Features
What to expect in the short term and long term
Banning the import and use of synthetic chemical fertilizers:
By Darshani Kumaragamage, PhD d.kumaragamage@uwinnipeg.ca
I read with interest and concern the conflicting and controversial views expressed by many experts and stakeholders, regarding the Sri Lankan government’s decision to ban the importation of agrochemicals, including synthetic chemical fertilizers. Undoubtedly, some have genuine concerns regarding the negative impacts of synthetic chemical fertilizers on the environment and human health, while others see the potential threat of a food shortage if synthetic fertilizers are totally replaced by organic sources. Any action adopted in a quest to do the “right” thing should be guided by careful analysis of the expected outcomes as well as the unintended consequences, which are often difficult to foresee.
Based on my training and experience in Sri Lanka and in Canada over the last three decades as agriculturist, soil scientist, and environmental scientist, I will attempt to provide a balanced analysis both from an agronomic and environmental point of view. My hope is that these arguments perhaps could shed more light on different thought processes expressed and guide the momentous decisions that are being made.
Organic farming has its benefits and is gaining global popularity. The demand for organically produced food is steadily increasing, particularly in the developed world. Certain aspects of organic farming such as the avoidance of pesticides, have potential benefits in producing food with less negative impacts on the ecosystem health. However, to date, there is no evidence to support that total replacement of synthetic chemical fertilizers with natural organic sources is better for the environment and human health. I am using the term “natural organic fertilizer” in this article, since urea, the most common chemical fertilizer used in Sri Lanka, is also an organic fertilizer, but synthetically produced. While synthetically manufactured urea is not considered an ‘organic’ fertilizer, manure containing naturally produced urea as a metabolic by-product of animals is an approved ‘organic’ fertilizer in organic farming systems.
Chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu) and agrochemicals
The alarming rate of chronic kidney disease incidences among farming populations in some regions of Sri Lanka is a grave concern. The decision to ban agrochemicals is undoubtedly taken with the best intention of protecting farming communities against this deadly disease, considering that agrochemicals are the root cause, even though this is yet to be proven. I would like to make three arguments against banning inorganic fertilizer and its replacement with organic sources in relation to CKDu prevention. Firstly, the incidences of CKDu are not from the regions in Sri Lanka where farmers use heavy inputs of inorganic fertilizers such as the Hill Country, which leaves us with an uncertainty whether CKDu is indeed linked to fertilizer. Secondly, even if CKDu is linked to fertilizer, replacing synthetic inorganic fertilizer by natural organic fertilizer will not solve the problem as both these sources have similar impacts on ecosystem and human health. Thirdly, unlike pesticides which are toxic by design (since the intention is to kill an organism), fertilizers are not toxic at recommended rates. Therefore, any environmental or health impacts with fertilizers (inorganic or organic) could be better addressed by importing fertilizers with higher standards (with low impurities), combined with efforts to increase awareness to farmers on the use and management of fertilizers.
Based on current knowledge research findings from Sri Lanka and elsewhere, total reliance on natural organic sources to supply nutrients in crop production systems is likely to cause a serious food shortage with negligible benefits to the environment. Below, I am listing some of the challenges in using natural organic sources, and the major concerns regarding the total replacement of chemical fertilizers with organic sources for mass crop production in Sri Lanka.
Low inherent soil fertility. Despite our unsubstantiated belief that Sri Lanka is blessed with fertile soils, the majority of agricultural soils in Sri Lanka exhibits serious fertility limitations for crop production. This is not unique to Sri Lanka, but common to most tropical countries. The soils are much older (highly weathered) than in temperate regions and high temperature decomposes organic matter rapidly while heavy rainfall removes nutrients from the soil system. Therefore, unlike soils of temperate regions, tropical soils have low organic matter, low supply of nutrients, and low ability to retain nutrients. Even if a shift to complete reliance on natural organic sources for nutrients could be sustainable in temperate soils, it is not a sustainable approach for mass production of crops in the tropics.
Nutrients not available at critical stages. Unlike synthetic chemical fertilizers, nutrients in natural organic sources are in a form not readily available to crops until the material is decomposed, which takes time. When organic material is added to soils, activity of microorganisms increases, resulting microorganisms and crops competing for nutrients that are in limited in supply in tropical soils. This may cause an initial deficiency of nutrients at the early, but very critical, stage of the crop.
Food security at a time of pandemic. It is well established that crop yields are usually reduced when nutrients are provided with only natural organic sources, compared to synthetic sources or a combination of them. The most serious and immediate consequence of shifting to total reliance on natural organic sources for crop production in Sri Lanka would be a significant reduction in crop yields, which will threaten the country’s food security particularly at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has interfered with the international food supply chain. Such a move will also have a devastating effect on livelihoods of vulnerable farmers and will impact foreign exchange earnings through plantation agriculture and horticulture.
Myth of healthier and better-quality food. The belief that foods produced through natural organic sources of nutrients are healthier and are of better quality is a myth. Whether we supply nutrients through synthetic chemical fertilizes or natural organic sources, the crop plants take up nutrients primarily in the same chemical forms, i.e., as inorganic cations and anions. On the other hand, recent studies conducted by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the USA has shown increasing incidences of disease outbreaks, which the authors linked to Salmonella and E. coli contamination from animal waste used in the production of organically grown food (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28221898/ ). As such, a cautious and careful assessments of such risks should precede a shift towards 100% organic farming for an entire nation, which is quite a gigantic step.
Bulk quantities required. One of the main challenges in supplying plant nutrients through natural organic sources is the requirement of bulk quantities due to their low nutrient concentrations, which makes it costly and inconvenient to use. While synthetic chemical fertilizers are required in rates no greater than a few hundreds of kilograms per hectare (few bags), natural organic sources are required in a few tons per hectare (truck loads) to meet the crop requirement of nutrients. The economic and environmental cost of long-distance transportation offsets the environmental benefits of organic farming unless the organic material is locally available in adequate quantities.
Pollution of freshwater bodies.
A more serious and long-lasting threat with continuous application of natural organic sources for crop production is the buildup of certain nutrients in soil that eventually ends up in water bodies polluting aquatic environments. Natural organic sources such as animal manure have low nitrogen to phosphorus ratio, and their use to meet the crop nitrogen requirement result in over application of phosphorus to crop lands. This has resulted in P-laden soils polluting surrounding water bodies. Many regions across the world are experiencing algal blooms in freshwater lakes (e.g., Great Lakes in North America, Lake Winnipeg in Canada), with phosphorus from intensive agricultural lands contributing to aggravate the problem. Therefore, regulations for restricting manure applications exist in several provinces and states across North America as well as other parts of the world.
Potentially toxic metals. Potentially toxic metals present in some inorganic fertilizers as impurities (e.g., cadmium in triple superphosphate), poses a threat to human health through polluting drinking water or contamination of food sources, particularly when low quality fertilizers are used. These potentially toxic metals are naturally present in rocks and soils and can remain in the fertilizer after processing of rocks (e.g., rock phosphate), used as raw material. Natural organic sources also contain appreciable quantities of potentially toxic trace elements. Accumulation of toxic metals such as arsenic, cadmium, nickel, selenium, and lead in agricultural soils have been well documented with the application of manure and manure-based composts, which can lead to phytotoxicity and a threat to human health. In this regard, a total shift to natural organic fertilisers could make the situation worse.
My intention is not to undermine the benefits of organic farming, but to caution that more needs to be considered before taking such a huge step as banning all agrochemicals for the entire country. Research findings have shown that the potential environmental and human health threats through the nutrient inputs in agriculture exist even with organic sources. It should also be noted that the early arguments for excluding inorganic chemical fertilizers in the organic farming movement are now being debated by scientists. A concluding statement in a recent review by an eminent Swedish Professor in plant nutrition and soil fertility published in Outlook for Agriculture reiterates that “The decision to ban inorganic fertilizers in organic farming is inconsistent with our current scientific understanding.” (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00307270211020025 ).
What then is the best approach?
Integrating synthetic and natural sources – middle path?
The best approach in my view is to continue taking the middle path avoiding the two extremes. Thanks to the many years of excellent research conducted by scientists at the Department of Agriculture and various Research Institutes in Sri Lanka for various crops in different parts of the country, most of the current fertilizer recommendations takes an integrated approach (or the middle path) combining inorganic fertilizer with organic sources that are locally available. The benefits of adding organic sources to soil is unquestionable; not only do they improve soil properties and soil health but sequester carbon and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in combating climate change. Combining synthetic inorganic fertilizers with natural organic sources provides the flexibility of adjusting the rates as required to supply nutrients in sufficient quantities while improving the soil organic matter and soil health, thus ensuring greater productivity while protecting the environment. It is however important that we address the non-compliance of farmers in the correct use of chemical fertilizers. This can be achieved through comprehensive farmer education and training on the 4R concept of nutrient management (applying the right source at right rate at the right time to the right place) . http://www.ipni.net/article/IPNI-3255 This will improve the fertilizer use efficiency, reduce waste, and minimize nutrient losses to broader environment, which will ensure the most economical outcome, while providing desirable social and environmental benefits essential to sustainable agriculture. Regular soil health assessments and environmental monitoring for pollutants and corrective actions would also be needed.
I have no doubt that the decision to ban the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers in crop production in Sri Lanka, if implemented, will be reversed possibly after a few seasons of cultivation, but that may be too late for the most vulnerable farmers and consumers, and for the maintenance of soil health. I am hoping that professional advisors promoting and supporting the decision to ban the import and use of chemical fertilizers in Sri Lanka, most of whom were my former colleagues, would give more thought to this important decision considering the facts I presented as well as views expressed by other scientists at various forums. If the decision to make Sri Lanka the first country in the world with 100% organic farming remains unchanged, my final appeal is to do it in stages, targeting only the regions that are affected by CKDu as a trial, before implementing it to the whole country without knowing the consequences of such a decision.
About the author:
Dr. Darshani Kumaragamage is a Professor in Environmental Studies and Sciences at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and a former Professor in Soil Science at the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. She has a BSc in Agriculture from University of Peradeniya, M.Phil. in Agriculture from the Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture, Sri Lanka and a PhD in Soil Science from University of Manitoba, Canada. She served the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya as a faculty member for 23 years. She currently teaches courses in “Environmental Impacts of Agriculture”, “Environmental Sol Science” and “Human-Environment Interactions” at the University of Winnipeg. Her current research focuses on assessing and mitigating environmental impacts of agricultural activities with emphasis on fertilizer and manure use in crop production. She continues to actively collaborate in agricultural research activities in Sri Lanka and is involved in training students and early career researchers from Sri Lanka at the University of Winnipeg.
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
