Features
Forest Governance in Sri Lanka: A political conundrum?
Emeritus Professor Nimal Gunatilleke,
University of Peradeniya
Natural forests provide a variety of services that include forest products of utility value, water regulation, biodiversity and soil conservation, climate amelioration and a range of socio-cultural benefits to forest-dependent people. In good governance of natural resources such as that of forests, transparency and inclusiveness in ecosystem management planning, monitoring, and equitable sharing of benefits are safeguarded. Increased pressure on natural forest resources leads to land degradation, biodiversity decline and contribute to change in climate. Major drivers of tropical deforestation are economic, governance, technological, cultural, and demographic factors, all of which are interconnected and interactive. Among the governance factors which contribute to forest degradation and deforestation are i) policies encouraging forest conversion, ii) unclear land tenure, and iii) poor enforcement of environmental laws.
All these factors seem to be influencing the current wave of forest degradation and deforestation in Sri Lanka. A forest governance conundrum has emerged recently as a result of seemingly discordant interests in forest conservation vis -à- vie land development planning and implementation in Sri Lanka. This has become even more pertinent in this post-Covid era during which the concept of One Health is being actively promoted. One Health initiative is a collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach linking human, animal and ecosystem health which has a deep-rooted cultural significance in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is a party to the three global environmental conventions related to sustainable development (viz. the Convention on Biological Diversity [UNCBD], UN Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification [UNCCD]). All of them have mobilised a strong political commitment as a potential accelerator of ecosystem restoration effort around the world in this United Nations’ Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030) which is being advanced as a unified global strategy towards conserving threatened biological diversity, mitigating climate change, and curbing desertification. This has been further strengthened by the commitments made at the recently concluded UNFCCC -COP 26. Over 130 countries, with a coverage within them of more than 90% of the world’s forests, endorsed the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use committing to work collectively to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. It is said to be backed by the biggest ever commitment of public funds for forest conservation and a global roadmap to make 75% of forest commodity supply chains sustainable.
Sri Lanka has made a conditional pledge to restore 200,000 ha over this decade as its Nationally Determined Contribution to Bonn Challenge commitment, contingent upon the availability of adequate funding. Complementing this international commitment, the Government of Sri Lanka has incorporated in its National Policy Framework – ‘Vistas of Prosperity and Splendor’, a strategy for an increase of national forest cover up to 30% (p.59). Among the proposed activities under this strategy are i) identification and reforestation of suitable lands, ii) restoration and rehabilitation degraded ecosystems and iii) activities related to urban and road-side tree planting. Similarly, in the sub-sector on land utilization in the same document (p. 57), strategies towards i) conservation of sensitive ecosystems to control human impacts on marshy lands and mangroves and ii) restoring barren and abandoned lands for sustainable agriculture and forestry have been proposed.
Despite these national policy proclamations on sustainable environmental governance while, at the same time, complying with international environment-related commitments, recent declarations (in the form of circulars) relating to ‘other state forest lands’ issued by the subject ministries appear to be undermining the laudable objectives in achieving the environmental pledges made by the government. These ‘other state forests’ reclassified in recent governmental circulars as ‘residual forests’ are those located outside the currently declared protected area network. It is estimated to cover about 400,000 ha or more that include fragments of both mature phase forests as well as regenerating forests serving as crucially important biological corridors connecting protected areas mostly in intermediate and dry zone districts.
The closed canopy forests amongst these other state forests are included within the current natural forest cover estimate of 29.2%. The government has pledged to increase this to 30% by 2025 and to 32% by 2030 by restoring degraded forests and deforested lands, mostly found within these ‘residual’ forests. Accordingly, there is a clear government commitment towards expanding the current natural forest cover by 200,000 ha, in honouring these national and international pledges.
However, a disturbing factor that has emerged in recent times is a steep increase of forest offences most of which are encroachments and unlawful extraction of forest products and services. The Forest Department has prosecuted these forest offenders that has steadily increased with over 27,000 court cases since 2006 (especially since 2019), according to the Forest Department records.
On top of this, there appears to be a move to release at least some of these other state forestlands reclassified in recent government circulars as ‘residual forests’ for agricultural expansion (commercial scale?), infrastructure development and human settlements. with a sense of urgency, especially after the Covid-19 pandemic. Government’s thrust towards rapid development in land-use for agriculture, animal husbandry and plantations has put severe pressure on these ‘other state forests’, most of which are located in the Northern, North-eastern and North-central provinces in which only a limited amount of long-term land use planning has gone in since the end of the protracted war in these areas. Therefore, some of the critical areas for conservation in these areas have not yet been included into the national protected areas system.
In such a climate, a series of circulars have been issued since the issuance of the circular MWFC/1/2020 on 04 November 2020 by the Ministry of Wildlife and Forest Conservation rescinding all previous circulars related to administration of these Other State Forests (OSFs) or residual forests to be utilised for development activities. By this new circular, all OSFs, except those that are identified as important for conservation of biodiversity, soil, and water, to be handed over to the provincial and district administration for land development programmes, subject to conditions laid out for proper land use. The subsequent circulars and advisory notes issued by the Land Commissioner General and Forest Conservator General spelt out procedural details in speeding up the implementation process of the MWFC/1/2020 decisions.
This attempt appears to be at variance with the priorities of the National Policy Framework which proposes restoration of barren and abandoned lands to increase national forest cover to 30% by 2025. However, clearing of natural forests or regenerating forests for development-mostly agricultural – without identifying and prioritizing the ecological service value, these attempts may be counter-productive with time creating a forest governance conundrum.
While the Forest Department has identified 389,562 ha of ‘open and sparse forests’ under its jurisdiction in its 2015 Forest Cover estimates, the Land Use Policy Planning Department (LUPPD) has identified a further 373,387 ha of ‘shrub cover’ mostly in the category of other state forests, a total area of open and sparse forest/shrub cover of over 750,000 ha. While a certain level of overlap of these other state forest and shrub cover may be inevitable and hence to be expected, a speedy mechanism needs to be developed to identify these open and sparse forests as well as the shrub cover of LUPPD on the ground.
From amongst them, those which are important for biodiversity conservation, provisioning of ecosystem services, buffer areas for protected forests, riverine/gallery forests and stream reservations, corridors for animal migration and those that are in advance regeneration need to be set aside for increase in forest cover to 30% by 2025 as stated in the National Policy Document – Vistas of Prosperity and Splendor. From a sustainable land development perspective, the remaining degraded lands should be considered for development purposes.
The global priority when it comes to tradeoffs between conservation and development is to conserve relatively intact tropical forests. It has been categorically stated that forest restoration can no way be a substitute for habitat/landscape conservation. Pledges of restoration should not be used to justify forest conversion to other land uses in critical habitats as proposed in the case of construction of Madugeta reservoir near Deniyaya. This reservoir was designed for taking water from Gin Ganga to SE dry zone by submerging a portion of prime rain forest of Dellawa. In this instance, a claim was made to reforest over 100 acres of Hevea rubber as a substitute which was not endorsed by the UNESCO World Heritage Commission. Dellawa forest is in the buffer zone of Sinharaja World Heritage Site and International Biosphere Reserve.
It is clearly evident that Sri Lanka faces a formidable challenge in environmental governance in trading off her critical environmental interests with those of rapid development. This has been further confounded by the lack of employing a proper yard stick in estimating benefits and costs of each competing interest. One of the main impediments in moving along the path of good forest governance in Sri Lanka is our incapacity to estimate a more realistic value of its natural capital including the services the forests provide which can be traded against any proposed developmental alternatives. Valuing natural capital enables governments to account for nature’s role in the economy and human well-being. Estimating the economic value of nature’s benefits, as best as we can using currently available methods, can make the contribution of nature to livelihoods and economies more visible, enabling smarter decisions that account for nature in our economic systems (green economy) and ensuring that it can continue to sustain us.
In this green economic milieu, the green bonds or climate bonds are emerging as innovative financial instruments as the environmental issues are raising high on global investment policy agenda. Green bonds are like conventional bonds, but their only unique characteristic specification is that the proceeds be invested in projects that generate environmental benefits. A green bond could be used to finance or refinance projects that contribute positively to the environment and/or climate. Green bonds can mobilize resources from domestic and international capital markets for climate change adaptation, renewables, and other environment friendly projects.
Green bonds enable governments, corporations and the private sector to borrow capital to fund projects that promote environmental sustainability and a low carbon economy. They are commonly used to finance the following types of projects:
* Natural resources and land management projects,
* Energy efficiency projects,
* Renewable energy projects,
* Pollution prevention and control projects,
* Clean transportation projects,
* Wastewater and water management projects,
* Green building projects.
* Water projects
Some examples of green-bond qualified investment projects in different countries are nature-based solutions such as development of biological corridors, ecotourism projects, certified organic agriculture projects payment for watershed service improvements, and purchase of lands for conservation and restoration purposes and conservation easement projects.
Green bonds are emerging rapidly as key green economic financial instruments at a global scale with over half a trillion dollar investments have already been made during the first half of 2021and ‘1 trillion dollar annual sovereign green bond investment is in sight’ according to the Global Climate Bond monitoring website (https://www.climatebonds.net/).
There are a number of similar attractive opportunities in Sri Lanka to be explored for being eligible for green bond investments. They can even be used for refinancing international debt capital – as debt instruments which is quite appropriate for Sri Lanka at this post-covid state with a heavy burden of international debt. Central and provincial government agencies, municipalities, as well as private organisations, could consider issuing Green Bonds that are focused on biodiversity and sustainable land use, especially in regions that are known for their natural capital and ecosystems (e.g. wetlands in the Weststern Province, watersheds in the Central and Uva province).
The world-renown Sri Lankan agrarian system, the “ellanga gammana” or Cascaded Tank-Village system in the Dry Zone, which was designated as a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) may be an ideal candidate for sustainable development. Further expansion of the Wari Saubhagya programme into the LUPPD identified ‘Shrub cover’ and the remainder of the other state forests having carved out the conservation areas first, could be considered in this context for green bond investment projects with community participation.
In the face of this current conundrum, estimation of the value of forest biodiversity and the ecosystem services they render, would pave the way for investing in green bonds that takes into account the natural capital in our economic systems. Since there are strict monitoring protocols in place for these green investments, the governance factors which contribute to forest degradation and deforestation such as policies encouraging forest conversion, unclear land tenure, and poor enforcement of environmental laws would be minimised.
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
