CIMOGG silences its own voice

by Dr A.C.Visvalingam-December 27, 2018, 8:52 pm 

Past President, CIMOGG

acvisva@gmail.com

The Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG) decided recently to silence its own voice. What follows, for the purposes of record, is a brief summary of what CIMOGG endeavoured to do during the sixteen plus years of its existence.

CIMOGG was formed in 2002 by a group of persons who had held high office in the public and private sectors. Even a listing of its better known members would be too long for a newspaper article but it may be mentioned that Walter Ladduwahetty (Secretary/Justice), James H.Lanerolle (Civil Servant) and Dr Shelton Wanasinghe (Civil Servant) served as its Presidents. Among its Honorary Secretaries were General Gerry de Silva (Army Commander), Dr C.T.Jansz (Commissioner of Prisons) and W.B.A.Jayasekera (President, OPA).

CIMOGG was probably the first organization to incorporate the term "good governance" in its name. In 2005, the full name of CIMOGG was translated into Sinhala as Yahapaalana Sandhahaavana Puravesi Vyaapaaraya and into Tamil as Nallaatchikkaana Prajaigal Munnani.

Two basic principles of operation were agreed. One was that CIMOGG would be politically independent and, therefore, free to criticize the government, the opposition or even the public. The second principle that was adopted was that CIMOGG should only be financed by voluntary, unsolicited contributions from its own members. Factually, over the past 16 years, no extraneous local or foreign funding was received by CIMOGG other than small donations from fewer than a dozen well-wishers.

CIMOGG started its program of work, inter alia, with some Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiatives handled "pro deo" by Attorney-at-Law Elmore Perera (EP), retired Surveyor-General. Among the more significant of the petitions filed was one in the Appeal Court (AC) against the then President Mahinda Rajapakse (MR) for appointing AC judges without consulting the Constitutional Council (CC) and a second one in the Supreme Court (SC) against MR for appointing two SC judges, again without consulting the CC. The first one was dismissed by AC President K.Sripavan on the grounds that MR enjoyed "blanket immunity", a position that we did not agree with even then. As for the SC petition, the story of how it was treated has been described in fair detail by the writer in a talk delivered to the Cancer Society on 23 February 2017 (www.cimogg-srilanka.org).

EP’s work was brought to a harsh halt in 2006/2007 by the then Chief Justice Sarath N.Silva (SNS), who had issued a "Rule" on EP, in some other connection, for "not being obedient" to the Supreme Court. The highly respected H.L.de Silva PC prayed that the matter should be dealt with in accordance with the Supreme Court’s current rules for disciplining Attorneys-at-Law. However, SNS insisted on following his own unwritten definitions and rules, and suspended EP’s license to appear in Court for a total period of eight years and 10 months. Following this development, CIMOGG was compelled to end its PIL efforts and, instead, try to build public opinion against poor governance and violations of the Rule of Law by concentrating on writing articles to the newspapers on allied subjects.

It was only a few English-language newspapers that published CIMOGG’s articles. Sinhala-language newspapers to which translations of the original English articles were taken by hand or sent by post were not willing to publish even one of them, apparently because of their fear of what the government of the time might do to them, as dozens of journalists and their families had learnt to their cost. No attempt was made by CIMOGG to get Tamil newspapers to publish its articles because it was credibly assumed that they would be even more afraid than their Sinhala counterparts as to what would happen to them if they crossed the then regime.

Later, in 2012, CIMOGG went to some trouble and expense to publish in book form (Good Governance and the Rule of Law) a collection of its first 100 English language newspaper articles. Although the books were priced in the bookshops at much less than the cost of production, only a handful was sold. A few months later, a book containing about 110 translated articles in the Sinhala-language (Neethiya saha Yahapaalanaya Rajakaravamu) was also published but it attracted even less interest than the English original.

In 2004/2005, CIMOGG had presented to the Dinesh Gunawardene Committee for Constitutional Reform the details of an electoral system that would empower citizens at the periphery, at the Centre, and those in-between, to play a significant role in governing their own areas. However, beyond giving the CIMOGG delegation a token hearing, the Committee did not show any further interest. Later, in 2015/2016, the Public Representations Committee on Constitutional Reforms collected public views but, instead of these being transparently accepted or rejected, six or so Parliamentary sub-committees were appointed to work in secrecy on various aspects of the Constitution.

One may deduce that the above-mentioned "circuses" to ascertain the people’s views were really disguised public relations exercises intended to mislead citizens into thinking that their suggestions would be taken into account. Once the "circuses" had served their propaganda purposes, it was plain sailing to fashion a Constitution that would increase the power of Parliament and enhance the privileges and perquisites of MPs. Even though all MPs declare their unbounded love for Mother Lanka, their inputs to Constitution-writing have always been to include provisions that would effectively increase their direct and hidden earnings.

CIMOGG consistently proposed that the most reliable way to improve governance would be for knowledgeable citizens to collectively work out a people-oriented Constitution from first principles Such a Constitution would undoubtedly have fewer MPs but they would be much better qualified, with specialized knowledge and experience, and be committed to attending Parliament religiously. They would, of course, be paid generously and be expected to deliver value for money.

One of the primary objectives of a Constitution would be to create a clear Sri Lankan identity. To achieve this, the Constitution would have to be strictly secular and contain comprehensive provisions to encourage citizens to think as Sri Lankans first. Needless to say, politicians who win seats by playing the "race card" and "religious card" will fight tooth and nail against such a positive Constitution. CIMOGG, therefore, drafted a Constitution on its own incorporating a few new concepts but the difficulty most people have in "thinking outside the box" has prevented it from being considered in depth.

CIMOGG...

Having been forced, in recent years, to come to the conclusion that the majority of adult Sri Lankans are mentally lazy and unwilling to make any serious effort to work for better governance, CIMOGG decided that, in the long-term at least, it would be more rewarding for Sri Lanka’s future to inculcate concepts of good social responsibility in children of various age groups, from five years upwards. Efforts were made to try to get at least one TV station to include messages, cartoons and stories into existing children’s programs so as to promote behavior that would make at least the next generation of citizens to be more responsible and less destructive than the present one. However, the few experts that CIMOGG consulted regarding this project asserted quite emphatically that our TV media (including the State-owned ones) are interested only in programs that will earn money for them and will do nothing in the public interest. Hence, this proposal had to be put on the back shelf.

It is necessary to recall that it was only in the latter half of 2014, during the last Presidential Election campaign, that the word Yahapaalanaya came into wide use to describe the kind of governance promised for the country by the group that was headed by the Venerable Madhuluwawe Sobitha Thero. Over the past four years, there have been a few important gains – enhanced media freedom, the abandonment of the "white van" culture, the Right to Information Act, the (much-criticised) 19th Amendment and, above all, the liberation of the judiciary from most of the unhealthy pressures imposed on it earlier.

Looking at the negatives, among the worst achievements of Maithripala Sirisena (MS) were his "sacking" of Ms Dilrukshie Wickremasinghe from the CIABOC where she was doing a very impressive job. He went on a lot of expensive tours abroad with family and friends that did not, to our knowledge, bring any economic benefits to Sri Lanka. He dissolved the rightful government unconstitutionally on 26 October 2018, and continued with many acts that have done immense harm to Sri Lanka economically and have gravely injured its international standing. Moreover, with the Police under his wing, all investigations regarding certain important crimes committed prior to 2015 seem to have been put on hold.

As for Ranil Wickremasinghe (RW), he cannot pretend that he did nothing wrong in appointing a non-national to be the Governor of the Central Bank by referring to the appointment of John Exter as the first Governor. He cannot remain silent on why he did not ask for the resignation of Arjuna Mahendran (AM) even after many credible accusations were made against AM. Whilst Ravi Karunanayake (RK) is credited with having financed the UNP very heavily and having the "pull" to get huge crowds of supporters together, the unpalatable fact is that he suffers from so incredible a loss of memory about his financial affairs that no fair-minded citizen will believe in the truth of anything he says, which is hardly a good position for any public figure to be in. As a consequence of RW trying to repay RK, his own standing in the public’s eye has been affected very adversely without in any way enhancing RK’s. Furthermore, RW is held in low regard by many citizens because of his inability to "retire" the loyal old UNPers and introduce the young, dynamic blood that the public wants to see in charge of important Ministries. His dilemma is to show his gratitude to those who have helped him without making them part of his Ministerial team. If RK and the older UNPers would think of the country first and graciously make way for younger party members, public faith in the UNP has every chance of being restored to a higher level.

The people have been particularly disillusioned because both MS and RW have failed to deliver on the promises made by them in the name of the Yahapaalanaya, especially the firm undertakings to get rid of the abominable Executive Presidency, the dangers of which came to be highlighted so frighteningly on 26 October 2018. The investigation and prosecution of crimes of corruption, waste on a gigantic scale, barefaced robbery, nepotism, arson, violence of every kind, kidnapping and murder committed by their political rivals appear to have been deliberately slowed down for fairly obvious reasons. In short, those who voted for MS and, by implication, for RW, in January 2015 have been greatly disappointed. Although these two leaders have done some good things, their attachment to Yahapaalanaya has proved to be minimal. Unfortunately, CIMOGG has got a bad name for no reason other than that many people are under the impression that CIMOGG is an adjunct of the MS-RW government! It also became progressively clear that CIMOGG’s failure to make a conspicuous impact to secure good governance resulted in its own members becoming discouraged to the point of withdrawing from regular participation in its activities. In the light of these facts, the only option left to CIMOGG was self-obliteration, a painful decision that it decided to take on 19 December 2018.

JUDICIAL INTERVENTION NECESSARY TO RESOLVE DISPUTE OVER OPPOSITION LEADER.

27/12/2018

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya has made an initial announcement in parliament that the new Leader of the Opposition would be former president Mahinda Rajapaksa of the SLFP/UPFA.  However, this has been challenged by the TNA whose leader R Sampanthan previously held the position and who has not been removed from this position.  This has led to a situation where there are currently two Leaders of the Opposition similar to the situation of Sri Lanka having two Prime Ministers in the recent past!  The National Peace Council believes that the position of opposition leader cannot be ignored by those who are concerned with political morality and adherence to traditions, conventions and the rule of law

 We note that President Sirisena holds three important cabinet ministries for himself, these being Defence, Mahaweli Development and Environment.  In addition, he has taken a fourth to himself, which is the former Ministry of Law and Order dealing with police and amalgamated it with the Defence Ministry.  By taking these ministries to himself President Sirisena has entrenched himself and SLFP/UPFA policies within the government.

 It can also be seen that President Sirisena is actively participating in governance by vetoing ministerial appointments, appointing commissions of inquiry, and directing the Grama Shakthi development programme, among others.  The appointment of former president Rajapaksa who belongs to his party as opposition leader in this context is a contradiction in terms.  In these circumstances a legal question arises whether the SLFP/UPFA can, or ought to, be given the Leader of the Opposition’s position.

 It appears that the idea of governance of many in the polity is to find loopholes in the law and use political power to get their way. This can be seen in the denial of Mr Rajapaksa and other SLFP/UPFA parliamentarians that they obtained membership of the SLPP.  They were publicly televised accepting such membership shortly after President Sirisena’s abortive dissolution of parliament on November 9 which was ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  In legal terms verbal statements are taken as evidence of contract between parties and thus leaders ought to be bound by their statements for which they can be legally sued or made responsible.

The National Peace Council believes that the judiciary needs to be called on to look into the legal aspects of the conflict and ways of ending it. It is essential that politicians in general and leaders in politics in particular should be held accountable for the actions and assertions they make if the people are to have confidence in governance.  The judiciary seems to be the only institutional vehicle in the polity at the present time that can ensure this level of democratic accountability. Failure to do so will be tantamount to a denial of the aspirations of all Sri Lankans who wish to have a stable government at the dawn of another New Year.

26.12.18/ Media Release / National Peace Council.

Opposition Leader post: it is for the UPFA, not for the TNA

2018-12-28

The debate between the Maithri-Mahinda group and the United National Front over the Opposition Leader post is a best case in point with regard to the ridiculous level the Sri Lankan politics has stooped to. This has introduced a new but totally unnecessary Constitutional conundrum into the Sri Lankan politics.   
The Constitutional impasse that was brought in by the decision by President Maithripala Sirisena to sack Ranil Wickremesinghe from the post of Prime Minister and replace him with former President Mahinda Rajapaksa on October 26 was resolved by the Supreme Court on December 13 by its ruling against the dissolution of the Parliament. However, the political crisis that was created by the October 26 regime change is continuing and the row over the Opposition Leader post is an extension of it.   

President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to change the regime or the October 26 Constitutional coup, as many people call it had paved the way for seven legal actions by various people. They were the case against the dissolution of Parliament, the case seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto against Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Premiership and his Cabinet, Sarath Weerasekara’s case against convening of the Parliament, the case seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto against the Parliament membership of Ranil Wickremesinghe, the contempt of court case against Speaker Karu Jayasuriya over convening of Parliament the contempt of court case against former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva and the writ petition seeking an inquiry into the state of mind of the President.   

Of them, only one case, the case against dissolution of Parliament has been concluded, having a huge bearing on other cases as well and ending for some extent the 51 day political impasse. Yet, there are still possibilities of new political crises cropping up with the rulings on the other pending cases. It is against this backdrop that a new row over the Opposition Leader post has been brought to the fore.   

"The Constitutional impasse that was brought in by the President to sack RW from the post of PM and replace him with MR was resolved by the SC against the dissolution of Parliament. However, the political cisis is continuing"

Mahinda Rajapaksa was recognised as the Opposition Leader on December 18 by the Speaker following his resignation as the Prime Minister three days before, in the face of his inability to muster the majority support in Parliament. Then Tamil National Alliance (TNA) leader Rajavarothiam Sampanthan stated that he who had been holding the Opposition Leader post for three years had not been removed from the post by anybody and therefore he was still the Opposition Leader. He also said that in the light of the recognition of Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Opposition Leader, there were two Opposition Leaders in Parliament.   

Along with this law point by his leader, TNA Spokesman M.A. Sumanthiran also dropped a bombshell by arguing that Mahinda Rajapaksa and some of his loyalists have lost their Parliament membership as they have obtained the membership of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) a month ago. He quoted the Constitution as saying “Where a member of Parliament ceases by resignation, expulsion or otherwise, to be a member of a recognised political party or an independent group on whose nomination paper his name appeared at the time of his becoming of such member of Parliament, his seat shall become vacant upon the expiration of a period of one month from the date of his ceasing to be such member.”   

"In the light of the recognition of MR as the Opposition Leader, there were two Opposition Leaders in Parliament"

"TNA Spokesman Sumanthiran by argued that MR and some of his loyalists have lost their Parliament membership as they have obtained the membership of SLPP a month ago"

This prompted a frightened Rajapaksa and his group in the House to unashamedly deny that they obtained the membership of the SLPP. Their audacity to tell the people such a diabolical lie despite the whole country having watched them in TV getting the membership of the SLPP was amazing. SLPP National Organiser and Rajapaksa’s brother Basil Rajapaksa said that though members of the SLFP including his brother applied for the membership of his party, they had not been given it yet.   

It was on November 11, amidst the post dissolution constitutional gridlock that Rajapaksa obtained the membership of the SLPP from its Chairman Professor G.L.Peiris and his loyalists in turn got it from him.   
When the UPFA members in Parliament said that they, including Rajapaksa were still the members of the SLFP and the UPFA, Sumanthiran dropped another bombshell questioning as to how the members of the party headed by the President who is also the head of the Cabinet can be the members of the Opposition. In spite of Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader Udaya Gammanpila having answered this question citing precedents in history, the Mahinda loyalists seemed to be perplexed by Sumanthiran’s question.   

"MR’s and his group’s denial that they obtained the membership of the SLPP was amazing"

"The power struggle manifested through the 51 day Constitutional and political impasse had brought the State machinery to a standstill position"

Yet, Sumanthiran seems to be wrong in his both arguments. The Constitution says one would lose his Parliament membership only if he lost the membership of the party through which he was elected or appointed to the Parliament. It does not say that he is no longer an MP if he obtained the membership of another party. Therefore, one can be an MP so long as he is a member of his original party, despite him becoming member of any number of other parties.   
Fortunately for Rajapaksa and his loyalists, they had not been removed from the membership of the UPFA, the party through which they were elected and appointed to the Parliament, for obtaining the membership of the SLPP. UPFA General Secretary, Minister Mahinda Amaraweera, after this issue cropped up had informed the Speaker that Rajapaksa and his loyalists were still the members of his party. Therefore, Rajapaksa, the Kurunegala District MP and his group seem to be out of danger.   

Even if they lose the membership of the Parliament, another set of UPFA members would replace them, maintaining the status of the UPFA as the main Opposition party. They would then again be able to lay claim to the Opposition Leader post.   
And, as Gammanpila cited from history, despite the President Constitutionally being the head of the Cabinet, his party had been in the Opposition and one of the members of his party had been the Opposition Leader for four times in history. It was Gamini Dissanayake who held the Opposition Leader post during President D.B. Wijethunga’s tenure, after the General Election in 1994. President Chandrika Kumaratunga appointed her party stalwart Ratnasiri Wikramanayake as the Opposition Leader in 2001 and in 2015, when Maithripala Sirisena won the Presidential Election, Nimal Siripala de Silva was appointed Opposition Leader.   
In spite of there being a moral issue in the President being the head of the Cabinet while his party is in the Opposition, it has been history, apart from the Constitution having sanctioned it. 

"The Constitution says one would lose his P’ment membership only if he lost the membership of the party through which he was elected or appointed to  P’ment. It does not say that he is no longer an MP if he obtained the membership of another party"

A party cannot be the ruling party just because its leader is the President of the country, as it would lead to situations where the party with the majority power might become the Opposition.   
Sampanthan may not be removed yet from the post of Opposition Leader. But he is well aware that he does not command the confidence of the Opposition, after October 26. The TNA opposed Mahinda Rajapaksa’s recent appointment to the post of Prime Minister on the ground that he did not command the confidence of the Parliament. 

Then, how can it be appropriate for Sampanthan to lay claim to the Opposition Leader post when he does not command the confidence of the Opposition?   
The power struggle manifested through the 51 day Constitutional and political impasse had brought the State machinery to a standstill position. Prolonging the power struggle through more Constitutional issues would not in any way be in the interest of the people.   

Misappropriating Public Funds By Yahapālana Activists: Viyangoda Avoids Key Questions Over His Son-In-Law’s Questionable Deals With Selacine

DECEMBER 27, 2018

 Balaya Co-Convener Gamini Viyangoda, who had sent Letters of Demand to four parties demanding Rs. 500 million over their claims to the effect that he obtained sponsorships from Selacine and Litro Gas, has avoided key allegations levelled against him over misappropriation of public funds.

Viyangoda sent Letters of Demand to SLFP (SLPP) MP Kanchana Wijesekara, Iththekande Saddhatissa Thera, Magalkande Sudantha Thera and the ‘Sathi Aga Aruna’ newspaper owned by businessman Dilith Jayaweera.

Viyangoda, in his Letters of Demand, said he never obtained money or sought sponsorship from Litro Gas or Selacine, two state-run entities currently at the heart of a controversy over dishing out money to several civil society activists supporting ‘Yahapalanaya’.

However, Viyangoda, in his letter, conveniently avoided the ‘real allegation’ against him, by not addressing the issue surrounding his son-in-law, Subhash Pinnapola, who engaged in questionable business deals with the state-owned company Selacine.

Pinnapola, who was the Executive Creative Director at Leo Burnett and Chief Creative Officer at TBWA, formed his own creative agency Storybook in January 2018.

Shortly after the formation of the company, Pinnapola received generous subcontracts from Selacine, a state-owned company that came under the purview of Samaraweera. Documents seen by Colombo Telegraph prove that Selacine has made payments to Pinnapola’s company, under direct authorization by Minister Mangala Samaraweera, as senior officials of Selacine were reluctant to proceed with the payments, as they had doubts about the procurement process.

The documents relating to the payments made to the company owned by Pinnapola warrants an investigation by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption (CIABOC)

“It was Viyangoda who was Pinnapola’s main link to the government. Viyangoda’s involvement in the Common Candidate’s election campaign in 2014-15 ensured that he established strong connections with the leaders of the ‘Yaapalanaya’ government, including Mangala Samaraweera,” a source close to Samaweera told Colombo Telegraph.

It is now clear that Viyangoda’s Letters of Demand were a blatant attempt at drawing more money from those who levelled allegations against him, without digging into the core questions surrounding his financial transparency.

Meanwhile, Viyangoda’s colleague, People’s Movement For Just Society stalwart Sarath Wijesuriya has also failed to respond to the main allegations against his conduct. Wijesuriya came under severe criticism for obtaining money from state institutions as “sponsorships” for his book launch.

The National Lotteries Board has granted Wijesuriya a sponsorship of Rs. 350,000 covering the full cost of one of his book launching ceremonies. The sponsorship letter, written by Wijesuriya to the management of the NLB, is now in the public domain. It is learnt that Wijesuriya has written similar letters to several state institutions and obtained money from them for the same event, despite the NLB covering its full cost.

Wijesuriya, another leading ‘Yahapalanaya’ activist, is yet to publicize the full budget of the book launching ceremony under question.

It is also important to examine whether Wijesuriya sought similar sponsorships for his book launching events from state institutions before the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government came to power.

Read More

A second bond commission should be appointed to investigate frauds committed 1st April 2016 to December 2017

December 27, 2018 by

A second bond investigation commission should be appointed to investigate the loss incurred between 1st April 2016 to December 2017 by the country in relation to the Central bank bond frauds states the convener of Voice Against Corruption (VAC) Wasantha Samarasinghe.

He further said the President of the country himself has said the bond frauds have been continuously committed from 2008 to 2016. In appointing a second bond commission attention should be drawn to this matter as well.

Also, a large number of persons who have been named as offenders by the bond commission have been presented with ministerial portfolios when the cabinet was amended last.

The President, instead of revealing the hidden portions of the commission report or reject giving ministerial portfolios for those found guilty by the Commission, did not even oppose giving them portfolios pointed out Mr Samarasinghe. It is because the ministerial portfolios in the government formed conspiratorially by President Maithripala Sirisena and Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa were given to those individuals who had been named as large scale fraudsters by the bond commission appointed by President Sirisena himself.

Lessons learned from a catastrophe - EDITORIAL

2018-12-28

ri Lanka’s vulnerability to succumb to natural disasters was probably the pick among the topics spoken on Boxing Day (December 26) as the island commemorated the horrifying tsunami experience we had 14 years ago.
The main commemoration programme this year was held at the Peraliya Tsunami Memorial in Thalwatte, Galle. As those affected by this tragedy, which happened in 2004, wiped away tears and remembered the dead on Wednesday, the people in the north are reported to be negotiating a flood situation which has caused havoc in several areas. 

All these issues point out that Sri Lanka as a whole is not prepared fully to face a natural catastrophe; especially when water is the mode of disaster.
Sri Lanka’s Disaster Management Centre is vocal when there is a threat of a catastrophe; via floods or landslides. But the disparity that exists regarding what can be done and what is done eventually by the authorities puts us to shame. 

Sri Lanka’s tsunami story is riddled with guilt and shame. The islanders received ship loads of aid from donors in attempts made by the outside world to heal wounds, both physical and mental. But much of it went into the wrong hands as the island paid its price for not having an honest and efficient distributing system.
Critics point out that if that aid was used properly Sri Lanka could have recovered fully from the damage caused and also saved some of it for future economic development. The questionable activities which took place at the Tsunami Aid Centres and the Help in Hambantota Project underscore the fact that we did have authorities who had hearts of stone. 

It didn’t come as a surprise when some organisations, knowing the set-up here, decided instead to take the tsunami aid to other nations affected by the tidal disaster.
Back then the brunt of the damage caused by the tsunami was experienced by the people living in the north and the east. That was a time when the island’s northern and eastern parts were affected by the war against terrorism. The biography penned on the late Thamilini Jeyakumaran (An ex-tiger rebel) and titled ‘Thiyunu Asipathaka Sevana Yata’ gives an account of how the Sri Lanka Army and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam were engaged in aiding those affected by the tsunami. According to the book there had been heated arguments between the two parties to the conflict when carrying out efforts to distribute aid items to those affected by the catastrophe. 

Even in the year that we Sri Lankans first came to learn about the tsunami, we showed that we were not prepared to work in unity.
Now the call comes again from these same war-torn northern areas of the country which are submerged due to floods. The rains are reported to be less, but the people in areas like Kilinochchi, Jaffna, Mullaitivu, Mannar and Vavuniya district can’t still return to their homes.
We have come to know that the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is preparing to visit these areas. As much as Rs 50 million has been set aside to offer aid to those people affected by the catastrophe; where the number given is in the range of 96,000. 

We are helpless when the impending disaster is greater than the technology we possess and our resolve to face it. Given the geographical placement of some areas of this island, their people are vulnerable to be effected by floods. This is a time when the initiative of the authorities must be carried out in full force. This is a time when the authorities must forget the past conflict and give with both hands the donations that have come from Government and Private collectives. 
It is heartening to hear that the Northern Province authorities have already taken the initiative to clean up drinking water resources in flood affected areas. This is vital to stop the spreading of waterborne diseases. 

The tsunami taught us that a catastrophe doesn’t distinguish between whether one belong to the majority or minority. When disaster strikes the pain is the same, regardless of who you are.
Let the feeling of brotherhood spread as the flood waters recede.  

Three things to remember when working with farmers in establishing agricultural value chains

In setting up agricultural value chains, three things are important to remember; farmers respond to incentives, most agricultural value chains are primitive at farmer level, and climate change is real

– Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

 Thursday, 27 December 2018 

What is the most important element in an agricultural value chain? An agricultural value chain is a collection of many stakeholders. Some of these stakeholders are rent seekers, such as the middle tradesman, transporters and buyers (including exporters). Some stakeholders are there to make sure the governance of the value chain. Those are government institutions, certification entities and quality checking officials (such a quarantine officers, custom officers and GAP officers). 

All these stakeholders play an important role in making the agricultural value chain sustainable. However, I argue that farmer is the single most important element in ensuring the sustainability of the agricultural value chain. It is important that we understand the farmer to the best ability we can.
For the longest time, farmers, especially the small holder, was seen as a price taker with no or limited ability to decide on the price. Therefore, they were a source to be exploited by the other rent seeking stakeholders in the agricultural value chain. But it is important to see whether this conventional thinking can be challenged.

Transaction costs have pushed farmers to be price takers. Inability to deal with increasing transaction costs in terms of agricultural information and market information have cornered farmers to give in to the pressure from rent seekers and accept less. But increasing involvement of ICT initiatives, agricultural insurance and technology transfer into value addition have given farmers new tools to break away from just being a price taker. Therefore, slowly but surely, farmers are becoming the most important element in an agricultural value chain.

Imagine a situation where framers decide what to cultivate (based on the market, price, agro-ecological and crop cultivation information they have) and they trade what they produce at an online market place with no involvement of middlemen with 100% traceability. Isn’t this the goal we want to achieve with our agricultural value chain? Isn’t this one of the disruptive innovations we are looking for in agricultural value chains? However, in order to achieve this status fully, we need to carefully consider some important areas.


Farmers respond to incentives

There are two types of farmers. Farmers who produce for their own consumption and farmers who produce for commercial purposes. Commercial farmers can be at different levels. There are farmers where their main objective is commercial production and they spare some of that for their own consumption as well.

At the same time there are farmers who in general produce excess amounts, they either store that or sell at a convenient price (for the convenience let’s call them semi-commercial farmers). These types of farmers respond to different incentives. For example, price could be the single most important element for a farmer who puts up excess produce for trade. As price becomes attractive they will be producing more for commercial purposes. However, price might not be a convincing factor for a subsistence farmer since land might be the biggest constraint they have to expand. Therefore, anyone who is establishing an agricultural value chain first needs to understand their farmers and then the incentive structure around them.

For anyone who is trying to establish a local market oriented agricultural value chain, working with semi-commercial farmers would be alright. However, for someone who is looking to establish an export oriented agricultural value chain the best option is to look for a commercial farmer.

The main focus of this article is on establishing export-oriented value chains. Therefore, I would like to explore the incentive structures around farmers in export-oriented value chains. Export-oriented value chains are capable of yielding higher prices. However, there are well-defined quality parameters to adhere to.

For example, okra is a crop that is demanded by local as well as export-oriented value chains. While the local value chains do not require any specific quality parameters, export-oriented value chain is all about quality parameters. Export-oriented value chain accepts a certain size, a colour and a shape. In order to maintain these quality parameters, it is important that a certain variety are cultivated and crop management practices are followed, especially the harvesting intervals. Therefore, going in to the export-oriented value chain there are several and specific transaction costs to the farmer.

To be more specific with an example, short-term vegetable varieties that are recommended for export-oriented value chains require at least six seed packets (250g each) for an acre. One seed packet is close to Rs. 3,000, therefore seed cost for an acre is on average Rs. 18,000. Compared to this, the seed cost of a local-oriented value chain is far less. Therefore, farmers are interested in export-oriented value chains as long as all these costs are covered with enough incentives. While farmers who are in a local-oriented value chain get Rs. 35 per kg, farmers in the export-oriented value chain get Rs. 130 per kg. Therefore, price is a major incentive for farmers to operate in export-oriented value chains.


Is higher price the only incentive? Not really. One of the biggest transaction cost in a local-oriented value chain is finding a market place. On any given day there are plenty of lorries lined up at Dambulla Regional Economic Centre loaded with vegetables and fruits. Entrance is not necessarily on a first come first served basis.

There are many factors that decide which farmer/trader gets to enter into the market place first, however it is clear that connections are an important element. Therefore, there are farmers who comes early in the morning with a lorry load of fruits and vegetables but have to wait till the last hour of the day to have an offer from a buyer. This will limit the ability to bargain for a better price.

Most of the time farmers hire lorries to bring their produce to the market place, therefore they can’t take the produce back and come the next day. To make things more difficult, farmers don’t have cold storage facilities, so they need to sell on the same day. At the end, during the last hour, farmers will end up selling their produce for pennies.

An export-oriented value chain that works with a forward contract agreement will have a harvesting and a delivery schedule. Most of the time the exporter/collector will come and pick up produce from the farm gate, or farmers will have to bring produce to a collection centre. There will be a time specified to come to the collection centre as well, for example short-term vegetables are usually harvested with a couple of days’ interval and harvesting is done early morning and collection centres will accept produce from morning to evening.

This gives flexibility to farmers since they don’t have to go early in the morning and wait in a line. They are sure that their produce will be taken in since they have a forward contract. Therefore having a market place is a major incentive for a farmers to get into an export-oriented value chain.


Most agricultural value chains are still primitive at farmer level

This is a popular mantra among experts who advocate value chain development. This is partly true; we need accept that our value chains can be better. Therefore, we would hear most experts saying that farmers need to start value adding before selling to the next point in the value chain. However, this is always not true. You won’t be able to say exactly whether value addition at farm level would yield higher returns unless proper gross margin analysis and opportunity cost calculations are done.

Therefore, higher level of technology adoption might not be feasible for all value chains given the current conditions. Argument is that, there has to be enough and proper incentives for farmers to do so. This way a balance between opportunity cost of production and premium gained from value addition will be balanced.

Let’s take a popular example from a short-term fruit and vegetable value chain. One of the simplest technology adoptions we talk about in these value chains is the use of agricultural crates for transportation. This has a clear justification and a purpose.

Nearly 40% of harvest is lost during transportation. One of the ways to minimise this is to use agricultural crates with proper packing methods. For example, short-term vegetables need to be stored in layers when using agricultural crates. Layers can be separated using clean and clear white colour papers. However, this hardly happens.

There are popular hypothesises for not practicing this. Some argue that the prices of agricultural crates are not attractive for farmers. This could be true. An agricultural crate that can hold 25kg of harvest will cost around Rs. 1,000. A farmer who has one acre of short-term vegetable that produces 200kg every other day will have to have 16 crates at his disposal to do this operation effectively. This means that cost will be around Rs. 16,000 for crates only.

Another popular hypothesis is formed around management of crates at the market place. Farmers bring harvest in creates and they will be unloaded at the economic centres. Most of the times, these crates will not be given back to farmers, rather another set from another farmer will be given back. Therefore, if I am a farmer, I might bring my harvest in brand new crates but I will be given heavily used ones in return. This happens since there isn’t a proper crate identification system in place.

Another popular hypothesis is around logistics. A crate has a maximum limit. Most of the time, based on the crop you will not pack even the maximum amount. For example, brinjal might be okay to pack to the maximum limit but it is not advised for a crop like okra. Okra has a softer skin that can get damaged easily and discoloured with contact and pressure.

Farmers and collectors use lorries to transport their produce to regional economic centres. On average a lorry will charge at least Rs. 35 per km (most of the time this will be done on a trip based cost rather than per km rate). Farmers and collectors will want to transport as much as possible in a single trip. If crates are used, a usual lorry (this is the DIMO batta lorry) can pack up to 1,400kg, using 25kg capacity crates.

All that I explained above are disincentives for a farmer to use agricultural crates. A farmer’s best possible incentives for using these crates are less post-harvest losses in transportation, and may be better price because the harvest will be less damaged. While post-harvest losses will definitely go down by using crates, it does not guarantee a better price. Therefore a farmer will evaluate all these incentives and disincentives before making a decision whether to use crates or not.

At the moment disincentives easily outweigh the incentives and you can’t expect farmers to adopt creates. However, in order to get “primitive condition of using gunny bags for agricultural packing and transportation” out of agricultural value chains, it is essential we create enough incentives to adopt agricultural crates. The important question is, how?

Introducing agricultural crates are easy for export-oriented value chains. Penalties in post-harvest losses are high, therefore there are enough incentives for a farmer to make sure he packs things properly. Export-oriented value chains are built on traceability (we still have a long way to go in implementing this properly. Traceability does not mean that, you are directed to the company website once scanned. This should have more information such a farmer information, geography, field information, crop information, etc.).

Studies have shown and exporters will tell that traceability attracts higher prices from consumers. Therefore, agricultural crates with proper traceability system will be the future for export-oriented value chains and the incentive structure around is relatively developed. However, this is not clear in value chains that produces for local markets.

Supermarket chains are doing a good job promoting agricultural crates but only a very small fraction of farmers are working directly with supermarkets. Though supermarkets most of the time offer higher prices compared to other local markets, it does not compensate the opportunity cost of using crates. Therefore, what could be the incentive structure around a farmer that produces for a local market?

If a farmer is producing for an export-oriented value chain, that means he produces for a local market as well. For example, TJC mango value chain producers three grades. Grade 1 is for the export market. Grade 2 is for the local market where it might end up in supermarkets and grade 3 will go for processing (pulp and chutney making).

Grade 1 definitely has to be transported in crates and traceability is a feature that is slowly but surely being introduced to this value chain. Therefore, for a farmer in this value chain, there is little opportunity cost to continue to use crates in dealing with grade 2 and 3 as well. Now that happens if the value chain is only focused on producing for the local market (which majority of farmers do).

Under the current situation, regional markets such as Dambulla will not give you a higher price based on whether creates are adopted or not. Therefore, rather than trying to persuade farmers to use crates (the conventional supply driven approach), I argue that we should provide incentives to the buyers of the local markets to push excepting harvest in creates only (this is the demand driven approach).

Establishing these incentives will take time and might seems impossible. Whether it has to be market conditions or attitude changes, it will take lot of effort since for the moment price signals do not provide any incentives even for the buyers. We can move further in the value chain to look for an answer.

Consumer awareness in consuming better produce is increasing. I am sure every one of us has the experience of trying to sort vegetables into a bag or a basket at the market, trying to see what is not discoloured and damaged. How much extra will we pay not to do that anymore? If the consumer (demand side) is willing to pay a higher price, then that can be transferred along the value chain to farmer as a price signal to adopt crates.

My argument is, what goes along the value chain will be a price signal, but what generates that will be an attitude change starting from the point of demand: the consumer.


Climate change is real

Whether we like it or not, climate change is real and its impacts are clearly evident. Agriculture will be heavily affected by climate change. Shifting of seasonal rainfalls, changes in rainfall intensity, floods, droughts, changes in day and night temperature will affect agro-ecological systems. These systems will not be able to maintain a sustainable production anymore and there will be more food security related issues. Overall, uncertainty around agricultural production will increase.

Uncertainty is a part and parcel of agriculture. However, these uncertainties were more predictable. Farmers used to predict weather events using their indigenous knowledge. Looking at how animals, especially birds behave, observing the cloud patterns and changes in the ambient temperature and wind speed, our farmers were able to predict whether they would receive rainfall in the near future or whether there would be prolonged droughts.

Climate change has changed all these signals in the environment and these observations are no longer valid. Therefore, uncertainties around agricultural production has increased drastically. Whether these changes have affected the incentive structures around the sustainability of value chains and how farmers will approach a particular value chain is an important question to look at.

Agricultural insurance is something that is very important to address the issues of uncertainties in agricultural production. However, this was something hard to promote among smallholder farmers in developing countries and it is nothing new to Sri Lanka as well. However, before the era of climate change farmers were able to predict weather-based uncertainties to a greater accuracy. Therefore, there weren’t much incentives for farmers to buy insurance since they could easily forgo cultivating during the uncertain periods.

However, as explained earlier, this is not possible anymore. Usual weather pattern does not exist anymore and that has created a demand for climate-based insurance products. Indemnity-based insurance schemes are going out of fashion and now the demand is for index-based insurance schemes and weather index-based insurance schemes are essential. Therefore, climate change has created a secondary market for agricultural insurance and that is essential for the sustainability of the agricultural value chains.

Forward contracts are something not easy to implement in agricultural value chains, especially in the short-term fruit and vegetable value chains. Farmers had a fairly good idea about the seasonal production and they knew when the price would go up and down. Because of this, they were reluctant to get into forward price agreements especially during the times when they knew they would have a better price in the spot market.

However, climate change-induced uncertainties are changing the seasonal production patterns and historical production patterns do not hold anymore. Therefore, holding off for a better spot market price is becoming less and less attractive for farmers. Rather a forward price agreement will guarantee them an average price that can compensate the uncertainties of climate change around agricultural production. This is in fact a positive impact of climate change. Increase in farmer willingness to accept forward price agreement with uncertainties induced by climate change will help value chains to be more formalised and sustainable.

Agriculture in the open field is always risky. Agriculture practiced under a controlled environment will have less issues of pest and disease attacks and weather changes. However not all farmers can afford agriculture under a controlled environment. Though green houses and drip irrigation is more beneficial, it is costly.

Farmers are increasingly realising that open field agriculture is becoming riskier with climate change. This will create an issue of sustainability in agricultural value chains. Therefore, more and more farmers, especially the ones who are into export-oriented value chains, are adopting agriculture in controlled environments. With controlled environments, farmers are able to do year-round production and a lesser exposure to heavy rainfalls, droughts, and pest and diseases. Therefore, climate change impacts are creating a demand for adopting new and high-end technologies in agricultural value chains.

With climate change farmers will have enough incentives to move towards control environments more and more rather than working in open fields. Furthermore, with controlled environments agriculture producers are looking at incorporating the next generation of technologies such as IOTs (Internet of Things), machine learning technologies and Artificial Intelligence (AI) into agricultural production.


Summary 

In setting up agricultural value chains, three things are important to remember; farmers respond to incentives, most agricultural value chains are primitive at farmer level, and climate change is real. Careful evaluation of these conditions will give us a clear idea why stakeholders in an agricultural value chain behave in such a way. Incentive structures will explain why a particular stakeholder behaves in such a way.

Understanding why most agricultural value chains are primitive at farmer level will help design alternative incentives for modernisation. Finally, accepting the realities of climate change might open up incentives for innovations in agricultural value chains such as crop insurance, forward price agreements and agriculture in controlled environments.



(The writer is an agriculture economist. He can be reached at chatura_rodrigo@yahoo.com, +94 76 35 99 243).

Don’t be afraid: Tahrir’s last words

People gather round the rubble of what was once the Imad Aqel mosque in Jabaliya. Five sisters in an adjacent house died in the Israeli attack that leveled the mosque and much around it. 

 Mohammed SalemReuters

Hamza Abu Eltarabesh - 26 December 2018

Some things fade with time. Others – often the traumatic stuff – never leaves us.

Ten years ago, Israel launched a major offensive on Gaza.

It was meticulously prepared, down to the detail of ensuring it happened over Christmas, when much of the world’s western media was away.

It happened in spite of a six-month ceasefire agreed earlier in 2008, which had begun to unravel after an Israeli raid into Gaza on 4 November – the same date as a US presidential election.

By the time it was over, the so-called Operation Cast Lead had lasted over three weeks. It left more than 1,400 Palestinians, among them some 1,200 civilians, dead.

Tahrir

Tahrir Balousha was a childhood friend, a neighbor and a schoolmate. Our mothers remain close. We always used to compete in school, vying to see who would get higher grades by the end of the year.

When we started our last year of high school in 2008, I bet her that I would get better grades than her. Tahrir had her sights set higher. She wanted to finish in the top 10 in all of Gaza.

On 27 December 2008, we had our first mock Arabic language exam. We finished around 11am and on my way home, I met Tahrir. We had a short chat about family and the exam and said goodbye.

The explosions came about half an hour later. It was like an earthquake and in minutes, smoke was all around.

It took a moment for me to realize what was happening. But then strikes targeted Jabaliya refugee camp – where I live – and I understood: War had started.

I was still in the street when it all began. I dropped my school bag in an alley and joined some men who volunteered to organize the traffic to help people reach their homes quickly.

It was exactly the way you might imagine doomsday happening: chaos, noise, adrenaline, fear.

It would be two hours before I managed to return home where, luckily, I found my parents and siblings all safe. The family gathered around the radio where they started to announce the names of martyrs and the numbers of those whose fate remained unknown. The presenter urged anyone missing relatives or loved ones to come to hospitals to identify victims.

It turned out the attacks that day targeted mostly government institutions, including dozens of civilian police stations in a violation of international law, as the UN later determined.

More than 225 people were killed on that first day. Among them, and shockingly for me, I knew 10.

I considered myself close to two, both of whom worked with the police. Taysir Wishah was the calm one. Fayiz Abu al-Qumsan always laughed so easily.

Attack on the mosque

During the first few days of Cast Lead, Israeli warplanes targeted the Imad Aqel mosque in the middle of Jabaliya camp. The mosque was devastated, one of what would eventually total 34 mosques to be completely destroyed during the Israeli onslaught.

Samira Balousha, Tahrir’s mother, later told me that she heard nothing at the time.

“We were all asleep. Suddenly I woke up, feeling something heavy on my chest. It was a piece of concrete.”

Tahrir’s house was right next to the Imad Aqel mosque. She lived in a simple concrete structure with an asbestos roof. It housed Tahrir, her parents and nine siblings.

“It was difficult to move,” Samira, now 46, remembered. “But I was able to remove the block from my chest and started looking for my children.”

Anwar, her husband, also survived the strike.

Together, they first found their youngest, Baraa, just two weeks. She was safe.

Neighbors had started to arrive to look for survivors. They found 18-month-old Muhammad, the only son, also alive and well.

Samira never made it into her daughters’ bedroom. “I fainted and they took me to the hospital. All I remember is that their room was full of rubble.”

I saw it on TV. Live. Al-Aqsa TV footage showed rescuers bringing out bodies, one by one. Next to me, my mother named them as they came out.

She knew them well.

The last one to come out was Tahrir.

Five girls were killed in that house that day: Tahrir, 17, Ikram, 14, Samar, 12, Dunia, 7, and Jawaher, 4.

I finally lost it. I went to my room and started to cry. I banged my head against the wall. I was hysterical.

“I will never forget that day,” said Iman, one of the sisters who survived. Iman is now 26 and married with two children. She had been in the room with the rest of her sisters and remembers Tahrir’s last words, after the missile had struck.

“She told us not to be afraid and pray to God for our survival. Then her voice stopped and we started crying.”

I will never stop imagining what Tahrir would have made of herself. She was smart and ambitious and dreamed of making a difference for herself and her family.

Bread rations

On the sixth day of war, 3 January, the Israeli army began its ground invasion. Our house in Jabaliya camp began playing host to several relatives who evacuated their homes.

Eventually, in our 150 square meter house, we were 60 relatives, among them 30 children.

Together, we shared nights without electricity, water or cooking gas. The Israeli planes targeted the telecommunications network and we were cut off from the rest of the world.

At night, the children were scared by the loud explosions. It was cold. We did not have enough blankets to cover us all. I slept in a coat I borrowed from my father.

The days were no less awful. I would not venture far from the house, and go nowhere after dark.

After a week, the food ran out and my father did not have enough money to feed everyone. My mother had to sell some of her gold jewellery to buy food.

Bread was a luxury. Many bakeries or shops were shut or empty. And no one could bake at home, since cooking gas was scarce.

On one day, before sunset, the women in the house kneaded some 200 loaves of bread and asked me to search for a mud oven. I asked around and heard of one at the house of the Abu Taqiya family, about one kilometer away in the western part of the camp.

I put the unbaked bread on a wooden board on my head and walked there, but when I arrived I found another 20 people waiting for their turn to bake. Since they were all immediate neighbors, they agreed to let me go first: I had the furthest to walk home and needed to get back before nightfall.

It was getting dark, before the bread was ready. I put the the tray back on my head, but left it uncovered in case the pilots overhead were looking down. If they could see me, I reasoned, they would see I was only carrying food.

My heart pounded, my pulse quickened and I walked as fast as I could. Above me I could the roar of fighter jets. I felt they were chasing me.

When I made it home, my mother could see the fear in my eyes. She hugged me and I started to cry from sheer relief at being alive.

That fear was felt by everyone in Gaza. Some have much more harrowing stories than mine. Some were wounded and hurt, lost loved ones or their homes.

None of us will forget those dark days and cold nights.

Nor will I ever forget those who didn’t make it, like Tahrir.

I survived. I lost my exam competitor. But I did well enough eventually. Well enough to study journalism and with a mission now to document, faithfully, Israel’s crimes in Gaza.

Hamza Abu Eltarabesh is a journalist from Gaza.