Govt. backtracks on chemical fertilizer ban

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 The prohibition was announced on April 26 and rescinded seven months later on Nov. 24 this year; but not without tremendous pressure by the scientific/expert lobby and widespread farmer protests.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

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

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

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

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