Features
‘Fertilizer Saga’ in Sri Lanka: A Considered Opinion
by Professor W. A. J. M. De Costa
Senior Professor and Chair of Crop Science Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture University of Peradeniya
Why use fertiliser on crops?
Fertilisers are used for two purposes.
One purpose is to provide essential plant nutrients that are required for crops to produce an economically-important product (i. e. food for humans, feed for animals, a variety of industrial products, etc.). Just as people require food, crops require nutrients for producing what is expected from them.
When a crop is harvested and its yield taken away, a large amount of nutrients is taken out of the system (i. e. the soil). Therefore, continuous cropping of a land leads to the depletion of nutrients in the soil. Application of fertilisers to such a soil replenishes its nutrient pool and makes continuous cropping possible. This is the second purpose of using fertilisers.
A natural ecosystem like a forest does not require an external input such as fertiliser because nutrients are not taken out of the system. Nutrients in dead leaves, branches, trunks and roots are recycled back to the soil. It is a ‘closed’ nutrient cycle, as opposed to the ‘open’ system in an agricultural crop.
Inorganic vs organic fertilzers
Inorganic fertilisers (normally called chemical fertilisers) contain nutrients in a concentrated form (i.e. fraction of the nutrient in a unit weight of the fertiliser is high). They are produced via industrial processes or by refining mined minerals containing the nutrient. Three major plant nutrients, viz. nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are supplied as inorganic fertilisers, either individually (‘straight fertilisers’) or in a mixture (‘compound fertilisers’).
Organic fertilisers (organic manures) are raw materials of plant, animal or human origin. When applied to the soil, they decompose and release their nutrients. In comparison to inorganic fertilisers, the fraction of nutrients in a unit weight of organic manure is much lower. Therefore, to give a crop/soil the same amount of a nutrient, a much greater quantity of organic manure than inorganic fertiliser has to be applied. All organic fertilizers are ‘compound fertilisers’ in the sense that they contain a mixture of nutrients though in a diluted form.
When applied to the soil, the inorganic fertilizers release their nutrients quickly. In recent times, nano-scale materials have been used to slow down the release of nutrients from inorganic fertilisers (i.e. called ‘nano-coated slow-release fertilisers’). When applied to the soil, organic fertilisers release their nutrients slowly, because the organic raw material has to decompose to release its nutrients. Natural decomposition is done by naturally-occurring soil microorganisms. Formulations of microorganisms are used to accelerate decomposition and nutrient release from organic fertilisers.
Why ‘modern’ agriculture uses large quantities of inorganic fertiliser?
Global population currently stands at ca. 7.7 billion and is projected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030 and 9.7 billion in 20501. Land area suitable for growing crops is shrinking continuously because of a variety of reasons. Some of the productive lands are lost for urbanisation (i.e. population pressure) while some are converted to alternative non-agricultural uses (e.g. industrial purposes). On the other hand, a portion of lands available for crop production is gradually, but continuously, lost because they become unproductive and economically non-viable due to climate change (e.g. temperatures becoming too warm, rainfall becoming insufficient, etc.) and soil degradation (e.g. loss of fertile top soil due to erosion, loss of soil fertility due to continuous cropping and removal of nutrients without adequate replenishment, development soil problems such as salinity, acidity and accumulation of toxic material).
Increasing population and decreasing arable land area means that we are continuously challenged to increase crop yields per unit land area (usually called ‘crop productivity’) to fulfil the increasing demand for food, feed and the variety of products from agricultural crops. To produce a greater amount of yield from the same unit of land, a crop requires a greater quantity of essential nutrients—there is no such thing as a free lunch in nature— in particular nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). A crop has to obtain this increased nutrient requirement either from the soil (which may contain some amount of nutrients naturally) or via fertiliser applied to the soil. Except the soils in virgin lands, soils in the large majority of agricultural lands do not contain naturally the amounts of essential nutrients in quantities required by crops to achieve the productivity levels to meet the continuously increasing demand. Hence, the need to add large quantities of nutrients to the soil. This has to be done every season as most nutrients added during the previous season are removed as crop yield. Because inorganic fertilizer contains nutrients in a concentrated form, the required quantities of the three major nutrients can be supplied with a manageable quantity of inorganic fertiliser. Supplying of the same requirement with organic fertiliser would require substantially larger quantities, which are either not possible to find due to insufficient raw material or difficult to manage. Hence, the widespread use of inorganic fertiliser in commercial agriculture. Organic agriculture where crops are grown exclusively with organic fertilisers represents a small fraction of global agriculture (a very optimistic estimation would put it at < 5%).
Why the drive towards reduction of inorganic fertiliser use in agriculture?
While providing the required amounts of the three major plant nutrients to sustain crop yields to ensure food security and maintain soil nutrients at levels required for continuous cropping, application of inorganic fertilisers has caused adverse environmental and human health impacts.
Because nutrients are released readily from inorganic fertilisers, a considerable fraction of those added to the soil gets leached into groundwater and water bodies (i.e. rivers, lakes, reservoirs etc..). The consumption of water from such polluted sources has been linked to a variety of human health issues.
Inorganic fertilizers have been shown to contain toxic substances (e.g. heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, mercury, etc.) as impurities remaining in them after their mining and industrial manufacturing process. The accumulation of these toxic substances in the soil and water sources has been linked to certain human health issues. However, it should be noted that organic fertilizers, especially those of plant and animal origin, are not entirely free from toxic substances.
Alteration of the soil environment by adding concentrated nutrients alters the naturally-occurring community of soil microorganisms who perform many important functions in the soil to ensure its fertility.
In economic terms, inorganic fertilisers, most of which are produced in industrialised developed countries by multi-national companies, are prohibitively expensive to farmers in the developing countries.
Because of the above reasons, there has been a drive towards reduction of the use of inorganic fertilisers and a part-replacement of them by organic fertilisers. Such movements have begun in developed countries (as well as in some developing countries) since the1980s and gathered momentum during the last two decades. During certain periods, some countries and regions of countries have been forced to produce their crops largely on organic fertiliser because of circumstances (mainly political) (e.g. Cuba, Northern Province of Sri Lanka during the ethnic conflict).
Current situation in Sri Lanka
The present situation in Sri Lanka has arisen following a gazette notification by the government to ban the import of inorganic fertilizer and synthetic agrochemicals (i.e. insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc.) with immediate effect. The pollution of the water bodies and perceived links to human health issues, such as the Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Aetiology (CKDU) are cited as the reasons for the ban. While there have been a longstanding discussion at many levels of the Sri Lankan society on the role of inorganic fertilizers (and agrochemicals) in causing the above issues and calls for ‘toxin-free food’, the total and immediate ban came ‘out of the blue’ without any consultation (to my knowledge) with any of the relevant stakeholders (e.g. the Department of Agriculture, academia, the plantation sector research institutes, farmer organizations, growers of a wide range of crops or their organizations, private sector organizations in the supply and marketing chain etc.). Apparently, the President/government was acting on the advice of a few university academics (who are either advisors or political appointees as heads of public-sector institutions) and longstanding activists (e.g. Ven. Athuraliya Rathana, Dr. Anuruddha Padeniya et al).
Currently, all relevant public sector institutions have been directed to seek how alternatives to inorganic fertilizer (i.e. organic fertilizer) could be produced and supplied to farmers and growers in adequate quantities required during the Yala season which is already started and beyond. It has been stated in the media that any shortfall for the current season (and probably beyond until adequate quantities can be produced locally) will be provided through imported organic fertiliser. A similar strategy has been proposed for synthetic agrochemicals for which the principal alternative is pesticides of biological origin (i.e. Biopesticides).
Possible impacts of an absence of inorganic fertiliser in Sri Lanka
It is highly likely that in the absence of inorganic fertilisers, the productivity (i. e. economic harvest per unit land area) of some of the major crops in Sri Lanka (e. g. rice and tea), which are crucial to national food security and economy, will decline significantly leading to a decline in the total production (i.e. productivity × cultivated area). At present, Sri Lanka does not have sufficient sources of readily-available organic fertiliser nor does it not have the infrastructure in place to produce organic fertilizers in adequate quantities to fulfil even the minimum nutrient requirement of these two major crops considering the scale on which they are grown.
The prognosis would be the same for a majority of the other annual crops (e.g. cereals, pulses, vegetables, industrial crops, etc.) and floriculture plants (i.e. cut flower and foliage), which are grown on a smaller scale. Some crops such as rubber and coconut may not show an immediate decline in their harvest but will begin to show declines in the medium-term, depending on the existing fertility status of the soils on which they have been established and the overall management status of the plantation and its trees.
Why is Sri Lankan agriculture so reliant on inorganic fertiliser?
The scientific reasons
Soils in Sri Lanka are, by nature, relatively poor in the amounts of essential nutrients (i. e. the three major nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium plus magnesium, sulphur and calcium, which are also needed in relatively large quantities) that they make naturally available for crops growing on them. The natural supply of nutrients from a soil comes when the parent material of the soil (i.e. rocks and minerals) undergoes a very slow, gradual decomposition process called ‘weathering’. The plant nutrients are part of the minerals contained in the parent material and are released to the soil when the minerals weather due to the action of rain and other climatic factors such as temperature. Because of the high rainfall and temperature regime associated with the tropical climate in Sri Lanka, its soils have been highly-weathered over a long period of time (over several millennia) so that the existing soil minerals (the source of natural supply of nutrients) are considerably (if not severely) depleted of nutrients. Because of the high rainfall regime (especially in the wet zone and the Central Highlands and to a lesser extent in the dry and intermediate zones), a substantial portion of the nutrients that are released from minerals via the weathering process are leached and lost to the soil, further depleting its natural fertility.
Furthermore, most of the lands on which crops are currently cultivated in all climatic zones of Sri Lanka have been under cultivation for a long period of time. As explained earlier, long-term cultivation of a soil leads to depletion of its nutrient reserves.
Soils in the Central Highlands and those on sloping terrain in other parts of Sri Lanka are further degraded due to soil erosion caused by high-intensity rainfall. Erosion takes away the top layer of the soil and a substantial amount of nutrients naturally available along with it.
Because of the reasons outlined above, neither the grain yield levels of rice that are required to fulfil the annual national demand nor the green leaf yield levels of tea that would bring the expected level of foreign exchange could be sustained on Sri Lankan soils without providing the required quantities of the three major nutrients via inorganic fertilisers.
It is likely that in the absence of the recommended inorganic fertiliser (especially nitrogen fertilizer) inputs, yield reductions would become detectable in the current Yala season in rice and within a matter of a few months in tea. This is because of the specific physiology of these two crops. Nitrogen is critically-essential for early growth of rice and the leaf growth of tea. Therefore, a shortage of nitrogen to these crops would be felt almost immediately as a retardation of early growth of rice (which would be reflected as a substantial reduction in grain yield) and the weekly green leaf harvest in tea.
Similar to what happens in rice and tea, the retardation of growth and yield is likely to happen with a shortage of nitrogen fertilizer in all short-duration annual crops and commercial plants. Leguminous pulse crops (e. g. soybean, mung bean, cowpea, black gram, common bean, etc.) could be an exception because of their ability to utilise atmospheric nitrogen.
Impacts of a shortage of nitrogen fertiliser are likely to be delayed for a few years (as stated earlier) in coconut and rubber because of their specific physiology where the nut yield or latex (rubber) yield is not as dependent on an immediate nitrogen supply as the grain and leaf yields of rice and tea respectively. However, a shortage of nitrogen will cause a reduction in the internal processes of these plants, which will be reflected in a few years’ time, as a reduction in the processes leading to the production of nuts and latex in coconut and rubber respectively. Recently-planted and younger coconut and rubber plantations will show a retardation of tree growth which will delay the commencement of nut and latex production.
A basic scientific fact which should have been noted by the advisors to politicians, if not the politicians, is that a shortage of nitrogen affects the fundamental plant process, photosynthesis, which is responsible for growth and yield formation of crops2. Shortage of nitrogen, along with shortages of phosphorus, potassium and magnesium, decreases the rate of photosynthesis, which is translated in to a reduction of growth and yield of any crop, which may happen over different time scales in different crops. It is unlikely that in the absence of inorganic fertilisers, organic fertiliser applications would be able to prevent the resulting decrease in growth and yield of a large majority of commercial crops in Sri Lanka.
A few spice crops such as cloves, cardamoms and nutmegs, but not cinnamon and pepper, may escape yield reductions due to a shortage of inorganic fertilizer because they are largely present in homegardens in the Central Province which are generally not fertilized.
Out of the three major fertilizers, containing nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, a shortage would be most immediately felt for nitrogen fertilizer. The impact would be delayed for phosphorus fertilizer and it would be intermediate for potassium fertilizer. The scientific reasons are that nitrogen is the nutrient that is most critically-needed for a large majority of plant processes and is the most mobile nutrient in the soil, which makes it the most susceptible for leaching losses; phosphorus is the least mobile nutrient and therefore, can remain in the soil for
2 Evans, J. R., & Clarke, V. C. (2019). The nitrogen cost of photosynthesis. Journal of Experimental Botany, 70(1), 7-15. An expert review that was published in a highly-recognized scientific journal in plant sciences. Although most of its content is aimed at specialists in Plant Physiology, there are a few paragraphs (highlighted) from which an educated ‘layman’ reader could gather useful insights in to why nitrogen fertilizer is of such crucial importance for crops. a reasonable period of time and can be released to plants slowly; potassium is a nutrient which is intermediate in terms of its mobility in the soil and criticality of its need for plant processes.
What has been the response of the stakeholders?
This is only a snapshot from my perspective based on discussions with professional colleagues and contacts. An overwhelming majority of academics, research officers, extension officers, commercial growers and farmers do not agree with this immediate and total ban of inorganic fertilizers. A minority of stakeholders in the agriculture sector and an overwhelming majority of environmental activists (who unfortunately have no clear idea of how large-scale agriculture to feed a nation differs from growing a few pots of plants at home) have welcomed the ban. A powerful argument of this minority of stakeholders in the agriculture sector is that organic agricultural products (e.g. organic tea) fetches a higher price in the global market and will offset any loss of foreign exchange due to reduced total production. This argument ignores the decline in yield and total production of locally-consumed food (including the staple food, rice), the wide-ranging implications of which cannot be compensated by a higher price (which is unlikely to happen in the highly-volatile local market for agricultural produce).
Where do we go from here?
While disagreeing with a total and immediate ban on inorganic fertilizer, a majority of academics, research officers and extension officers, but not commercial growers and farmers, acknowledge that there is scope for an appreciable reduction in the quantities of inorganic fertilizer (relative to the levels that have been in use before the ban) without incurring a yield reduction. Farmers have been applying the inorganic fertilizers at rates which are above those recommended by the Department of Agriculture, because inorganic fertilizers had been made available to them at a highly-subsidized price.
Research on a range of different crops over several seasons across a range of locations carried out by my research group has shown that 25% of the recommended amount of nitrogen fertilizer can be reduced without incurring a yield reduction.
Therefore, a phased-out reduction of inorganic fertilizer along with a gradual increase of the contribution of organic fertilizer to supply the nutrient requirement of crops is a viable pathway that a majority of stakeholders agrees on. Increasing the contribution of organic fertilizer requires: (a) up-scaling of organic fertilizers that have been developed in Sri Lanka using microorganisms isolated from local soils; (b) developing infrastructure to produce such organic fertilizers at commercial scale; (c) changing farmer/grower perceptions and attitudes on the total dependence on inorganic fertilizers and start using organic fertilizer as a part-replacement via a concerted extension effort. (The agricultural extension service in Sri Lanka, which was acknowledged as one of the best in Asia in the 1980s, have been severely downgraded during the last three decades); (d) initiating a concerted programme to increase the organic matter content of Sri Lankan soils, which would enable them to retain a higher fraction of the nutrients applied to them via both inorganic and organic fertilizers and thereby minimize leaching losses.
Even if all the above are successfully implemented (which will take time especially in the current context), an agriculture sector, which is totally based on organic fertilizer—the first such country in the world according to the President—is unlikely to produce enough food (e. g. rice) to ensure food security in Sri Lanka or generate other agriculture-based products that fetch foreign exchange and support local manufacturing industries (e. g. rubber). Therefore, it is inevitable that a balance needs to be struck between the reduction of inorganic fertilizer (from the levels that were practiced before the ban) and a viable level of organic fertilizer as a part-replacement to provide the full nutrient requirement that a higher crop yield demands.
As a medium-term solution, research on a more balanced form of agriculture (i.e. an optimum combination of inorganic and organic fertilizer) within the climatic and soil conditions that are prevalent in Sri Lanka (while taking in to account their possible changes as part of global climate change) needs to be encouraged via increased funding. Currently, Sri Lanka invests only 0.11% of its GDP in Research and Development (in all disciplines including agriculture), which is one of the lowest even in Asia. Therefore, there is little room for optimism in this regard.
Importation of organic fertilizers
Importation of organic fertilizers is being promoted as a short-term measure to supply the nutrient requirement to agricultural crops during the period when Sri Lanka is expected develop its local capacity to produce organic fertilizers in quantities sufficient to meet the full nutrient demand of the crops. It is said that the quality of imported organic fertilizer will be assured via strict quality control procedures which conform to, for example, the EU Standards. Only time will tell whether this will actually materialize and provide a solution. A few points of major concern are as following:
Quantity
Experienced Soil Scientists and fertilizer experts are of the opinion that concentration of nutrients in organic fertilizers is such that large quantities need to be imported (subsequently transported to fields and applied) to fulfil the nutrient demand to produce the crop yields at the required levels to ensure food security and sustain foreign exchange earnings.
Environmental concerns
Almost all organic fertilizers, being material of plant, animal or human origin, retain a diverse population of microorganisms. Unlike inorganic fertilizers, which are inert material, organic fertilizers are live material. Microorganisms, whether in soils, plants or any other location or entity, are often highly environment-specific. Introduction of such alien microorganisms to Sri Lankan soils could cause all types of unforeseen interactions with local microorganisms. Some of these interactions could have environmental repercussions, which are irreversible as once released to the soil, these alien microorganisms cannot be ‘recalled’. Therefore, it is always advisable and safer to develop organic fertilizers locally rather than importing.
Sterilization of imported organic fertilizer to kill all alien microorganisms via a process of fumigation after importation is suggested as a solution to this problem. However, the large quantities of organic fertilizers that are required to be imported and the toxicity levels
of the chemicals that are used in fumigation could lead to environmental issues that the organic fertilizers are aiming to prevent. Recently, the Cabinet Minister of Agriculture went on record saying that only sterilized organic fertilizer conforming to quality standards acceptable to a government-appointed expert committee would be imported. Given Sri Lanka’s poor record of regulation, implementation and enforcement of quality standards on a range of items, both imported and locally-produced and both agricultural and non-agricultural, it remains to be seen whether these promises will be fulfilled.
Rational medium- to long-term possibilities for reducing the use of inorganic fertilizer while increasing yields of major food crops at a rate required to keep pace with increasing population and consequently increasing demand
A few medium- to long-term options, based on sound scientific principles, are available and are briefly discussed below:
Genetic modification of crops
In addressing the challenges of increasing crop yields while decreasing their use of nutrients (i.e. increasing the yield per unit nutrient used), scientists have been trying to modify the components and steps involved in the photosynthesis process via genetic engineering. One of their aims has been to produce a plant which achieves a higher photosynthetic rate with the same level of nitrogen used. After about two decades of research effort, a recent research publication in the prestigious science journal Nature reports of such a breakthrough in rice3. Reading through it carefully, I gather that this new genetically-modified rice plant (we call them ‘transgenic’ plants) has the potential to achieve a higher photosynthetic rate and grain yield with the same level of nitrogen as the ‘normal’ plants (which are not genetically-modified). However, this is possible under ‘well-fertilized conditions’ meaning that at the currently-used high nitrogen fertilizer rates4. This particular publication does not indicate whether such higher levels of photosynthesis and yields are possible at lower than ‘well-fertilized conditions’ which are likely to prevail in fields fertilized exclusively with organic fertilizer. Nevertheless, as Professor Stephen Long, a recognized world authority on photosynthesis states, the production of this transgenic rice plant could be a ‘game-changer’ to increase grain yield of rice without a proportionate increase in nitrogen input.
However, it should be noted that a considerable time could elapse from the point of producing a ‘transgenic’ plant to developing a new crop variety that could be released to the farmers for commercial cultivation. Yet, this appears to be a solid step in the right direction.
3 Long, S. P. (2020). Photosynthesis engineered to increase rice yield. Nature Food, 1(2), 105-105. A brief comment by Professor Stephen Long on the recent breakthrough in producing a genetically-modified rice plant which is able to achieve a higher photosynthetic rate and grain yield with the same amount of nitrogen.
4 Yoon, D. K., Ishiyama, K., Suganami, M., Tazoe, Y., Watanabe, M., Imaruoka, S., … & Makino, A. (2020). Transgenic rice overproducing Rubisco exhibits increased yields with improved nitrogen-use efficiency in an experimental paddy field. Nature Food, 1(2), 134-139. The research publication which describes the above breakthrough in photosynthesis and nitrogen use. Increasing the organic matter content in soils
Soil organic matter (SOM) is a component of the soil in addition to the soil particles. While the soil particles arise from weathering of rocks and minerals of the soil parent material, SOM arises from the decomposition of organic material added to the soil. SOM helps to retain nutrients and water in the top layers of the soil where most plant roots are also present. In addition, SOM helps to improve the aeration and structure in the soil, which are vital physical properties in the soil to facilitate plant growth.
Except the soils in the terraced plateaus of the Central Highlands, soils of almost all arable crop lands in Sri Lanka have inadequate SOM. This means that the ability of these soils to retain the nutrients that are added to them, especially in the form of readily-released inorganic fertilizer, is limited. Therefore, a concerted effort to increase the SOM status in Sri Lankan soils will enable reduction of leaching losses of nutrients and associated environmental consequences such as pollution of water sources. Increased SOM will also enable reduction of the amounts of inorganic fertilizer applied without causing a shortage of nutrients to the crops as a greater fraction of the applied fertilizer remains in the soil to be absorbed by the plants.
Therefore, while the total and immediate ban of inorganic fertilizer and replacing them with organic fertilizer will not provide the required nutrients in sufficient quantities, the large-scale application of organic fertilizer, if it happens as envisaged, will serve to increase the SOM of Sri Lankan soils in the medium- to long-term. This will make the Sri Lankan Agriculture sector less-reliant on inorganic fertilizers. However, this will have to be a gradual, phased-out transition rather than a sudden, unplanned total ban on inorganic fertilizers. Such a transition should be towards achieving an optimum balance of inorganic and organic fertilizers, which will ensure food security while protecting the environment. This is an endeavour that has been undertaken in many parts of the world, which include both the developed and developing countries, and is termed ‘Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture’5.
5 Baulcombe, D., Crute, I., Davies, B., Dunwell, J., Gale, M., Jones, J., … & Toulmin, C. (2009). Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. The Royal Society. A very useful, concise, but comprehensive description of the salient features of sustainable intensification of agriculture written by a group
of experts from the Royal Society, UK. Can be accessed at https://royalsociety.org/topics-
policy/publications/2009/reaping-benefits/.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
