Connect with us

Editorial

Govt. backtracks on chemical fertilizer ban

Published

on

The President and his government has swallowed some nasty stuff of their own making and finally backpedaled on what was proclaimed as an ironclad ban on the import of inorganic fertilizer. The prohibition was announced on April 26 and rescinded seven months later on Nov. 24 this year; but not without tremendous pressure by the scientific/expert lobby and widespread farmer protests. The scientists were given a platform mainly by the print media and they argued their case cogently unlike those who backed the ban. The farmer protests were both angry and near desperate and had extensive television coverage, certainly from one television station. There was no doubt that scientists and people who knew what they were talking about presented a castiron case. Some agriculture bureaucrats quit their jobs in disgust. An agriculture professor from Peradeniya, who held office in various expert committees in the agriculture ministry was sacked, or that was how his removal was described. This academic who was part of the President Gotabaya-led delegation to the recent Glasgow Climate Change COP 26 summit – after his sacking perhaps because he was already in the UK at the time of the announcement – insisted he was not an employee of the agriculture ministry to be sacked from any of its agencies.

Be that as it may, most Lankans will wonder why the president stood tenaciously by the ban, reportedly recommended by Viyathmaga and Eliya, which worked hard for his election when the anger it provoked and the dangers it posed were plainly visible. Given the massive support the Rajapaksa ticket commanded in the rural hinterland, demonstrated most recently at the presidential election of November 2019 and the parliamentary election that followed, why the president did not relent sooner than later is inexplicable. Although that has now happened after months of agitation, it was predictably done in a manner to save what face was possible. No doubt Agriculture Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage, who had to eventually announce the policy reversal, took most of the flak. This though it is common knowledge that it was the president who was pushing the policy and the minister was no more than a loyal acolyte. But it has been remarked upon that demonstrators far preferred to burn effigies of Aluthgamage, who was the easier target, rather than those of the president and the prime minister although that too happened. Was there an element of funk to take on the bigger fish, at least as far as the president was concerned?

Most proponents of re-looking at the blanket prohibition were not opposed to a ‘green’ policy. Rather, they favored going slow on implementation, urging a step-by-step approach over a period of time. This after careful consideration of all factors involved rather than gut reaction. They stressed the blunder of attempting almost overnight imposition. Prime Minister Modi in India took longer than us to back out of his farm laws despite massive resistance. Here as well as there, there was no doubt about a presence of more than an element of political backing for and orchestration of the protests. But the responsible authorities, instead of clinging to an ironclad approach, should have paid due consideration to at least the physical evidence of the effects of blanket bans on both inorganic fertilizer and weedicides and pesticides. There’s no denying that the latter, apart from bad weather, played a part in the fall of vegetable production and consequent sky high prices. The government did itself no credit by attributing motives to opponents of the chemical fertilizer ban. It was alleged that one of them represented interests of fertilizer importers by sitting on the board of an importing company. True, but with the permission of the University employing him. It was also widely hinted that others were in the pay of such companies.

There is also the matter of the widely prevalent trust deficit between the people and the political establishment governing them. Sad but true, most people do not trust politicians regarding them to be corrupt, self-serving and taking decisions in their own personal and political interests disregarding vital national imperatives. But as has been repeatedly pointed out, most recently by the president himself, that the voters as we have often seen, re-elect those they have outright rejected. Then again the question of subsidies arise. The president is on firm record saying that the import of chemical fertilizer will be a private sector monopoly. The government has washed its hands of the business. But he has not explained how privately imported fertilizer is permissible on environmental considerations if government imports are not. He has also made clear there will be no subsidies for chemical fertilizers. The prices of these have hit record highs in the third quarter of 2021 and continued rising in November reaching levels unseen since the global financial crisis.

Our farmers have long enjoyed fertilizer subsidies and would clearly be unable to afford unsubsidized chemical fertilizers. Mr. Sajith Premadasa has made this point already after the government announcement on the import ban being lifted punching in the fact that the present rulers promised not subsidized but free fertilizer pre-election! Apart from the tilt towards organic fertilizers, government will not be able to afford many subsidies in the context of the present economic/forex picture. So there will be no return to square one. Regular columnist Rajan Philips has on this page said that the beginning of the end of the regime has begun but no there does not seem to be a new beginning for the country even if there is a change of government after elections. That seems to be a reasonable conclusion in the current context.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Editorial

Challenge of being NPP govt.

Published

on

Thursday 6th February, 2025

The JVP-led NPP government has announced certified prices of paddy at long last. Minister of Agriculture K. D. Lalkantha said yesterday that the Paddy Marketing Board (PMB) would purchase nadu, samba and keeri samba varieties at Rs. 120, Rs. 125 and Rs. 132 a kilo, respectively. Curiously, there was no mention of a certified price of red/white kekulu paddy.

Announcing the certified prices at which the PMB intends to purchase paddy is one thing, but purchasing paddy, as promised, is quite another. Does the PMB have enough storage facilities to maintain adequate stocks of paddy, which the government says, will be milled and sold to the public to prevent market manipulations by unscrupulous millers? Complaints abound that many PMB warehouses are still in a dilapidated state.

Farmers’ associations have taken exception to the certified paddy prices announced by the government. They are demanding higher purchase prices. But the government has to look at the bigger picture and factor in the interests of rice consumers as well when certified paddy prices are determined. Balancing the competing interests of those two groups is no easy task, especially ahead of an election. The government ought to provide a detailed or itemised cost estimation so that one will be able to see if it has calculated the paddy production costs properly.

Why did the government take so long to announce the certified prices of paddy? It is being claimed in some quarters that about 25% of the paddy harvest had been gathered by Wednesday (05). Opinion may be divided on the amount of paddy so far harvested, but a large number of farmers had to dispose of their produce at prices ranging from Rs. 80 to 90 a kilo in several districts for want of guaranteed prices.

The government recently claimed that it had delayed the announcement of the guaranteed prices of paddy purposely for the sake of farmers, who, it said, were selling their produce at prices as high as Rs. 140 a kilo. But farmers have rubbished this claim; they have said none of them could sell their paddy at such high prices, and the delay on the part of the government only enabled a group of large-scale millers with political connections to purchase paddy at unconscionably low prices. They have alleged that the government waited until the wealthy millers had finished purchasing paddy to announce the guaranteed prices. Successive governments have done so to enable the powerful millers to maximise their profits at the expense of both rice consumers and paddy cultivators. Whether the incumbent administration will be able to convince the public that it is different from its predecessors remains to be seen.

The onus is on the warring farmers’ associations and the Opposition, which is shedding copious tears for rice growers for political reasons, to prove that there arose a genuine need for higher guaranteed prices of paddy than the ones that prevailed before last year’s regime change; they should prove that the cost of producing a kilo of paddy has increased since September 2024 or so, when the average price of a kilo of rice was about Rs. 170. Were the increases in rice prices during the past several months due to an actual increase in the cost of production? Or, were they due to other factors such as hoarding by large millers? The Opposition, which demands a purchase price of at least Rs. 140 per kilo of paddy, has attributed the steep hikes in rice prices to a secret deal between the big-time millers and the government, hasn’t it? How will it reconcile the aforesaid allegation with its claim that the cost of producing paddy has increased?

Meanwhile, the government has said the certified prices of paddy are aimed at maintaining the maximum retail prices of rice at the current level while looking after the interests of the farmers. The public has been protesting against the prevailing rice prices, which they consider extremely high. Is it that the government has no plans to bring down the rice prices to the previous levels?

Continue Reading

Editorial

Rice-paddy dilemma

Published

on

Wednesday 5th February, 2025

Rice is more than a food item for Sri Lankans; it is a kind of politico-cultural staple. Hence its ability to make or break governments. One of the key factors that led to the 1953 Hartal was a steep rise in the price of rice under a UNP government. The then Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake had to resign when protests went out of control. The SLFP-led United Front government came to power in 1970, promising to make rice freely available at affordable prices even if it were to be brought from the moon, of all places! However, that promise went unfulfilled, and rice shortages, among other things, led to the collapse of that dispensation.

Interestingly, an increase in the price of rice due to a subsidy cut, inter alia, under another UNP government, gave a big fillip to the early growth of the JVP as an alternative to the traditional leftist parties in the late 1960s. About six decades on, a democratically elected JVP-led government is facing a kind of existential problem over some unresolved issues concerning rice. It is a double whammy for the JVP; both rice consumers and paddy farmers are demanding that their competing interests be addressed.

Rice growers are threatening to march on Colombo and stage what they call Aragalaya II unless the government ensures that they get a fair price for their produce without further delay. They have been berating the government for serving the interests of some wealthy millers at the expense of the farming community. The Opposition, true to form, is fishing in troubled waters.

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has been urging the government to set the guaranteed price for paddy at Rs. 140 a kilo. If the government acceded to his demand, how much would a kilo of rice be? Will Premadasa provide an answer?

True, the government is seen to be serving the interests of some big-time millers, who always have the last laugh. People voted the JVP-led NPP into office because they wanted it to deal firmly with all those who were exploiting them. The government has baulked at taking on the millers. However, its difficulties should be appreciated. It is in a Catch-22 situation. It cannot increase the purchase price of paddy without causing the rice prices to increase. Similarly, it cannot bring down the rice prices without lowering the paddy prices.

The government is in the current predicament because it is dogged by the slogans the JVP/NPP used during its opposition days to mobilise farmers against the previous administration. When current Deputy Minister of Agriculture Namal Karunaratne was in the opposition, he pressured the SLPP-UNP government to ensure that paddy fetched Rs. 150 a kilo. Now, he is drawing heavy flak from his erstwhile fellow agitators, who are demanding that the NPP government carry out what it asked its predecessor to do.

It behoves the government and agricultural experts to get their costing right. The average price of rice was about Rs. 170 per kilo when the NPP came to power late last year. The purchase price of paddy was below Rs. 100 per kilo at that time. Rice growers demanded higher prices for their produce, but they reconciled themselves to the market conditions, the implication being that they were either breaking even or earning profits at least marginally; otherwise, they would have taken to the streets, led by the JVP/NPP. The average price of rice increased beyond Rs. 250 per kilo subsequently and the government moved in to cap it at Rs. 230. Has the cost of producing paddy increased steeply since last year’s regime change for the protesting farmers to demand an increase in the purchase price of their produce?

It is only natural that farmers strive to get the highest possible price for their produce, but cost calculations should be done scientifically for a guaranteed price for paddy to be determined. The government should pluck up the courage to stop dilly-dallying and grasp the nettle. Procrastination will only make matters worse.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Ambivalence, irony and reality

Published

on

Tuesday 4th February, 2025

All arrangements have been made for Sri Lanka’s 77th anniversary of Independence to be celebrated on a grand scale today. Interestingly, Independence is being celebrated under a government that is experiencing an inner conflict over when the British colonial rule actually ended in this country. Prior to its ascent to power, the JVP insisted that Sri Lanka had not ceased to be a British colony in 1948; the transfer of the reins of government from the British to a group of Brown Sahibs could not be considered true Independence, and Sri Lanka remained in colonial shackles to all intents and purposes until 1972, when the first republican Constitution was introduced. The government finds itself in an ideological bind in respect of Independence.

Independence Day is an occasion to reflect on the past 77 years and take stock of the challenges that lie ahead. Nothing is further from the truth than the claim that Sri Lanka has not achieved anything since 1948, and the post-Independence era has been a curse. True, misgovernment, corruption and economic mismanagement have brought about the present sorry state of affairs, but the country has not been without post-Independence achievements.

It is a textbook example of irony that Sri Lanka is celebrating Independence while preparing another national budget under the instructions of the International Monetary Fund, and seeking financial assistance from international lending institutions and donor nations. What is described as the largest-ever World Bank loan granted to Sri Lanka is being flaunted as an achievement! What is this world coming to when a country celebrates debt restructuring, foreign loans and aid from other nations?

The ‘Granary of the East’ has had to import rice–this time around, not due to a drop in the national paddy production, but because of the government’s failure to free the public from the clutches of a ruthless millers’ cartel, which is accused of hoarding paddy. Coconut imports are also on the cards. Whether a country that cannot even maintain adequate stocks of salt is equal to the task of investing in the agricultural sector and achieving self-sufficiency in food is the question.

It may not be too cynical a view that the only sector that is booming in Sri Lanka is its state service, which is so huge that there is one public official for every 15 citizens! There are already about 1.5 million state employees, but 30,000 more are to be recruited to the public service under the current dispensation, which has also promised substantial public sector salary increases.

Despite promises of reform, the incumbent government has fallen into the same rut as its predecessors, perpetuating the dependency culture for political expediency in the name of relief provision. It is expected to present an election budget shortly with an eye to winning the upcoming local government polls.

It is time for making difficult decisions to resolve the current crisis, and the need for the rulers and their political opponents to share in the suffering of the people who are making numerous sacrifices in the name of economic recovery cannot be overstated. The least they can do is to give up some of their perks and privileges and reduce the cost of government.

The focus of ongoing efforts to turn the country around has been on political and economic reforms. The near-collapse of the economy has caused economic reforms to get underway in earnest, and much is being spoken about moves to ‘create’ a new political culture. Such reforms are no doubt essential, but the attainment of the country’s desired economic and political goals consists in an effective social reform movement, which alone can bring about a radical attitudinal change in the public, promote rational thinking, and enhance national productivity, the be-all and end-all of economic development.

Continue Reading

Trending