News
Marambe in President’s delegation at UN Climate Change Conference despite ‘sacking’
Sujeeva Nivunhella reporting from London
Senior Prof Buddhi Marambe of the Agriculture Faculty of the Peradeniya University, removed from all positions held under the Agriculture Ministry for his stance on the fertilizer issue, was in Glasgow this month as a member of a delegation headed by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa attending the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference (COP26).
Marambe was removed last week from advisory positions held under the Agriculture Ministry over his stance on the fertilizer imports, according to a media statement from the ministry. But this had not been officially communicated to him when he was interviewed here last week.
He was a member of the expert committee to formulate a National Agriculture Policy, the Sri Lanka Agriculture Sector Modernization Project and the Smallholder Agribusiness Partnership Program. An Agriculture Ministry statement accused Marambe of rallying the university community, civil society and the public against government’s policy banning the import of chemical fertilizers and of opposing the previous glyphosate ban.
Excerpts of an interview with Prof. Marambe in London:
Q: You have been accused of criticising the government. If that is the case, then how come you were in the government delegation headed by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the the COP26 summit in Glasgow?
A: I did not criticise the government or its concept but only the path it has chosen and methods employed to achieve certain objectives in this effort to switch from chemical to organic fertilisers. As an academic, it’s not my job to be a ‘Yes-man’ when I’m convinced that something is wrong and impractical as in this case.
Food security is a main element of national security. The approach and methods of the government on the basis of wrong advice from vested interests will impact the country’s agriculture sector detrimentally. I wanted to ensure a course correction. Hundred percent organic fertilisers targeted without scientific data and a proper plan is not possible. Precedents of practical experience from Bhutan, Cuba and even the EU where this had been attempted is available.
I’ve been attending climate change summits in my scientific capacity for the past seven years. I am representing my country in negotiations with UN officials and other countries. President Rajapaksa leads this delegation as Head of State of Sri Lanka. There are about 134 countries from the developing world attending this summit. My job there is to present the SL point of view on climate change. If someone says that I am expressing anti-government sentiments, that’s his or her problem, not mine.
Q: There are reports quoting an Agriculture Ministry press release stating that you have been removed from all positions you held at the ministry. What actually happened?
A: I saw those reports and learned of such a move then only. So far I’ve not been officially informed. I am not an official of the Ministry of Agriculture for them to sack me. I am a professor a the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Peradeniya. That is my permanent job. I still work there and am attending this conference officially. The University granted me paid leave to attend this summit. This year I’ve been invited to make a formal presentation which is a rare opportunity because only a very few countries are invited to do so.
With regard to sacking or removal, I will tell you what happened and how. Experts and university professors are invited to be in committees in both public and private sectors. In this case, the said expert must possess technical knowledge at a comparatively higher level and he or she is expected to share that knowledge with other committee members, focussing particularly on the terms of reference of that committee.
University academics are invited to such committees in an honorary capacity. They are not paid jobs. I was invited by the Minister of Agriculture to be on the committee that formulated the national agriculture policy, starting from December last year. We worked for about nine months as a team. We had large number of engagements with stakeholders, participated in consultation programmes and also prepared the final draft of the policy last month and submitted it to the Minister. Incumbent Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Prof Udith Jayasinghe, too was on that committee before he was appointed to his present position. After handing over the final report that committee’s functions are over. That was my association with the ministry. I cannot understand how anyone could remove a person from a non-existent committee. That may be why I was not told of any removal.
Q: There are press releases attributing the removal for being an advisor to CIC Holdings PLC. Your response?
A: Sri Lanka is a small country. We have people who specialised in different areas. Once a capability of a person is established, he/she is in demand. I have been appointed to several committees in different ministries as a resource person expecting my scientific contribution. The private sector does the same. In 2009, the chairman of the CIC requested my services from the Vice-Chancellor of my University to advice their board on agricultural development. You cannot expect a medical officer or a member of Maha Sangha to do that. It’s a job for an agricultural scientist. The Vice Chancellor approved my serving on that board. I attended a maximum of six meetings per year. I was a non-executive director on that board. I was the Assistant Secretary of the Lanka Organic Agriculture Movement from 2001 to 2003 and worked with Dr. Keerthi Mohotti and Dr. Sarath Ranaweera to make sure that the national agriculture development policy 2003 had an organic component.
Q: Would you like to comment on President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s decision to ban chemical fertilisers?
A: If you ask me whether we can grow organic, the answer is yes. If you really want to make Sri Lanka 100 percent organic, you can do that. But why? What are we trying to achieve? Going 100 percent organic is a kind of romantic idea very natural in modern times because a lot of people nowadays are trying to romanticise agriculture.
You cannot expect the head of the state or the minister of agriculture to know everything about agriculture. They are politicians and are here to run the country and make sure it prospers. There are people who advise them during these processes. Since independence our agriculture evolved positively. Anything that would hinder that positive process would be detrimental to our food security.
I don’t blame personally the President or the Minister for what has happened. There are some people who misled them. The president and the minister are at fault because they got advice from wrong people.
To give advice on agriculture you need to have agriculture specialists, not only theoreticians but also those who have worked in the field who know the theory and practice. They should be people who believe in science and do science. Now, please don’t ask me who the advisors I am referring to. State Minister Dayasiri Jayasekera said in public that it was Dr. Anuruddha Padeniya of the GMOA and Prof. Priyantha Yapa from the Sabaragamuwa University who gave the advice. May be there are more. Whoever did, they took the country and its people for a ride.
Q: If we were to adopt to 100% organic agriculture overnight what would happen to the country?
A: Overnight or in years, if you want to change to organic agriculture, you can do it. There are people even now doing organic agriculture and making good money. There are companies engaged exclusively in organic agriculture. They produce organic food, sell their produce overseas and to bring foreign exchange home. That’s fine. We have to promote that segment.
But the present scenario is a different kettle of fish. This is about food security which could be achieved in two ways – one is that we produce food on our own, and the second is to import food to fill any shortfall. To import we need foreign exchange. That’s where our cash crops such as tea become important. Under the present scenario, many agriculture products including tea, rubber and coconut have been affected. In my view, even in the long run we cannot achieve 100 percent organic farming without placing our food security in jeopardy.
Q: What is your view on the fertilizer consignment from China allegedly contaminated with harmful bacteria?
A: We have well-set regulations covering fertiliser imports. Regulations under the Fertiliser Act No 68 of 1988 are very strong and protective. If the fertiliser imported is organic, it means that they contain plant and animal matter. Such imports are covered by provisions of the Plant Protection Act No 35 of 1999. These prescribe mandatory procedures to be followed that are designed to ensure that agencies under the Ministry of Agriculture prevent invasive plants and disease coming into the country. There is a National Fertiliser Secretariat and a Director of Fertiliser but when organic fertiliser is imported it is the Director General of Agriculture who holds the authority, not the Director of the Fertiliser Secretariat. Samples of any organic fertiliser imported must go through tests and analysis at the National Plant Quarantine Service (NPQS). The NPQS is not a stand alone body but is also governed by the provisions of the International Plant Protection Convention of the UN and linked to plant quarantine services of 184 countries.
According to these regulation, a sample of any organic fertiliser to be imported must be first analysed at the NPQS. In this particular instance NPQS found very clearly that there are microorganisms present which are harmful to crops.
When organic fertilisers are imported there is another set of standards set by the Sri Lanka Standard Institute that apply. This stipulates that any such organic import must be sterilised. Whenever a sample fails to pass muster, the supplier has a right to appeal and send another sample for analysis. That’s a well-accepted procedure. So in this particular instance, another sample was brought on Sept 23 and that too failed.
According to testing by the German lab, Schutter Global Inspection & Survey Co Ltd, the sample contains Coliform bacteria. E Coli and Erwinia are Coliform bacteria both of which are harmful to humans and plants. Erwinia was detected by the NPQS in an earlier test done here. The Director General of Agriculture has not issued a permit for this ship to come to Sri Lanka. The ship came in without an import permit covering this cargo. Fertilisers imported to the country cannot contain pathogenic microorganisms that are harmful to animals, plants, and humans. If allowed this consignment would cause irreversible damages to our ecosystem.
News
Unions resist tripartite EPF management plan
… warn of dire consequences
A group of trade unions and civil society groups has requested President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to abandon his government’s controversial plan for the proposed tripartite management of the EPF.
The group has told the President: “We strongly object to the government’s plan to transfer the EPF to a tripartite board—jointly promoted by the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon (EFC), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO)—and to increase the investments of those funds within private equity and debt markets.
“While the EFC and the government jointly project this plan as a ‘modern governance framework’, it poses a serious threat to the EPF’s financial stability, fiduciary conduct, and returns to workers’ life savings, with severe consequences for broader macroeconomic stability. Rather than replacing the corruption existing in the public sector, this tripartite framework paves the way for a corporate takeover of the EPF. Through this, the fund is exposed to unlawful business practices such as insider trading using internal information of EPF investments, conflicts of interest and corporate bailouts of unstable private companies.
“Sri Lanka’s corporate sector has a tremendously negative track record, which you alluded to during your victorious election campaign in 2024. This was recently unravelled by the multi-billion-dollar illicit capital flight through trade misinvoicing, which your administration is now actively working to curb in the imports sector.
“The recent banking sector fraud exceeds Rs. 13 billion; widespread corporate tax evasion destabilised the fiscal position (Sri Lanka Auditor General’s Department Annual Reports) and consequently inflated the tax burden on the general public. The EFC has found it convenient to remain silent about these crimes, possibly assuming that their silence would preserve their social standing. Considering this inherent corruption within Sri Lanka’s corporate sector and its disregard to the living standards of the general public, there is no realistic basis to integrate corporate interests to actively manage the EPF. The corporate sector of Sri Lanka has not developed sufficiently on technical and ethical grounds to safely entrust the largest retirement savings pool in the country. The EPF is a captive fund that has no mechanism for the owners to divest if the management is corrupt. This further increases the possibility of corporate fraud when the management of the fund is jointly held with the corporate sector.
“Furthermore, during the recent public discussion with trade unions, Deputy Minister of Finance Dr. Anila Jayantha pointed out that the domestic debt restructuring (DDR) would inflict a loss of Rs. 600 billion to the EPF. Our independent calculations—formally submitted as an affidavit to the Supreme Court approved by the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations in 2024—reveal that nominal loss alone is Rs. 634.4 billion. When factoring in foreclosed reinvestment returns, the true loss skyrockets to Rs. 1,711 billion, wiping out 48% of the fund’s projected gross income for the 2023 – 2028 period. Under the pretext of safeguarding the banking system, this colossal robbery preserved high yields on government bonds held by commercial banks and high-net-worth individuals, subsequently reaping them astronomical profits. Now, the exact same plunder is rearing its head again disguised as a tripartite committee.”
“The main arguments supporting our resistance and viable alternatives for optimising EPF management directly under the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL), are outlined below.
“Objections to the government’s tripartite proposal:
1. The “International best practice and conflict of interest fallacies”
The government holds that tripartite management of pension funds is the “international best practice” and that there is a “conflict of interest” in CBSL managing the EPF. They are key pillars justifying government’s tripartite proposal.
These two positions are shockingly misleading given that four of the five largest pension funds in the world, in Norway, Japan, the U.S., and Singapore, are managed directly by state bodies or central banks. Therefore, ‘international best practice’ in pension fund management is the exact opposite of what the government and the IMF are proposing. We hence reject these baseless positions.
2. Corporate captivity and bailouts
It is clear that the EFC is desperately pushing for this proposal at a time of global uncertainty, to cushion the effects of the crisis and maximise gains. Under corporate influence within the proposed tripartite board, the private conglomerates can use the multi-trillion-rupee EPF to continue their unstable commercial operations without having to risk their own capital or savings to do so. This will severely erode the financial stability of the EPF and its returns.
3. Risk of front running
“Because the EPF is a colossal fund, its investment decisions can alter asset prices. This creates immense monetary value for the information generated by its investment decisions. Corporate representatives on the proposed tripartite board will be perfectly positioned to use this information to trade ahead of the EPF (front-running), buying assets cheaply and dumping them onto the EPF at inflated prices for guaranteed corporate gain, resulting in a reduction of returns to the EPF.
4. Unavoidable loopholes
“Presence of a separate group of investment analysts, trade union representatives and government officials within the proposed tripartite structure cannot prevent pre-market corporate access to EPF’s investment decisions. Investment proposals made by the analysts has to be first approved by the proposed tripartite committee, making it impossible to prevent corporate access to insider information on EPF investments.”
News
Two arrest warrants issued for Gnanasara thera
The Colombo High Court and Court of Appeal yesterday issued arrest warrants for the Bodu Bala Sena general secretary Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara in a case involving an alleged statement insulting Islam.
The arrest warrants were issued on Tuesday and Wednesday. The Court of Appeal issued an open warrant two weeks after the court rescinded the presidential pardon granted to the thera when he was serving a six-year term for contempt of court.
The Appeals Court also imposed a travel ban on the monk and ordered that the Controller General of Immigration and Emigration be informed of the restriction.
The case was taken up before Colombo High Court Judge Buddhika C. Ragala. Gnanasara Thera was not present when the case was called.
A medical report was submitted stating that Thera was unwell, while his sureties also failed to appear before court. His counsel, Asoka Weerasuriya, told court that his client wished to bring the case to an early conclusion and that representations had been made to the Attorney General in that regard.
However, after considering the submissions, the High Court judge said he was not satisfied with the medical report submitted on behalf of the accused. The court also noted the failure of the sureties to appear.
The judge subsequently ordered that Gnanasara Thera be arrested and produced before court.The Attorney General filed the case under provisions of the Penal Code, alleging that remarks made by Gnanasara Thera concerning the Holy Quran amounted to an insult to Islam.
News
CA dismisses GR’s writ petition against arrest
A two-member bench comprising Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justice Sarath Dissanayake yesterday (1) dismissed a writ petition filed by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa seeking judicial intervention to prevent his arrest under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in connection with the ongoing investigations into 2019 Easter Sunday terror attacks.
The writ petition was rejected in limine.
In the petition, the former President cited Inspector General of Police Priyantha Weerasooriya, Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Director Shani Abeysekera, the Officer-in-Charge of the CID’s Special Investigations Unit and the Attorney General as respondents. The ex-President sought the court intervention after the arrest of former head of the State Intelligence Service (SIS) retired Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay over the Easter Sunday attacks.
Since then , former Director of Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) has been named as a suspect.
Earlier, the Fort Magistrate’s Court imposed a travel ban on him in relation to investigations stemming from allegations made by Asad Moulana in the Channel 4 documentary on the Easter attacks.
-
Editorial6 days agoBirth of a bad law
-
News4 days agoPolice remove Thileepan statue in Jaffna
-
News6 days agoTIN mandatory for key transactions from Nov. 1
-
Features4 days agoThe 22nd Amendment, constitutional recovery and illiberal slippage
-
Features4 days agoOf foreigners as CEOs of Lankan ventures
-
News4 days agoSajith rejects Jt. Opp. protest sabotage claim; SJB TU chief demands remedial action
-
Latest News2 days agoGold winner Tharanga gets brand-new Honda Vezel from SLAAJ
-
Features3 days agoThailand’s biggest new global star …
