense of the poor people.

The proposed educational reforms, going by the bits and pieces that appear in the media as there is no comprehensive plan made available to the public, instead of addressing the pressing problems in the sector, appears to be concerned mainly about cutting down expenditure. It proposes to close down schools that have fewer students instead of finding the reasons and addressing them. One reason is the high student dropout rate. The main cause of student dropout in the rural areas is economic. The poor cannot afford schooling. Although education is free, cost of other necessities could be prohibitive for the poor. Teaching in most schools are inadequate and have to be supplemented by private tuition if students are to pass the examinations. The poor cannot afford private coaching. To make matters worse the syllabus is unnecessarily far too big and additional classes are required. Further these rural schools lack basic facilities like water, toilets, etc. Instead of closing down these schools these problems must be addressed so that more students would attend classes. If the syllabus is suitably cut down and private tuition made redundant by improving the teaching standards and also basic facilities in the public education sector, the schools, ear-marked for closure, would develop into centres that serve the rural poor and meaningfully contribute to the education of the nation.

Obviously, more funding is required to attend to these problems and IMF policy may not allow the government to deviate from the targets and levels of public expenditure it has prescribed. The main intention of the IMF is apparently to ensure that the government will remain within the framework of neo-liberal global economy. Education and health of the poor are not the priorities of the IMF in the context of free market and neoliberalism. The welfare measures it has recommended are not designed to address the health and education problems of the rural poor.

The IMF policies aim to develop the economy and not the people. It is interested in economic indicators like GDP, inflation, revenue, debt servicing, foreign reserves, etc. It perhaps expects the indicators such as the poverty rate, household income, the cost of living, the unemployment rate, living standards, etc., would improve when the economic indicators improve but this has so far not happened. On the other hand, whenever in the world, whenever a special effort is made for poverty alleviation, focussed on nutrition, education, shelter, etc., of the poor, not only the poor come out of poverty but also the country as a whole develop in the true sense of the word. A comparison of India and China would bear this out, while China has completely alleviated poverty India though reaching high GDP growth has experienced increasing poverty.

The Global South, if it is to lift its poor out of poverty and achieve genuine development with equitable distribution of wealth, has to get together and develop a people oriented economic model which must jettison the greed driven neoliberalism and focus on self-sufficiency based on a contentment philosophy. Such a policy would develop the people instead of the economy, lift them out of poverty, empower them with training and education, and make them healthy. Moreover, it would save the world from environmental destruction.

by N. A. de S. Amaratunga

World Antimicrobial Resistance Awareness Week 18 – 24 Nov., 2025

Each November, World Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Awareness Week (WAAW) reminds us that the antimicrobials protecting human, animal, and plant health are losing efficacy at an alarming rate and brings global attention to the urgent threat posed by antimicrobial resistance. This year’s campaign will be observed from 18 – 24 November 2025 under the theme “Act Now: Protect Our Present, Secure Our Future”. This theme underscores the critical need for coordinated One Health action across sectors to protect medicines that sustain health, food systems and trade.

The Global AMR Crisis: Numbers That Demand Action

The epidemiological reality is stark: drug-resistant infections contributed to nearly 5 million deaths globally in 2019, with 1.27 million deaths directly attributable to AMR. Without urgent intervention, the World Bank projects AMR could trigger USD 1 trillion in additional healthcare costs annually by 2030 and reduce global GDP by 1.1 to 3.8 percent by 2050. Needless to say, low- and middle-income countries will bear the disproportionate burden of this crisis.

Agriculture sector plays a significant role in this dimension – over 70 percent of all antimicrobials sold globally are used in food-producing animals. In Asia, antimicrobial consumption in livestock sector is projected to increase by 66 percent between 2010 and 2030 if stronger stewardship policies are not enforced. This overuse accelerates resistance that can spread through food chains, environment and direct human-animal interfaces.

Recognizing this danger, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO), World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), and UN Environment Programme (UNEP) – together known as the Quadripartite Alliance – are leading the global response through the One Health approach, which sees human, animal, and environmental health as inseparable.

Sri Lanka’s One Health Framework: Progress and Priorities

Sri Lanka’s National Strategic Plan for Combating AMR (2023-2028) represents a commendable policy framework integrating human health, veterinary services, agriculture, and environmental sectors. The Ministry of Health deserves recognition for establishing robust hospital-based AMR surveillance through the National AMR Surveillance and Research Network, generating critical data on resistance patterns in clinical isolates.

The FAO, partnering with the Department of Animal Production and Health (DAPH) and Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, is strengthening the veterinary laboratory diagnostics and facilitating the establishment of AntiMicrobial Consumption (AMC) surveillance in livestock and aquaculture sectors. The National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA) now monitors antimicrobial use in shrimp and fish farming operations – essential given aquaculture’s growing contribution to national food security and export earnings.

However, significant gaps persist. Point-prevalence surveys indicate that antimicrobial usage data from private veterinary practices and smallholder farms remain fragmented. Pharmacovigilance systems for veterinary medicines require strengthening. Additionally, baseline data on the prevalence of AMR in food animals are limited, hindering the assessment of intervention effectiveness. Environmental surveillance for antimicrobial residues and resistance genes in agricultural runoffs, aquatic ecosystems, and soil is still in its early stages.

Pandemic Fund: Catalyzing One Health Capacity

The Pandemic Fund project in Sri Lanka, implemented jointly by FAO, WHO, UNICEF, WB and ADB provides strategic opportunity to address these gaps. FAO’s component focuses on strengthening AMR & zoonotic disease surveillance, enhancing laboratory capacity for AMR detection, training field veterinarians in antimicrobial stewardship, and establishing integrated data platforms linking human, animal, and environmental health sectors.

These interventions will directly support both public health protection and trade facilitation. Real-time surveillance enables early detection of resistance patterns, enabling timely interventions. Enhanced laboratory capacity ensures that both domestic and export products comply with international safety standards, supporting market access and trade competitiveness. Capacity-building and training programs embed responsible antimicrobial use practices at the National level, reduce selection pressure for resistance, and promote sustainable livestock and aquaculture practices. Collectively, these measures enhance the country’s preparedness and response to AMR threats while protecting human, animals, and environmental health.

Food Trade: The Economic Imperative

Besides health, AMR has direct implications for Sri Lanka’s agri-food trade. The European Union, Japan, and other major markets have progressively tightened Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for antimicrobial residues in imported food products. Non-compliance results in border rejections, market access restrictions, and reputational damage to national export sectors.

Sri Lanka’s seafood exports, valued at approximately USD 250 million annually, face particular scrutiny. Tetracycline and quinolone residues in shrimp have triggered consignment rejections in the past. Similarly, poultry and dairy exports require verifiable antimicrobial stewardship programs and residue testing protocols to maintain market access. The Netherlands’ 70 percent reduction in veterinary antimicrobial use through enhanced biosecurity, prescription-only policies, and surveillance demonstrates that production efficiency and trade competitiveness can align with AMR control. Thailand’s 30 percent reduction in poultry and swine sectors through farmer training and veterinary oversight offers another replicable model.

Technical Priorities for the Path Forward

Sri Lanka must prioritize several technical interventions: implementing prescription-only antimicrobial distribution in veterinary medicine; establishing withdrawal period compliance monitoring; expanding AMR surveillance to include commensal organisms and environmental samples; strengthening farmer education on biosecurity alternatives to preventative antimicrobial use; and developing economic incentives for antimicrobial-free production systems.

Equally important is regulatory harmonization. Veterinary drug registration, import controls, and enforcement mechanisms require coordination across ministries to prevent substandard and falsified antimicrobials from entering supply chains.

Conclusion: Collective Action for Shared Resources

Antimicrobials are finite common-pool resources. Their preservation requires treating AMR control not merely as a health intervention but as integral to food security, economic stability, and environmental sustainability. Sri Lanka has established strong foundations through its strategic plan and inter-ministerial coordination. The challenge now is translating policy into measurable outcomes – reducing antimicrobial consumption intensity, documenting resistance trends, and maintaining market access for agricultural products.

With the 2025 campaign theme of “Act Now: Protect Our Present, Secure Our Future,” we are reminded that action cannot wait. By leveraging the Pandemic Fund investment and strengthening One Health governance, Sri Lanka can demonstrate that middle-income countries can effectively combat AMR while sustaining agricultural productivity and trade competitiveness. The time to act is now – before resistance patterns become irreversible and treatment options vanish.

By Vimlendra Sharan,
FAO Representative in Sri Lanka and the Maldives

I wish ex-President Mahinda Rajapaksa a very happy birthday as he achieves another milestone. As he is joining the ranks of octogenarians today, it probably is as good an occasion as any to look back at his achievements, which are many, as well as his failings, which are not insignificant. Although my association with him has not been as close as I would have wished for, it spans more than six decades. Our fathers were close associates of S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike; his father left the UNP with SWRD to form the SLFP, but my father opted to stay with the UNP. It was at my late wife Primrose’s place, in Kirulapone, that I met Mahinda in the early 1960s, when I was a medical student. A student of Thurstan College, he was a classmate of Primrose’s younger brother, Panduka, and very friendly with the other brother, Nihal. I remember Mahinda coming to their place, quite frequently, on his bicycle.

Those of us who knew Mahinda as a teenager never imagined that he would turn out to be a politician of such immense significance. He was just a playful young lad and I wonder whether politics was ever on his mind at that time, as I cannot recollect any political conversations during our meetings. But he turned out to be a politician, a superb one at that; one that gave the lead to defeat one of the most ruthless terrorist groups the world has ever known and that against all odds, disregarding the machinations from the West. Although some revile Rajapaksas, led by Mahinda, the fact that he is still the hero of the masses was well illustrated by the crowds that thronged to see him in Carlton, Tangalle, where he went after being made to leave his official residence in Colombo.

Whatever his failings may be, the war would have dragged if not for the steely determination of Mahinda and the political leadership he gave for the war to defeat the LTTE. J. R. Jayewardene had the opportunity to nip Northern terrorism in the bud. But he made matters worse. President Ranasinghe Premadasa opted for a honeymoon with the LTTE and paid for his blunder with his dear life. CBK dilly-dallied and Ranil capitulated to the West. Luckily, Mahinda was able to become the Leader of the Opposition in 2002, Prime Minister in 2004 and President in 2005.

Memories are short and gratitude is in short supply in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan youth are totally unaware of the enormous damage to the economy done by the two uprisings of the JVP and the dastardly actions of the LTTE although some attempt to blame Mahinda for the economic mess we are in. If one looks at records, the decade Mahinda was President saw the highest growth figures despite the colossal expenditure on the war. What was borrowed in Mahinda’s time was spent on development unlike during the Yahapalana regime. We are boasting of an increase in tourist arrivals today but would tourists be interested in visiting Sri Lanka, if not for the infrastructure developments Mahinda initiated and the defeat of terrorism?

In early 2009, when Prabhakaran was cornered, foreign ministers of the UK and France came unashamedly to rescue him. Mahinda and the then Defence Secretary Gotabaya told them where to get off. They have since become targets of a western witch-hunt. Sarath Fonseka played a significant role in the war, but wanted to take the credit to himself, and Ranil Wickremesinghe and the JVP pitted Fonseka against Mahinda in the 2010 presidential election. The fallout from Fonseka’s loose talk during the election continues to haunt the armed services. One big mistake Mahinda made was going after Fonseka, after winning the 2010 presidential election.

Another big mistake Mahinda made was amending the Constitution, enabling himself to seek a third term and advancing a presidential election on astrological advice. Not being content with fielding Fonseka, Ranil got Sirisena to turn against Mahinda. Interestingly, Ranil was able to achieve his lifelong ambition of being the head of state, with the support of Mahinda’s party—by a quirk of fate!

The biggest mistake Mahinda made was not leaving Temple Trees peacefully during the Aragalaya. Instead, his supporters attacked the protesters which enabled an NPP government to come to power. Had he done so, or retired gracefully after the loss in 2015, Mahinda would not have suffered affronts to his dignity.

Mahinda has made some mistakes, just like any other politician, but what he has done for Sri Lanka, overall, can never be forgotten. While wishing him a very happy eightieth birthday and many more years of healthy life, may I remind Mahinda that all grateful Sri Lankans will never forget that he saved the country from terrorism.

by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana